[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 28, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37160-37204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12351]



[[Page 37159]]

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

Part III





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Parts 223 and 224



Endangered and Threatened Species; Final Listing Determinations; Final 
Rules and Proposed Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 37160]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 040525161-5155-02; I.D. 052104F]
RIN No. 0648-AR93


Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations 
for 16 ESUs of West Coast Salmon, and Final 4(d) Protective Regulations 
for Threatened Salmonid ESUs

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), are 
issuing final determinations to list 16 Evolutionarily Significant 
Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon (chum, Oncorhynchus keta; coho, O. 
kisutch, sockeye, O. nerka; Chinook, O. tshawytscha; pink, O. 
gorbuscha) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. 
We have concluded that four ESUs are endangered, and twelve ESUs are 
threatened, in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Fifteen of 
these ESUs were previously listed as threatened or endangered under the 
ESA, and one ESU was previously designated as a candidate species. With 
respect to the Oregon Coast coho ESU and ten O. mykiss ESUs, we have 
found that substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or 
accuracy of the relevant data precludes making final listing 
determinations at this time, and accordingly we are extending the 
deadline for making our final determinations for these 11 ESUs for an 
additional 6 months. The findings regarding the extension of the final 
listing determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU and for the ten O. 
mykiss ESUs appear in the Proposed Rules section in today's Federal 
Register issue. The ten O. mykiss ESUs were previously listed and 
remain listed pending final agency action.
    Also in this notice, we are finalizing amendments to the ESA 4(d) 
protective regulations for threatened salmonid ESUs. As part of the 
proposed listing determinations in June 2004, we proposed changes to 
these protective 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, and to 
clarify the existing regulations so that they can be more efficiently 
and effectively interpreted and followed by all affected parties.
    Finally, we are soliciting biological and economic information 
relevant to designating critical habitat for the Lower Columbia River 
coho salmon ESU.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 29, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Correspondence concerning this final rule may be addressed 
to Chief, Protected Resources Division, Northwest Region, NMFS, 1201 
Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232-1274; or Chief, 
Protected Resources Division, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean 
Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA, 90802-4213.
    Information relevant to designating critical habitat for the Lower 
Columbia River coho ESU may be submitted by: standard mail to Steve 
Stone, Protected Resources Division, Northwest Region, NMFS, 1201 Lloyd 
Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon, 97232-1274; e-mail to 
[email protected]; or fax to (503) 230-5441. Please include the 
identifier ``Information RE: Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River 
Coho'' with any information submitted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
final listing determinations and the final amendments to the 4(d) 
protective regulations please contact Scott Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest 
Region, (503) 872-2791; Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region, (562) 
980-4021; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 
713-1401. For further information concerning the information request 
regarding critical habitat for Lower Columbia River coho salmon, please 
contact Steve Stone, NMFS, Northwest Region, (503) 231-2317.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ESA listing determinations and the 
amended 4(d) protective regulations for threatened ESUs described in 
this document are effective August 29, 2005. The take prohibitions 
applicable to threatened species do not apply to activities specified 
in an application for a permit or a 4(d) approval for scientific 
purposes or to enhance the conservation or survival of the species, 
provided that the application has been received by the Assistant 
Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), no later than August 29, 2005. 
This ``grace period'' for pending research and enhancement applications 
will remain in effect until the issuance or denial of authorization, or 
December 28, 2005, whichever occurs earliest. Additionally, biological 
and economic information regarding critical habitat for the Lower 
Columbia River coho ESU must be received no later than 5 p.m. P.S.T. on 
August 29, 2005 (see ADDRESSES and Information Solicited).

Organization of This Final Rule

    This Federal Register notice describes the final listing 
determinations for 16 ESUs of West Coast salmon under the ESA, as well 
as final amendments to the 4(d) protective regulations for threatened 
ESUs. The pages that follow summarize the comments and information 
received in response to the proposed listing determinations and 
proposed protective regulations (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004), describe 
any changes from the proposed listing determinations and proposed 
protective regulations, and detail the final listing determinations for 
16 ESUs and the final protective regulations for threatened ESUs. To 
assist the reader, the content of this notice is organized as follows:

    I. Review of Necessary Background Information.
     Statutory basis for Listing Species Under the 
Endangered Species Act.
     Life History of West Coast Salmon.
     NMFS' Past Pacific Salmonid ESA Listings and the Alsea 
Decision.
     Initiation of Coast-Wide ESA Status Reviews for 27 ESUs 
of Pacific Salmonids.
    II. Summary of Comments and Information Received in Response to 
the Proposed Rule.
     Comments on the Consideration of Artificial Propagation 
in Listing Determinations.
     Comments on the Consideration of Efforts Being Made to 
Protect the Species.
     Comments on the Proposed Take Prohibitions and 
Protective Regulations.
     Comments on ESU-Specific Issues.
    III. Summary of Changes from the Proposed Listing Determinations 
and Proposed Protective Regulations.
    IV. Treatment of the Four Listing Determination Steps for Each 
ESU Under Review.
    (1) Determination of ``Species'' under the ESA
    (2) Viability Assessments of ESUs and Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species
    (3) Evaluation of Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast 
Salmonids
    (4) Final Listing Determinations of ``threatened,'' 
``endangered,'' or ``not warranted,'' based on the foregoing 
information
    V. Take Prohibitions and Protective Regulations
    VI. Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a 
Violation of Section 9 of the ESA
    VII. Effective Date of the Final Listing Determinations and 
Protective Regulations
    VIII. Summary of agency efforts in designating Critical Habitat 
for listed salmon and O. mykiss ESUs, and a summary of Information 
Solicited regarding critical

[[Page 37161]]

habitat for the Lower Columbia River coho ESU
    IX. Description of the Classification, NMFS' compliance with 
various laws and executive orders with respect to this rulemaking 
(e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Regulatory Flexibility 
Act)
    X. Description of amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations 
(List of Subjects). This section itemizes the specific changes to 
Federal law being made based on the foregoing information:
     Amendments to the list of threatened and endangered 
species
     Amendments to the protective regulations for threatened 
West Coast salmonids

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, we are issuing final listing determinations for DPSs of 
Pacific salmon. To qualify as a DPS, a Pacific salmon 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 our 
previous listing determinations for Pacific salmonids under the ESA, we 
have treated an ESU as constituting a DPS, and hence a ``species,'' 
under the ESA.
    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. We 
follow a four-step process in making listing determinations for Pacific 
salmon: (1) We first determine the ESU or species under listing 
consideration; (2) we determine the viability of the defined ESU and 
the factors that have led to its decline; (3) we assess efforts being 
made to protect the ESU, determining if these efforts adequately 
mitigate threats to the species; and (4) based on the foregoing steps 
and the statutory listing factors, we determine if the ESU is 
threatened or endangered, or does not warrant listing under the ESA.

Life History of West Coast Salmon

    The specific life-history characteristics of the subject species 
are summarized in the proposed listing determinations notice (69 FR 
33102; June 14, 2004). These species addressed in this notice each 
exhibit anadromy, meaning that 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. 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. En route 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.

Past Pacific Salmonid ESA Listings and the Alsea Decision

    Pacific salmon ESUs in California and the Pacific Northwest have 
suffered broad declines over the past hundred years. Since 1991, we 
have conducted ESA status reviews of six species of Pacific salmonids 
in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, identifying 52 ESUs, with 
25 ESUs currently listed as threatened or endangered (see the Proposed 
Rule, 69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004, for a detailed summary of previous 
listing actions for West Coast salmonid ESUs). In past status reviews, 
we based our extinction risk assessments on whether the naturally 
spawned fish in an ESU are self-sustaining in their natural ecosystem 
over the long term. We 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.
    In past status reviews we did not explicitly consider the 
contribution of hatchery fish to the overall viability of an 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. We generally considered artificial propagation as a threat to 
the long-term persistence of the naturally spawned populations within 
an ESU. Under a 1993 Interim Policy on the consideration of 
artificially propagated Pacific salmon and steelhead under the ESA (58 
FR 17573; April 5, 1993), if it was determined that an ESU warranted 
listing, we then reviewed the associated hatchery stocks to determine 
if they were part of the ESU. We did not include hatchery stocks in an 
ESU if: (1) Information indicated that the hatchery stock was of a 
different genetic lineage than the listed natural populations; (2) 
information indicated that hatchery practices had produced appreciable

[[Page 37162]]

changes in the ecological and life-history characteristics of the 
hatchery stock and these traits were believed to have a genetic basis; 
or (3) there was substantial uncertainty regarding the relationship 
between hatchery fish and the existing natural population(s). The 
Interim Policy provided that hatchery salmon and steelhead found to be 
part of an ESU would not be listed under the ESA unless they were found 
to be essential for the ESU's recovery (i.e., if we determined that the 
hatchery stock contained a substantial portion of the genetic diversity 
remaining in the ESU). The result of the Interim Policy was that a 
listing determination for an ESU depended solely upon the relative 
health of the natural populations in an ESU, and that most hatchery 
stocks determined to be part of an ESU were excluded from any listing 
of the ESU.
    Subsequently, in Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 
1154 (D. Or. 2001)(Alsea), the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, 
set aside our 1998 ESA listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon (O. kisutch) 
because it impermissibly excluded hatchery fish within the ESU from 
listing. The court ruled that the ESA does not allow listing a subset 
of a DPS and that, since we had found an ESU constitutes a DPS, we had 
improperly excluded stocks from the listing that we had determined were 
part of the ESU. Although the Alsea ruling affected only one ESU, the 
interpretive issue raised by the ruling called into question the 
validity of the Interim Policy implemented in nearly all of our Pacific 
salmonid listing determinations.

Initiation of Coast-Wide ESA Status Reviews

    Following the Alsea ruling, NMFS received a total of nine petitions 
seeking to delist, or to redefine and list, 17 listed salmonid ESUs 
(see the Proposed Rule for a summary of the petitions; 69 FR 33102; 
June 14, 2004). We determined that seven of the petitions presented 
substantial scientific and commercial information that the petitioned 
actions may be warranted for 16 of the subject ESUs (67 FR 6215, 
February 11, 2002; 67 FR 40679, June 13, 2002; 67 FR 48601, July 25, 
2002). As part of our response to the ESA interpretive issues raised by 
the Alsea ruling, we announced that we would revise the 1993 Interim 
Policy, and we elected to initiate status reviews for 11 ESUs in 
addition to the 16 ESUs for which we had accepted delisting/listing 
petitions (67 FR 6215, February 11, 2002; 67 FR 79898, December 31, 
2002).
    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, 16 of which 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 individual population level, then at the overall ESU level. The 
BRT used factors for ``Viable Salmonid Populations'' (VSP; McElhany et 
al., 2000) to guide its risk assessments. The VSP factors 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 factors: abundance, productivity, 
spatial structure (including connectivity), 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 factors.
    The BRT described and assessed ESU-level risk for each of the VSP 
factors and the 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. In 
general, these evaluations did not include consideration of the 
potential contribution of hatchery stocks to the viability of ESUs, or 
evaluate efforts being made to protect the species. Therefore, the 
BRT's findings are not 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 factors, as well 
as by expectations about the likely interactions among the individual 
VSP factors. For example, a single VSP factor 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 factors with more moderate risk scores could also lead to the same 
assessment, or a finding that the ESU is ``likely to become 
endangered.''
    To assist 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 to the natural component of an ESU 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). We used 
the information presented in the SSHAG Report to determine the ESU 
membership of those hatchery stocks within the historical geographic 
range of a given ESU. Our assessment of individual hatchery stocks and 
our findings regarding their ESU membership are detailed in the 
Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 
2004b).
    The assessment of the effects of ESU hatchery programs on ESU 
viability and extinction risk is also 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 factors (i.e., 
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity) and how 
artificial propagation efforts within the ESU affect those factors. In 
April 2004, we 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. The discussions and conclusions of the

[[Page 37163]]

Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop are detailed in a workshop 
report (NMFS, 2004c). In this document, the extinction risk of an ESU 
``in-total'' refers to the assessed level of extinction risk after 
considering the contributions to viability by all components of the ESU 
(hatchery origin, natural origin, anadromous, and resident).
    On June 3, 2004, we published in the Federal Register a proposed 
policy for the consideration of hatchery-origin fish in ESA listing 
determinations (Hatchery Listing Policy; 69 FR 31354). On June 14, 
2004, we proposed listing determinations for the 27 ESUs under review, 
proposing that four ESUs be listed as threatened and 23 ESUs be listed 
as endangered (69 FR 33102). We proposed maintaining the existing ESA 
listing status for 22 ESUs: Two sockeye ESUs (the endangered Snake 
River and threatened Ozette Lake sockeye ESUs); eight Chinook ESUs (the 
endangered Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU, and the threatened 
Central Valley spring-run, California Coastal, Upper Willamette River, 
Lower Columbia River, Puget Sound, Snake River fall-run, and Snake 
River spring/summer-run Chinook ESUs); one coho ESU (the threatened 
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU); two chum ESUs (the 
threatened Columbia River and Hood Canal summer-run chum ESUs); and 
nine O. mykiss ESUs (the endangered Southern California O. mykiss ESU, 
and the threatened South-Central California Coast, Central California 
Coast, California Central Valley, Northern California, Upper Willamette 
River, Lower Columbia River, Middle Columbia River, and Snake River 
Basin O. mykiss ESUs). We proposed revising the status of three ESA-
listed ESUs: The endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook and 
Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESUs were proposed for threatened 
status; and the threatened Central California Coast coho ESU was 
proposed for endangered status. Finally, we proposed that two ESUs 
designated as candidate species be listed as threatened: the Oregon 
Coast coho and Lower Columbia River coho ESUs. Also as part of the 
proposed listing determinations, we proposed amending the section 4(d) 
protective regulations for threatened ESUs to: Exclude listed hatchery 
fish marked by a clipped adipose fin and resident fish from the ESA 
take prohibition; and simplify existing 4(d) protective regulations so 
that the same set of limits apply to all threatened ESUs.

Summary of Comments and Information Received in Response to the 
Proposed Rule

    With the publication of the proposed listing determinations for 27 
ESUs we announced a 90-day public comment period extending through 
September 13, 2004. In Federal Register notices published on August 31, 
2004 (69 FR 53093), September 9, 2004 (69 FR 54637), and October 8, 
2004 (69 FR 61347), we extended the public comment period for the 
proposed policy through November 12, 2004. The public comment period 
for the proposed listing determinations was open for 151 days. We held 
14 public hearings (at eight locations in the Pacific Northwest, and 
six locations in California) to provide additional opportunities and 
formats to receive public input (69 FR 53039, August 31, 2004; 69 FR 
54620, September 9, 2004; 69 FR 61347, October 8, 2004). Additionally, 
pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) of 1969, we conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing 
the proposed amendments to the 4(d) protective regulations for 
threatened salmonids. As part of the proposed listing determinations 
and the proposed amendments to the 4(d) protective regulations, we 
announced that a draft of the EA was available from NMFS upon request 
(69 FR at 33172; June 14, 2004). Additionally, on November 15, 2004, we 
published a notice of availability in the Federal Register soliciting 
comment on the draft EA for an additional 30 days (69 FR 65582).
    A joint NMFS/FWS policy requires us to solicit independent expert 
review from at least three qualified specialists, concurrent with the 
public comment period (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994). We solicited 
technical review of the proposed listing determinations from over 50 
independent experts selected from the academic and scientific 
community, Native American tribal groups, Federal and state agencies, 
and the private sector. In December 2004 the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 
Review establishing minimum peer review standards, a transparent 
process for public disclosure, and opportunities for public input. The 
OMB Peer Review Bulletin, implemented under the Information Quality Act 
(Pub. L. 106-554), is intended to provide public oversight on the 
quality of agency information, analyses, and regulatory activities, and 
applies to information disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. The 
independent expert review under the joint NMFS/FWS peer review policy, 
and the comments received from several academic societies and expert 
advisory panels, collectively satisfy the requirements of the OMB Peer 
Review Bulletin (NMFS, 2005a).
    In response to the requests for information and comments on the 
proposed hatchery listing policy, the proposed listing determinations, 
and the proposed amendments to the 4(d) protective regulations, we 
received over 28,250 comments by fax, standard mail, and e-mail. The 
majority of the comments received were from interested individuals who 
submitted form letters or form e-mails. Comments were also submitted by 
state and tribal natural resource agencies, fishing groups, 
environmental organizations, home builder associations, academic and 
professional societies, expert advisory panels (including NMFS' 
Recovery Science Review Panel, the Independent Science Advisory Board, 
and the State of Oregon's Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team), 
farming groups, irrigation groups, and individuals with expertise in 
Pacific salmonids. The majority of respondents focused on the proposed 
Hatchery Listing Policy, although many respondents also included 
comments relevant to the proposed listing determinations and the 
proposed amendments to the 4(d) protective regulations. The public 
comments were generally critical of the proposed hatchery listing 
policy, for a variety of reasons, but were generally favorable of the 
proposed listing determinations and the manner in which the proposed 
hatchery listing policy was implemented. Those few comments that 
addressed the proposed amendments to the 4(d) protective regulations 
expressed concerns about the practical implications of the proposed 
changes on the management of hatchery programs as well as on tribal, 
recreational, and commercial salmon and steelhead fisheries.
    We also received comments from four of the independent experts from 
whom we had requested technical review of the proposed listing 
determinations. The independent expert reviews were generally 
supportive of the scientific principles underlying the application of 
the proposed Hatchery Listing Policy in the proposed listing 
determinations. However, the reviewers noted several concerns with the 
proposed Hatchery Listing Policy including: Vague and imprecise policy 
language; an apparent de-emphasis of the importance of naturally 
spawned self-sustaining populations for the conservation and recovery 
of salmonid ESUs, and the goal

[[Page 37164]]

of the ESA to conserve the ecosystems upon which they depend; 
accumulating long-term adverse impacts of artificial propagation due to 
unavoidable artificial selection and domestication in the hatchery 
environment; and the lack of scientific evidence that artificial 
propagation can contribute to the productivity and conservation of 
viable natural populations over the long term. Two of the reviewers 
felt that hatchery fish are inherently different from wild fish and 
should not be included in ESUs, and were concerned that the inclusion 
of hatchery fish in ESUs would jeopardize the conservation and recovery 
of native salmonid populations in their natural ecosystems. The other 
two reviewers were supportive of the scientific basis for including 
hatchery fish in ESUs, but felt that the policy did not appropriately 
emphasize that the conservation and recovery of listed ESUs depends 
upon the viability of wild populations and natural ecosystems over the 
long term.
    There was substantial overlap between the comments from the 
independent expert reviewers, the independent scientific panels and 
academic societies, and the substantive public comments. Some of the 
comments received were not directly pertinent to the proposed listing 
determinations or the proposed amendments to the 4(d) protective 
regulations. We will consider and address comments relating to other 
determinations (for example, the proposed Hatchery Listing Policy (69 
FR 31354, June 3, 2004), the proposed critical habitat designations for 
20 West Coast salmonid ESUs (69 FR 71880, December 10, 2004; 69 FR 
74572, December 14, 2004), and the remanded biological opinion on the 
Federal Columbia River Power System (see http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/R_biop_final.shtml)) in the context of those determinations. With 
respect to comments received on the Hatchery Listing Policy, the 
summary of and response to comments below is confined to the 
implementation of the policy in delineating the ESUs for consideration, 
and determining their ESA listing status. The reader is referred to the 
final Hatchery Listing Policy elsewhere in this edition of the Federal 
Register for a summary of the comments received regarding the legal and 
policy interpretations articulated in the policy.
    The summary of comments and our responses below are organized into 
four general categories: (1) General comments on the consideration of 
artificial propagation in the proposed listing determinations; (2) 
general comments on the consideration of efforts being made to protect 
the species; (3) comments on the proposed amendments to the protective 
regulations; and (4) comments on ESU-specific issues (for example, the 
ESU membership of specific hatchery stocks, level of extinction risk 
assessed for an ESU, and the consideration of specific conservation 
efforts being made to protect and conserve an ESU).

General Comments on the Consideration of Artificial Propagation

    Issue 1: Several commenters felt that our implementation of the 
Hatchery Listing Policy's threshold for including hatchery stocks in a 
given ESU was inconsistent among hatchery programs both within and 
among ESUs. The commenters felt that in most circumstances quantitative 
information on the genetic differentiation of a specific hatchery stock 
relative to the local natural population(s) is not available. The 
commenters argued that, given the poor availability of genetic data, 
determinations of whether a given hatchery stock is part of an ESU are 
ambiguous, highly subjective, and arbitrary.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that in many cases empirical 
genetic data are not available to quantitatively assess the level of 
genetic differentiation and reproductive isolation of a hatchery stock 
relative to the local natural population(s) in an ESU. The ESA requires 
that we review the status of the species based upon the ``best 
available'' scientific and commercial information, and in many 
instances the agency must rely on qualitative analyses of surrogate 
information when quantitative genetic data are not available to assist 
in determining the ``species'' under consideration. For this 
rulemaking, in lieu of empirical genetic data, we relied on a number of 
strong biological indicators to inform a qualitative assessment of the 
level of reproductive isolation and evolutionary divergence, such as 
stock isolation, selection of run timing, the magnitude and regularity 
of incorporating natural broodstock, the incorporation of out-of-basin 
or out-of-ESU eggs or fish, mating protocols, behavioral and life-
history traits, etc.
    Issue 2: One commenter disapproved of our approach of evaluating 
the ESU membership of hatchery fish in terms of individual hatchery 
programs. The commenter recommended that ESU membership be based on 
broodstock source, recognizing that a given broodstock may be 
propagated at several hatchery facilities. The commenter felt that our 
approach of evaluating hatchery programs confused three important 
issues: the broodstock source, history, and genetic management of the 
hatchery fish; the management practices of the hatchery program 
producing the hatchery fish (such as the timing and location of 
releasing hatchery fish); and the life-history characteristics of the 
local natural population where a hatchery stock is being released. The 
commenter was concerned that evaluating and listing hatchery fish by 
hatchery program could erroneously result in one group of hatchery fish 
from a given broodstock source being included in an ESU, and another 
group of hatchery fish from the same broodstock source not being 
included in the ESU.
    Response: The commenter is correct that our approach could, and 
did, result in hatchery programs being excluded from an ESU despite 
having been derived from the same broodstock lineage as other hatchery 
programs included in the ESU. However, we feel it would be 
inappropriate to determine the ESU membership of hatchery fish solely 
on the basis of broodstock lineage to the exclusion of a case-by-case 
analysis of the past and present practices of hatchery programs 
producing fish within the geographic range of an ESU. The commenter 
correctly points out that individual hatchery programs may differ in 
their broodstock lineage, hatchery practices, and the specific 
ecological conditions into which the hatchery fish are released. The 
broodstock used represents the raw genetic resources brought into a 
hatchery program, and provides one useful predictor of ESU membership. 
How these raw genetic resources are managed and the specific 
environmental and ecological conditions into which the hatchery fish 
are released are also key determinants of whether a group of hatchery 
fish is part of an ESU. Critical considerations in evaluating the 
relationship of hatchery fish to an ESU include whether it reflects: 
(1) The level of reproductive isolation characteristic of the natural 
populations in the ESU; and (2) the ecological, life-history, and 
genetic diversity that compose the ESU's evolutionary legacy. 
Information regarding the origin, isolation, and broodstock source and 
mating protocols of a hatchery program help determine its level of 
reproductive isolation from the local natural population(s) in an ESU. 
Information regarding the behavioral and life-history traits of the 
hatchery fish produced by a program relative to the locally adapted 
natural populations help inform evaluations of whether the hatchery 
fish are

[[Page 37165]]

representative of the ESU's evolutionary legacy. We feel that it is 
appropriate to evaluate the ESU membership of hatchery fish with 
respect to the specific hatchery programs producing them.
    Issue 3: Many commenters felt that hatchery-origin fish should not 
be included in ESUs. The commenters discussed scientific studies 
demonstrating that hatchery-origin fish differ from naturally-spawned 
fish in physical, physiological, behavioral, reproductive and genetic 
traits. Commenters argued that hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish 
should not be included in the same ESU because of these differences.
    Response: We do not agree that hatchery-origin fish should be 
universally excluded from ESUs. As articulated in the final Hatchery 
Listing Policy in this edition of the Federal Register, important 
genetic resources for the conservation and recovery of an ESU can 
reside in fish spawned in a hatchery as well as in fish spawned in the 
wild. The established practice of incorporating local natural-origin 
fish into hatchery broodstock can result in hatchery stocks and natural 
populations that are not reproductively isolated and that share the 
same genetic and ecological evolutionary legacy. Under the final 
Hatchery Listing Policy we determine the ESU membership of hatchery 
fish by conducting a case-by-case evaluation of the relationship of 
individual hatchery stocks to the local natural population(s) 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); and the similarity of hatchery stocks to natural 
populations in ecological and life-history traits. Although certain 
hatchery programs will be determined to be reproductively isolated and 
not representative of the evolutionary legacy of an ESU (and hence not 
part of the ESU), we do not believe that such a conclusion is 
universally warranted for all hatchery stocks. Many hatchery stocks are 
reproductively integrated with natural populations in an ESU and 
continue to exhibit the local adaptations composing the ESU's 
ecological and genetic diversity. We recognize that artificial 
selection in the hatchery environment may be unavoidable, that a well-
managed hatchery stock could eventually diverge from the evolutionary 
lineage of an ESU, and that a poorly managed hatchery stock could 
quickly diverge from the evolutionary lineage of an ESU. However, the 
potential for divergence is not adequate justification for the 
universal exclusion of hatchery fish from an ESU. Consistent with the 
ESU policy, a hatchery program should be excluded from an ESU if the 
hatchery stock exhibits genetic, ecological or life-history traits 
indicating that it has diverged from the evolutionary legacy of the 
ESU.
    Issue 4: Many commenters felt that hatchery-origin fish should be 
considered only as a threat to the persistence of Pacific salmon and O. 
mykiss ESUs. The commenters cited scientific studies indicating that 
artificial selection in hatcheries can result in diminished 
reproductive fitness in hatchery-origin fish in only one generation. 
Commenters also noted scientific studies describing negative 
ecological, reproductive, and genetic effects of hatchery stocks on 
natural populations. The commenters were concerned that including 
hatchery fish in assessments of extinction risk reduces the importance 
of conserving self-sustaining populations in the wild, and 
inappropriately equates naturally produced fish and fish produced with 
ease in a hatchery.
    Response: We do not agree that all hatchery programs, and the 
hatchery fish they produce, can be universally regarded as threats to 
salmon and O. mykiss ESUs. There are so many different ways in which 
hatchery-origin fish interact with natural populations and the 
environment that there can be no uniform conclusion about the potential 
contribution of hatchery-origin fish to the survival of an ESU. As 
described in the final Hatchery Listing Policy elsewhere in this 
edition of the Federal Register, the consideration of hatchery-origin 
fish in evaluating the level of extinction risk of an ESU requires a 
case-by-case analysis of the risks, benefits, and uncertainties of 
specific hatchery stocks within the geographical area of an ESU. The 
risks and benefits of artificial propagation to the survival of an ESU 
over the long term are highly uncertain. The presence of well 
distributed self-sustaining natural populations that are ecologically 
and genetically diverse provides the most certain predictor that an ESU 
is not likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The 
presence of carefully designed and operated hatchery programs, under 
certain circumstances, may mitigate the risk of extirpation for 
severely depressed populations in the short term, and thereby reduce an 
ESU's immediate risk of extinction. Whether the contributions of a 
hatchery program or group of hatchery programs will warrant an ESU 
being listed as ``threatened'' rather than ``endangered'' will depend 
upon the specific demographic risks facing natural populations within 
the ESU, the availability and condition of the surrounding natural 
habitat, as well as the factors that led to the ESU's decline and 
current threats limiting the ESU's recovery.
    Issue 5: A few commenters felt that extinction risk should be 
evaluated based on the total abundance of fish within the defined ESU 
without discriminating between fish of hatchery or natural origin. 
These commenters contended that the District Court in Alsea ruled that 
once an ESU is defined, risk determinations should not discriminate 
among its components. The commenters described the risk of extinction 
as the chance that there will be no living representatives of the 
species, and that such a consideration must not be biased toward a 
specific means of production (artificial or natural).
    Response: The Alsea ruling does not require any particular approach 
to assessing extinction risk. The court ruled that if it is determined 
that a DPS warrants listing, all members of the defined species must be 
included in the listing. The court did not rule on how the agency 
should determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future. The commenters assert 
that the viability of an ESU is determined by the total numbers of 
fish. The risk of extinction of an ESU depends not just on the 
abundance of fish, but also on the productivity, spatial distribution, 
and diversity of its component populations (Viable Salmonid Populations 
(VSP) factors; McElhany et al., 2000; Ruckelshaus et al., 2002). In 
addition to having sufficient abundance, viable ESUs and populations 
have sufficient productivity, diversity, and a spatial distribution to 
survive environmental variation and natural and human catastrophes. The 
commenters also assume that hatchery managers will continue to produce 
the same numbers of the same stock and quality of fish with the same 
success as in the past. In many cases, such assumptions are not 
warranted.
    Issue 6: One commenter noted that the proposed ESU delineations 
included ``naturally spawned fish'' within a given geographical area, 
and was concerned that as defined the ESUs might be misinterpreted to 
include the naturally spawned progeny of hatchery fish not included in 
the ESU. The commenter was concerned that the naturally-spawned progeny 
of these out-of-ESU hatchery fish would inadvertently be afforded the 
protections of the ESA, potentially constraining conservation measures 
intended to reduce the

[[Page 37166]]

negative impacts of these fish on listed local natural populations.
    Response: The final rule defines ESUs as naturally spawned fish 
originating from a defined geographic area, plus hatchery fish from 
certain enumerated hatchery programs. It is possible that within any 
geographic area there may be out-of-ESU hatchery strays spawning with 
other out-of-ESU hatchery strays to produce progeny that biologically 
would not be considered part of the ESU. As a practical matter, 
however, it is seldom possible to distinguish the progeny of these 
matings from the progeny of within-ESU natural spawners, without 
elaborate (and potentially inconclusive) tests. Accordingly, we have 
defined the ESUs to make the listings unambiguous and the ESA 
protections easily enforceable.
    Of the 16 ESUs addressed in this final rule, four ESUs have 
associated out-of-ESU hatchery programs: the Lower Columbia River 
Chinook, Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook, Puget Sound Chinook, 
and Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook ESUs. In some instances the 
progeny of out-of-ESU hatchery fish may be distinguished by distinct 
patterns of habitat use, spawning location, run timing, or other means. 
In such a case we may determine that protection of those fish is not 
necessary for conservation of the ESU and approve actions that result 
in take, through sections 4(d), 7(a)(2), 10(a)(1)(A) or 10(a)(1)(B) of 
the ESA, as appropriate. NMFS will also use these statutory authorities 
to minimize harmful impacts to the listed ESUs from out-of-ESU hatchery 
fish spawning in the wild.

General Comments on the Consideration of Protective Efforts

    Issue 7: Several commenters criticized the evaluation of efforts 
being made to protect the species in the proposed listing 
determinations (see 69 FR at 33142 through 33157; June 14, 2004). The 
commenters argued that the joint NMFS/FWS ``Policy for Evaluation of 
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions'' (``PECE''; 68 FR 
15100; March 28, 2003) does not apply to currently listed species. In 
addition to this criticism the commenters felt that our treatment of 
protective efforts in the proposed listing determinations failed to 
address the criteria required under PECE for evaluating the certainty 
of implementation and effectiveness of protective efforts. (The 
commenters also provided criticisms specific to the consideration of 
protective efforts for the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook ESU, see 
Issue 13 in the ``Comments on ESU-specific Issues'' section, below).
    Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of 
Commerce to make listing determinations ``solely on the basis of the 
best scientific and commercial data available * * * after conducting a 
review of the status of the species and after taking into account those 
efforts, if any, being made * * * to protect such species'' (emphasis 
added). When making listing determinations, we therefore evaluate 
efforts being made to protect the species to determine if those 
measures reduce the threats facing an ESU and ameliorate its assessed 
level of extinction risk. In judging the efficacy of protective 
efforts, we rely on the guidance provided in PECE. 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 15 criteria for evaluating the certainty of implementation 
and effectiveness of protective efforts to aid in determination of 
whether a species should be listed 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 commenters are correct that PECE does not explicitly apply to 
changing a species' listing status from endangered to threatened, or to 
delisting actions. NMFS and FWS noted that recovery planning is the 
appropriate vehicle to provide case-by-case guidance on the actions 
necessary to delist or change a species' listing status. The agencies 
left open whether specific policy guidance would be developed to 
instruct the consideration of conservation efforts for the purposes of 
changing a species' listing status or delisting a species, and such 
guidance has not yet been developed. Recovery planning efforts for the 
listed ESUs under review have not progressed to the point that they can 
provide guidance on the specific actions that would inform a decision 
to delist or change an ESU's listing status. In lieu of further policy 
guidance, PECE provides a useful and appropriate general framework to 
guide consistent and predictable evaluations of protective efforts.
    We agree with the commenters that the regional summary of 
protective efforts provided as part of the proposed listing 
determinations does not provide a detailed treatment of the fifteen 
criteria articulated in PECE. However, only one of the proposed 
listings for the 16 ESUs addressed in this notice relied on the 
determination that protective efforts ameliorated risks to an ESU's 
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity as a basis 
for proposing that a previously endangered species be listed as 
threatened (the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook ESU). (The final 
listing determination for the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook ESU 
does not rely on an evaluation of protective efforts.) Our review of 
protective efforts provided in the proposed listing determinations 
concluded that the efforts do not as yet individually or collectively 
provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to 
alter the assessed level of extinction risk for the other ESUs under 
review. A detailed documentation of the fifteen criteria articulated in 
PECE is not necessary unless we rely on protective efforts to overcome 
our assessment of extinction risk and the five factors identified in 
ESA section 4(a)(1).

Comments on Protective Regulations

    Issue 8: Several commenters believe the ESA does not allow us to 
apply different levels of protections to hatchery and natural-origin 
fish in an ESU by not applying the take prohibitions to threatened 
hatchery fish that have had their adipose fin removed prior to release 
into the wild. The commenters argue that the Alsea ruling found that 
all fish included in an ESU must be protected equally if it is found 
that the ESU in-total warrants listing.
    Response 14: The Alsea ruling does not require us to implement 
protective regulations equally among components of threatened ESUs. The 
Alsea ruling found that the ESA does not allow us to

[[Page 37167]]

list a subset of a DPS or ESU, and that all components of an ESU 
(natural populations, hatchery stocks, and resident populations) must 
be included in a listing if it is determined that an ESU warrants 
listing as threatened or endangered.
    The section 9(a) take prohibitions (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B)) apply 
to species listed as endangered. In the case of threatened species, ESA 
Section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary's discretion whether and to 
what extent to promulgate protective regulations. Section 4(d) of the 
ESA states that ``[w]henever a 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 such 
species' [emphasis added]. ``The Secretary may * * * prohibit with 
respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 
9(a)(1) * * * with respect to endangered species.'' This gives the 
Secretary flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor protective 
regulations that appropriately reflect the biological condition of each 
threatened ESU and the intended role of listed hatchery fish.
    We find that it is necessary and advisable for conservation of the 
ESUs to prohibit take only of natural-origin fish and hatchery fish 
with the adipose fin left intact. The majority of hatchery programs 
produce fish for harvest rather than for conservation. Protecting those 
fish intended for harvest is not necessary for the conservation of the 
ESU. To the contrary, if too many hatchery fish are allowed to spawn 
naturally, it may pose ecological and genetic risks to the natural 
populations in the ESU. Removal of some hatchery fish before they are 
allowed to spawn may thus be necessary for the conservation of some 
ESUs. This concern is discussed in more detail in the final Hatchery 
Listing Policy elsewhere in this edition of the Federal Register.
    Hatchery production that is surplus to conservation needs may thus 
create population pressures that cannot be relieved except through 
harvest of the surplus. An alternative approach to conservation would 
be to simply produce fewer hatchery fish. While reducing hatchery 
production might be another option for addressing this threat, the 
hatchery production itself is in many cases important for redressing 
lost treaty harvest opportunities (as well as meeting other societal 
values). Allowing the continued production of hatchery fish for 
harvest, and not prohibiting the take of listed marked hatchery fish, 
balances the conservation needs of listed ESUs against other Federal 
obligations.
    Issue 9: Several commenters were concerned that excluding 
threatened hatchery fish with a clipped adipose fin (hereafter, ``ad-
clipped'') from 4(d) protections would be perceived by managers as 
strong pressure to expand the use of mark-selective fisheries. (A 
``mark-selective'' fishery is one in which anglers can retain only ad-
clipped hatchery fish, while any unmarked fish that are caught must be 
released. Mark-selective fisheries are intended to protect the weaker 
stock(s) in a mixed-stock fishery, while allowing for harvest 
opportunities on stronger stocks. Mass-marking by clipping the adipose 
fins of hatchery fish that are intended for harvest is used to provide 
an easily distinguished visual cue for anglers). Some of these 
commenters suggested an alternative would be to prohibit the take of 
``naturally spawned fish,'' and fish from specified conservation 
hatcheries.
    Commenters also noted that many ad-clipped hatchery fish are 
released from conservation programs for recovery purposes and thus 
merit take prohibitions. The commenters were concerned that the 
proposed 4(d) protective regulations would require conservation 
hatchery managers to release hatchery fish with their adipose fins 
intact so that the take prohibitions would apply. The commenters argued 
that this would force hatchery managers to use alternative marking 
methods that are more expensive, more difficult to implement, and less 
effective.
    Response: The amended prohibitions do not mandate that listed 
hatchery fish be ad-clipped, nor do they mandate the use of mark-
selective fisheries. State and tribal hatchery and fishery managers use 
an array of management tools depending on the needs of individual 
salmonid populations and resource use objectives. Among these tools are 
mass marking and mark-selective fisheries. Although the amended 
protective regulations do not require it, ad-clipping may be the best 
strategy to achieve their goals for some hatchery programs. These ad-
clipped hatchery fish can be harvested in fisheries that have 
appropriate ESA authorization, including, but not limited to, mark-
selective fisheries. However, the amended 4(d) protective regulations 
do not mandate any particular management strategy provided the strategy 
is consistent with the conservation and recovery objectives of listed 
ESUs. An alternative approach would have been to prohibit the take of 
naturally spawned fish and fish from specific conservation hatcheries. 
We have instead chosen to rely on the adipose-fin clip because it 
provides a readily identifiable and enforceable feature for 
distinguishing those fish protected by the ESA take prohibitions.
    The commenters are correct that hatchery fish intended for 
conservation purposes will not be afforded ESA protection against take 
if they are released with a clipped adipose fin. Managers of 
conservation hatchery programs may choose to use alternative marking 
methods to assist research and monitoring efforts such that the take 
prohibitions apply to the fish they produce. We acknowledge that the 
prospect of listing more than 130 West Coast hatchery programs presents 
challenges to hatchery and fishery management in California, Oregon, 
Washington, and Idaho. We believe that exempting ad-clipped fish from 
the take prohibitions is the preferable regulatory option, as compared 
to the alternative of prohibiting take of all listed hatchery fish. 
Allowing for the take of listed ad-clipped hatchery fish provides a 
clearly enforceable distinction for when take prohibitions apply, and 
provides additional flexibility to more effectively manage fisheries, 
control the number and proportion of hatchery fish spawning in the 
wild, and minimize potentially adverse impacts of hatchery fish on 
natural populations. Although the proposed approach provides management 
flexibility, we recognize that it may present some challenges. We will 
continue to work with state and tribal managers to address any 
challenges in a way that minimizes adverse impacts on affected parties, 
while achieving conservation and resource use objectives for listed 
ESUs.
    Issue 10: A few commenters felt that NMFS should extend the ``grace 
period'' for applications for coverage under the 4(d) limits to: Apply 
to applications for all limits rather than just for scientific research 
and enhancement activities; allow for more than 60 days to submit an 
application; and allow for more than 6 months to obtain approval under 
a 4(d) limit. The commenters felt sufficient time must be allowed for 
entities to prepare and process applications for 4(d) coverage. The 
commenters were concerned that NMFS does not have the necessary 
resources to process applications and issue authorizations within 6 
months, given the likely high volume of new 4(d) applications and the 
significant administrative burden associated with processing and 
authorizing 4(d) applications. The commenters stressed that any delays 
in issuing authorizations under 4(d) would disrupt important fisheries 
and would also risk impeding progress on important recovery efforts.

[[Page 37168]]

    Response: We are concerned about the potential for disruption of 
ongoing scientific research, monitoring, and conservation activities, 
especially during the coming summer/fall field seasons. Consistent with 
the previously promulgated 4(d) protective regulations, the amended 
regulations finalized in this notice include a ``temporary'' limit or 
6-month grace period for ongoing scientific research and enhancement 
activities provided a permit application is received by NMFS within 60 
days of this notice (see DATES, above). Applicants will be subject to 
the take prohibitions if their permit application is denied, rejected 
as insufficient, or the 6-month grace period expires, whichever occurs 
earliest.
    We do not feel that a similar 6-month grace period is warranted for 
limits addressing other activities affecting threatened ESUs. In this 
notice we are amending existing 4(d) protective regulations for 
threatened ESUs that are already listed under the ESA (except for the 
Lower Columbia River coho ESU, which is a new threatened listing). 
Thus, activities affecting the subject ESUs already have ESA coverage 
through the existing 4(d) protective regulations, through section 10 
permits, as a result of section 7 consultation, or are in the process 
of obtaining such authorization. The amended 4(d) protective 
regulations will become effective within 60 days of the publication of 
this notice (see DATES, above). We believe that the grace period allows 
sufficient time to amend existing ESA authorizations consistent with 
the revised 4(d) protective regulations. Some activities will not need 
ESA coverage immediately after the amended protective regulations go 
into effect because the actions do not affect listed species. We will 
work with regional co-managers to prioritize activities and programs on 
the basis of how urgently each needs ESA coverage.
    We have anticipated that processing new 4(d) applications submitted 
in response to the amended 4(d) protective regulations will increase 
agency workload. As a result, we are evaluating our resource needs and 
are fully committed to meeting future program demands. We encourage 
entities to work together in developing plans for 4(d) approval that 
cover wide geographic scales and multiple activities, thus reducing the 
number of individual programs that need to be reviewed. While 
enforcement may be initiated against activities that take protected 
salmonids, our clear preference is to work with persons or entities to 
promptly shape their programs and activities to include credible and 
reliable conservation measures for listed salmon and O. mykiss ESUs.
    Issue 11: Two Federal agencies (the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM), and the U.S. Forest Service (FS)) requested that we amend the 
limits concerning land management activities on state, private, and 
tribal lands to include activities on Federal lands that implement 
regional Land Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) and aquatic 
conservation strategies. The BLM and FS recognized that including 
Federal lands in these limits on the take prohibitions would not 
eliminate their requirement to consult under section 7 of the ESA. 
However, BLM and FS felt that extending these limits to Federal lands 
would make the section 7 consultation process more efficient, and 
minimize or eliminate the need to develop and implement reasonable and 
prudent measures, as well as mandatory terms and conditions for actions 
covered under a section 7 Incidental Take Statement.
    Response: It is not possible to extend existing 4(d) limits to 
cover Federal activities implemented under FS and BLM LRMPs because the 
existing limits address land management activities conducted under 
differing regulatory authorities and relationships. If we were to adopt 
a new 4(d) limit covering the LRMPs, it would require review and 
approval of specific activities, similar to the current 4(d) limits. 
The LRMPs address general classes of FS and BLM actions, and lack the 
specificity required for a 4(d) limit. For a 4(d) limit to cover future 
unidentified actions, without subsequent review and approval, the limit 
would have to specify narrowly defined activities to be conducted 
according to strict guidelines within stringent project management 
conditions. Adopting limits that require subsequent review and approval 
would not provide any relief to Federal agencies and would, to the 
contrary, increase regulatory review.
    As the BLM and FS acknowledged, the 4(d) limits on the take 
prohibitions do not relieve Federal agencies of their duty under 
section 7 of the ESA to consult with NMFS if actions they fund, 
authorize, or carry out may affect listed species. The various 4(d) 
limits may be useful to Federal agencies as guidance in developing and 
implementing their conservation programs. To the extent that Federal 
actions subject to section 7 consultation are consistent with the terms 
of a 4(d) limit, the consultation process may be greatly simplified. 
However, granting BLM's and FS'' request to explicitly include certain 
Federal activities in several 4(d) limits would not diminish their 
section 7 obligations.

Comments on ESU-Specific Issues

    Issue 12: We received many helpful ESU-specific comments of an 
editorial nature. These comments noted inadvertent errors in the 
proposed listing determinations and offered non-substantive but 
nonetheless clarifying changes to wording.
    Response: We have incorporated these editorial-type comments in the 
ESU definitions, descriptions of ESU status, and the final listing 
determinations. As these comments do not result in substantive changes 
to this final rule, we have not detailed the changes made.

Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook ESU

    Issue 13: Several commenters contended that our proposal to 
reclassify the endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook ESU as 
threatened was not justified because the BRT concluded it was at a high 
risk of extinction and we overstated the benefits of protective efforts 
such as the Battle Creek restoration project. They argued that this 
program in particular was uncertain to be fully implemented, funded, or 
successful in establishing a second population of this ESU in Battle 
Creek. In addition, they argued that 2004 changes in the Central Valley 
Project operations criteria (CVP-OCAP) provided less protection for 
this ESU than did the previous water project operational criteria.
    Response: We acknowledge the BRT concluded this ESU still continues 
to be at a high risk of extinction, primarily because of concerns about 
the spatial structure (the ESU is represented by a single population) 
and the loss of diversity. As indicated in the proposed rule, however, 
we believe that many important protective efforts have been implemented 
over the past 10 to 15 years that have contributed to the increased 
abundance and productivity of this ESU in recent years, as have 
favorable ocean conditions. These protective efforts include changes in 
the operation of the Central Valley and State Water Projects, 
implementation of many CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED) and other 
habitat restoration projects (e.g., screening of water diversions), 
changes in ocean and freshwater harvest management, and successful 
implementation of the hatchery supplementation program at Livingston 
Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH). We agree with commenters, however, 
that the Battle Creek restoration project, which was cited in the 
proposed rule to support the proposed reclassification,

[[Page 37169]]

has not been fully implemented and that its funding and future success 
are uncertain at this time.
    We disagree, however, that the 2004 CVP-OCAP provides less 
protection to this ESU than previous water project operations criteria. 
The new CVP-OCAP continues to provide adequate control of temperatures 
for spawning in the upper Sacramento River despite changes in the 
temperature control point and carryover storage requirements. We fully 
analyzed the new CVP-OCAP operations in a biological opinion issued in 
2004 and concluded that these operational changes would not jeopardize 
the continued existence of this ESU.
    In light of the concerns raised about the adequacy and benefits of 
protective efforts for this ESU, particularly the Battle Creek 
restoration project, we are withdrawing our proposal to reclassify this 
ESU as threatened. We conclude that the Sacramento River winter-run 
Chinook ESU continues to warrant listing as an endangered species. We 
will continue to monitor the status of this ESU and the implementation 
of protective efforts throughout the California Central Valley. We may 
reconsider reclassification of the ESU's listing status in the future 
as these protective efforts mature (the Battle Creek restoration 
project in particular) and are fully implemented, and their certainty 
of effectiveness can be more fully assessed.

Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook

    Issue 14: Several commenters questioned whether naturally spawning 
spring-run Chinook in the Feather River should be included in the 
listed ESU given that they are genetically similar to the Feather River 
Hatchery stock which was not proposed as part of the Central Valley 
spring-run Chinook ESU.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that naturally spawning 
spring-run Chinook in the Feather River are genetically similar to the 
Feather River Hatchery spring-run Chinook stock. Although the hatchery 
stock shows evidence of introgression with Central Valley fall-run 
Chinook and is divergent from other within-ESU naturally spawning 
populations in Deer, Mill and Butte Creeks, both the Feather River 
naturally spawning population and the Feather River Hatchery spring-run 
Chinook stock continue to exhibit a distinct early-returning spring-run 
phenotype. NMFS' SSHAG report (NMFS, 2003a) found that if it was 
determined that the naturally spawning spring-run Chinook population in 
the Feather River was part of the ESU, then the Feather River Hatchery 
spring-run Chinook stock might also be considered part of the ESU. 
NMFS' Central Valley Technical Recovery Team believes that this early 
run timing in the Feather River represents the evolutionary legacy of 
the spring-run Chinook populations that once spawned above Oroville 
Dam, and that the extant population in the Feather River may be the 
only remaining representative of this important ESU component (NMFS, 
2004d). The Feather River Hatchery spring-run Chinook stock may play an 
important role in the recovery of spring-run Chinook in the Feather 
River Basin as efforts progress to restore natural spring-run 
populations in the Feather and Yuba Rivers. The California Department 
of Fish and Game (CDFG) has recently initiated marking of all early 
returning fish to the Feather River Hatchery, and is incorporating only 
those early-run fish into the Feather River Hatchery spring-run Chinook 
stock. The California Department of Water Resources also plans to 
construct a weir to create geographic isolation for spring-run Chinook 
in the Feather River. These efforts are intended to reduce 
introgression by Central Valley fall-run Chinook, thereby further 
isolating and preserving this important early-returning spring-run 
Chinook phenotype in the Feather River. Recent results indicate that a 
small percentage of these marked early-run hatchery fish (i.e., those 
that do not return to the hatchery or are not harvested) are spawning 
naturally in the Feather River. Based on a consideration of this 
information, we have determined that: (1) The naturally spawning 
population of spring-run Chinook in the Feather River represents the 
level of reproductive isolation and the evolutionary legacy of the ESU, 
and thus warrants inclusion in the ESU; and (2) the Feather River 
Hatchery spring-run Chinook stock is no more divergent relative to this 
local natural population than would be expected between two closely 
related populations in the ESU, and thus it also warrants inclusion in 
the ESU. Accordingly, we have revised the ESU definition of the Central 
Valley spring-run Chinook ESU in this final rule to include the natural 
population of spring-run Chinook in the Feather River as well as the 
Feather River Hatchery spring-run Chinook stock (see the 
``Determination of `Species' under the ESA'' section, below).

Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU

    Issue 15: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) felt 
that the Clackamas Hatchery spring-run Chinook program (ODFW stock 
19), which was proposed for inclusion in the Upper Willamette 
River Chinook ESU, should not be included as part of the ESU. ODFW 
contended that the Clackamas Hatchery should be excluded from the ESU 
because the program consists of a long-term domesticated broodstock 
founded from a mix of non-local (but within ESU) populations, and the 
program is managed for isolation between the hatchery stock and the 
local natural populations.
    Response: The Clackamas spring Chinook broodstock (ODFW stock 
19) was initiated in 1976 and is the most recently founded 
broodstock in the entire ESU. Since hatchery fish released from this 
program were not all externally marked until 1997, it is unknown how 
many natural-origin fish have been incorporated into the broodstock 
since the program was initiated. However, based on the number of 
natural-origin fish that have entered the hatchery over the last 3 
years since all hatchery returns have been marked, it is likely some 
natural-origin fish have been incorporated regularly into the 
broodstock since it was established. When this hatchery program began, 
naturally-produced spring Chinook numbered in the hundreds. It is 
likely that the subsequent increases in the number of natural-origin 
Clackamas spring-run Chinook includes the progeny of naturally spawning 
hatchery-origin fish from the Clackamas Hatchery. Based on this 
information, the Clackamas Hatchery stock is likely no more divergent 
from the local natural population than are closely related natural 
populations in the ESU, and thus it is appropriate for this hatchery 
stock to be included as part of the Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU.

Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU

    Issue 16: ODFW felt that the Big Creek tule (Big Creek, OR) fall-
run Chinook hatchery program, which was proposed for inclusion in the 
Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU, should not be included in the ESU. 
ODFW contended that the Big Creek tule Chinook program is substantially 
diverged from the local natural populations in the ESU because it has 
incorporated non-local (but within ESU) fish in the hatchery 
broodstock, and the program is unable to actively collect and 
incorporate natural-origin fish into the broodstock because returning 
hatchery-origin fish are unmarked and indistinguishable from returning 
natural-origin fish.
    Response: We respectfully disagree with ODFW's contention that the 
Big Creek Tule fall-run Chinook hatchery program should be excluded 
from the Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU. The Big Creek Hatchery 
program has

[[Page 37170]]

been releasing hatchery tule fall-run Chinook into Big Creek since 1941 
and has incorporated non-local (but within-ESU) hatchery and naturally 
produced fall-run Chinook into the hatchery broodstock. The program is 
currently using only hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish returning 
to Big Creek Hatchery. The level of natural-origin tule fall-run 
Chinook that are used in the broodstock is unknown due to the low 
marking rate of hatchery fall-run Chinook released from the facility. 
However, natural production within this population has been swamped by 
a high proportion of naturally spawning hatchery-origin fish, and 
available spawning habitat is constrained by the weir at the hatchery. 
Consequently, the distinction between the natural-origin and hatchery-
origin fall Chinook is minimal. Presently, Big Creek Hatchery fall 
Chinook are probably not distinguishable from the existing natural 
population, and thus it is appropriate for this hatchery stock to be 
included as part of the ESU.

Puget Sound Chinook ESU

    Issue 17: Two commenters felt that the Issaquah Creek (Cedar River, 
Washington), George Adams and Rick's Pond (Skokomish River, 
Washington), and Hamma Hamma (Westside Hood Canal, Washington) hatchery 
fall-run Chinook programs, which were not proposed for inclusion in the 
Puget Sound Chinook ESU, should be included and listed as part of the 
ESU. The commenters contended that recent genetic analyses (Spidle and 
Currens, 2005; Marshall, 2000a, 2000b), the broodstock source for the 
hatchery programs, and their spawning migration timing supported their 
inclusion in the ESU.
    Response: The commenters reach different conclusions regarding the 
ESU membership of the subject hatchery programs largely because they 
evaluated their level of divergence relative to different reference 
natural populations than we did in the proposed listing determination 
for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU. After reviewing the comments received, 
other recently available scientific information, and the guidance 
provided in the final Hatchery Listing Policy, we agree with the 
commenters that the Issaquah Creek, George Adams, Rick's Pond, and 
Hamma Hamma fall-run Chinook hatchery programs should be included and 
listed as part of the ESU. Accordingly we have revised the defined ESU 
(see the ``Determination of `Species' under the ESA'' section below) in 
this final listing determination. In the following paragraphs we 
provide a brief summary of the information considered in making this 
change from the proposed listing determination.
    Each of the four hatchery programs addressed by the commenters 
presents a unique challenge in determining what the appropriate ``local 
natural population'' is for evaluating the level of genetic divergence 
exhibited by a hatchery program and for determining its ESU membership. 
These four hatchery programs produce hatchery stocks that are non-
indigenous to the local area, but were derived from hatchery stocks 
founded elsewhere in the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (principally from the 
Green River hatchery stock lineage). If any existed, the historically 
native natural populations in the areas where these hatchery programs 
release their production have been extirpated and replaced by the 
introduced hatchery stocks (Ruckelshaus et al., in press). Available 
genetic and tagging information indicates that the existing natural 
populations are derived from the introduced hatchery stocks and do not 
represent the historically present local populations. In evaluating the 
level of divergence exhibited by such a hatchery stock one might 
compare it to: (1) What is believed to have been the historically 
native natural population; (2) the out-of-basin natural population from 
which the hatchery stock was derived; or (3) the existing natural 
population in the local area that is largely, if not completely, 
derived from naturally spawning introduced hatchery fish. The 
commenters argue that the existing local natural population is the 
appropriate benchmark against which to evaluate a hatchery program's 
level of divergence. In developing the proposed ESU delineations, 
however, we evaluated hatchery programs relative to the natural 
populations from which they were founded, and considered several 
factors in determining their level of divergence (such as the 
incorporation of natural-origin fish into the hatchery broodstock, 
rearing and release practices, whether hatchery fish exhibit locally 
adaptive life-history traits reflective of the natural population, 
etc.).
    The final Hatchery Listing Policy states that ``hatchery stocks 
with a level of genetic divergence relative to the local natural 
population(s) that is no more than what would be expected between 
closely related natural populations within the ESU * * * are considered 
part of the ESU'' [emphasis added]. In the proposed ESU delineation for 
the Puget Sound Chinook ESU we concluded that the Issaquah Creek, 
George Adams, Rick's Pond, and Hamma Hamma fall-run Chinook hatchery 
programs should not be included due to their non-indigenous origin, and 
their likely substantial divergence from the founding natural 
population and hatchery lineage. These programs are intended to produce 
fish for harvest in an isolated setting, and have not been designed or 
managed with the intention of seeding the local watersheds with 
hatchery fish that ecologically and genetically represent natural 
Chinook (WDFW, 2003a). Despite the intent of these programs, the 
existing natural populations are likely the progeny of naturally 
spawning hatchery fish from these non-local programs. Available 
information indicates that these four hatchery programs are no more 
diverged from the (existing) local natural populations than what would 
be expected between closely related natural populations within the ESU, 
and thus we conclude that they are part of the ESU.
    In the proposed ESU determination for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU, 
we proposed excluding the Hoodsport fall-Chinook hatchery program from 
the ESU. Our conclusion, similar to the four hatchery programs 
discussed above, was based on an evaluation of divergence of the 
Hoodsport hatchery program relative to the stock from which it was 
derived. Upon re-evaluation consistent with the revised findings for 
the Issaquah Creek, George Adams, Rick's Pond, and Hamma Hamma hatchery 
programs, we conclude that the Hoodsport Hatchery program is not part 
of the ESU. Finch Creek, where the Hoodsport Hatchery program is 
located, historically and currently lacks an extant local natural 
Chinook salmon population.

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU

    Issue 18: One commenter disagreed with the proposed determination 
that the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU is 
threatened. The commenter asserted that the available data are 
inadequate to rigorously assess the risk of extinction of the ESU. The 
commenter further argued that the available data show increasing 
abundance in the ESU, and do not indicate that Southern Oregon/Northern 
California Coast coho salmon are likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant potion of its range. 
In addition, the commenter felt that the State of California's coho 
salmon recovery plan provides sufficient protections to remove the 
threat that the ESU will become endangered.
    Response: We respectfully disagree with the commenter's conclusion 
that

[[Page 37171]]

the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU does not warrant 
listing. The commenter is correct that there are few data available for 
naturally spawned populations in the ESU, particularly for the portion 
of the ESU in California. (The Rogue River population in Oregon is the 
notable exception, providing the only robust time series of natural-
origin abundance in the ESU.) The BRT's status review update report and 
our proposed threatened determination for this ESU acknowledged this 
paucity of data for populations in California. However, the ESA 
requires that we make listing determinations ``solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available * * *'' [emphasis 
added] (ESA section 4(b)(1)(A)). The BRT evaluated all available 
indices of spawner abundance, and historical and current distribution. 
The strong majority of the BRT concluded that the ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered in the foreseeable future.'' The recent increases in 
ESU abundance noted by the commenter were fully considered by the BRT 
and in the proposed listing determination. The BRT was encouraged by 
indications of strong returns in 2001 for several California 
populations and an apparent increase in the distribution of coho in 
historically occupied streams. However, the BRT cautioned that the 
recent increase in abundance and distribution, presumably due to a 
combination of favorable freshwater and marine conditions, must be 
evaluated in the context of more than a decade of poor ESU performance, 
remaining concerns regarding the high level of hatchery production in 
the ESU, and the loss of local populations in several river systems.
    In developing the proposed threatened listing determination for the 
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU, we considered the 
potential contributions of many conservation measures, including 
California's 2003 State listing of coho, and its subsequent efforts in 
developing and implementing a comprehensive recovery plan for coho in 
the State (69 FR at 33148; June 14, 2004). We concluded that if 
``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.'' Although 
a wide range of important protective efforts have been implemented in 
both Oregon and California, these protective efforts, as yet, do not 
sufficiently reduce threats to the ESU. Protective efforts, as 
evaluated pursuant to PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the conclusion that the 
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU is threatened.

Lower Columbia River Coho ESU

    Issue 19: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 
argued that the Kalama River Type-N and Type-S hatchery coho programs, 
which were not proposed for inclusion in the Lower Columbia River coho 
ESU, should be considered part of the ESU. WDFW acknowledged that the 
number of local natural-origin fish incorporated in the broodstock for 
these hatcheries is unknown prior to 1998, and for the Kalama River 
Type-N hatchery program, non-local sources of broodstock have been used 
when there were insufficient returns of local fish to meet the 
program's broodstock needs. However, WDFW noted that adults returning 
to the Kalama Basin are given priority for incorporation into the 
hatchery broodstock, and for the Kalama River Type-S hatchery these 
fish have been sufficient to meet the broodstock needs of the program. 
In 2004 WDFW proposed integrating the maximum possible level of 
natural-origin fish into the respective broodstocks for these programs.
    WDFW also noted that the Washougal Type-N hatchery coho program was 
evaluated in NMFS' Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation 
Report (NMFS, 2004b) and recommended for inclusion in the ESU, but 
apparently was inadvertently omitted from the proposed listing 
determination. WDFW recommended that the Washougal Type-N hatchery coho 
program be included as part of the Lower Columbia River coho ESU.
    ODFW opposed the inclusion of Oregon hatchery coho programs in the 
Lower Columbia River coho ESU. ODFW argued that the Big Creek Hatchery 
(ODFW stock  13), Sandy Hatchery (ODFW stock  11), 
Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow Complex (ODFW stock  14), and Eagle 
Creek NFH (ODFW stock  19) broodstocks propagated at the 
Oregon hatchery facilities should not be regarded as part of the ESU as 
all are long-term domesticated broodstocks, all have incorporated 
various levels of out-of-basin (but within ESU) stocks, and all are 
managed for isolation between the hatchery stocks and any local natural 
coho populations. For these reasons ODFW recommended excluding the 
following Oregon hatchery coho programs from the Lower Columbia River 
coho ESU: Big Creek Hatchery (Big Creek, Oregon), Astoria High School 
STEP (Youngs Bay, Oregon), Warrenton High School STEP (Youngs Bay, 
Oregon), CEDC Coho Salmon Program (Youngs Bay, Oregon), Sandy Hatchery 
(Sandy River, Oregon), and the Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow Complex (Lower 
Columbia River Gorge, Oregon) hatchery coho programs. ODFW also noted 
that the Eagle Creek NFH (Clackamas River, Oregon) coho hatchery 
program was apparently inadvertently omitted from the proposed listing 
determination.
    Response: The commenters are correct that the Washougal Type-N and 
Eagle Creek NFH hatchery coho programs were inadvertently omitted from 
the proposed listing determinations. We have fixed that oversight by 
including these two programs as part of the Lower Columbia River coho 
ESU in the final listing determination (see ``Determination of Species 
under the ESA'' section, below).
    We concur with WDFW that the Kalama River Type-N and Type-S 
hatchery coho programs should be included within the ESU (see 
``Determination of Species under the ESA'' section, below). Although it 
is unknown if these programs represent the populations that were 
historically present, they do represent the current populations within 
the basin. Both Type-N and Type-S coho were historically present in the 
Kalama River but not in great abundance, with habitat limited to the 
area below Kalama Falls. Both natural and hatchery-origin Type-N and 
Type-S coho salmon were used in the broodstocks prior to 1998. 
Subsequently all hatchery production has been marked, and broodstocks 
were limited to only hatchery-origin coho from 1998 to 2004. In 2004, 
WDFW proposed to begin incorporating natural-origin coho into the 
broodstocks. The incorporation of Type-N coho salmon released into the 
Kalama River from other basins has occurred in recent years, though the 
origin of the Type-N coho is representative of the Type-N coho within 
the ESU. With implementation of WDFW's proposal to incorporate natural-
origin coho salmon into the broodstock, the hatchery stock will become 
even more similar to the extant natural populations. The Type-S program 
has been self-sustaining (i.e., it has not had to incorporate fish from 
other basins) since 1992.
    We disagree with ODFW that the Big Creek Hatchery, Astoria High 
School STEP, Warrenton High School STEP, Sandy Hatchery, and the 
Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow Complex hatchery coho programs should be 
excluded from the

[[Page 37172]]

Lower Columbia River coho ESU. We acknowledge that these programs have 
incorporated within-ESU hatchery coho from outside the local historical 
population(s) and that the hatcheries have been managed as isolated 
programs. However, these programs originated from within-ESU natural 
coho stocks and incorporated local natural-origin coho into the 
broodstock until the late 1990s (when the practice of mass marking 
hatchery coho was implemented and only marked hatchery-origin fish were 
incorporated into the broodstock). The Sandy Hatchery program has been 
the exception, having been developed from only Sandy River natural coho 
salmon with limited introductions from non-local ESU populations (the 
last of which occurred in 1952). Within the populations where these 
hatchery coho programs release their production, returning hatchery-
origin adults contribute substantially to natural spawning. As 
described in the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation 
Report (NMFS, 2004b; 2005b) and by the BRT (NMFS, 2003b) all of these 
hatchery programs represent the existing local spawning populations, 
and they also represent a large proportion of the remaining genetic 
material for many of the smaller tributaries within the ESU.
    Issue 20: Several commenters were opposed to the proposed listing 
of the Lower Columbia River coho ESU. WDFW and ODFW suggested that 
conservation measures for coho and other salmonids in the Lower 
Columbia region, if evaluated pursuant to PECE, might substantially 
mitigate risks to the Lower Columbia River coho ESU such that it would 
not warrant ESA listing. In particular, the commenters highlighted the 
beneficial contributions of: (1) The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery 
Board's (LCFRB) recovery plan for salmonids in the Lower Columbia 
region; (2) the 1999 listing of Lower Columbia River coho as an 
``endangered'' species on the State of Oregon's Endangered Species 
List; and (3) the recovery plan for Lower Columbia River coho developed 
and adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2001, which 
specifies State conservation measures with respect to harvest, hatchery 
operations, fish passage, and habitat restoration necessary to achieve 
recovery goals.
    Response: We respectfully disagree with the suggestion that 
conservation measures under the LCFRB and Oregon recovery plans 
substantially reduce risks to the ESU to the point that Lower Columbia 
River coho are not in danger of extinction or likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future. Of an estimated 23 historical 
populations in the ESU, there are only two extant populations in the 
Sandy and Clackamas Rivers, and approximately 40 percent of historical 
habitat is currently inaccessible. Of the extant populations, the total 
recent mean abundance is less than 1,500 naturally spawning adults, 
posing significant risks due to depensatory and stochastic demographic 
processes. The BRT found extremely high levels of risk to the ESU's 
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity, and the 
majority concluded that the ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' In 
proposing Lower Columbia River coho as threatened, we concluded that 
the genetic reserve represented by the 21 hatchery programs within this 
ESU mitigated the immediacy of extinction risk in the short term. 
However, we cautioned that long-term reliance on the continued 
operation of these hatchery programs is inherently risky.
    The commenters suggest that the LCFRB recovery plan and Oregon's 
Lower Columbia River coho recovery plan satisfy the criteria under PECE 
for certainty of implementation and effectiveness. PECE requires that 
conservation efforts provide such certainty at the time of a listing 
determination, and although we are very supportive of these recovery 
planning efforts, we feel that these efforts lack this certainty. For 
example, while the LCFRB and Oregon coho recovery plans lay out actions 
that, if implemented, would address threats to Lower Columbia River 
coho, all the laws and regulations necessary to implement those actions 
are not yet in place, nor is there a high level of certainty that the 
actions will be funded. Similarly, while the plans identify the nature 
and extent of threats to Lower Columbia River coho, they do not as yet 
address the full suite of PECE criteria for certainty of effectiveness 
(such as establishing quantifiable performance measures for monitoring 
compliance and effectiveness, and employing adaptive management). While 
we expect that as the plans evolve these elements will be developed, 
our listing determination must be based on whether the plans are 
currently certain to improve the status of the species.
    As noted in PECE, ``there are circumstances in which the threats to 
a species are so imminent and/or complex that it will be almost 
impossible to develop an agreement or plan that includes conservation 
efforts that will result in making the listing unnecessary'' (68 FR at 
15101; March 28, 2003). We are concerned that the severity of the 
demographic risks facing the two extant natural populations in the ESU 
makes it extremely unlikely that any conservation program or suite of 
programs could sufficiently mitigate extinction risk such that the ESU 
would not warrant listing.
    Issue 21: In their comments on the proposed threatened 
determination for the Lower Columbia River coho ESU, ODFW noted that it 
was unclear whether the defined ESU includes naturally produced coho in 
the Willamette River Basin upstream of Willamette Falls (Oregon City, 
Oregon). ODFW noted that an apparently robust and self-sustaining 
population of coho has been established above the falls as a result of 
introductions of Lower Columbia River hatchery coho. These hatchery 
releases have been stopped, and the coho returning above the falls are 
naturally produced. ODFW recommended against including the coho 
population above Willamette Falls in the Lower Columbia River coho ESU 
because they occur outside of the native range of coho, and may pose a 
potential threat to native Upper Willamette spring-run Chinook and 
winter steelhead listed as threatened.
    Response: The historical upstream extent of coho in the Willamette 
River Basin was Willamette Falls. Coho salmon returning to spawn in 
fall during low-flow conditions were unable to pass above the falls 
(only species with early spring migration timing during higher flow 
conditions, spring-run Chinook and winter steelhead, were historically 
able to pass above Willamette Falls (Myers et al., 2001)). However, as 
early as 1885, fish ladders were constructed at the falls to aid the 
passage of anadromous fish in low flow conditions. The ladders have 
subsequently been modified and rebuilt, as recently as 1971 and 1975 
(Bennett, 1987; PGE, 1994).
    Although the coho population in the Upper Willamette River Basin is 
outside of the historical geographic range of the Lower Columbia River 
coho ESU, the question remains whether this population satisfies the 
criteria for inclusion in the ESU: (1) It is not substantially 
reproductively isolated from the ESU; and (2) it reflects the ESU's 
evolutionary legacy. The technical paper describing the ESU concept 
(Waples, 1991) notes that an introduced population outside of the 
historic range of the species may be considered part of an ESU if it 
supports natural production in areas that are ecologically similar to 
and geographically near the source natural population(s). The Upper 
Willamette River Basin is ecologically complex and

[[Page 37173]]

arguably shares ecological features with extant and historical coho 
populations in the Lower Columbia River coho ESU. However, it is worth 
noting that all of the anadromous salmonid species that historically 
spawned in the Upper Willamette River (O. mykiss, cutthroat trout, 
spring-run Chinook) are delineated into separate ESUs from lower 
Columbia River populations of the same species. The delineation of 
separate Upper Willamette River ESUs is based in part on historic 
genetic differences reflecting reproductive isolation, but also because 
of distinct ecological features.
    We are uncertain whether the Upper Willamette River coho population 
is representative of the genetic lineage of the Lower Columbia River 
coho ESU. Introductions of coho into the Upper Willamette River Basin 
began on a regular basis in 1952 (Williams, 1983). Coho salmon (at 
various life-history stages) were released in the Willamette River and 
17 major tributaries above Willamette Falls from thirteen different 
hatchery programs. The predominant hatchery stock released was from the 
Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow Complex (considered within the ESU); however, 
several out-of-ESU hatchery stocks from the northern Oregon Coast were 
also introduced at several locations through the early 1970s. There is 
insufficient information to determine if this introduced coho 
population reflects the level of reproductive isolation in the Lower 
Columbia River coho ESU given the mixture of within-ESU and out-of-ESU 
hatchery stocks used to found the population, and the lack of genetic 
data to evaluate its level of divergence relative to the extant 
populations in the Sandy and Clackamas Rivers. Given this uncertainty, 
we do not feel that there is sufficient information to support 
including the Upper Willamette River coho population as part of the 
Lower Columbia River coho ESU at this time. If information becomes 
available indicating that the Upper Willamette River coho population is 
not substantially reproductively isolated from the Lower Columbia River 
coho ESU, we may take such opportunity to review the ESU membership of 
the introduced population.
    Issue 22: Several commenters felt that we lack sufficient site-
specific information to justify including co-occurring resident and 
anadromous O. mykiss in the same ESU. The commenters acknowledged that 
there is general evidence indicating that where the two life-history 
forms co-occur they interbreed, are genetically and phenotypically 
indistinguishable, and can produce offspring of the alternate life-
history form. However, the commenters felt that we lack the population-
specific genetic and behavioral information to extrapolate these 
observations universally to all populations and ESUs where resident and 
anadromous O. mykiss have overlapping distributions.
    The commenters further noted that in the proposed listing 
determinations resident populations included in O. mykiss ESUs were 
determined to have minor contributions to the viability of the ESUs. 
(In the proposed listing determinations we concluded that, despite the 
reduced risk to abundance for certain O. mykiss ESUs due to 
qualitatively abundant rainbow trout populations, the collective 
contribution of the resident life-history form to the viability of an 
ESU in-total is unknown and may not substantially reduce an ESU's risk 
of extinction (NMFS, 2004; 69 FR 33102, June 14, 2004)). The commenters 
questioned why resident O. mykiss populations should be included in an 
ESU given that they have little, if any, contribution to the viability 
of the ESU.
    Response: We believe that the best available scientific information 
indicates that: (1) Where resident and anadromous O. mykiss co-occur 
they share a common gene pool, and collectively exhibit the adaptive 
life-history, ecological, and behavioral traits composing an important 
component in the evolutionary legacy of the species; and (2) some 
components of an O. mykiss ESU will (on average) have a larger 
contribution to its viability, while other components will have a 
comparatively weaker contribution to the ESU's viability, with a 
persistence that may be dependent upon their connectivity with other 
more productive components of the ESU. However, we agree that 
substantial disagreement exists regarding the sufficiency and accuracy 
of the data. Several efforts are underway that may resolve scientific 
disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to 
these ESUs (i.e., the relationship between resident rainbow trout and 
anadromous steelhead and the contribution of resident rainbow trout to 
the viability of O. mykiss ESUs). We will gather more data and engage 
further debate among scientific experts before making final 
determinations regarding these ESUs. A separate notice of 6-month 
extension of the deadline for making final listing determinations on 
the O. mykiss ESUs appears in today's issue of the Federal Register.
    Issue 23: In March 2005 the State of Oregon released a draft Oregon 
Coastal Coho Assessment (draft assessment) of the viability of the 
Oregon Coast coho ESU, as well as of the contributions of the Oregon 
Plan for Salmon and Watersheds to conserving the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 
Oregon's draft assessment concluded that the Oregon Coast coho ESU is 
viable. We announced in a Federal Register notice that we would be 
considering the information presented by Oregon in determining the 
final listing status for the ESU, and we solicited public comment on 
Oregon's draft assessment during a 30-day public comment period (70 FR 
6840; February 9, 2005). The comments received by NMFS and Oregon 
raised a number of concerns regarding the sufficiency and adequacy of 
the data and analyses used in the draft assessment. On May 6, 2005, 
Oregon released a final Oregon Coastal Coho Assessment (final 
assessment) that incorporates and responds to the comments received, 
and includes several substantive changes intended to address the 
concerns raised regarding the sufficiency and adequacy of the draft 
assessment.
    Response: We will extend the deadline for the final listing 
determination for the Oregon Coast coho ESU for 6 months to analyze 
Oregon's final assessment in light of the comments received on the 
draft assessment. Additionally, we are soliciting additional 
information regarding the sufficiency and adequacy of the final 
assessment. This extension will enable us to make a final listing 
determination based upon the best available scientific information. A 
separate notice of 6-month extension of the deadline for making a final 
listing determination on the Oregon Coast coho ESU appears in this 
issue of the Federal Register.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Listing Determinations and 
Proposed Protective Regulations

    Based on the comments received, we have made several substantive 
changes to the proposed ESU definitions and listing determinations, as 
discussed in the response to comments (above), and detailed below. We 
do not detail minor changes of an editorial nature (see Response to 
Issue 12, above).
    The listing determination for the Sacramento River winter-run 
Chinook ESU has been changed from ``threatened'' (as proposed), to 
``endangered'' (see Issue 13, above). The ESU is currently listed as an 
endangered species.
    For the Central Valley spring-run Chinook ESU we have included the 
natural population of spring-run Chinook in the Feather River, as well 
as

[[Page 37174]]

the Feather River Hatchery spring-run Chinook program, in the ESU. The 
Feather River Hatchery spring-run Chinook program and the associated 
natural population were not proposed as part of the ESU (see Issue 14, 
above).
    For the Puget Sound Chinook ESU we have included the following 
hatchery programs as part of the ESU: the Issaquah Creek (Cedar River, 
Washington), George Adams and Rick's Pond (Skokomish River, 
Washington), and Hamma Hamma (Westside Hood Canal, Washington) hatchery 
fall-run Chinook programs. These hatchery programs were not proposed as 
part of the ESU (see Issue 17, above).
    For the Lower Columbia River coho ESU we have included the 
following programs as part of the ESU: Kalama River Type-N 
(Washington), Kalama River Type-S (Washington), Washougal River Type-N 
(Washington), and Eagle Creek NFH (Clackamas River, Oregon) hatchery 
coho programs. The Eagle Creek NFH and Washougal River Type-N hatchery 
programs were inadvertently omitted from the proposed listing 
determination (see Issue 19, above). The Kalama River Type-N and Type-S 
hatchery coho programs were not proposed as part of the ESU (see Issue 
19, above).

Treatment of the Four Listing Determination Steps for Each ESU Under 
Review

Determination 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. This 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. Guidance on the application of this 
policy is contained in 56 FR 58612 (November 20, 1991) and Waples 
(1991). As noted in the ``Past Pacific Salmonid ESA Listings and the 
Alsea Decision'' 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-total is threatened or 
endangered under the ESA.
    We have reviewed the ESU relationships of hatchery salmon stocks 
(NMFS, 2003a; 2004b; 2005b). Hatchery stocks 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 considered 
representative of the evolutionary legacy of an ESU, and hence included 
in the ESU, if it is determined that they are genetically no more than 
moderately divergent from the natural population (see final Hatchery 
Listing Policy elsewhere in this edition 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.
    The hatchery 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 revised Salmonid Hatchery 
Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2005b). 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 16 
ESUs addressed in this final rule. A list of those specific artificial 
propagation programs by ESU is provided for reference in Table 1 at the 
end of this section.
    Snake River Sockeye ESU--The Snake River sockeye ESU includes 
populations of anadromous sockeye salmon in 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 1). 
Artificially propagated sockeye salmon from the Redfish Lake Captive 
Propagation program are considered part of this ESU. We have determined 
that this artificially propagated stock is no more divergent relative 
to the local natural population(s) than what would be expected between 
closely related natural populations within the ESU (NMFS, 2005b).
    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 1): The Umbrella Creek and Big 
River sockeye hatchery programs. We have determined that these 
artificially propagated stocks are no more divergent relative to the 
local natural population(s) than what would be expected between closely 
related natural populations within the ESU (NMFS, 2005b).
    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

[[Page 37175]]

artificial propagation programs (Table 1): 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. We have 
determined that these artificially propagated stocks are no more 
divergent relative to the local natural population(s) than what would 
be expected between closely related natural populations within the ESU 
(NMFS, 2005b).
    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, including the Feather River (64 FR 50394; September 16, 
1999). One artificial propagation program is considered part of the ESU 
(Table 1): The Feather River Hatchery spring run Chinook program (see 
response to Issue 14 in the ``Summary of Comments and Information 
Received'' section, above). We have determined that this artificially 
propagated stock is no more divergent relative to the local natural 
population(s) than what would be expected between closely related 
natural populations within the ESU (NMFS, 2005b).
    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 1): 
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. We 
have determined that these artificially propagated stocks are no more 
divergent relative to the local natural population(s) than what would 
be expected between closely related natural populations within the ESU 
(NMFS, 2005b).
    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 1): 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 (ODFW stock  23) in the Calapooia River, South 
Santiam Hatchery (ODFW stock  23) in the Mollala River, 
Willamette Hatchery (ODFW stock  22), and Clackamas hatchery 
(ODFW stock  19) spring-run Chinook hatchery programs. We have 
determined that these artificially propagated stocks are no more 
divergent relative to the local natural population(s) than what would 
be expected between closely related natural populations within the ESU 
(NMFS, 2005b).
    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 1): 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. We have determined that these artificially 
propagated stocks are no more divergent relative to the local natural 
population(s) than what would be expected between closely related 
natural populations within the ESU (NMFS, 2005b).
    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 1): The Twisp 
River, Chewuch River, Methow Composite, Winthrop NFH, Chiwawa River, 
and White River spring-run Chinook hatchery programs. We have 
determined that these artificially propagated stocks are no more 
divergent relative to the local natural population(s) than what would 
be expected between closely related natural populations within the ESU 
(NMFS, 2005b).
    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-six artificial propagation 
programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 1): 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, Issaquah Hatchery, 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, George Adams Hatchery, Rick's Pond Hatchery, Hamma 
Hamma Hatchery, Dungeness/Hurd Creek Hatchery, and Elwha Channel 
Hatchery Chinook hatchery programs. We have determined that these 
artificially propagated stocks are no more divergent relative to the 
local natural population(s) than what would be expected between closely 
related natural populations within the ESU (NMFS, 2005b; and see 
Response to Issue 17, above).
    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 below Hells Canyon Dam, 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 1): The Lyons Ferry Hatchery, Fall Chinook 
Acclimation Ponds Program, Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery, and Oxbow 
Hatchery fall-run

[[Page 37176]]

Chinook hatchery programs. We have determined that these artificially 
propagated stocks are no more divergent relative to the local natural 
population(s) than what would be expected between closely related 
natural populations within the ESU (NMFS, 2005b).
    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 1): 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. We have determined that these artificially 
propagated stocks are no more divergent relative to the local natural 
population(s) than what would be expected between closely related 
natural populations within the ESU (NMFS, 2005b).
    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 1): 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. We have determined that these artificially propagated stocks 
are no more divergent relative to the local natural population(s) than 
what would be expected between closely related natural populations 
within the ESU (NMFS, 2005b).
    Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU--The Southern 
Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU includes all 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 1): The Cole Rivers Hatchery (ODFW stock  52), 
Trinity River Hatchery, and Iron Gate Hatchery coho hatchery programs. 
We have determined that these artificially propagated stocks are no 
more divergent relative to the local natural population(s) than what 
would be expected between closely related natural populations within 
the ESU (NMFS, 2005b).
    Lower Columbia River Coho ESU--The Lower Columbia River 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, and includes the 
Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon. Twenty-five artificial 
propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 1): 
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, Kalama River Type-N Coho 
Program, Kalama River Type-S Coho Program, 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, 
Washougal River Type-N Coho Program, Eagle Creek NFH, Sandy Hatchery, 
and the Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow complex coho hatchery programs. We 
have determined that these artificially propagated stocks are no more 
divergent relative to the local natural population(s) than what would 
be expected between closely related natural populations within the ESU 
(NMFS, 2005b; see Response to Issue 19, above).
    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 1): The Chinook River (Sea Resources Hatchery), Grays River, 
and Washougal River/Duncan Creek chum hatchery programs. We have 
determined that these artificially propagated stocks are no more 
divergent relative to the local natural population(s) than what would 
be expected between closely related natural populations within the ESU 
(NMFS, 2005b).
    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 1): 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. We have determined that these 
artificially propagated stocks are no more divergent relative to the 
local natural population(s) than what would be expected between closely 
related natural populations within the ESU (NMFS, 2005b).

      Table 1.--List of Artifical Propagation Programs Included in
      Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Salmon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Evolutionary significant unit
  (ESU) and included artificial      Run timing       Location (state)
     propagation  program(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snake River sockeye ESU:
    Redfish Lake Captive          n/a............  Stanley Basin
     Propagation Program.                           (Idaho).
Ozette Lake sockeye ESU:
    Umbrella Creek Hatchery--     n/a............  Ozette Lake
     Makah Tribe.                                   (Washington).
    Big River Hatchery--Makah     n/a............  Ozette Lake
     Tribe.                                         (Washington).

[[Page 37177]]

 
Sacramento River winter-run
 Chinook ESU:
    Livingston Stone National     Winter.........  Sacramento River
     Fish Hatchery (NFH)                            (California).
     Conservation Program.
    Captive Broodstock Program..  Winter.........  Livingston Stone NFH
                                                    & Univ. of Calif.
                                                    Bodega Marine
                                                    Laboratory
                                                    (California).
Central Valley spring-run
 Chinook ESU:
    Feather River Hatchery......  Spring.........  Feather River
                                                    (California).
California Coastal Chinook ESU:
    Freshwater Creek/Humboldt     Fall...........  Freshwater Creek,
     Fish Action Council.                           Humboldt Bay
                                                    (California).
    Yager Creek Hatchery........  Fall...........  Yager Creek, Van
                                                    Duzen River
                                                    (California).
    Redwood Creek Hatchery......  Fall...........  Redwood Creek, South
                                                    Fork Eel River
                                                    (California).
    Hollow Tree Creek Hatchery..  Fall...........  Eel River
                                                    (California).
    Mattole Salmon Group          Fall...........  Squaw Creek, Mattole
     Hatchery.                                      River (California).
    Van Arsdale Fish Station....  Fall...........  Eel River
                                                    (California).
    Mad River Hatchery..........  Fall...........  Mad River
                                                    (California).
Upper Willamette River Chinook
 ESU:
    McKenzie River Hatchery       Spring.........  McKenzie River
     (Oregon Department of Fish                     (Oregon).
     & Wildlife (ODFW) stock
     24).
    Marion Forks Hatchery (ODFW   Spring.........  North Fork Santiam
     stock 21).                            River (Oregon).
    South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW  Spring.........  South Fork Santiam
     stock 23).                            River (Oregon).
    South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW  Spring.........  Calapooia River
     stock 23).                            (Oregon).
    South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW  Spring.........  Mollala River
     stock 23).                            (Oregon).
    Willamette Hatchery (ODFW     Spring.........  Middle Fork
     stock 22).                            Willamette River
                                                    (Oregon).
    Clackamas Hatchery (ODFW      Spring.........  Clackamas River
     stock 19).                            (Oregon).
Lower Columbia River Chinook
 ESU:
    Sea Resources Tule Chinook    Fall...........  Chinook River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Big Creek Tule Chinook        Fall...........  Big Creek (Oregon).
     Program.
    Astoria High School (STEP)    Fall...........  Big Creek (Oregon).
     Tule Chinook Program.
    Warrenton High School (STEP)  Fall...........  Big Creek (Oregon).
     Tule Chinook Program.
    Elochoman River Tule Chinook  Fall...........  Elochoman River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Cowlitz Tule Chinook Program  Fall...........  Lower Cowlitz River
                                                    (Washington).
    North Fork Toutle Tule        Fall...........  Cowlitz River
     Chinook Program.                               (Washington).
    Kalama Tule Chinook Program.  Fall...........  Kalama River
                                                    (Washington).
    Washougal River Tule Chinook  Fall...........  Washougal River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Spring Creek NFH Tule         Fall...........  Upper Columbia River
     Chinook Program.                               Gorge (Washington).
    Cowlitz spring Chinook        Fall...........  Upper Cowlitz River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Cowlitz spring Chinook        Spring.........  Cispus River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Friends of Cowlitz spring     Spring.........  Upper Cowlitz River
     Chinook Program.                               (Washington).
    Kalama River spring Chinook   Spring.........  Kalama River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Lewis River spring Chinook    Spring.........  Lewis River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Fish First spring Chinook     Spring.........  Lewis River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Sandy River Hatchery (ODFW    Spring.........  Sandy River (Oregon).
     stock 11).
Upper Columbia River spring
 Chinook ESU:
    Twisp River.................  Spring.........  Methow River
                                                    (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).
    Marblemount Hatchery          Spring.........  Upper Skagit River
     (yearlings).                                   (Washington).
    Marblemount Hatchery (sub-    Spring.........  Upper Skagit River
     yearlings).                                    (Washington).
    Marblemount Hatchery........  Summer.........  Upper Skagit River
                                                    (Washington).
    Harvey Creek Hatchery.......  Summer.........  North Fork
                                                    Stillaguamish River
                                                    (Washington).
    Whitehorse Springs Pond.....  Summer.........  North Fork
                                                    Stillaguamish River
                                                    (Washington).
    Wallace River Hatchery        Summer.........  Skykomish River
     (yearlings).                                   (Washington).
    Wallace River Hatchery (sub-  Summer.........  Skykomish River
     yearlings).                                    (Washington).
    Tulalip Bay (Bernie Kai-Kai   Summer.........  Skykomish River/
     Gobin Hatchery/Tulalip                         Tulalip Bay
     Hatchery).                                     (Washington).
    Issaquah Hatchery...........  Fall...........  Cedar River
                                                    (Washington).
    Soos Creek Hatchery.........  Fall...........  Green River
                                                    (Washington).
    Icy Creek Hatchery..........  Fall...........  Green River
                                                    (Washington).
    Keta Creek--Muckelshoot       Fall...........  Green River
     Tribe.                                         (Washington).
    White River Hatchery........  Spring.........  White River
                                                    (Washington).
    White Acclimation Pond......  Spring.........  White River
                                                    (Washington).
    Hupp 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).

[[Page 37178]]

 
    George Adams Hatchery.......  Fall...........  Skokomish River
                                                    (Washington).
    Rick's Pond Hatchery........  Fall...........  Skokomish River
                                                    (Washington).
    Hamma Hamma Hatchery........  Fall...........  Westside Hood Canal
                                                    (Washington).
    Dungeness/Hurd Creek          Fall...........  Dungeness River
     Hatchery.                                      (Washington).
    Elwha Channel Hatchery......  Fall...........  Elwha River
                                                    (Washington).
Snake River fall-run Chinook
 ESU:
    Lyons Ferry Hatchery........  Fall...........  Snake River
                                                    (Washington).
    Fall Chinook Acclimation      Fall...........  Snake River
     Ponds Program--Pittsburg,                      (Washington).
     Captain John, and Big
     Canyon ponds.
    Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery--   Fall...........  Snake and Clearwater
     including North Lapwai                         Rivers (Idaho).
     Valley, Lakes Gulch, and
     Cedar Flat Satellite
     facilities.
    Oxbow Hatchery..............  Fall...........  Snake River (Oregon,
                                                    Idaho).
Snake River spring/summer-run
 Chinook ESU:
    Tucannon River Hatchery       Spring.........  Tucannon River
     (conventional).                                (Washington).
    Tucannon River Captive        Spring.........  Tucannon River
     Broodstock Program.                            (Washington).
    Lostine River (captive/       Summer.........  Grande Ronde
     conventional).                                 (Oregon).
    Catherine Creek (captive/     Summer.........  Grande Ronde
     conventional).                                 (Oregon).
    Lookingglass Hatchery         Summer.........  Grande Ronde
     (reintroduction).                              (Oregon).
    Upper Grande Ronde (captive/  Summer.........  Grande Ronde
     conventional).                                 (Oregon).
    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 Artificial      Spring.........  East Fork South Fork
     Propagation Enhancement.                       Salmon River
                                                    (Idaho).
    Lemhi River Captive Rearing   Spring.........  Lemhi River (Idaho).
     Experiment.
    Pahsimeroi Hatchery.........  Summer.........  Salmon River (Idaho).
    East Fork Captive Rearing     Spring.........  East Fork Salmon
     Experiment.                                    River (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 Hatchery     n/a............  Dry Creek, Russian
     Captive Broodstock Program.                    River (California).
    Scott Creek/Kingfisher Flat   n/a............  Big Creek, Scott
     Hatchery Conservation                          Creek (California).
     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 Station egg-  n/a............  Nonoyo River
     take program.                                  (California).
Southern Oregon/Northern
 California Coast coho ESU:
    Cole Rivers Hatchery (ODFW    n/a............  Rogue River (Oregon).
     stock 52).
    Trinity River Hatchery......  n/a............  Trinity River
                                                    (California).
    Iron Gate Hatchery..........  n/a............  Klamath River
                                                    (California).
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 (ODFW      n/a............  Big Creek (Oregon).
     stock 13).
    Astoria High School (STEP)    n/a............  Youngs Bay (Oregon).
     Coho Program.
    Warrenton High School (STEP)  n/a............  Youngs Bay (Oregon).
     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 FFA     Type-N.........  Elochoman River
     Type-N Coho Program.                           (Washington).
    Cowlitz Type-N Coho Program.  Type-N.........  Upper Cowlitz River
                                                    (Washington).
    Cowlitz Type-N Coho Program.  Type-N.........  Lower Cowlitz River
                                                    (Washington).
    Cowlitz Game and Anglers      n/a............  Lower Cowlitz River
     Coho Program.                                  (Washington).
    Friends of the Cowlitz Coho   n/a............  Lower Cowlitz River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    North Fork Toutle River       Type-S.........  Cowlitz River
     Hatchery.                                      (Washington).
    Kalama River Type-N Coho      Type-N.........  Kalama River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Kalama River Type-N Coho      Type-S.........  Kalama River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Lewis River Type-N Coho       Type-N.........  North Fork Lewis
     Program.                                       River (Washington).
    Lewis River Type-S Coho       Type-S.........  North Fork Lewis
     Program.                                       River (Washington).
    Fish First Wild Coho Program  n/a............  North Fork Lewis
                                                    River (Washington).
    Fish First Type-N Coho        Type-N.........  North Fork Lewis
     Program.                                       River (Washington).
    Syverson Project Type-N Coho  Type-N.........  Salmon River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Washougal River Type-N Coho   Type-N.........  Washougal River
     Program.                                       (Washington).
    Eagle Creek NFH.............  n/a............  Clackamas River
                                                    (Oregon).
    Sandy Hatchery (ODFW stock    Late...........  Sandy River (Oregon).
     11).
    Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow      n/a............  Lower Columbia River
     Complex (ODFW stock 14).
Columbia River chum ESU:
    Chinook River/Sea Resources   Fall...........  Chinook River
     Hatchery.                                      (Washington).
    Grays River.................  Fall...........  Grays River
                                                    (Washington).

[[Page 37179]]

 
    Washougal Hatchery/Duncan     Fall...........  Washougal River
     Creek.                                         (Washington).
Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU:
    Quilcene/ Quilcene NFH......  Summer.........  Big Quilcene River
                                                    (Washington).
    Hamma Hamma Fish Hatchery...  Summer.........  Western Hood Canal
                                                    (Washington).
    Lilliwaup Creek Fish          Summer.........  Southwestern Hood
     Hatchery.                                      Canal (Washington).
    Union River/Tahuya..........  Summer.........  Union River
                                                    (Washington).
    Big Beef Creek Fish Hatchery  Summer.........  North Hood Canal
                                                    (Washington).
    Salmon Creek Fish Hatchery..  Summer.........  Discovery Bay
                                                    (Washington).
    Chimacum Creek Fish Hatchery  Summer.........  Port Townsend Bay
                                                    (Washington).
    Jimmycomelately Creek Fish    Summer.........  Sequim Bay
     Hatchery.                                      (Washington).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Viability Assessments of ESUs

    The 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 potential contributions of 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 
factors: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. We 
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 (NMFS, 2004b, 2005b). The effects of 
hatchery programs on the extinction risk of an ESU in-total were 
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 assessed 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, 2005b), 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 were 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, a small number of 
residual sockeye salmon, and 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).
    Our 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 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 our assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on the 
viability of the ESU

[[Page 37180]]

(NMFS, 2005b), 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 historical 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. Prior to 2002 an uncertain fraction of 
the returns was of hatchery origin, generating uncertainty in 
evaluating trends in the abundance and productivity of the naturally 
spawned component of the ESU. Accurately assessing trends in natural 
spawners is further complicated by the poor visibility in the lake. 
Habitat degradation, siltation, and alterations in the lake level 
regime 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 1). 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 be reevaluated for termination (or continuation) 
after 12 years of operation.
    Our 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 the ESU's 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. Although there currently is no 
evidence of genetic divergence between the hatchery program and the 
founding population, the isolation of the hatchery program and 
adaptation to tributary habitats may in time 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 our assessment of the effects of artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2005b), 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 1990s, 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 1; NMFS, 2005b). 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 1990s 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 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

[[Page 37181]]

productivity and spatial structure of the ESU (NMFS, 2005b). Spawning 
escapement of winter-run Chinook 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 our assessment of 
the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the 
ESU (NMFS, 2005b), 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 naturally spawning independent populations that are free of 
hatchery influence from an estimated 17 historical populations. These 
three populations (Deer, Mill and Butte Creek which are tributaries to 
the Sacramento River) are in close geographic proximity, increasing the 
ESU's vulnerability to disease or catastrophic events. There are other 
natural populations (i.e.. Clear, Antelope, Big Chico, and Beegum 
Creeks) of spring Chinook, but the Central Valley Technical Recovery 
Team considers them to be dependent upon the populations in Deer, Mill, 
and Butte Creek. As discussed in the Summary of Comments and 
Information Received (see Issue 14), the naturally spawning spring 
Chinook of hatchery origin in the Feather and Yuba Rivers are also 
considered to be part of this ESU as is the spring-run Chinook hatchery 
stock at Feather River Hatchery. The BRT was concerned that the Feather 
River spring-run Chinook hatchery population represents a risk factor 
for the naturally spawning populations in Deer, Mill and Butte Creeks. 
The Feather River Hatchery produces spring-run Chinook that are 
genetically more similar to fall-run Chinook, probably due to 
hybridization at the hatchery, though these fish still exhibit an early 
returning ``spring'' behavior. 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 the Feather River 
hatchery origin fish could interact negatively with the extant natural 
populations in the ESU. To address these concerns, CDFG initiated 
efforts in 2002 to restore and enhance the spring run genotype at the 
Feather River Hatchery. 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 
factors, and a lower risk for the productivity factor 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 Feather River Hatchery spring-run Chinook stock 
included in this ESU does not 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 the ESU's 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 
1; NMFS, 2005b). 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

[[Page 37182]]

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, 2005b). 
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 that hatchery-
origin fish are not incorporated into the broodstock.
    Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and our assessment of 
the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the 
ESU (NMFS, 2005b), 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 releases of the fall-run hatchery fish, 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.
    Our 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 our assessment of the effects of artificial 
propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2005b), 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 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

[[Page 37183]]

populations in the ESU. It is estimated that 8 to 10 of approximately 
31 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 risks 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 17 artificial propagation programs releasing hatchery 
Chinook salmon that are considered to be part of the Lower Columbia 
River Chinook ESU (Table 1). 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.
    Our 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 our assessment of the effects of artificial 
propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2005b), 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 1) 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, although it is 
estimated that approximately 58 percent of historical habitat has been 
lost. 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 1). 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 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

[[Page 37184]]

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.
    Our 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 our assessment of the effects of artificial 
propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2005b), 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 nine). 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 subbasins 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 26 programs artificially propagating Puget 
Sound Chinook salmon that are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 
1). 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.
    Our 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 conservation and hatchery augmentation programs 
collectively have increased the total abundance of the ESU. The 
conservation programs

[[Page 37185]]

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 26 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 our assessment of the 
effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU 
(NMFS, 2005b), 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 (including the most productive areas) 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 1980s to mid 
1990s. 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 1). 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.
    Our 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 
1990s) 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 ESU presently consists 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

[[Page 37186]]

strategies practiced by the ESU hatchery programs (e.g., extended 
captivity for about 15 percent of the fish before release) are 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 our 
assessment of the effects of artificial propagation programs on the 
viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2005b), 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 factors, 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 in the ``not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future'' category.
    There are 15 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 1). 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.
    Our 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 our assessment of the 
effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU 
(NMFS, 2005b), 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 1990s, but was terminated in 1996. 
Termination of this program was considered by the BRT as a positive 
development for naturally produced coho in this ESU. For the naturally 
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

[[Page 37187]]

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 1; NMFS, 2005b). 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, 2005b). 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 out-planting 
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 our assessment of the effects of artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2005b), 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 in the ``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.
    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, 2005b). 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,

[[Page 37188]]

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 our 
assessment of the effects of artificial propagation programs on the 
viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2005b), 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).
    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 25 hatchery stocks considered to be 
part of the ESU (Table 1), 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 25 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.
    Our 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, 2005b). 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

[[Page 37189]]

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 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 our assessment of the short- and long-term effects of 
artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 
2005b), 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 serves as a 
genetic reserve 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.
    Our 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 our assessment of the effects of artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2005b), 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

[[Page 37190]]

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 
1). Six of the 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.
    Our 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 reducing risks to 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 used 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 our assessment of the 
effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU 
(NMFS, 2005b), 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).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and our 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. We have previously detailed 
the impacts of various factors contributing to the decline of Pacific 
salmon and O. mykiss (e.g., see summary of previous ESU listing 
determinations in the proposed rule, 69 FR 33102, June 14, 2004; NMFS 
1998c, ``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 the summary of factors affecting the species 
provided in the proposed rule (69 FR at 33141 through 33142; June 14, 
2004), and references therein, for a more detailed treatment of the 
species' factors for decline.

Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Salmonids

    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. Therefore, in making ESA listing determinations, 
we first assess an ESU's level of extinction risk and identify factors 
that have led to its decline. We then assess 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, we rely 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.
    During our update of the status for the 16 ESUs addressed in this 
final rule, we reviewed protective efforts ranging in scope from 
regional conservation strategies to local watershed initiatives. The 
principal protective efforts affecting these West Coast salmonid ESUs 
were summarized in the June 14, 2004, proposed rule (69 FR 33102). 
Informed by the public comments received and based on our review, we 
conclude that collectively protective efforts do not provide sufficient 
certainty of implementation and effectiveness to substantially 
ameliorate the level of assessed extinction risk for all of the 16 ESUs 
addressed in this notice. While we acknowledge that many of the ongoing 
protective efforts are likely to promote the conservation of listed 
salmonids, most efforts are relatively recent, have yet to indicate 
their effectiveness, and few address conservation needs at scales 
sufficient to conserve entire ESUs. We conclude that existing 
protective efforts lack the certainty of implementation and 
effectiveness to preclude listing the 16 ESUs addressed in this final 
rule. Nonetheless, we will continue to

[[Page 37191]]

encourage these and other future protective efforts, and we will 
continue to collaborate with tribal, federal, state, and local entities 
to promote and improve efforts being made to protect the species.

Final Listing Determinations

    The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. 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.
    We conclude that for the 16 West Coast salmon and O. mykiss ESUs 
addressed in this final rule, four ESUs are endangered, and 12 ESUs are 
threatened. Collectively, these 16 ESUs include 132 artificial 
propagation programs. Informed by the Alsea ruling and consistent with 
the final Hatchery Listing Policy, which appears elsewhere in this 
edition 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 
2 at the end of this section provides a summary of these final listing 
determinations.

Snake River Sockeye ESU

    The BRT unanimously concluded that the Snake River sockeye ESU is 
``in danger of extinction.'' Our 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 PECE, do not provide sufficient 
certainty of implementation and effectiveness to alter the assessment 
that the ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' We conclude that the ESU 
in-total is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, and determine that the Snake River sockeye ESU 
continues to warrant listing 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.'' Our 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 PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation 
and effectiveness to alter the assessment that the ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' We conclude that the 
ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
determine that the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU continues to warrant listing 
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 improved 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 opinions that have increased freshwater 
survival; changes in salmon ocean harvest pursuant to the ocean harvest 
biological opinion that have increased ocean survival and adult 
escapement; and implementation of habitat restoration efforts (e.g. 
Ecosystem Restoration Program) throughout the Central Valley as a 
result of the CVPIA and CALFED programs 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. Although 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, it is 
uncertain whether this program will be fully implemented, funded or 
successful in achieving the goal of establishing a second population. 
Although many important efforts have been and continue to be 
implemented, we do not believe that the protective efforts being 
implemented for this ESU, as evaluated pursuant to 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.'' We find, therefore, that the Sacramento 
River winter-run Chinook ESU in-total is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range and conclude that 
the ESU continues to warrant listing as an endangered 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). Because the Feather River Hatchery spring Chinook stock was not 
considered to be part of the ESU at the time, the Artificial 
Propagation Evaluation Workshop did not address this ESU. Although 
consideration of the naturally spawning spring-run Chinook in the 
Feather River and the hatchery stock would likely reduce ESU risk in 
terms of abundance, it is unlikely to benefit any other VSP factors 
such as productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. If ongoing 
efforts to further isolate the spring-run phenotype in the Feather 
River are successful, the risks to the ESU's spatial structure and 
diversity would likely be reduced. Substantial protective efforts have 
been implemented to benefit this ESU, but as evaluated pursuant to 
PECE, they do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation and 
effectiveness to alter the assessment that the ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' We conclude that the 
ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
determine that the Central Valley spring-run Chinook ESU continues to 
warrant listing as threatened under the ESA.

[[Page 37192]]

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.'' Our assessment of artificial propagation 
programs on the viability of the ESU concluded that the California 
Coastal Chinook ESU in-total is ``likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future'' (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as 
evaluated pursuant to PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the assessment that the ESU 
is ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' We 
conclude that the ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and determine that the California Coastal Chinook ESU continues 
to warrant listing 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.'' Our 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 PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation 
and effectiveness to alter the assessment that the ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' We conclude that the 
ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
determine that the Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU continues to 
warrant listing under the ESA as a threatened species.

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.'' Our 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 PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation 
and effectiveness to alter the assessment that the ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' We conclude that the 
ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
determine that the Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU continues to 
warrant listing 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.'' Our 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 PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the assessment that the ESU 
is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future. We conclude that the ESU in-total is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and determine 
that the Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook ESU continues to 
warrant listing 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.'' Our 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 PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation 
and effectiveness to alter the assessment that the ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' We conclude that the 
ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
determine that the Puget Sound Chinook ESU continues to warrant listing 
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.'' Our 
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 PECE, do not 
provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to 
alter the assessment that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future.'' We conclude that the ESU in-total is 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range, and determine that the Snake 
River fall-run Chinook ESU continues to warrant listing 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.'' 
Our 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 PECE, do not 
provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to 
alter the assessment that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future.'' We conclude that the ESU in-total is 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range, and determine that the Snake 
River spring/summer-run Chinook ESU continues to warrant listing 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.'' Our 
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 PECE, do not 
provide sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to 
alter the assessment that the ESU is ``in danger of extinction.'' We 
conclude that the ESU in-total is in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a

[[Page 37193]]

significant portion of its range. We determine that the Central 
California Coast coho ESU, presently listed as a threatened species, 
warrants listing 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.'' Our 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 PECE, do not provide 
sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to alter the 
assessment that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' We conclude that the ESU in-total is likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, and determine that the Southern 
Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU continues to warrant listing 
under the ESA as a threatened species.

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. Our 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 PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of 
implementation and effectiveness to alter the assessment that the ESU 
is ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.'' We 
conclude that the ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and determine that Lower Columbia River coho ESU warrants 
listing 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.'' Our 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 PECE, do not provide 
sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to alter the 
assessment that the ESU is ``likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future.'' We conclude that the ESU in-total is likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, and determine that the Columbia River 
chum ESU continues to warrant listing 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.'' Our 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 PECE, do not provide sufficient certainty of implementation 
and effectiveness to alter the assessment that the ESU is ``likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future. We conclude that the 
ESU in-total is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
determine that the Hood Canal summer chum ESU continues to warrant 
listing under the ESA as a threatened species.

 Table 2.--Summary of the Previous Endangered Species Act (ESA) Status and the Final Listing Determinations for
                          16 Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Salmon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Number of
                                                                                                    artificial
   Evolutionarily significant unit                                                                  propagation
                (ESU)                  Previous ESA listing status  Final listing  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   Endangered..................  Endangered..................               2
 ESU.
Central Valley spring-run Chinook     Threatened..................  Threatened..................               1
 ESU.
California Coastal Chinook ESU......  Threatened..................  Threatened..................               7
Upper Willamette River Chinook......  Threatened..................  Threatened..................               7
Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU....  Threatened..................  Threatened..................              17
Upper Columbia River spring-run       Endangered..................  Endangered..................               6
 Chinook ESU.
Puget Sound Chinook ESU.............  Threatened..................  Threatened..................              26
Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU....  Threatened..................  Threatened..................               4
Snake River spring/summer-run         Threatened..................  Threatened..................              15
 Chinook ESU.
Central California Coast coho ESU...  Threatened..................  Endangered..................               4
Southern Oregon/Northern California   Threatened..................  Threatened..................               3
 Coast coho ESU.
Lower Columbia River coho ESU.......  Threatened..................  Threatened..................              25
Columbia River chum ESU.............  Threatened..................  Threatened..................               3
Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU......  Threatened..................  Threatened..................               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 37194]]

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 to determine whether and to what extent 
conservation measures may be appropriate, 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.

Previously Promulgated 4(d) Protective Regulations

    NMFS has already adopted ESA 4(d) rules that exempt or ``limit'' a 
range of activities from the take prohibitions for certain 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). Currently there are a total of 29 ``limits'' to ESA Section 9(a) 
``take'' prohibitions for threatened salmonid ESUs (see the proposed 
rule, and references therein, for a more detailed description of the 
specific 4(d) limits; 69 FR at 33166; June 14, 2004). The previously 
promulgated limits do not apply to all threatened ESUs, and several of 
the limits are redundant, outdated, or are located disjunctly in the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
    The first six of these limits (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.
    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 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 plans; 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 six 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.

Final Amendments to the 4(d) Protective Regulations

    As part of this final rulemaking we are amending the existing 4(d) 
protective regulations for threatened salmon and O. mykiss ESUs to: (1) 
Provide needed flexibility in fisheries and hatchery management, and 
(2) simplify and clarify the existing regulations so that they may be 
more efficiently and effectively accessed and interpreted by all 
affected parties. The specific changes being made to the application of 
the take prohibitions and limits under 4(d) are described in the 
following two subsections (``Changes in the Application of the Take 
Prohibitions,'' and ``Clarifying Amendments to the 4(d) Protective 
Regulations'').
    Changes in the Application of the Take Prohibitions--We are 
finalizing an amendment to the existing 4(d) protective 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. For threatened salmon and O. 
mykiss ESUs, we will apply section 4(d) protections to natural and 
hatchery fish with an intact adipose fin, but not to listed hatchery 
fish that have had their adipose fin removed prior to release into the 
wild. (The removal (``clipping'') of the adipose fin from hatchery fish 
prior to their release into the natural environment is a commonly 
employed method for the marking of hatchery production.) Many 
hatcheries produce fish that are not part of a listed ESU, while others 
produce fish that are part of a listed ESU (and thus also listed in 
this final rule) but are surplus to conservation and recovery needs, 
for the purpose of contributing to sustainable fisheries. With their 
adipose fin removed, these non-listed and surplus listed hatchery fish 
can be visually distinguished from listed fish requiring protection for 
conservation and/or recovery purposes. Exempted from take prohibitions, 
these adipose-fin-clipped hatchery fish can be harvested in fisheries, 
including but not limited to mark selective fisheries, that have 
appropriate ESA authorization. In addition to adipose-fin-clipped 
hatchery fish, other listed hatchery fish (with intact adipose fins) 
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, location, or other marking methods) may be exempted from the 
section 4(d) protections under the available limits. NMFS believes this 
approach provides needed flexibility to appropriately manage artificial

[[Page 37195]]

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 the amended 4(d) protective regulations. NMFS, 
however, may need to approve the take of listed hatchery stocks to 
manage the number of naturally spawning hatchery fish to limit 
potential adverse effects on the local natural population(s). Other 
hatchery stocks, although considered to be part of a threatened ESU, 
may be of limited or uncertain conservation value at the present time. 
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 hatchery fish could 
fulfill other purposes (e.g., fulfilling Federal trust and tribal 
treaty obligations) while preserving all future recovery options. If it 
is later determined through ongoing recovery planning efforts that 
these hatchery stocks are essential for recovery, the relevant hatchery 
program(s) could discontinue removal of the adipose fin from all or a 
sufficient portion of its production as necessary to meet recovery 
needs.
    This amendment also does not apply the take prohibitions to 
resident or residualized fish in salmonid ESUs, principally affecting 
O. nerka and O. mykiss ESUs. The kokanee (resident O. nerka) population 
that co-occurs with threatened Ozette Lake sockeye is not considered 
part of the ESU, and residualized sockeye are believed to be a minor 
components of the ESU. We believe that extending the take prohibitions 
to resident or residualized O. nerka is not necessary for the 
conservation and recovery of the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU. Furthermore, 
extending the take prohibitions to resident O. nerka would result in 
considerable confusion given the presence of a co-occurring resident 
kokanee population that is not listed under the ESA. We do not have 
sufficient information to suggest that extending the ESA take 
prohibitions to resident O. mykiss populations would confer any 
additional conservation benefits to listed O. mykiss ESUs. Rainbow 
trout stocks are presently being managed conservatively under state 
regulations in support of conserving listed steelhead, and additional 
conservation benefits would not be accrued by extending Federal take 
prohibitions to these resident populations.
    Clarifying Amendments to the 4(d) Protective Regulations--Although 
the existing ESA section 4(d) regulations for threatened salmonids have 
proven effective at appropriately protecting threatened salmonid ESUs 
and authorizing 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 final rulemaking, we are clarifying 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. These clarifying amendments are: (1) To amend the 
expired 4(d) limit (Sec.  223.203(b)(2)), which provided a temporary 
exemption for ongoing research and enhancement activities with pending 
applications during the 2000 4(d) rulemaking, to temporarily exempt 
ongoing research and enhancement activities affected by the current 
rulemaking process; (2) to move the description of the limit for Tribal 
Resource Management Plans (Sec.  223.209) so that the text would appear 
next to the 4(d) rule in the CFR, improving the clarity of the 4(d) 
regulations; (3) to apply the amended 4(d) take prohibitions and the 14 
limits promulgated in 2000 (as modified by these amendments) to the 
Lower Columbia River coho ESU which is newly being listed as 
threatened; and (4) to apply the amended 4(d) take prohibitions and the 
14 limits promulgated in 2000 (as modified by these amendments) to all 
threatened salmon and O. mykiss ESUs, thus bringing them under the same 
4(d) protective regulations.

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 include authorized land 
management activities of the FS 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, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (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 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 
that may not incidentally take listed species and is receiving Federal 
authorization or funding, the implementation of state fishing 
regulations, logging, road building, grazing, and diverting water into 
private lands.
    We are concerned about the potential for disruption of ongoing 
scientific

[[Page 37196]]

research, monitoring, and conservation activities, especially during 
the coming summer/fall field seasons. Consistent with the ``grace 
period for pending applications for 4(d) approval of research and 
enhancement activities,'' we are extending a similar grace period for 
pending permit applications under sections 10(a)(1)(a) and 10(a)(1)(B). 
The take prohibitions applicable to threatened species will not apply 
to activities specified in an application for a permit for scientific 
purposes or to enhance the conservation or survival of the species, 
provided that the application has been received by the NOAA Assistant 
Administrator for Fisheries no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. This grace period for pending scientific 
research and enhancement applications will remain in effect until the 
issuance or denial of authorization, or 6 months from the date of 
publication of this notice, whichever occurs earliest.

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 must 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. We believe that, based on the 
best available information, the following actions will not result in a 
violation of section 9:
    1. Possession of fish from any ESU listed as threatened or 
endangered that are acquired lawfully by permit issued by NMFS pursuant 
to section 10 of the ESA, or by the terms of an incidental take 
statement issued 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.
    There are many activities that we believe could potentially 
``harm'' salmon, which is defined by our regulations as ``an act which 
actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include 
significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or 
injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential 
behavioral patterns, including, breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, 
feeding or sheltering'' (50 CFR 222.102 [harm]). Activities that may 
harm the listed ESUs, resulting in a violation of the section 9 take 
prohibition, include, but are not limited to:
    1. Land-use activities that adversely affect habitats for any 
listed 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 habitats for any listed 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 
listed ESUs;
    4. Violation of discharge permits;
    5. Application of pesticides affecting water quality or riparian 
areas for listed ESUs;
    6. Interstate and foreign commerce of fish from any of the listed 
ESUs and import/export of fish from any listed ESU without a threatened 
or endangered species permit;
    7. Collecting or handling of fish from any of the listed ESUs. 
Permits to conduct these activities are available for purposes of 
scientific research or to enhance the conservation or survival of the 
species; or
    8. Introduction of non-native species likely to prey on fish from 
any listed 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 fish in any of the listed 
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).

Effective Date of the Final Listing Determinations and Protective 
Regulations

    Given the cultural, scientific, and recreational importance of West 
Coast salmon, and the broad geographic range of these ESUs, we 
recognize that numerous parties may be affected by these listing 
determinations and by the final amendments to the 4(d) protective 
regulations. Therefore, to permit an orderly implementation of the 
consultation requirements and take prohibitions associated with these 
actions, the final listings and protective regulations will take effect 
on August 29, 2005. The take prohibitions applicable to threatened 
species do not apply to activities specified in an application for a 
permit or 4(d) approval for scientific purposes or to enhance the 
conservation or survival of the species, provided that the application 
has been received by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 
(AA), no later than August 29, 2005. This ``grace period'' for pending 
research and enhancement applications will remain in effect until the 
issuance or denial of authorization, or December 28, 2005, whichever 
occurs earliest.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is either designated or proposed for designation 
for all but one of the ESUs (the Lower Columbia River coho ESU) 
addressed in this Federal Register notice. Final critical habitat 
designations exist for: the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook ESU (58 
FR 33212, June 16, 1993); the Snake River sockeye, spring/summer 
Chinook, and fall-run Chinook ESUs (58 FR 68543, December 28, 1993); 
and the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts and Central 
California Coast coho ESUs (64 FR 24049, May 5, 1999). Critical habitat 
was recently proposed for the following 20 ESUs (69 FR 71880, December 
10, 2004; 69 FR 74572, December 14, 2004): Puget Sound Chinook; Lower 
Columbia River Chinook; Upper Willamette River Chinook ; Upper Columbia 
River spring-run Chinook; California Coastal Chinook; Central Valley 
spring-run Chinook; Oregon Coast coho; Hood Canal summer-run chum; 
Columbia River chum; Ozette Lake sockeye; Upper Columbia River O. 
mykiss; Snake River Basin O. mykiss; Middle Columbia River O. mykiss'; 
Lower Columbia River O. mykiss; Upper Willamette River O. mykiss; 
Northern California O. mykiss; Central California Coast O. mykiss; 
South-Central California Coast O. mykiss; Southern California O. 
mykiss; and Central Valley O. mykiss. In keeping with a Consent Decree 
and

[[Page 37197]]

Stipulated Order of Dismissal approved by the D.C. District Court 
(Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Institute for 
Fisheries Resources, Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Natural 
Resources Council, Pacific Rivers Council and the Environmental 
Protection Information Center v. NMFS, Civ. No. 031833), on or before 
August 15, 2005, we will submit to the Federal Register for publication 
the final rules designating critical habitat for those of the 20 ESUs 
identified above that are included on the lists of threatened and 
endangered species as of that date.
    Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently 
with the listing of a species. Section 4(b)(6)(C)(ii) provides that, 
where critical habitat is not determinable at the time of final 
listing, we may extend the period for designating critical habitat by 
not more than one additional year. In keeping with agency regulations 
at 50 CFR 424.12, we conclude that critical habitat is not presently 
determinable for the Lower Columbia River coho ESU. Specifically, we 
lack biological and mapping information sufficient to perform required 
analyses of the impacts of critical habitat designation to determine 
which areas may qualify as critical habitat for this ESU. Therefore, we 
have decided to proceed with the final listing determination now and 
propose critical habitat in a separate rulemaking. In this notice we 
are soliciting information necessary to inform the designation of 
critical habitat for this ESU (see Information Solicited and ADDRESSES) 
and will consider such information in support of a future proposed 
designation.

Information Solicited

    As noted previously, we are soliciting biological and economic 
information relevant to making critical habitat designations for the 
Lower Columbia River coho ESU. Data reviewed may include, but are not 
limited to, scientific or commercial publications, administrative 
reports, maps or other graphic materials, information received from 
experts, and comments from interested parties. Comments and data 
particularly are sought concerning:
    (1) Maps and specific information describing the amount, 
distribution, and use type (e.g., spawning, rearing, or migration) of 
coho salmon habitat in the lower Columbia River; as well as any 
additional information on occupied and unoccupied habitat areas;
    (2) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined 
to be critical habitat as provided by sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of 
the ESA;
    (3) Information regarding the benefits of excluding lands covered 
by Habitat Conservation Plans (ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permits), 
including the regulatory burden designation may impose on landowners 
and the likelihood that exclusion of areas covered by existing plans 
will serve as an incentive for other landowners to develop plans 
covering their lands;
    (4) Information regarding the benefits of excluding Federal and 
other lands covered by habitat conservation strategies and plans (e.g. 
Northwest Forest Plan, Washington's Forest and Fish Plan, and the 
Oregon Plan), including the regulatory burden designation may impose on 
land managers and the likelihood that exclusion of areas covered by 
existing plans will serve as an incentive for land users to implement 
the conservation measures covering the lands subject to these plans;
    (5) Information regarding the benefits of designating particular 
areas as critical habitat;
    (6) Current or planned activities in the areas proposed for 
designation and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (7) Any foreseeable economic or other potential impacts resulting 
from the proposed designations, in particular, any impacts on small 
entities;
    (8) Whether specific unoccupied areas (e.g., areas behind dikes or 
dams) not presently proposed for designation may be essential for 
conservation of this ESU; and
    (9) Potential peer reviewers for a proposed critical habitat 
designation, including persons with biological and economic expertise 
relevant to the designations.
    NMFS seeks information regarding critical habitat for the Lower 
Columbia River coho ESU as soon as possible, but by no later than 
August 29, 2005 (see ADDRESSES, above).

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    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, we have 
determined that the final listing determinations for 16 ESUs of Pacific 
salmonids described in this notice are exempt from the requirements of 
the NEPA of 1969. We conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) under 
the NEPA analyzing the proposed amendments to the 4(d) protective 
regulations for Pacific salmonids. We solicited comment on the EA as 
part of the proposed rule, as well as during a subsequent comment 
period following formal notice in the Federal Register of the 
availability of the draft EA for review. Informed by the comments 
received, we have finalized the EA, and issued a Finding of No 
Significant Impact for the amended 4(d) protective regulations.

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. The factual basis for this 
certification was published with the proposed rule, and is not repeated 
here. No comments were received regarding that certification. As a 
result, no final regulatory flexibility analysis for the listing 
determinations or 4(d) protective regulations contained in this final 
rule has been prepared.

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 final rule does not contain a collection-of-information 
requirement for purposes of the PRA of 1980.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The final 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. We prepared a Regulatory 
Impact Review which was provided to the OMB with the publication of the 
proposed rule.

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

[[Page 37198]]

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal 
governments. This final 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, we intend to inform 
potentially affected tribal governments and to solicit their input and 
coordinate on future management actions.

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 final rule. In fact, this notice 
provides mechanisms by which NMFS, in the form of 4(d) limits to take 
prohibitions, may defer to state and local governments where they 
provided necessary protections for threatened salmonids.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (see ADDRESSES), or can be obtained from the Internet at: 
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.

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: June 16, 2005.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 are 
amended as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
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.


0
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------       Where Listed           Citation(s) for listing       Citation for critical
           Common name                      Scientific name                                           determination(s)            habitat designation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Gulf sturgeon................  Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi.....  Everywhere.............  56 FR 49653, Sep. 30, 1991....  68 FR 13370, Mar. 19,
                                                                                                                                2003.
(2) Ozette Lake sockeye..........  Oncorhynchus nerka...............  U.S.A., WA, including    64 FR 14528, Mar. 25, 1999....  NA
                                                                       all naturally spawned   June 28, 2005.................  [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       populations of sockeye                                   55900].
                                                                       salmon in Ozette Lake
                                                                       and 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) Central Valley spring-run      Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.........  U.S.A., CA, including    64 FR 50394, Sep. 16, 1999....  NA
 Chinook.                                                              all naturally spawned   June 28, 2005.................  [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       populations of spring-                                   55900].
                                                                       run Chinook salmon in
                                                                       the Sacramento River
                                                                       and its tributaries in
                                                                       California, including
                                                                       the Feather River, as
                                                                       well as the Feather
                                                                       River Hatchery spring-
                                                                       run Chinook program.
(4) California Coastal Chinook...  Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.........  U.S.A., CA, including    64 FR 50394, Sep. 16, 1999....  NA
                                                                       all naturally spawned   June 28, 2005.................  [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       populations of Chinook                                   55900].
                                                                       salmon from rivers and
                                                                       streams south of the
                                                                       Klamath River to the
                                                                       Russian River,
                                                                       California, as well as
                                                                       seven 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.

[[Page 37199]]

 
(5) Upper Willamette River         Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.........  U.S.A., OR, including    64 FR 14308, Mar. 24, 1999....  NA
 Chinook.                                                              all naturally spawned   June 28, 2005.................  [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       populations of spring-                                   55900].
                                                                       run Chinook salmon in
                                                                       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.
(6) Lower Columbia River Chinook.  Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.........  U.S.A., OR, WA,          64 FR 14308, Mar. 24, 1999....  NA
                                                                       including all           June 28, 2005.................  [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       naturally spawned                                        55900].
                                                                       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, 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,
                                                                       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.

[[Page 37200]]

 
(7) Puget Sound Chinook..........  Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.........  U.S.A., WA, including    64 FR 14308, Mar. 24, 1999....  NA
                                                                       all naturally spawned   June 28, 2005.................  [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       populations of Chinook                                   55900].
                                                                       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, as well
                                                                       as twenty-six
                                                                       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),
                                                                       Tulalip Bay, Issaquah
                                                                       Hatchery, 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, George Adams
                                                                       Hatchery, Rick's Pond
                                                                       Hatchery, Hamma Hamma
                                                                       Hatchery, Dungeness/
                                                                       Hurd Creek Hatchery,
                                                                       Elwha Channel Hatchery
                                                                       Chinook hatchery
                                                                       programs.
(8) Snake River fall-run Chinook.  Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.........  U.S.A., OR, WA, ID,      57 FR 14653, Apr. 22, 1992, 57  58 FR 68543, Dec. 28,
                                                                       including all            FR 23458, Jun. 3, 1992.         1993.
                                                                       naturally spawned       June 28, 2005.................
                                                                       populations of fall-
                                                                       run Chinook salmon in
                                                                       the mainstem Snake
                                                                       River below Hells
                                                                       Canyon Dam, and in 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.
(9) Snake River spring/summer-run  Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.........  U.S.A., OR, WA, ID,      57 FR 14653, Apr. 22, 1992, 57  58 FR 68543, Dec. 28,
 Chinook.                                                              including all            FR 23458, Jun. 3, 1992.         1993. 64 FR 57399, Oct.
                                                                       naturally spawned       June 28, 2005.................   25, 1999.
                                                                       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, 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.
(10) Southern Oregon/Northern      Oncorhynchus kisutch.............  U.S.A., CA, OR,          62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997......  64 FR 24049, May 5, 1999.
 California Coast coho.                                                including all           June 28, 2005.................
                                                                       naturally spawned
                                                                       populations of coho
                                                                       salmon in coastal
                                                                       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.

[[Page 37201]]

 
(11) Lower Columbia River coho...  Oncorhynchus kisutch.............  U.S.A., OR, WA,          June 28, 2005.................  NA
                                                                       including all
                                                                       naturally spawned
                                                                       populations of coho
                                                                       salmon in the Columbia
                                                                       River and its
                                                                       tributaries in
                                                                       Washington and Oregon,
                                                                       from the mouth of the
                                                                       Columbia up to and
                                                                       including the Big
                                                                       White Salmon and Hood
                                                                       Rivers, and includes
                                                                       the Willamette River
                                                                       to Willamette Falls,
                                                                       Oregon, as well as
                                                                       twenty-five 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, Kalama River
                                                                       Type-N Coho Program,
                                                                       Kalama River Type-S
                                                                       Coho Program, 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, Eagle
                                                                       Creek National Fish
                                                                       Hatchery, Sandy
                                                                       Hatchery, and the
                                                                       Bonneville/Cascade/
                                                                       Oxbow complex coho
                                                                       hatchery programs.
(12) Columbia River chum.........  Oncorhynchus keta................  U.S.A., OR, WA,          64 FR 14508, Mar. 25, 1999....  NA
                                                                       including all           June 28, 2005.................  [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       naturally spawned                                        55900].
                                                                       populations of chum
                                                                       salmon in the 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.
(13) Hood Canal summer-run chum..  Oncorhynchus keta................  U.S.A., WA, including    64 FR 14508, Mar. 25, 1999....  NA
                                                                       all naturally spawned   June 28, 2005.................  [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       populations of summer-                                   55900].
                                                                       run chum salmon in
                                                                       Hood Canal and its
                                                                       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 chum hatchery
                                                                       programs.
(14) South-Central California      Oncorhynchus mykiss..............  U.S.A., CA, including    62 FR 49397, Aug. 18, 1997....  NA
 Coast Steelhead.                                                      all naturally spawned                                   [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       populations of                                           55900].
                                                                       steelhead (and their
                                                                       progeny) in streams
                                                                       from the Pajaro River
                                                                       (inclusive), located
                                                                       in Santa Cruz County,
                                                                       California, to (but
                                                                       not including) the
                                                                       Santa Maria River.

[[Page 37202]]

 
(15) Central California Coast      Oncorhynchus mykiss..............  U.S.A., CA, including    62 FR 43937, Aug. 18, 1997....  NA
 Steelhead.                                                            all naturally spawned                                   [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       populations of                                           55900].
                                                                       steelhead (and their
                                                                       progeny) in streams
                                                                       from the Russian River
                                                                       to Aptos Creek, Santa
                                                                       Cruz County,
                                                                       Californian
                                                                       (inclusive), and the
                                                                       drainages of San
                                                                       Francisco and San
                                                                       Pablo Bays eastward to
                                                                       the Napa River
                                                                       (inclusive), Napa
                                                                       County, California.
                                                                       Excludes the
                                                                       Sacramento- San
                                                                       Joaquin River Basin of
                                                                       the Central Valley of
                                                                       California.
(16) California Central Valley     Oncorhynchus mykiss..............  U.S.A., CA, including    63 FR 13347; Mar. 19, 1998....  NA
 Steelhead.                                                            all naturally spawned                                   [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       populations of                                           55900].
                                                                       steelhead (and their
                                                                       progeny) in the
                                                                       Sacramento and San
                                                                       Joaquin Rivers and
                                                                       their tributaries,
                                                                       excluding steelhead
                                                                       from San Francisco and
                                                                       San Pablo Bays and
                                                                       their tributaries.
(17) Northern California           Oncorhynchus mykiss..............  U.S.A., CA, including    65 FR 36074, June 7, 2000.....  NA
 Steelhead.                                                            all naturally spawned
                                                                       populations of
                                                                       steelhead (and their
                                                                       progeny) in California
                                                                       coastal river basins
                                                                       from Redwood Creek in
                                                                       Humboldt County,
                                                                       California, to the
                                                                       Gualala River,
                                                                       inclusive, in
                                                                       Mendocino County,
                                                                       California.
(18) Upper Willamette River        Oncorhynchus mykiss..............  U.S.A., OR, including    62 FR 43937, Aug. 18, 1997....  NA
 Steelhead.                                                            all naturally spawned                                   [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       populations of winter-                                   55900].
                                                                       run steelhead in the
                                                                       Willamette River,
                                                                       Oregon, and its
                                                                       tributaries upstream
                                                                       from Willamette Falls
                                                                       to the Calapooia
                                                                       River, inclusive.
(19) Lower Columbia River          Oncorhynchus mykiss..............  U.S.A., OR, WA,          62 FR 13347, Mar. 19, 1998....  NA
 Steelhead.                                                            including all                                           [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       naturally spawned                                        55900].
                                                                       populations of
                                                                       steelhead (and their
                                                                       progeny) 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, Oregon, and
                                                                       from the Little and
                                                                       Big White Salmon
                                                                       Rivers, Washington.
(20) Middle Columbia River         Oncorhynchus mykiss..............  U.S.A., OR, WA,          57 FR 14517, Mar. 25, 1999....  NA
 Steelhead.                                                            including all                                           [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       naturally spawned                                        55900].
                                                                       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. Excluded
                                                                       are steelhead from the
                                                                       Snake River Basin.
(21) Snake River Basin Steelhead.  Oncorhynchus mykiss..............  U.S.A., OR, WA, ID,      62 FR 43937, Aug. 18, 1997....  NA
                                                                       including all                                           [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       naturally spawned                                        55900].
                                                                       populations of
                                                                       steelhead (and their
                                                                       progeny) in streams in
                                                                       the Snake River Basin
                                                                       of southeast
                                                                       Washington, northeast
                                                                       Oregon, and Idaho.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).


0
3. In Sec.  223.203, paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, and (b)(2) 
are revised and paragraphs (b)(14) through (22) are removed.
    The revisions 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 
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)(21).
* * * * *
    (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 the following 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(13):
* * * * *
    (2) The prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section relating to 
threatened species of salmonids listed in Sec.  223.102(a)(2) through 
(a)(21) do not apply to activities specified in an application for 4(d) 
authorization for scientific purposes or to enhance the

[[Page 37203]]

conservation or survival of the species, provided that the application 
has been received by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 
(AA), no later than August 29, 2005. The prohibitions of this section 
apply to these activities upon the AA's rejection of the application as 
insufficient, upon issuance or denial of authorization, or December 28, 
2005, whichever occurs earliest.
* * * * *


Sec.  223.203  [Amended]

0
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 revised 
according to the directions in the second and third columns.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Section                                    Remove                                Add
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   223.203(b)(1)..................  Sec.   223.102(a)(1) through (a)(10), and    Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(12) through (a)(22).                     through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(b)(3)..................  Sec.   223.102(a)(4) through (a)(10), and    Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(12) through (a)(19).                     through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(b)(4)..................  Sec.   223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and    Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(12) through (a)(19).                     through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(b)(5)..................  Sec.   223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and    Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(12) through (a)(19).                     through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(b)(6)..................  Sec.   223.102(a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(10), and   Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(12) through (a)(19).                     through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(b)(7)..................  Sec.   223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and    Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(12) through (a)(19).                     through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(b)(8)..................  Sec.   223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and    Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(12) through (a)(19).                     through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(b)(9)..................  Sec.   223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and    Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(12) through (a)(19).                     through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(b)(10).................  Sec.   223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and    Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(12) through (a)(19).                     through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(b)(11).................  Sec.   223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and    Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(12) through (a)(19).                     through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(b)(12).................  Sec.   223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and    Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(12) through (a)(19).                     through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(b)(13).................  Sec.   223.102(a)(12), (a)(13), (a)(16),     Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(17), and (a)(19).                        through (a)(22).
Sec.   223.203(c).....................  Sec.   223.102(a)(3), (a)(5) through         Sec.   223.102(a)(2)
                                         (a)(10), and (a)(12) through (a)(22).        through (a)(21).
Sec.   223.203(c).....................  Sec.   223.209(a)..........................  Sec.   223.204(a).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  223.204  [Removed]

0
5. Remove Sec.  223.204.


Sec.  223.209  [Redesignated as Sec.  223.204]

0
6. Redesignate Sec.  223.209 as Sec.  223.204, and add and reserve new 
Sec.  223.209.

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
7. 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.

0
8. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------       Where listed           Citation(s) for listing       Citation for critical
           Common name                      Scientific name                                           determination(s)            habitat designation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortnose sturgeon...............  Acipenser brevirostrum...........  Everywhere.............  32 FR 4001, Mar. 11, 1967.....  NA.
Smalltooth sawfish...............  Pristis pectinata................  U.S.A..................  68 FR 15674, Apr. 1, 2003.....  NA.
Totoaba..........................  Cynoscion macdonaldi.............  Everywhere.............  44 FR 29480, May 21, 1979.....  NA.
Atlantic salmon..................  Salmon salar.....................  U.S.A., ME, Gulf of      65 FR 69459, Nov. 17, 2000....  NA.
                                                                       Maine population,
                                                                       which includes all
                                                                       naturally reproducing
                                                                       populations and those
                                                                       river-specific
                                                                       hatchery populations
                                                                       cultured from them.
Snake River sockeye..............  Oncorhynchus nerka...............  U.S.A., ID, including    56 FR 58619, Nov. 20, 1991....  58 FR 68543, Dec. 28,
                                                                       all anadromous and      June 28, 2005.................   1993.
                                                                       residual sockeye
                                                                       salmon from the Snake
                                                                       River Basin, Idaho, as
                                                                       well as artificially
                                                                       propagated sockeye
                                                                       salmon from the
                                                                       Redfish Lake captive
                                                                       propagation program.
Sacramento River winter-run        Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.........  U.S.A., CA, including    52 FR 6041; Feb. 27, 1987, 55   58 FR 33212, June 16,
 Chinook.                                                              all naturally spawned    FR 49623; Nov. 30, 1990. 59     1993.
                                                                       populations of winter-   FR 440; Jan. 1, 1994.
                                                                       run Chinook salmon in   June 28, 2005.................
                                                                       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.

[[Page 37204]]

 
Upper Columbia spring-run Chinook  Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.........  U.S.A., WA, including    64 FR 14308, Mar. 24, 1999....  NA.
                                                                       all naturally spawned   June 28, 2005.................  [vacated 9/29/03; 68 FR
                                                                       populations of Chinook                                   55900].
                                                                       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),
                                                                       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 kisutch.............  U.S.A., CA, including    61 FR 56138, Oct. 31, 1996....  64 FR 24049,
                                                                       all naturally spawned   June 28, 2005.................   May 5, 1999.
                                                                       populations of coho
                                                                       salmon from Punta
                                                                       Gorda in northern
                                                                       California south to
                                                                       and including the San
                                                                       Lorenzo River in
                                                                       central California, as
                                                                       well as populations in
                                                                       tributaries to San
                                                                       Francisco Bay,
                                                                       excluding the
                                                                       Sacramento-San Joaquin
                                                                       River system, as well
                                                                       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 Steelhead....  Oncorhynchus mykiss..............  U.S.A., CA, including    62 FR 43937, Aug. 18, 1997. 67  NA.
                                                                       all naturally spawned    FR 21586, May 1, 2002.         [vacated 9/29/03; 68 FR
                                                                       populations of                                           55900].
                                                                       steelhead (and their
                                                                       progeny), in streams
                                                                       from the Santa Maria
                                                                       River, San Luis Obispo
                                                                       County, California,
                                                                       (inclusive) to the
                                                                       United States--Mexico
                                                                       Border.
Upper Columbia River Steelhead...  Oncorhynchus mykiss..............  U.S.A., WA, including    62 FR 43937, Aug. 18, 1997....  NA.
                                                                       the Wells Hatchery                                      [vacated 9/29/03, 68 FR
                                                                       stock all naturally                                      55900].
                                                                       spawned populations of
                                                                       steelhead (and their
                                                                       progeny) in streams in
                                                                       the Columbia River
                                                                       Basin upstream from
                                                                       the Yakima River,
                                                                       Washington, to the
                                                                       United States-Canada
                                                                       border.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. 05-12351 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P