[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