Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Listing Determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast Salmonids
Federal RegisterJun 14, 2004
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 040525161-4161-01; I.D. No. 052104F]
RIN 0648-AR93
Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Listing Determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast Salmonids
AGENCY:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION:
Proposed rule; request for comments.
SUMMARY:
NMFS has completed comprehensive status reviews for 26 West Coast salmon (chum,
Oncorhynchus keta;
coho,
O. kisutch, O. nerka;
chinook,
O. tshawytscha;
pink,
O. gorbuscha
) and
O. mykiss
(inclusive of anadromous steelhead and resident rainbow trout) Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) previously listed as threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as one ESU that was designated as a candidate species, for a total of 27 ESUs. Following a September 2001 U.S. District Court ruling that rejected how NMFS treats hatchery stocks in its listing determinations, the agency received several petitions seeking to delist, or to redefine and list, 17 salmon and steelhead ESUs on the basis of the Court's ruling. In response to these petitions NMFS initiated status reviews for 16 of these ESUs, and elected to conduct status reviews for an additional 11 ESUs. Based on these reviews, NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to list four ESUs as endangered and 23 ESUs as threatened. Collectively, these 27 ESUs include 162 artificial propagation programs. NMFS also proposes amending existing protective regulations, promulgated under section 4(d) of the ESA, for threatened ESUs.
DATES:
Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. P.S.T. on September 13, 2004. (See
ADDRESSES
.) NMFS will announce the dates and locations of public hearings in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho in a separate
Federal Register
notice.
ADDRESSES:
Comments should be submitted to Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon Street—Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737. Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
salmon.nwr@noaa.gov.
Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: 040525161-4161-01. Comments may also be submitted via facsimile (fax) to 503-230-5435, or via the Internet at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ibrm.
Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal:
http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information regarding this proposed rule contact Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region, (503) 231-2005; Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region, (562) 980-4021; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Proposed Rule
This
Federal Register
notice describes the proposed listing determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast salmon and
O. mykiss
under the ESA. The pages that follow review the information considered in formulating the proposed listing determinations. To assist the reader, this section briefly outlines the organization and content of this notice. Section headings listed in this outline are denoted in
bold text,
and subheadings in
italics
in the body of the notice.
I. Review of necessary
Background
information
• Statutory basis for Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act
• NMFS' Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Salmonids
• NMFS' Past Practice in Pacific Salmonid ESA Listing Determinations
• Recent court decisions (
Alsea Valley Alliance
v.
Evans
) and a Summary of Petitions seeking listing/delisting actions that precipitated the Initiation of Coast-wide ESA Status Reviews for Pacific Salmonids
• Overview of the Life History of West Coast Salmonids
II. Consideration of specific issues in Assessing Extinction Risk for Pacific Salmonids
• Consideration of Artificial Propagation in Listing Determinations
• Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
• Consideration of Recent Ocean Conditions in Listing Determinations
III. Treatment of the four listing determination steps for each ESU under review
(1) Determination of “Species” under the ESA
(2) Review of the best available information for Updated Viability Assessments of ESUs
(3) Evaluation of Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Salmon and O. mykiss
(4) Proposed Listing Determinations of “threatened,” “endangered,” or “not warranted,” based on the foregoing information
IV. Take Prohibitions and Protective Regulations:
• Overview of the take prohibitions and protective regulations that presently apply to listed ESUs
• Description of a proposed amendment to these protective regulations
V. Summary of agency efforts in designating Critical Habitat for listed salmon and O. mykiss ESUs
VI. Description of the Public Comments Solicited and other opportunities for public involvement in this rulemaking process
VII. Description of the Classification, NMFS' compliance with various laws and executive orders with respect to this proposed rulemaking (
e.g.
, National Environmental Policy Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act)
VIII. Description of proposed amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations. This section itemizes the specific changes to federal law being proposed based on the foregoing information
• Proposed amendments to the list of threatened and endangered species
• Proposed amendment to the protective regulations for threatened West Coast salmon and
O. mykiss
Background
Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act
NMFS is responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or distinct population segments (DPSs) of Pacific salmon and steelhead are threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq
). To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of organisms must constitute a “species,” which is defined in section 3 of the ESA to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment
[emphasis added] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” In this notice, NMFS is proposing listing determinations for DPSs of Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss.
NMFS has determined that, to qualify as a DPS, a Pacific salmon or
O. mykiss
population must be substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations and represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. A population meeting these criteria is considered to be an ESU (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). In its listing determinations for Pacific salmonids under the ESA, NMFS has treated an ESU as constituting a DPS, and hence a “species,” under the ESA. The terms “DPS” and “ESU” are used synonymously in this document.
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The statute lists factors that may cause a species to be threatened or endangered (ESA section 4(a)(1)): (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (b) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (c) disease or predation; (d) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (e) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires NMFS to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species (in this proposed rule the term “status” is used in the statutory context, referring to the ESA listing status of “threatened,” “endangered,” or listing not warranted). Accordingly, NMFS follows three steps in making its listing determinations for Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss:
(1) NMFS first determines whether a population or group of populations constitutes an ESU, that is, whether the population(s) are a “species” within the meaning of the ESA; (2) NMFS then determines the viability of the ESU and the factors that have led to its decline; and (3) NMFS assesses efforts being made to protect the ESU, determining if these efforts are adequate to mitigate threats to the species. Based on the foregoing information and the statutory listing criteria, NMFS then proposes a listing determination of whether the species is threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range.
Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Salmonids
Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
ESUs in California and the Pacific Northwest have suffered broad declines over the past hundred years. (In this document the scientific name “
O. mykiss
” refers to both anadromous steelhead and resident rainbow trout life-history forms). NMFS has conducted several ESA status reviews and status review updates for six biological species of Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, identifying 51 ESUs and listing 26 of these ESUs to date. Table 1 summarizes the previous NMFS scientific reviews of the viability of salmon and steelhead and the ESA listing determinations for the 27 ESUs addressed in this proposed rule.
Table 1.—Summary of Previous ESA Listing Actions Related to the 27 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Under Review
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)
Current endangered species act (ESA) status
Year
listed
Previous ESA listing determinations—Federal Register citations
Previous
scientific
viability
reviews and updates
56 FR 58619; 11/20/1991 (Final rule)
Snake River sockeye ESU
Endangered
1991
56 FR 14055; 04/05/1991 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1991a
64 FR 14528; 03/25/1999 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998d
Ozette Lake sockeye ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11750; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997f
59 FR 440; 01/01/1994 (Final rule)
57 FR 27416; 06/19/1992 (Proposed rule)
55 FR 49623; 11/30/1990 (Final rule)
55 FR 12831, 04/06/1990 (Emergency rule)
55 FR 102260; 03/20/1990 (Proposed rule)
54 FR 10260; 08/04/1989 (Emergency rule)
Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESU
Endangered
1994
52 FR 6041; 02/27/1987 (Final rule)
64 FR 50394; 09/16/1999 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998b.
Central Valley spring-run chinook ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999d.
64 FR 50394; 09/16/1999 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998b.
California Coastal chinook ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999d.
NMFS 1998b.
64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998e.
Upper Willamette River chinook ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
NMFS 1998b.
64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998e.
Lower Columbia River chinook ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU
Endangered
1999
NMFS 1998b.
64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998e.
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
NMFS 1998b.
64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule)
NMFS 1998e.
Puget Sound chinook ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
63 FR 1807; 0/12/1998 (Proposed withdrawn)
59 FR 66784; 12/28/1994 (Proposed rule)
59 FR 42529; 08/18/1994 (Emergency rule)
57 FR 23458; 06/03/1992 (Correction)
57 FR 14653; 04/22/1992 (Final rule)
NMFS 1991c.
Snake River fall-run chinook ESU
Threatened
1992
56 FR 29547; 06/27/1991 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999d.
63 FR 1807; 0/12/1998 (Proposed withdrawn)
59 FR 66784; 12/28/1994 (Proposed rule)
59 FR 42529; 08/18/1994 (Emergency rule)
57 FR 23458; 06/03/1992 (Correction)
57 FR 34639; 04/22/1992 (Final rule)
NMFS 1991b.
Snake River spring/summer-run chinook ESU
Threatened
1992
56 FR 29542; 06/27/1991 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1998b.
61 FR 56138;- 10/31/1996 (Final rule)
Bryant 1994
Central California Coast coho ESU
Threatened
1996
60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1995a.
NMFS 1997a.
NMFS 1996c.
62 FR 24588; 05/06/1997 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996e.
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU
Threatened
1997
60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1995a.
69 FR 19975; 04/15/2004 (Candidate list)
63 FR 42587; 08/10/1998 (Final rule)
NMFS 1997a.
62 FR 24588; 05/06/1997 (Proposed withdrawn)
NMFS 1996b.
61 FR 56138; 10/31/1996 (6 mo. extension)
NMFS 1996d.
Oregon Coast coho ESU
Threatened*
1998
60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1995a.
Lower Columbia River coho ESU
Candidate
1995
69 FR 19975; 04/15/2004 (Candidate list)
NMFS 1996e.
NMFS 1995a.
60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Not warranted)
NMFS 1991a.
NMFS 1997e.
64 FR 145008; 03/25/1999 (Final rule) 3
NMFS 1999b.
Columbia River chum ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
NMFS 1996d.
NMFS 1997e.
64 FR 14508; 03/25/1999 (Final rule)
NMFS 1999b.
Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU
Threatened
1999
63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
67 FR 21568; 05/01/2002 (Redefinition of ESU)
62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b.
Southern California steelhead ESU
Endangered
1997
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997b.
62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b.
South-Central California Coast steelhead ESU
Threatened
1997
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997b.
62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b.
Central California Coast steelhead ESU
Threatened
1997
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997b.
NMFS 1996b.
NMFS 1997b.
63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998 (Final rule)
NMFS 1997c.
62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension)
NMFS 1997d.
California Central Valley steelhead ESU
Threatened
1998
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1998a.
65 FR 36074; 06/07/2000 (Final rule)
65 FR 6960; 02/11/2000 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1996b.
63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998 (Not Warranted)
NMFS 1997c.
62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension)
NMFS 1998a.
Northern California steelhead ESU
Threatened
2000
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 2000.
64 FR 14517; 03/25/1999 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b.
63 FR 11798; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997d.
Upper Willamette River steelhead ESU
Threatened
1999
62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension)
NMFS 1999a.
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
NMFS 1996b.
63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998 (Final rule)
NMFS 1997c.
62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension)
NMFS 1997d.
Lower Columbia River steelhead ESU
Threatened
1998
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1998a.
64 FR 14517; 03/25/1999 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b.
63 FR 11798; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997d.
62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension)
NMFS 1999a.
Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU
Threatened
1999
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1999c.
62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b.
Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU
Endangered
1997
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997b.
62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule)
NMFS 1996b.
Snake River Basin steelhead ESU
Threatened
1997
61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule)
NMFS 1997b.
*But see
Alsea Valley Alliance
v.
Evans
, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2004).
Past Practice in Pacific Salmonid ESA Listing Determinations
In past ESA listing determinations, NMFS followed the four step approach described above. In the past, NMFS focused on whether the naturally spawned fish are, by themselves, self-sustaining in their natural ecosystem over the long term. NMFS listed as “endangered” those ESUs whose naturally spawned populations were found to have a present high risk of extinction, and listed as “threatened” those ESUs whose naturally spawned populations were found likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future (that is, whose present risk of extinction was not high, but whose risk of extinction was likely to become high within a foreseeable period of time).
In its listing determinations, NMFS did not explicitly consider the contribution of the hatchery fish to the overall viability of the ESU, or whether the presence of hatchery fish within the ESU might have the potential for reducing the risk of extinction of the ESU or the likelihood that the ESU would become endangered in the foreseeable future. (The listing of Snake River fall chinook, however, is an exception. See 57 FR 14653; April 22, 1992.) NMFS frequently evaluated artificial propagation only as a factor in the decline of the naturally spawned populations within an ESU.
For each ESU where hatchery fish were present, NMFS reviewed the associated hatchery populations to determine how closely related the hatchery populations were to the naturally spawned populations. This review focused on the origin of the hatchery fish and their similarity to locally adapted naturally spawned fish. Factors included in this consideration were: Genetic, life history, and habitat use characteristics; the degree to which the characteristics of the wild population may have been altered over time; and other factors that would affect the biological usefulness of hatchery fish for recovery.
Since 1993, NMFS has applied an interim policy on how it will consider artificial propagation in the listing and recovery of Pacific salmon and steelhead under the ESA (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993). The 1993 policy provided guidance on the use of artificial propagation to assist in the conservation of these listed species and to help avoid additional species listings. The policy also provided guidance for evaluating artificial propagation in section 7 consultation, section 10 permitting, and recovery planning pursuant to the ESA.
When NMFS determined that an ESU should be listed as threatened or endangered, it applied its interim artificial propagation policy for Pacific salmon and steelhead. That policy provided that hatchery salmon and steelhead found to be part of the ESU would not be listed under the ESA unless they were found to be essential for recovery (
i.e.
, if NMFS determined that the hatchery population contained a substantial portion of the genetic diversity remaining in the ESU). The result of this policy was that a listing determination for an ESU depended solely upon the relative health of the naturally spawning component of the ESU. In most cases, hatchery fish within the ESUs were not relied upon to contribute to recovery, and therefore were not listed.
In addition, resident
O. mykiss
populations (
i.e.
, rainbow trout) included in steelhead ESUs were not listed when it was determined that the steelhead warranted listing because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) retains ESA jurisdiction over resident rainbow trout.
Alsea Valley Alliance
v.
Evans
In September 2001, the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, in
Alsea Valley Alliance
v.
Evans
(161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, D. Oreg. 2001;
Alsea
decision), set aside NMFS’ 1998 ESA listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon (63 FR 42587; 08/10/1998). The Court ruled that the ESA does not allow NMFS to list a subset of an ESU, and that NMFS had improperly excluded stocks from the listing once it had decided that certain hatchery stocks were part of the ESU. Although the Court's ruling affected only one ESU, the interpretive issue raised by the ruling called into question nearly all of NMFS’ Pacific salmonid listing determinations. The Court struck down the 1998 final rule listing Oregon coast coho as a threatened species, thus removing the ESU from the protections of the ESA. The Court remanded the case to NMFS for reconsideration consistent with the
Alsea
decision. NMFS did not contest the Court's ruling and informed the Court it would comply. In November 2001 intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pending resolution of the appeal, the Ninth Circuit stayed the District Court's remand order and invalidation of the 1998 listing. While the stay was in place, the Oregon Coast coho ESU was again afforded the protections of the ESA (
Alsea Valley Alliance
v.
Evans
, 9th Circuit appeal, No. 01-36071, December 14, 2001). On February 24, 2004, the Appeals Court dismissed the appeal, and dissolved its stay of the District Court's ruling in
Alsea
.
Following the District Court's ruling in the
Alsea
case, NMFS received several petitions (summarized below) addressing 17 listed salmonid ESUs, including five steelhead ESUs. These petitions cited the
Alsea
ruling and focused on NMFS’ past practice of excluding certain ESU hatchery stocks from listing protection. Various litigants have also challenged the failure to list resident populations included in threatened and endangered steelhead ESUs. The anadromous form of
O. mykiss
(
i.e.
, steelhead) is presently under NMFS’ jurisdiction, while the resident freshwater forms, usually called “rainbow” or “redband” trout, are under FWS jurisdiction. In
Environmental Defense Center et al.
v.
Evans et al.
(
EDC
v.
Evans
, SACV-00-1212-AHS (EEA)), the plaintiffs argue that NMFS failed to include resident populations in the endangered listing of the Southern California steelhead ESU (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). In
Modesto Irrigation District et al.
v.
Evans et al.
(
MID
v.
Evans
, CIV-F-02-6553 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal)), the plaintiffs seek to invalidate NMFS' 1997 threatened listing of the Central Valley California steelhead ESU (63 FR 13347; March 19, 1998) for failing to list hatchery and resident populations identified as part of the ESU. This same factual situation is found in all listed steelhead ESUs; the listings do not include hatchery and/or resident populations considered to be part of the ESUs. For the proposed listing determinations detailed in this proposed rule to be compliant with the Court's ruling in the
Alsea
case, all populations or stocks (natural, hatchery, resident, etc.) included in an ESU must be listed if it is determined that the ESU is threatened or endangered under the ESA.
Summary of Petitions
Following the ruling in the
Alsea
case, NMFS received several petitions seeking to delist, or to redefine and list, ESUs of Pacific salmon and steelhead. The petitioners made reference to the
Alsea
decision in arguing for NMFS to reconsider the listing status for certain ESUs. Between September 2001 and April 2002 NMFS received eight separate petitions addressing a total of 17 listed salmon and steelhead ESUs.
On September 19, 2001, NMFS received a petition from Interactive Citizens United to delist coho salmon in Siskiyou County, California. These fish are part of a larger ESU of Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho
salmon. NMFS determined that the Interactive Citizens United petition was not warranted, finding that it failed to present substantial scientific or commercial information to suggest that delisting may be warranted (67 FR 6215; February 11, 2002). On March 18, 2002, NMFS received a duplicate petition from the California State Grange to delist coho salmon in Siskiyou County, California. NMFS made a negative finding on the California State Grange petition (67 FR 40679; June 13, 2002), for the same reasons as for its finding on the Interactive Citizens United petition.
During October 2001, NMFS received 5 additional delisting petitions addressing 15 ESUs. On October 22, 2001, NMFS received a petition from the Washington State Farm Bureau, on the behalf of a coalition of agricultural organizations in Washington State, to delist 12 Pacific salmon ESUs including: One sockeye ESU (the endangered Snake River sockeye ESU); six chinook ESUs (the threatened Puget Sound, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, and Lower Columbia River chinook ESUs, as well as the endangered Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU); two chum ESUs (the threatened Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River chum ESUs); and four steelhead ESUs (the threatened Lower Columbia River, Middle Columbia River, and Snake River steelhead ESUs, as well as the endangered Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU). On October 17, 2001, NMFS received a petition on behalf of the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators' Association to delist seven Pacific salmon ESUs including: One sockeye ESU (the endangered Snake River sockeye ESU); three chinook ESUs (the threatened Snake River fall and Snake River spring/summer chinook ESUs, as well as the endangered Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU); and three steelhead ESUs (the threatened Middle Columbia River and Snake River steelhead ESUs, as well as the endangered Upper Columbia River steelhead ESUs). On October 17, 2001, NMFS received a petition on behalf of the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners and the Skagit County Cattlemen's Association to delist the threatened Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal summer-run chum ESUs. On October 23, 2001, NMFS received a petition on behalf of seven individuals to delist the threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU. On October 24, 2001, NMFS received a petition on behalf of the Greenberry Irrigation District to delist the threatened Upper Willamette River chinook and steelhead ESUs. NMFS determined that these petitions, in light of the
Alsea
decision, presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that delisting may be warranted for 14 of the 15 petitioned ESUs (67 FR 6215; February 11, 2002). In the case of the Snake River sockeye ESU, NMFS determined that the Washington State Farm Bureau and Columbia-Snake River Irrigators' Association petitions failed to present substantial scientific and commercial information that delisting may be warranted.
On March 14, 2002, NMFS received a petition from the Central Coast Forest Association to delist the threatened Central California Coast coho salmon ESU. On April 29, 2002, NMFS received two petitions from Trout Unlimited and several co-petitioners seeking to redefine and list a total of 15 ESUs including: Six chinook ESUs (the threatened Puget Sound, Upper Willamette River, Snake River spring/summer, Snake River fall, and Lower Columbia River chinook ESUs, as well as the endangered Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU); two chum ESUs (the threatened Hood Canal summer and Columbia River chum ESUs); two coho ESUs (the threatened Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESUs); and five steelhead ESUs (the threatened Upper Willamette River, Snake River, Middle Columbia River, and Lower Columbia River steelhead ESUs, as well as the endangered Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU). The two Trout Unlimited petitions sought to redefine and list these ESUs as including only natural fish. NMFS determined that these three petitions presented substantial scientific and commercial information to suggest that the petitioned actions may be warranted (67 FR 48601; July 25, 2002).
The ESA requires that, as a consequence of accepting the above petitions, NMFS promptly commence a review of the species' status and make a finding within 12 months after receiving the petition, whether the petitioned action is warranted (ESA section 4(b)(3)). There are 16 ESUs (described above for the various accepted petitions) for which NMFS has statutory deadlines for the completion of ESA status reviews and listing determinations: Seven chinook ESUs (the Upper Willamette River, Lower Columbia River, Upper Columbia River spring-run, Puget Sound, Snake River fall-run, and Snake River spring/summer-run chinook ESUs); three coho ESUs (the Central California Coast, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast, and Oregon Coast coho ESUs); two chum ESUs (the Columbia River and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESUs); and five steelhead ESUs (the Upper Willamette River, Lower Columbia River, Middle Columbia River, Upper Columbia River, and Snake River Basin steelhead ESUs).
Initiation of Coast-Wide ESA Status Reviews
The ESUs addressed in this proposed rule include 26 previously listed West Coast salmon and steelhead ESUs, and one ESU designated as a candidate species (the Lower Columbia coho ESU). As part of its response to the ESA interpretive issues raised by the ruling in the
Alsea
case, NMFS elected to initiate status reviews for a total of 27 ESUs: 11 ESUs in addition to the 16 ESUs for which it had accepted delisting/listing petitions. As announced in a
Federal Register
notice published on February 11, 2002 (67 FR 6215), these 11 additional ESUs are: One sockeye ESU (the threatened Ozette Lake sockeye ESU); three chinook ESUs (the endangered Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESU, as well as the threatened Central Valley spring-run and California coastal chinook ESUs); three coho ESUs (the threatened Central California Coast and Oregon Coast coho ESUs, as well as the candidate Lower Columbia River coho ESU); and four steelhead ESUs (the threatened South-Central California Coast, Central California Coast, California Central Valley, and Northern California steelhead ESUs) (as noted above, NMFS subsequently accepted petitions addressing the Central California and Oregon Coast coho ESUs). On December 31, 2002, NMFS announced that it would also elect to review the ESA listing status of Snake River sockeye and Southern California steelhead ESUs (67 FR 79898). NMFS elected to conduct these additional status reviews to address any errors in the listing determinations brought to light by the
Alsea
decision, as well as to consider the most recent information available for these ESUs. At the time of the
Alsea
decision, NMFS was conducting a status review for the candidate Lower Columbia River coho ESU in response to a July 24, 2000, petition from Oregon Trout and co-petitioners (see 65 FR 66221, November 3, 2000). Accordingly, NMFS elected to include the Lower Columbia River coho ESU in this status review effort for the other 26 ESUs. NMFS did not elect to conduct status reviews for any other candidate ESUs (
e.g.
, the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho, Central Valley fall and late-fall chinook, and Oregon Coast steelhead
ESUs) or ESUs that NMFS previously determined did not warrant ESA listing.
NMFS solicited information to ensure that the review of the ESA status for the 27 ESUs under review was based on the best available and most recent scientific and commercial data. Following an initial 60-day public comment period concerning 25 of the ESUs, which commenced on February 11, 2002 (67 FR 6215), NMFS re-opened the public comment period for an additional 30 days on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40679). A 60-day public comment period was also opened concerning 16 petitioned ESUs with the published findings on the Central Coast Forest Association and Trout Unlimited
et al.
petitions on July 25, 2002 (67 FR 48601). Information and comment was solicited during an additional 60-day public comment period when NMFS announced that it would also be reviewing the status of the Snake River sockeye and Southern California steelhead ESUs (67 FR 79898; December 31, 2002). In this latter public comment period NMFS specifically requested information concerning resident
O. mykiss
populations in the 10 steelhead ESUs under review (67 FR at 79900).
Life History of West Coast Salmonids
Pacific salmon and steelhead are anadromous fish, meaning adults migrate from the ocean to spawn in freshwater lakes and streams where their offspring hatch and rear prior to migrating to the ocean to forage until maturity. The migration and spawning times vary considerably among and within species and populations (Groot and Margolis, 1991). At spawning, adults pair to lay and fertilize thousands of eggs in freshwater gravel nests or “redds” excavated by females. Depending on lake/stream temperatures, eggs incubate for several weeks to months before hatching as “alevins” (a larval life stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as young juveniles called “fry” and begin actively feeding. Depending on the species and location, juveniles may spend from a few hours to several years in freshwater areas before migrating to the ocean. The physiological and behavioral changes required for the transition to salt water result in a distinct “smolt” stage in most species. Enroute to the ocean the juveniles may spend from a few days to several weeks in the estuary, depending on the species. The highly productive estuarine environment is an important feeding and acclimation area for juveniles preparing to enter marine waters.
Juveniles and subadults typically spend from 1 to 5 years foraging over thousands of miles in the North Pacific Ocean before returning to freshwater to spawn. Some species, such as coho and chinook salmon, have precocious life-history types (primarily male fish) that mature and spawn after only several months in the ocean. Spawning migrations known as “runs” occur throughout the year, varying in time by species and location. Most adult fish return or “home” with great fidelity to spawn in their natal stream, although some do stray to non-natal streams. Salmon species die after spawning, while anadromous
O. mykiss
may return to the ocean and make repeat spawning migrations.
Below we provide brief descriptions of the life histories of the Pacific salmonid species under review. More complete descriptions can be found in the status review documents listed in Table 1.
West Coast Sockeye Salmon
Spawning populations of sockeye salmon range from the Columbia River in the south to the Noatak River in the north in North America, and from Hokkaido, Japan in the south to the Anadyr River in the north in Asia (Atkinson
et al.
, 1967; Burgner, 1991). Most sockeye salmon spawn in either inlet or outlet streams of lakes or in lakes themselves. The offspring of these “lake-type” sockeye salmon use lake environments for juvenile rearing for 1 to 3 years and then migrate to sea, returning to the natal lake system to spawn after spending 1 to 4 years in the ocean.
Certain self-perpetuating, nonanadromous populations of
O. nerka
that become resident in lake environments over long periods of time are called kokanee in North America. Genetic differentiation among sockeye salmon and kokanee populations indicates that kokanee have arisen from sockeye salmon on multiple independent occasions, and that kokanee and sockeye salmon may have either overlapping or distinct distributions. Numerous studies (reviewed in Gustafson
et al.
, 1997) indicate that sockeye salmon and kokanee exhibit a suite of heritable differences in morphology, early development rate, seawater adaptability, growth and maturation that appear to be divergent adaptations that have arisen from different selective regimes associated with anadromous vs. nonanadromous life histories. These studies also provide evidence that overlapping populations of sockeye salmon and kokanee can be both genetically distinct and reproductively isolated (see citations in Gustafson
et al.
, 1997). Occasionally, a proportion of juveniles in an anadromous sockeye population will remain in the rearing lake environment throughout life and will be observed on the spawning grounds together with their anadromous siblings. Ricker (1938) first used the terms “residual sockeye” and “residuals” to refer to these resident, non-migratory progeny of anadromous sockeye salmon.
West Coast Chinook Salmon
Chinook salmon, also commonly referred to as king, spring, quinnat, Sacramento, California, or tyee salmon, is the largest of the Pacific salmon (Myers
et al.
, 1998). The species historically ranged from the Ventura River in California to Point Hope, Alaska, and in northeastern Asia from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia (Healey, 1991). Additionally, chinook salmon have been reported in the Mackenzie River area of Northern Canada (McPhail and Lindsey, 1970). Chinook salmon exhibit diverse and complex life history strategies (Healey, 1986). Two generalized freshwater life-history types were initially described by Gilbert (1912): “stream-type” chinook salmon reside in freshwater for a year or more following emergence, whereas “ocean-type” chinook salmon migrate to the ocean predominately within their first year.
Of the two life history types, ocean-type chinook salmon exhibit the most varied and flexible life-history trajectories. Ocean-type chinook salmon juveniles emigrate to the ocean as fry, subyearling juveniles (during their first spring or fall), or as yearling juveniles (during their second spring), depending on environmental conditions. Ocean-type chinook salmon also undertake distinct, coastally oriented, ocean migrations. The timing of the return to freshwater and spawning is closely related to the ecological characteristics of a population's spawning habitat. Five different run times are expressed by different ocean-type chinook salmon populations: Spring, summer, fall, late-fall, and winter. In general, early run times (spring and summer) are exhibited by populations that use high spring flows to access headwater or interior regions. Ocean-type populations within a basin that express different run times appear to have evolved from a common source population.
Stream-type populations appear to be nearly obligate yearling outmigrants (although some 2-year-old smolts have been identified), undertake extensive off-shore ocean migrations, and
generally return to freshwater as spring-or summer-run fish. Stream-type populations are found in northern British Columbia and Alaska, and in the headwater regions of the Fraser River and Columbia River Basin inland tributaries.
West Coast Coho Salmon
Coho salmon is a widespread species of Pacific salmon, occurring in most major river basins around the Pacific Rim from Monterey Bay, California, north to Point Hope, Alaska, through the Aleutians, and from the Anadyr River south to Korea and northern Hokkaido, Japan (Laufle
et al.
, 1986). From central British Columbia south, the vast majority of coho salmon adults are 3-year-olds, having spent approximately 18 months in fresh water and 18 months in salt water (Gilbert, 1912; Pritchard, 1940; Sandercock, 1991). The primary exceptions to this pattern are “jacks,” sexually mature males that return to freshwater to spawn after only 5 to 7 months in the ocean. However, in southeast and central Alaska, the majority of coho salmon adults are 4-year-olds, having spent an additional year in fresh water before going to sea (Godfrey
et al.
, 1975; Crone and Bond, 1976). The transition zone between predominantly 3-year-old and 4-year-old adults occurs somewhere between central British Columbia and southeast Alaska.
West Coast coho smolts typically leave freshwater in the spring (April to June) and re-enter freshwater when sexually mature from September to November, and spawn from November to December and occasionally into January (Sandercock, 1991). Stocks from British Columbia, Washington, and the Columbia River often have very early (entering rivers in July or August) or late (spawning into March) runs in addition to “normally” timed runs.
West Coast Chum Salmon
Chum salmon has the widest natural geographic and spawning distribution of any Pacific salmonid, primarily because its range extends further along the shores of the Arctic Ocean than other salmonids. Chum salmon have been documented to spawn from Korea and the Japanese island of Honshu, east, around the Pacific rim, to Monterey Bay, California. Presently, major spawning populations are found only as far south as Tillamook Bay on the Northern Oregon coast. The species' range in the Arctic Ocean extends from the Laptev Sea in Russia to the Mackenzie River in Canada. Chum salmon may historically have been the most abundant of all salmonids; prior to the 1940s, it is estimated that chum salmon contributed almost 50 percent of the total biomass of all salmonids in the Pacific Ocean (Neave, 1961).
Chum salmon spawn primarily in freshwater, and apparently exhibit obligatory anadromy, as there are no recorded landlocked or naturalized freshwater populations (Randall
et al.
, 1987). Chum salmon generally spend more of their life history in marine waters than other Pacific salmonids. Chum salmon usually spawn in coastal areas, and juveniles out-migrate to seawater almost immediately after emerging from the gravel that covers their redds (Salo, 1991). This ocean-type migratory behavior contrasts with the stream-type behavior of some other species in the genus
Oncorhynchus
(
e.g.
, coastal cutthroat trout, anadromous
O. mykiss,
coho salmon, and most types of chinook and sockeye salmon), which usually migrate to sea at a larger size, after months or years of freshwater rearing. This means survival and growth in juvenile chum salmon depends less on freshwater conditions than on favorable estuarine conditions.
West Coast
O. mykiss
Steelhead is the name commonly applied to the anadromous form of the biological species
O. mykiss.
The present distribution of steelhead extends from Kamchatka in Asia, east to Alaska, and down to the U.S.-Mexico border (Busby
et al.
, 1996; 67 FR 21586, May 1, 2002).
O. mykiss
exhibit perhaps the most complex suite of life history traits of any species of Pacific salmonid. They can be anadromous, or freshwater residents (and under some circumstances, apparently yield offspring of the opposite form). Those that are anadromous can spend up to 7 years in fresh water prior to smoltification, and then spend up to 3 years in salt water prior to first spawning.
O. mykiss
is also iteroparous (meaning individuals may spawn more than once), whereas the Pacific salmon species are principally semelparous (meaning individuals generally spawn once and die).
Within the range of West Coast steelhead, spawning migrations occur throughout the year, with seasonal peaks of activity. In a given river basin there may be one or more peaks in migration activity; since these “runs” are usually named for the season in which the peak occurs, some rivers may have runs known as winter, spring, summer, or fall steelhead. For example, large rivers, such as the Columbia, Rogue, and Klamath rivers, have migrating adult steelhead at all times of the year. There are local variations in the names used to identify the seasonal runs of steelhead; in Northern California, some biologists have retained the use of the terms spring and fall steelhead to describe what others would call summer steelhead.
Steelhead can be divided into two basic reproductive ecotypes, based on the state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry and duration of spawning migration (Burgner
et al.
, 1992). The “stream-maturing” type (summer steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California) enters fresh water in a sexually immature condition between May and October and requires several months to mature and spawn. The “ocean-maturing” type (winter steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California) enters fresh water between November and April with well-developed gonads and spawns shortly thereafter. In basins with both summer and winter steelhead runs, it appears that the summer run occurs where habitat is not fully utilized by the winter run or a seasonal hydrologic barrier, such as a waterfall, separates them. Summer steelhead usually spawn farther upstream than winter steelhead (Withler, 1966; Roelofs, 1983; Behnke, 1992). Coastal streams are dominated by winter steelhead, whereas inland steelhead of the Columbia River Basin are almost exclusively summer steelhead. Winter steelhead may have been excluded from inland areas of the Columbia River Basin by Celilo Falls or by the considerable migration distance from the ocean. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin may have historically had multiple runs of steelhead that probably included both ocean-maturing and stream-maturing stocks (CDFG, 1995; McEwan and Jackson, 1996). These steelhead are referred to as winter steelhead by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); however, some biologists call them fall steelhead (Cramer
et al.
, 1995).
Inland steelhead of the Columbia River Basin, especially the Snake River Subbasin, are commonly referred to as either “A-run” or “B-run.” These designations are based on a bimodal distribution of migration period of adult steelhead at Bonneville Dam (235 km from the mouth of the Columbia River) and differences in age (1 versus 2 years in the ocean) and adult size observed among Snake River steelhead. It is unclear, however, if the life history and body size differences observed upstream are correlated back to the groups forming the bimodal migration observed at Bonneville Dam. Furthermore, the relationship between patterns observed at the dams and the distribution of adults in spawning areas throughout the
Snake River Basin is not well understood. A-run steelhead are believed to occur throughout the steelhead-bearing streams of the Snake River Basin and the inland Columbia River. B-run steelhead are thought to be produced only in the Clearwater, Middle Fork Salmon, and South Fork Salmon Rivers (IDFG, 1994).
The “half-pounder” is an immature steelhead that returns to fresh water after only 2 to 4 months in the ocean, generally overwinters in fresh water, and then outmigrates again the following spring. Half-pounders are generally less than 400 mm and are reported only from the Rogue, Klamath, Mad, and Eel Rivers of Southern Oregon and Northern California (Snyder, 1925; Kesner and Barnhart, 1972; Everest, 1973; Barnhart, 1986); however, it has been suggested that as mature steelhead, these fish may only spawn in the Rogue and Klamath River Basins (Cramer
et al.
, 1995). Various explanations for this unusual life history have been proposed, but there is still no consensus as to what, if any, advantage it affords to the steelhead of these rivers.
Assessing Extinction Risk for Pacific Salmonids
Section 4(b) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to make listing determinations after conducting a review of the status of the species, and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made to protect the species. Such efforts being made to protect the species include “conservation” practices, defined by the ESA to include propagation and transplantation methods and procedures (section 3(3)). The ESA requires that listing determinations be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to the Secretary. The ESA further requires that listing decisions must take into account all members of the defined species (
Alsea Valley Alliance
v.
Evans,
161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, D. Oreg. 2001).
NMFS’ Pacific Salmonid Biological Review Team (BRT) (an expert panel of scientists from several federal agencies including NMFS, FWS, and the U.S. Geological Survey) reviewed the viability and extinction risk of naturally spawning populations in the 27 ESUs that are the subject of this proposed rule (NMFS, 2003b). The BRT evaluated the risk of extinction based on the performance of the naturally spawning populations in each of the ESUs under the assumption that present conditions will continue into the future. The BRT did not explicitly consider artificial propagation in its evaluations.
The BRT assessed ESU-level extinction risk (as indicated by the viability of the naturally spawning populations) at two levels: first, at the simpler population level; then, at the overall ESU level. The BRT used criteria for “Viable Salmonid Populations” (VSP; McElhany
et al.
, 2000) to guide its risk assessments. The VSP criteria were developed to provide a consistent and logical reference for making viability determinations and are based on a review and synthesis of the conservation biology and salmon literature. Individual populations were evaluated according to the four VSP criteria: Abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. These four parameters are universal indicators of species' viability, and individually and collectively function as reasonable predictors of extinction risk. After reviewing all relevant biological information for the populations in a particular ESU, the BRT ascribed an ESU-level risk score for each of the four VSP criteria.
The viability of salmon and steelhead ESUs is characterized by the health, abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and genetic/behavioral diversity of the individual populations within the ESU (McElhany
et al.
, 2001). An ESU with a greater abundance of productive populations will be more tolerant to environmental variation, catastrophic events, genetic processes, demographic stochasticity, ecological interactions, and other processes than one with a single or a few populations (Caughley and Gunn, 1996; Foley, 1997; Meffe and Carroll, 1994; Lande, 1993; Middleton and Nisbet, 1997). Similarly, an ESU that is distributed across a variety of well-connected habitats can better respond to environmental perturbations including catastrophic events, than ESUs in which connectivity between populations has been restricted or lost (Schlosser and Angermeier, 1995; Hanski and Gilpin, 1997; Tilman and Lehman, 1997; Cooper and Mangel, 1999). Genetic and behavioral diversity and the maintenance of local adaptations within an ESU allow for the exploitation of a wide array of environments, protect against short-term environmental changes, and provide the raw material for surviving long-term environmental change (Groot and Margolis, 1991; Wood, 1995).
ESUs with fewer populations have greater risk of becoming extinct due to catastrophic events, and have a lower likelihood that the necessary phenotypic and genotypic diversity will exist to maintain future viability than ESUs with more populations. ESUs with limited geographic range are similarly at increased extinction risk due to catastrophic events. ESUs with populations that are geographically distant from each other, or are separated by severely degraded habitat, may lack the connectivity to function as metapopulations and are more likely to become extinct than populations that can function as metapopulations. ESUs with limited life-history diversity are more likely to become extinct as the result of correlated environmental catastrophes or environmental change that occurs too rapidly for an evolutionary response. ESUs comprised of a small proportion of populations meeting or exceeding these viability criteria may lack the “source” populations to sustain the non-viable “sink” populations during environmental downturns. ESUs consisting of a single population are especially vulnerable in this regard.
Assessing an ESU involves evaluating the current biological viability of the populations that comprise the ESU. The fact that the current biological status of an ESU does not reflect historical abundance, productivity, spatial structure or diversity does not mean that it is currently not viable, but historical status serves as an informative benchmark against which to weigh viability. Whether, upon assessment, the biological status of an ESU meets the ESA's standard for listing as either threatened or endangered—
i.e.
, the ESU is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or is likely to become so in the foreseeable future—depends on which viability criteria it fails to meet, what the past trend has been, whether that trend is likely to continue, and how far below the benchmark it is.
Factors considered in relating the population-level VSP criteria to ESU-level risk include: the total number of viable populations; the geographic distribution of these populations; the connectivity among populations; and the genetic, behavioral, and ecological diversity among populations. ESUs with fewer populations are more likely to become extinct due to catastrophic events, and have a lower likelihood that the necessary phenotypic and genotypic diversity will exist to maintain future viability. ESUs with limited geographic range are similarly at increased extinction risk due to catastrophic events. ESUs with populations that are geographically distant from each other, or are separated by severely degraded habitat, may lack the connectivity to function as metapopulations (
i.e.
, a group of interconnected subpopulations) and are more likely to become extinct. ESUs with limited
diversity are more likely to go extinct as the result of correlated environmental catastrophes or environmental change that occurs too rapidly for an evolutionary response. ESUs comprised of a small proportion of populations meeting or exceeding VSP criteria may lack the source populations to sustain the non-viable declining populations during environmental down-turns. ESUs consisting of a single population are especially vulnerable in this regard. These considerations are described in the BRT's report (NMFS 2003b), and further detailed in McElhany
et al.
(2000) (and references therein). In short, a viable ESU has a negligible risk (over a time scale of 100 years) of going extinct as a result of normal environmental variation, genetic change, catastrophic events and human activity. Viable ESUs and populations have sufficient growth rates, possess variation in traits, and are spatially distributed to survive environmental variation and natural and human catastrophes.
After describing the ESU-level risk for each of the VSP criteria, the BRT assessed ESU-level extinction risk based on the performance of the naturally spawning populations. The BRT's assessment of ESU-level extinction risk uses categories that correspond to the definitions of endangered species and threatened species, respectively, in the ESA: in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or neither. As discussed above, these evaluations do not include consideration of hatchery stocks included in ESUs, and do not evaluate efforts being made to protect the species. Therefore, the BRT's findings are not to be considered recommendations regarding listing. The BRT's ESU-level extinction risk assessment reflects the BRT's professional scientific judgment, guided by the analysis of the VSP criteria, as well as by expectations about the likely interactions among the individual VSP criteria. For example, a single VSP criterion with a “High Risk” score might be sufficient to result in an overall extinction risk assessment of “in danger of extinction,” but a combination of several VSP criteria with more moderate risk scores could also lead to the same assessment, or a finding that the ESU is “likely to become endangered.”
Consideration of Artificial Propagation in Listing Determinations
In proposed listing determinations described in this proposed rule, artificial propagation has been considered in (1) determining what constitutes an ESU, and (2) when evaluating the extinction risk of an entire ESU. NMFS’ previous policy for these considerations for Pacific salmon and steelhead (58 FR 17573; April 5, 1993) requires revision due to the District Court's ruling in the
Alsea
case. In its February 2002 response to the
Alsea
decision and various petitions (67 FR 6215; February 11, 2002), NMFS announced its plans to revise this policy. NMFS had intended that rulemaking for the revised policy be completed prior to the formulation of the proposed listing determinations described in this notice. However, development of the revised policy has been delayed as NMFS resolved complex scientific and policy issues. Statutory and litigation deadlines compel NMFS to issue this proposed rule together with proposed policy guidance on the consideration of artificial propagation in its ESA listing determinations. A revised policy for the consideration of artificial propagation in ESA listing determinations (hereafter referred to as the proposed Hatchery Listing Policy) is proposed elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register
. The consideration of artificial propagation in the subject proposed listing determinations is based on the proposed Hatchery Listing Policy. Below, we summarize how artificial propagation was evaluated in determining ESU membership and evaluating extinction risk of an entire ESU. For further discussion of artificial propagation in the context of ESA listing decisions, the reader is directed to the proposed Hatchery Listing Policy.
Determining What Constitutes an ESU
In the
Alsea
ruling the Court affirmed NMFS' interpretation of what constitutes a “distinct population segment” (
i.e.
, the ESU Policy; 56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991), as a “permissible agency construction of the ESA” (
Alsea Valley Alliance
v.
Evans
, 1612 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1161 (D. Oreg. 2001)). NMFS believes that the ESU policy provides appropriate guidance for the consideration of what populations (natural as well as hatchery or resident populations) constitute an ESU, and hence a “species” under the ESA. Under the ESU policy, a DPS of a Pacific salmonid species is considered an ESU if it meets two criteria: (a) It must be substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units; and (b) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. A key feature of the ESU concept is the recognition of genetic resources that represent the ecological and genetic diversity of the species. These genetic resources can reside in a fish spawned in a hatchery (hatchery fish) as well as in a fish spawned in the wild (natural fish).
In delineating an ESU that is to be considered for listing, NMFS has identified all populations that are part of the ESU including populations of natural fish (natural populations), populations of hatchery fish (hatchery populations), and populations that include both natural fish and hatchery fish (mixed populations). Hatchery fish with a level of genetic divergence between the hatchery stocks and the local natural populations that is no more than what would be expected between closely related populations within the ESU (hereafter described as “genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural population”) are considered part of the ESU and are considered in determining whether an entire ESU warrants listing under the ESA. Therefore, these hatchery fish must be included in any listing of the ESU (See proposed Hatchery Listing Policy published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register
).
To assist NMFS in determining the ESU membership of individual hatchery stocks, a Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Assessment Group (SSHAG), composed of NMFS scientists from the Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers, evaluated the best available information describing the relationships between hatchery stocks and natural ESA-listed salmon and anadromous
O. mykiss
populations in the Pacific Northwest and California. The SSHAG produced a report, entitled “Hatchery Broodstock Summaries and Assessments for Chum, Coho, and Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Stocks within Evolutionarily Significant Units Listed under the Endangered Species Act” (NMFS, 2003a), describing the relatedness of each hatchery stock on the basis of stock origin and the degree of known or inferred genetic divergence between the hatchery stock and the local natural population(s). NMFS used the information presented in the SSHAG Report to determine the ESU membership of those hatchery stocks determined to be within the historical geographic range of a given ESU. NMFS' assessment of individual hatchery stocks and its findings regarding the ESU membership are detailed in the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b). The hatchery stocks included in a given ESU are listed below in the
“Determination of Species Under the ESA” section.
Evaluating ESU Extinction Risk
Once ESU membership is determined, NMFS must assess the extinction risk faced by an entire ESU. As described above, the BRT evaluated the extinction risk for the naturally spawned component of an ESU. The proposed Hatchery Listing Policy published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register
provides that status determinations for Pacific salmonid ESUs will be based on the status of an entire ESU (including both hatchery and natural components). For those ESUs with associated hatchery programs, the BRT's findings represent a partial assessment of the ESU's extinction risk. To assess the viability of an entire ESU, NMFS has also assessed the contributions of within-ESU hatchery programs to the viability of an ESU in-total.
There are, however, several reasons why long-term deleterious consequences of such supplementation may outweigh the short-term advantage of increased population size (NRC, 1995). In recent years, various studies and scientific works have identified some potential adverse effects of artificial propagation, including behavioral differences that result in diminished fitness and survival of hatchery fish relative to naturally spawned fish; genetic effects resulting from poor broodstock and rearing practices (
e.g.
, inbreeding, outbreeding, domestication selection); incidence of disease; and increased rates of competition with and predation on naturally spawned populations. In assessing the risks to any particular population, however, it is often difficult to demonstrate conclusively that adverse effects are actually occurring, and, if they are demonstrated, how serious they are (CDFG/NMFS, 2001).
In response to these concerns, there have been recent changes in hatchery practices seeking to mitigate risks and enhance benefits of artificial propagation. Continued scientific work is necessary to identify and to measure these risks and benefits more completely, and to assess the operations of hatcheries that implement modern management practices. In light of the developing science on the positive and negative effects of hatchery programs on natural populations, the legacy of hatchery programs and the existing requirements to maintain many of them present a challenge for developing a framework for consideration of hatchery fish in listing determinations.
Because NMFS must base its listing determinations for Pacific salmon and steelhead on the risk of extinction of the entire ESU, including both natural and hatchery fish, the agency must consider the likelihood that the hatchery and naturally spawned components will contribute to the continued existence of the ESU into the future.
NMFS' assessment of the effects of ESU hatchery programs on ESU viability and extinction risk is presented in the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b). The Report evaluates the effects of hatchery programs on the likelihood of extinction of an ESU on the basis of the four VSP criteria (
i.e.
, abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity) and how artificial propagation efforts within the ESU affect those criteria. In April 2004, NMFS convened an Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop of federal scientists and managers with expertise in salmonid artificial propagation. The Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop reviewed the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003a), evaluated the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b), and assessed the overall extinction risk of ESUs with associated hatchery stocks. Representatives of the BRT and NMFS' Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers attended the workshop in an advisory capacity to ensure that the BRT's findings were appropriately and accurately considered, as well as to help ensure that the workshop participants were aware of the best available scientific information. The discussions and conclusions of the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop are detailed in a workshop report (NMFS, 2004c).
Finding on Trout Unlimited
et al.
Petitions
Two petitions from Trout Unlimited and co-petitioners, received by the agency on April 29, 2002, sought to redefine 15 ESUs as including only natural fish (
i.e.
, naturally spawned fish and their progeny, exclusive of all hatchery fish), and to list these redefined ESUs as threatened or endangered species under the ESA, as appropriate. In a
Federal Register
notice published on July 25, 2002 (67 FR 48601), NMFS found that these petitions presented substantial scientific and commercial information to suggest that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Although proposed listing determinations for the subject ESUs are included in this proposed rule, NMFS first addresses the petitioners' arguments that the ESUs should be redefined to include only natural fish.
The Trout Unlimited
et al.
petitions argue that hatchery stocks should not be included in ESUs containing natural fish. The petitioners contend that hatchery stocks are functionally distinct and reproductively isolated from naturally spawned populations. The petitioners present a substantial body of scientific information describing the potential threats posed by hatchery stocks to natural populations. Additionally, the petitioners present scientific information documenting differences between hatchery and natural populations in behavior, genetic composition, and reproductive fitness.
NMFS finds that the petitioners' argument that hatchery stocks are functionally distinct and reproductively isolated from naturally spawned populations is unsubstantiated. The derivation of hatchery stocks from local natural populations and the established practice of incorporating natural fish as hatchery broodstock results in hatchery and natural populations that share the same evolutionary genetic and ecological legacy. The SSHAG Report (NMFS, 2003a) and the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b) describe the relationship of hatchery stocks to local natural populations, on the basis of stock origin and the degree of known or inferred genetic divergence between the hatchery stock and the local natural population(s). The shared evolutionary legacy of certain hatchery stocks with natural populations does not support the exclusion of these hatchery stocks from ESUs containing natural fish. Such an approach would also be inconsistent with NMFS' interpretation of the ESA that is contained in its ESU policy, a policy that was affirmed by the
Alsea
Court decision.
NMFS recognizes that artificial propagation under certain circumstances can pose threats to natural populations. However, it is not appropriate to include a consideration of the threats faced by an ESU (such as any risks posed by artificial propagation) when determining what constitutes a species under the ESA. Rather, such an evaluation of threats is conducted after the “species” has been defined, and the likelihood of extinction for the defined species is being assessed. NMFS also recognizes that hatchery stocks may exhibit differences in behavior, genetic composition, morphological traits, and reproductive fitness from natural populations. Indeed, the presence of such differences provides a valuable indicator of
divergence for determining whether a particular hatchery stock is representative of the evolutionary legacy of an ESU.
NMFS concludes that the best available scientific and commercial information does not support a finding that all hatchery stocks in the 15 petitioned ESUs should be redefined as distinct ESUs separate from the naturally spawned populations from which they are derived. Accordingly, NMFS finds that the action sought by the Trout Unlimited
et al.
petitions is not warranted.
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
In addition to an anadromous
O. mykiss
life history (
i.e.
, steelhead),
O. mykiss
exhibits nonanadromous or resident forms (
i.e.
, rainbow trout). Where the two forms co-occur, the offspring of resident fish may migrate to the sea, and the offspring of anadromous fish may remain in streams as resident fish. The change from the anadromous life form to the resident life form can also result from imposed physical or physiological barriers to migration. Genetic differences, when studied, have indicated greater differences among geographically separated
O. mykiss
populations of the same life-history form, than between anadromous and resident life-history forms in the same geographical area. No suite of morphological or genetic characteristics has been found that consistently distinguishes between the two life-history forms. As is the case with hatchery fish, it is important to determine the relationship of these resident fish to anadromous populations in the
O. mykiss
ESUs under consideration.
In its previous status reviews of steelhead ESUs (see Table 1), NMFS concluded that the available data suggest that resident rainbow trout and steelhead in the same area generally share a common gene pool (at least over evolutionary time periods), and included resident and anadromous populations in the same ESU. Resident populations above long-standing natural barriers, and those populations that have resulted from the introduction of non-native rainbow trout, were not considered part of these ESUs. In the case of resident populations upstream of impassable human-caused migration barriers (
e.g.
, large mainstem hydroelectric dams), NMFS found insufficient information to merit their inclusion in steelhead ESUs. The agency generally concluded that resident populations upstream of impassable manmade barriers must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as more information becomes available on their relationships to below-barrier populations, or on the role these above-barrier resident populations might play in conserving below-barrier populations of
O. mykiss
.
In its previous steelhead ESA listing determinations, although NMFS considered co-occurring resident and anadromous populations as a single ESU, NMFS did not list resident populations when it was determined that the ESU in-total warranted listing. As noted above, the
Alsea
court has rejected listing under the ESA only a subset of an ESU or DPS. For the purposes of reviewing the viability of naturally spawned
O. mykiss
populations in this proposed rule, the BRT adopted a framework for determining the ESU/DPS membership of resident
O. mykiss
geographically associated with listed steelhead ESUs. These evaluations were guided by the same biological principles used to define ESUs of natural fish and determine ESU membership of hatchery fish: the extent of reproductive isolation and biological divergence from other populations within the ESU. Ideally, each resident population would be evaluated individually on a case-by-case basis, using all available biological information. In practice, little or no information is available for most resident
O. mykiss
populations. To facilitate determinations of the ESU/DPS membership of resident
O. mykiss
, the BRT identified three different cases, reflecting the range of geographic relationships between resident and anadromous forms within different watersheds: (1) No obvious physical barriers to interbreeding between resident and anadromous forms; (2) long-standing natural barriers (
e.g.
, a waterfall) between resident and anadromous forms; and (3) relatively recent (
e.g.
, within the last 100 years) human-imposed barriers (
e.g.
, a dam without a fish ladder) between resident and anadromous forms.
The BRT adopted the following working assumptions about ESU membership of resident fish falling in each of these three cases. Where there was no obvious physical barrier to interbreeding between the two life-history forms, resident fish were considered part of the ESU. Empirical studies show that resident and anadromous
O. mykiss
are typically very similar genetically when they co-occur with no physical barriers to migration or interbreeding. Where long-standing natural barriers separate resident and anadromous forms, resident populations were not regarded as part of the ESU. Many populations in this category have been isolated from contact with anadromous populations for thousands of years. Empirical studies show that in these cases the resident fish typically show substantial genetic and life-history divergence from the nearest downstream anadromous populations. In cases where the resident fish were separated from the anadromous form by relatively recent human actions (
e.g.
, impassable dams and culverts), the BRT was unable to justify any particular default assumption. The two life-history forms most likely coexisted without any barriers to interbreeding prior to the establishment of the manmade barrier(s). However, as a result of rapid divergence in a novel environment, or displacement by or genetic introgression from non-native hatchery rainbow trout, these resident populations may no longer represent the evolutionary legacy of the
O. mykiss
ESU. Given these uncertainties, the BRT left unresolved the ESU membership of
O. mykiss
above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers. In the absence of information indicating that they are part of a common ESU, NMFS does not find such above-barrier populations to be part of the
O. mykiss
ESUs under review.
The BRT reviewed available information about individual resident populations of
O. mykiss
to determine which of the above scenarios best defined the level of reproductive isolation between the life-history forms, and whether any information exists to override the default assumptions described above about the ESU membership of resident populations. The best available information concerning resident
O. mykiss
in Columbia River Basin ESUs is summarized in the report “The Biological Implications of Non-Anadromous
Oncorhynchus mykiss
in Columbia Basin Steelhead ESUs” (Kostow, 2003).
As noted above, little or no population data are available for most resident
O. mykiss
populations, greatly complicating assessments of ESU-level extinction risk. Where available, the BRT incorporated information about resident populations into their analyses of the four VSP criteria and their assessments of extinction risk for
O. mykiss
ESUs. As was often the case, no data on the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity were available for resident populations in an ESU. The BRT noted that the presence of relatively numerous resident populations can significantly reduce risks to ESU abundance. However, there is considerable scientific uncertainty as to how the resident form affects
extinction risk through its influence on ESU productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. The threats to
O. mykiss
ESUs extend beyond low population size and include declining productivity, reduced resilience of productivity to environmental variation, curtailed range of distribution, impediments to population connectivity and reproductive exchange, depleted diversity stemming from loss or blockage of habitat and associated erosion of local adaptation, and erosion of the diversity of expressed migratory behaviors. Thus, the BRT concluded that, despite the reduced risk to abundance for certain
O. mykiss
ESUs due to numerically abundant residents, the collective contribution of the resident life-history form to the viability of an ESU in-total is unknown and may not substantially reduce extinction risks to an ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004). Based on present scientific understanding, the BRT could not exclude the possibility that complete loss of anadromous forms from within an ESU may be irreversible.
Consideration of Recent Ocean Conditions in Listing Determinations
In the last decade, evidence has shown: (1) Recurring, decadal-scale patterns of ocean-atmosphere climate variability in the North Pacific Ocean (Zang
et al.
, 1997; Mantua
et al.
, 1997); and (2) correlations between these oceanic productivity “regimes” and salmon population abundance in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (Hare
et al.
, 1999; Mueter
et al.
, 2002). There is little doubt that survival rates in the marine environment are strong determinants of population abundance for Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
(NMFS, 2003b). It is also generally accepted that for at least two decades, beginning about 1977, marine productivity conditions were unfavorable for the majority of salmon and
O. mykiss
populations in the Pacific Northwest (in contrast, many populations in Alaska attained record abundances during this period). Finally, there is evidence that an important shift in ocean-atmosphere conditions occurred around July 1998. One indicator of the ocean-atmosphere variation for the North Pacific is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation index (PDO). Negative PDO values are associated with relatively cool ocean temperatures (and generally high salmon productivity) off the Pacific Northwest, and positive values are associated with warmer, less productive conditions. These favorable ocean conditions may also be correlated with favorable conditions in the freshwater environment (
e.g.
, above-average rainfalls resulting in improved flow regimes for smolt outmigration). Increases in many salmon populations in recent years may be largely a result of more favorable ocean conditions. PDO values were mostly positive during the two decades preceding 1998, and this regime was generally characterized by less productive ocean conditions and declining salmonid abundances. Between July 1998 and July 2002 the PDO exhibited mostly negative values, associated with higher ocean productivity and increasing returns for many salmonid populations. It is worth noting that from August 2002 to April 2004 the PDO has exhibited positive values. It is not clear what impact, if any, these most recent conditions will have on salmonid populations. Although these facts are relatively well established, much less certainty can be attached to any predictions about what this means for the viability of salmon and
O. mykiss
ESUs into the future.
The confidence with which we can project ocean-climate regimes into the future is limited, and consequently so is our ability to project the future influence of ocean-climate conditions on salmonid productivity. There exists about a century of empirical evidence for “cycles” in the PDO, marine productivity, and salmon abundance. Such a timeseries represents only about three PDO periods of 20 to 40 years in duration. There are four main difficulties in inferring future behavior of a complex system from data records spanning only a couple cycles. First, the duration and magnitude of past cycles may not be indicative of future dynamics. Second, the past decade has seen particularly wide fluctuations not only in climatic indices (
e.g.
, the 1997-1998 El Nino was in many ways the most extreme ever recorded, and the 2001 drought was one of the most severe on record), but also in abundance of salmon populations. In general, as the magnitude of fluctuations in species' abundance increases, species extinction rates increase. Third, if there is anthropogenically caused climate change, it could affect future ocean productivity; however, how such change might be manifested cannot be predicted with any certainty (IPCC 2001). Finally, changes in the pattern of ocean-atmosphere interactions do not affect all species (or even all populations of a given species) in the same way (Peterman
et al.
, 1998).
Given all these uncertainties, the BRT was reluctant to make any specific assumptions about the future behavior of the ocean-atmospheric systems or their effects on the distribution and abundance of salmon and
O. mykiss
. The BRT was concerned, however, that even under the most optimistic scenario, increases in abundance might be only temporary and could mask a failure to address underlying factors for decline. The real conservation concern for West Coast salmon and
O. mykiss
is not how they perform during periods of high marine survival, but how prolonged periods of poor marine survival affect the VSP parameters of abundance, growth rate, spatial structure, and diversity. It is reasonable to assume that salmon populations have persisted over time, under pristine conditions through many such cycles in the past. Less certain is how the populations will fare in periods of poor ocean survival when their freshwater, estuary, and nearshore marine habitats are degraded.
Treatment of the Listing Determination Steps for Each ESU Under Review
Determinations of “Species” Under the ESA
To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, a population (or group of populations) of West Coast salmonids must be considered a “species” as defined under the ESA. The ESA defines a species to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature” (ESA section 3(16)). NMFS published a policy (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991) describing the agency's application of the ESA definition of “species” to anadromous Pacific salmonid species. NMFS' policy provides that a Pacific salmonid population (or group of populations) will be considered a DPS, and hence a “species” under the ESA, if it represents an ESU of the biological species. An ESU must be reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units, and it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The first criterion, reproductive isolation, need not be absolute, but must be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to accrue in different population units. The second criterion is met if the population unit contributes substantially to the ecological and genetic diversity of the species in-total. Guidance on the application of this policy is contained in 56 FR 58612 (November 20, 1991) and Waples (1991). As noted in the “
Alsea Valley Alliance
v.
Evans
” section above, all components included in an ESU (natural populations, hatchery stocks, resident populations, etc.) must be listed if it is determined that the ESU in-
total is threatened or endangered under the ESA.
NMFS has reviewed the ESU relationships of hatchery salmon and anadromous
O. mykiss
stocks (NMFS, 2004b), as well as of resident
O. mykiss
populations. Hatchery stocks and resident populations are included in an ESU if it is determined that they are not reproductively isolated from populations in the ESU, and they are representative of the evolutionary legacy of the ESU (see the “Consideration of Artificial Propagation in Listing Determinations” section above). Hatchery stocks are not considered representative of the evolutionary legacy of an ESU, and hence not included in the ESU, if it is determined that they are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural population (See proposed Hatchery Listing Policy published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register
). If a hatchery stock is more divergent from the local natural population, this indicates that the hatchery stock is reproductively isolated from the ESU. Co-occurring anadromous and resident
O. mykiss
populations below impassable barriers are likely not reproductively isolated, so that both represent important components of the evolutionary legacy of the species, and hence are considered an ESU (see the more detailed discussion above in the “Consideration of Resident
O. mykiss
Populations in Listing Determinations” section).
The hatchery and resident components are detailed below for each ESU, as applicable. More detailed descriptions of the hatchery stocks included in the ESUs below can be found in the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b). More detailed descriptions of the impassible barriers and resident populations associated with
O. mykiss
ESUs are provided in the final BRT Report (NMFS, 2003b) as well as in “The Biological Implications of Non-Anadromous
Oncorhynchus mykiss
in Columbia Basin Steelhead ESUs” (Kostow, 2003).
A given hatchery stock determined to be part of an ESU may be propagated at multiple sites. To more clearly convey the hatchery fish that are included in a given ESU, the ESU descriptions below list the artificial propagation programs that propagate hatchery stocks determined to be part of the ESUs under review. A list of those specific artificial propagation programs by ESU is provided for reference in Table 2 at the end of this section.
The following descriptions of the 27 Pacific salmon and
O. mykiss
ESUs addressed in this document generally reaffirm the ESU determinations for naturally spawning populations detailed in previous ESA status reviews and listing determinations (see Table 1). The BRT focused primarily on risk assessments of the naturally spawned component of ESUs. Apart from the consideration of hatchery stock and resident
O. mykiss
populations, NMFS did not reconsider the geographic boundaries of the ESUs under review. There was no significant scientific and commercial information indicating that specific ESUs boundaries warrant reconsideration.
Snake River Sockeye ESU
The Snake River sockeye ESU includes populations of anadromous sockeye salmon from the Snake River Basin, Idaho (extant populations occur only in the Stanley Basin) (56 FR 58619; November 20, 1991), residual sockeye salmon in Redfish Lake, Idaho, as well as one captive propagation hatchery program (Table 2). Artificially propagated sockeye salmon from the Redfish Lake Captive Propagation program are considered part of this ESU. NMFS has determined that this artificially propagated stock is genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural population (NMFS, 2004b).
Subsequent to the 1991 listing determination for the Snake River sockeye ESU, a “residual” form of Snake River sockeye (hereafter “residuals”) was identified. The residuals often occur together with anadromous sockeye salmon and exhibit similar behavior in the timing and location of spawning. Residuals are thought to be the progeny of anadromous sockeye salmon, but are generally nonanadromous. In 1993 NMFS determined that the residual population of Snake River sockeye that exists in Redfish Lake is substantially reproductively isolated from kokanee (
i.e.
, nonanadromous populations of
O. nerka
that become resident in lake environments over long periods of time), represents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species, and thus merits inclusion in the Snake River sockeye ESU. Constituents and co-managers were subsequently advised that residual sockeye salmon in Redfish Lake are part of the ESU and are listed as an endangered species “subject to all the protection, prohibitions, and requirements of the ESA that apply to Snake River sockeye salmon” (letter from Acting NMFS Director Nancy Foster to Constituents, dated March 19, 1993).
Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU
The Ozette Lake sockeye ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake and streams and tributaries flowing into Ozette Lake, Washington (64 FR 14528; March 25, 1999). Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of this ESU (Table 2): the Umbrella Creek and Big River sockeye hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural population (NMFS, 2004b).
Sacramento Winter-run Chinook ESU
The Sacramento winter-run chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of winter-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries in California (59 FR 440; January 1, 1994), as well as two artificial propagation programs (Table 2): winter-run chinook from the Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH), and winter run chinook in a captive broodstock program maintained at Livingston Stone NFH and the University of California Bodega Marine Laboratory. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are no more than moderately diverged from the local natural population (NMFS 2004b).
Central Valley Spring-run Chinook ESU
The Central Valley spring-run chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries in California (64 FR 50394; September 16, 1999). This ESU does not include any artificially propagated spring-run chinook stocks that reside within the historical geographic range of the ESU.
California Coastal Chinook ESU
The California Coastal chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon from rivers and streams south of the Klamath River to the Russian River, California (64 FR 50394; September 16, 1999). Seven artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Humboldt Fish Action Council (Freshwater Creek), Yager Creek, Redwood Creek, Hollow Tree, Van Arsdale Fish Station, Mattole Salmon Group, and Mad River Hatchery fall-run chinook hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU
The Upper Willamette River chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run chinook salmon in the Clackamas River and in the Willamette River, and its tributaries, above Willamette Falls, Oregon (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). Seven artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the McKenzie River Hatchery (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) stock # 24), Marion Forks/North Fork Santiam River (ODFW stock # 21), South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW stock # 23) in the South Fork Santiam River, South Santiam Hatchery in the Calapooia River, South Santiam Hatchery in the Mollala River, Willamette Hatchery (ODFW stock # 22), and Clackamas hatchery (ODFW stock # 19) spring-run chinook hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU
The Lower Columbia River chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon from the Columbia River and its tributaries from its mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream to a transitional point between Washington and Oregon east of the Hood River and the White Salmon River, and includes the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, exclusive of spring-run chinook salmon in the Clackamas River (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). Seventeen artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Sea Resources Tule chinook Program, Big Creek Tule chinook Program, Astoria High School (STEP) Tule chinook Program, Warrenton High School (STEP) Tule chinook Program, Elochoman River Tule chinook Program, Cowlitz Tule Chinook Program, North Fork Toutle Tule chinook Program, Kalama Tule chinook Program, Washougal River Tule chinook Program, Spring Creek NFH Tule chinook Program, Cowlitz spring chinook Program in the Upper Cowlitz River and the Cispus River, Friends of the Cowlitz spring chinook Program, Kalama River spring chinook Program, Lewis River spring chinook Program, Fish First spring chinook Program, and the Sandy River Hatchery (ODFW stock #11) chinook hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook ESU
The Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon in all river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, excluding the Okanogan River (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). Six artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Twisp River, Chewuch River, Methow Composite, Winthrop NFH, Chiwawa River, and White River spring-run chinook hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Puget Sound Chinook ESU
The Puget Sound chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound including the Straits of Juan De Fuca from the Elwha River, eastward, including rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound and the Strait of Georgia in Washington (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). Twenty-two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Kendal Creek Hatchery, Marblemount Hatchery (fall, spring yearlings, spring subyearlings, and summer run), Harvey Creek Hatchery, Whitehorse Springs Pond, Wallace River Hatchery (yearlings and subyearlings), Tulalip Bay, Soos Creek Hatchery, Icy Creek Hatchery, Keta Creek Hatchery, White River Hatchery, White Acclimation Pond, Hupp Springs Hatchery, Voights Creek Hatchery, Diru Creek, Clear Creek, Kalama Creek, Dungeness/Hurd Creek Hatchery, Elwha Channel Hatchery chinook hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU
The Snake River fall-run chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of fall-run chinook salmon in the mainstem Snake River and in the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, Salmon River, and Clearwater River subbasins (57 FR 14653, April 22, 1992; 57 FR 23458, June 3, 1992). Four artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Lyons Ferry Hatchery, Fall Chinook Acclimation Ponds Program, Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery, and Oxbow Hatchery fall-run chinook hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural population (NMFS, 2004b).
Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook ESU
The Snake River spring/summer-run chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring/summer-run chinook salmon in the mainstem Snake River and the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, and Salmon River subbasins (57 FR 23458; June 3, 1992). Fifteen artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Tucannon River conventional Hatchery, Tucannon River Captive Broodstock Program, Lostine River, Catherine Creek, Lookingglass Hatchery Reintroduction Program (Catherine Creek stock), Upper Grande Ronde, Imnaha River, Big Sheep Creek, McCall Hatchery, Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement, Lemhi River Captive Rearing Experiment, Pahsimeroi Hatchery, East Fork Captive Rearing Experiment, West Fork Yankee Fork Captive Rearing Experiment, and the Sawtooth Hatchery spring/summer-run chinook hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Central California Coast Coho ESU
The Central California Coast coho ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon from Punta Gorda in northern California south to and including the San Lorenzo River in central California, as well as populations in tributaries to San Francisco Bay, excluding the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system (61 FR 56138; October 31, 1996). Four artificial propagation programs are considered part of this ESU (Table 2): the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery Captive Broodstock Program, Scott Creek/King Fisher Flats Conservation Program, Scott Creek Captive Broodstock Program, and the Noyo River Fish Station Egg-take Program coho hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho ESU
The Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU includes all
naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in coastal streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California (62 FR 24588; May 6, 1997). Three artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Cole Rivers Hatchery (ODFW stock # 52), Trinity River Hatchery, and Iron Gate Hatchery coho hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are no more than moderately diverged from the local natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Oregon Coast Coho ESU
The Oregon Coast coho ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams south of the Columbia River and north of Cape Blanco (63 FR 42587; August 10, 1998). Five artificial propagation programs are considered part of the ESU (Table 2): the North Umpqua River (ODFW stock # 18), Cow Creek (ODFW stock # 37), Coos Basin (ODFW stock #37), Coquille River (ODFW stock # 44), and North Fork Nehalem River (ODFW stock # 32) coho hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Lower Columbia River Coho ESU
In NMFS' 1991 status review of Lower Columbia River (LCR) coho (NMFS, 1991d), the BRT limited the geographic scope of its review to the subject of the motivating listing petition: the LCR excluding the Willamette River. The 1991 BRT concluded that historical LCR coho populations were probably reproductively isolated from other coho populations, but the BRT was unable to identify whether an historical coho ESU still existed in the LCR. In the 1995 status review of West Coast coho salmon (NMFS, 1995a), the BRT considered new information suggesting that LCR coho may be part of a larger ESU, based on similarities in physical and biogeographical conditions, and preliminary genetic data. The 1995 BRT included LCR coho as part of a larger Southwestern Washington (SWW)/LCR coho ESU, and NMFS designated the SWW/LCR coho ESU as a candidate species (60 FR 38011; July 25, 1995). In 1996, NMFS' West Coast Coho Salmon BRT updated the 1995 status review, and concluded that the SWW/LCR ESU may warrant splitting into separate SWW and LCR ESUs (NMFS, 1996e).
In 2001 the BRT reconvened to update information on the viability of LCR coho and concluded that LCR coho is a separate ESU from SWW coho (NMFS, 2001). This conclusion was supported by new tagging data and analyses indicating that SWW and LCR coho populations have differing marine distributions and are genetically distinct (Shaklee
et al.
, 1999; NMFS, 2001). This finding is consistent with the stock structure exhibited by LCR chinook and
O. mykiss
populations (Myers
et al.
, 2003). The 2001 BRT also concluded that the historical ESU still exists in the LCR. The primary evidence to support this conclusion is the consistent genetic and life history differences between LCR coho salmon and populations from other areas. The BRT concluded that, because of presumably very low survival rates, stock transfers from Oregon coastal populations 40 to 80 years ago probably had relatively little permanent effect on the genetic makeup of LCR coho salmon. Nevertheless, the BRT recognized that the ESU as it presently exists is much altered from historical conditions, and evidence of appreciable natural production is limited to two Oregon populations (in the Sandy and Clackamas rivers) that represent the clearest link (through more or less continuous natural production) to historical populations within the ESU. Based on available information, most of the adult coho salmon returning to natural or hatchery areas outside these two streams appear to have themselves been reared as juveniles in hatcheries, or to have had parents that were reared in hatcheries. The 2001 BRT concluded that, collectively, these hatchery-produced fish contain a significant portion of the historical diversity of LCR coho salmon, albeit in somewhat altered form. In determining the upstream boundary of the LCR coho ESU, the 2001 BRT concluded that Upper Columbia River coho (now extinct) were likely not part of the LCR coho ESU, and that the Cascade Crest represents the most likely eastern terminus of the LCR coho ESU. The 2003 Pacific Salmonid BRT did not revisit the 2001 ESU boundaries for the LCR coho ESU.
Based on the foregoing, NMFS concludes that the LCR coho ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries from the mouth of the Columbia up to and including the Big White Salmon and Hood Rivers. Twenty-one artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Grays River, Sea Resources Hatchery, Peterson Coho Project, Big Creek Hatchery, Astoria High School (STEP) Coho Program, Warrenton High School (STEP) Coho Program, Elochoman Type-S Coho Program, Elochoman Type-N Coho Program, Cathlamet High School FFA Type-N Coho Program, Cowlitz Type-N Coho Program in the Upper and Lower Cowlitz Rivers, Cowlitz Game and Anglers Coho Program, Friends of the Cowlitz Coho Program, North Fork Toutle River Hatchery, Lewis River Type-N Coho Program, Lewis River Type-S Coho Program, Fish First Wild Coho Program, Fish First Type-N Coho Program, Syverson Project Type-N Coho Program, Sandy Hatchery, and the Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow complex coho hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Columbia River Chum ESU
The Columbia River chum ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chum salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon (64 FR 14508; March 25, 1999). Three artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Chinook River (Sea Resources Hatchery), Grays River, and Washougal River/Duncan Creek chum hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU
The Hood Canal summer-run chum includes all naturally spawned populations of summer-run chum salmon in Hood Canal and its tributaries as well as populations in Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay, Washington (64 FR 14508; March 25, 1999). Eight artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Quilcene NFH, Hamma Hamma Fish Hatchery, Lilliwaup Creek Fish Hatchery, Union River/Tahuya, Big Beef Creek Fish Hatchery, Salmon Creek Fish Hatchery, Chimacum Creek Fish Hatchery, and the Jimmycomelately Creek Fish Hatchery summer-run chum hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Southern California
O. mykiss
ESU
The Southern California
O. mykiss
ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams from the Santa Maria River, San Luis Obispo County, California (inclusive) to the U.S.-Mexico Border (62 FR 43937,
August 18, 1997; 67 FR 21586, May 1, 2002). Resident populations of
O. mykiss
below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the Southern California
O. mykiss
ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
section), the ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Southern California
O. mykiss
ESU, until such time that significant scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships.
This ESU does not include any artificially propagated
O. mykiss
stocks that reside within the historical geographic range of the ESU.
South-Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU
The South-Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams from the Pajaro River (inclusive) to, but not including the Santa Maria River, California (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). Resident populations of
O. mykiss
below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the South-Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU. According to the framework discussed above (
See
the
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
section), the ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the South-Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU, until such time that significant scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships.
This ESU does not include any artificially propagated
O. mykiss
stocks that reside within the historical geographic range of the ESU.
Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU
The Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in California streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), excluding the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). Resident populations of
O. mykiss
below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
section), the ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU, until such time that significant scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships. Recent genetic data regarding three subpopulations of native fish above Rubber Dam 1 on Alameda Creek strongly suggest that they are part of the ESU. Nielson (2003) found that these subpopulations were most similar to each other and other populations within the ESU than they were to populations outside the ESU. NMFS, therefore, considers native resident
O. mykiss
populations above Dam 1 on Alameda Creek to be part of the Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU.
Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery, and Kingfisher Flat Hatchery/Scott Creek (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
California Central Valley
O. mykiss
ESU
The California Central Valley
O. mykiss
ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries, excluding steelhead from San Francisco and San Pablo Bays and their tributaries (63 FR13347; March 19, 1998). Resident populations of
O. mykiss
below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the California Central Valley
O. mykiss
ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
section), the ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the California Central Valley
O. mykiss
ESU, until such time that significant scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships.
Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Coleman NFH, and Feather River Hatchery steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Two other artificial propagation programs, the Nimbus and Mokelumne River stocks, are derived from out-of-ESU broodstock, are genetically more than moderately divergent from the ESU populations, and are not considered part of this ESU.
Northern California
O. mykiss
ESU
The Northern California
O. mykiss
ESU includes steelhead in California coastal river basins from Redwood Creek south to the Gualala River (inclusive) (65 FR 36074; June 7, 2000). Resident populations of
O. mykiss
below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the Northern California
O. mykiss
ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
section), the ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Northern California
O. mykiss
ESU, until such time that significant scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships.
Two artificial propagation programs are considered part of the ESU (Table 2): the Yager Creek Hatchery, and North Fork Gualala River Hatchery (Gualala River Steelhead Project) steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Upper Willamette River
O. mykiss
ESU
The Upper Willamette River
O. mykiss
ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of winter-run steelhead in the Willamette River, Oregon, and its tributaries upstream from Willamette Falls to the Calapooia River (inclusive) (64 FR 14517; March 25, 1999). Resident populations of
O.
mykiss
below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the Upper Willamette River
O. mykiss
ESU. Although there are no obvious physical barriers separating populations upstream of the Calapooia from those lower in the basin, resident
O. mykiss
in these upper basins are quite distinctive both phenotypically and genetically and are not considered part of the ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
section), the ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Upper Willamette River
O. mykiss
ESU, until such time that significant scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships.
This ESU does not include any artificially propagated
O. mykiss
stocks that reside within the historical geographic range of the ESU. Hatchery summer steelhead occur in the Willamette Basin but are an out-of-basin stock that is not included as part of the ESU.
Lower Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU
The Lower Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams and tributaries to the Columbia River between the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers, Washington (inclusive), and the Willamette and Hood Rivers, Oregon (inclusive). Excluded are steelhead in the upper Willamette River Basin above Willamette Falls and steelhead from the Little and Big White Salmon Rivers in Washington (62 FR43937; August 18, 1997). Resident populations of
O. mykiss
below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the Lower Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
section), the ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Lower Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU, until such time that significant scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships.
Ten artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Cowlitz Trout Hatchery (in the Cispus, Upper Cowlitz, Lower Cowlitz, and Tilton Rivers), Kalama River Wild (winter- and summer-run), Clackamas Hatchery, Sandy Hatchery, and Hood River (winter- and summer-run) steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Middle Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU
The Middle Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams from above the Wind River, Washington, and the Hood River, Oregon (exclusive), upstream to, and including, the Yakima River, Washington, excluding steelhead from the Snake River Basin (64 FR 14517; March 25, 1999). Resident populations of
O. mykiss
below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the Middle Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
section), the ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Middle Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU, until such time that significant scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships.
Seven artificial propagation programs are considered part of the ESU (Table 2): the Touchet River Endemic, Yakima River Kelt Reconditioning Program (in Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Naches River, and Upper Yakima River), Umatilla River, and the Deschutes River steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Upper Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU
The Upper Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams in the Columbia River Basin upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the U.S.-Canada border (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). Resident populations of
O. mykiss
below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the Upper Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
section), the ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Upper Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU, until such time that significant scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships.
Six artificial propagation programs are considered part of the ESU (Table 2): the Wenatchee River, Wells Hatchery (in the Methow and Okanogan Rivers), Winthrop NFH, Omak Creek, and the Ringold steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Snake River Basin
O. mykiss
ESU
The Snake River Basin
O. mykiss
ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams in the Snake River Basin of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and Idaho (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). Resident populations of
O. mykiss
below impassible barriers (natural and manmade) that co-occur with anadromous populations are included in the Snake River Basin
O. mykiss
ESU. According to the framework discussed above (see the
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Populations in Listing Determinations
section), the ESU membership of native resident populations above recent (usually man-made) impassable barriers, but below natural barriers, was not resolved. These resident populations are provisionally not considered to be part of the Snake River Basin
O. mykiss
ESU, until such time that significant scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU relationships. Recent genetic data suggest that native resident
O. mykiss
above Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater River are part of this ESU. NMFS, therefore, considers native resident
O. mykiss
populations above Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater River to be part of the Snake River Basin
O. mykiss
ESU. Hatchery rainbow trout that have been introduced to the Clearwater River and other areas within the ESU are not considered part of the ESU.
Six artificial propagation programs are considered part of the ESU (Table 2): the
Tucannon River, Dworshak NFH, Lolo Creek, North Fork Clearwater, East Fork Salmon River, and the Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha River Hatchery steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).
Table 2.—List of Artificial Propagation Programs Included in Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Salmon and
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Evolutionarily significant unit (ESU)
Artificial propagation program
Run
Location (State)
Snake River sockeye ESU
Redfish Lake Captive Propagation Program
n/a
Stanley Basin (Idaho).
Ozette Lake sockeye ESU
Umbrella Creek Hatchery—Makah Tribe
n/a
Ozette Lake (Washington).
Big River Hatchery—Makah Tribe
n/a
Ozette Lake (Washington).
Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH) Conservation Program
Winter
Sacramento River (California), Livingston Stone NFH & Univ. of Calif.
Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESU
Captive Broodstock Program
Winter
Bodega Marine Laboratory (California).
Central Valley spring-run chinook ESU
n/a
California Coastal chinook ESU
Freshwater Creek/Humboldt Fish Action Council
Fall
Freshwater Creek, Humboldt Bay (California).
Yager Creek Hatchery
Fall
Yager Creek, Van Duzen River (California). Redwood Creek, South Fork Eel River.
Redwood Creek Hatchery
Fall
(California).
Hollow Tree Creek Hatchery
Fall
Eel River (California).
Mattole Salmon Group Hatchery
Fall
Squaw Creek, Mattole 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 (Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) stock #24)
Spring
McKenzie River (Oregon).
Marion Forks Hatchery (ODFW stock #21)
Spring
North Fork Santiam River (Oregon).
South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW stock #23)
Spring
South Fork Santiam River (Oregon).
Spring
Calapooia River (Oregon).
Spring
Mollala River (Oregon).
Willamette Hatchery (ODFW stock #22)
Spring
Middle Fork Willamette River (Oregon).
Clackamas Hatchery (ODFW stock #19)
Spring
Clackamas River (Oregon).
Lower Columbia River chinook ESU
Sea Resources Tule Chinook Program
Fall
Chinook River (Washington).
Big Creek Tule Chinook Program
Fall
Big Creek (Oregon).
Astoria High School (STEP) Tule Chinook Program
Fall
Big Creek (Oregon).
Warrenton High School (STEP) Tule Chinook Program
Fall
Big Creek (Oregon).
Elochoman River Tule Chinook Program
Fall
Elochoman River (Washington).
Cowlitz Tule Chinook Program
Fall
Lower Cowlitz River (Washington).
North Folk Toutle Tule Chinook Program
Fall
Cowlitz River (Washington).
Kalama Tule Chinook Program
Fall
Kalama River (Washington).
Washougal River Chinook Program
Fall
Washougal River (Washington).
Spring Creek NFH Tule Chinook Program
Fall
Upper Cowlitz River (Washington).
Spring
Cispus River (Washington).
Friends of Cowlitz spring chinook Program
Spring
Upper Cowlitz River (Washington).
Kalama River spring chinook Program
Spring
Kalama River (Washington).
Lewis River spring chinook Program
Spring
Lewis River (Washington).
Fish First spring chinook Program
Spring
Lewis River (Washington).
Sandy River Hatchery (ODFW stock #11)
Spring
Sandy River (Washington).
Upper Columbia River spring chinook ESU
Twisp River
Spring
Methow Spring (Washington).
Chewuch River
Spring
Methow River (Washington).
Methow Composite
Spring
Methow River (Washington).
Winthrop NFH (Methow Composite stock)
Spring
Methow River (Washington).
Chiwawa River
Spring
Wenatchee River (Washington).
White River
Spring
Wenatchee River (Washington).
Puget Sound chinook ESU
Kendall Creek Hatchery
Spring
North Fork Nooksack River (Washington).
Marblemount Hatchery
Fall
Lower Skagit River (Washington).
Spring (Yearlings)
Upper Skagit River (Washington).
Spring (sub-yearlings)
Upper Skagit River (Washington).
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 (yearlings)
Skykomish River (Washington).
Summer (sub yearlings)
Skykomish River (Washington).
Tulalip Bay (Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin Hatchery/Tulalip Hatchery)
Summer
Skykomish River/Tulalip Bay (Washington).
Soos Creek Hatchery
Fall
Green River (Washington).
Icy Creek Hatchery
Fall
Green River (Washington).
Keta Creek—Muckleshoot Tribe
Fall
Green River (Washington).
White River Hatchery
Spring
White River (Washington).
White Acclimation Pond
Spring
White River (Washington).
Hupps Springs Hatchery
Spring
White River (Washington).
Voights Creek Hatchery
Fall
Puyallup River (Washington).
Diru Creek
Fall
Puyallup River (Washington).
Clear Creek
Fall
Nisqually River (Washington).
Kalama Creek
Fall
Nisqually River (Washington).
Dungeness/Hurd Creek Hatchery
Spring
Dungeness River (Washington).
Elwha Channel Hatchery
Fall
Elwha River (Washington).
Snake River fall-run chinook ESU
Lyons Ferry Hatchery
Fall
Snake River (Idaho).
Fall Chinook Acclimation Ponds Program—Pittsburg, Captain John, and Big Canyon ponds
Fall
Snake River (Idaho).
Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery—including North Lapwai Valley, Lakes Gulch, and Cedar Flat Satellite facilities
Fall
Snake and Clearwater Rivers (Idaho).
Oxbow Hatchery
Fall
Snake River (Oregon, Idaho).
Snake River spring/summer-run chinook ESU
Tucannon River Hatchery (conventional)
Spring
Tucannon River (Idaho).
Tucannon River Captive Broodstock Program
Spring
Tucannon River (Idaho).
Lostine River (captive/conventional)
Summer
Grande Ronde (Oregon).
Catherine Creek (captive/conventional)
Summer
Grande Ronde (Oregon).
Lookingglass Hatchery (reintroduction)
Summer
Grande Ronde (Oregon).
Upper Grande Ronde (captive/conventional)
Summer
Grande Ronde (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 Propagation Enhancement
Spring
East Fork South Fork Salmon River (Idaho).
Lemhi River Captive Rearing Experiment
Spring
Lemhi River (Idaho).
Pahsimeroi Hatchery
Summer
Salmon River (Idaho).
East Fork Captive Rearing Experiment.
Spring
East Fork Salmon River (Idaho).
West Fork Yankee Fork Captive Rearing Experiment
Spring
Salmon River (Idaho).
Sawtooth Hatchery
Spring
Upper Mainstem Salmon River (Idaho).
Central California Coast coho ESU
Don Clausen Fish Hatchery Captive Broodstock Program
n/a
Dry Creek, Russian River (California).
Scott Creek/Kingfisher Flat Hatchery Conservation Program (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project)
n/a
Big Creek, Scott Creek (California).
Scott Creek Captive Broodstock Program
n/a
NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz (California).
Noyo River Fish Station egg-take program
n/a
Noyo River (California).
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU
Cole Rivers Hatchery (ODFW stock #52)
n/a
Rogue River (Oregon).
Trinity River Hatchery
n/a
Trinity River (California).
Iron Gate Hatchery
n/a
Klamath River (California).
Oregon Coast coho ESU
North Umpqua River (ODFW stock #55)
n/a
Umpqua River (Oregon).
Cow Creek (ODFW stock #18)
n/a
Umpqua River (Oregon).
Coos Basin (ODFW stock #37)
n/a
Coos Basin (Oregon).
Coquille River/Bandon Hatchery (ODFW stock #44)
n/a
Coquille River (Oregon).
North Fork Nehalem River (ODFW stock #32)
n/a
Nehalem River (Oregon).
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 stock #13)
n/a
Big Creek (Oregon).
Astoria High School (STEP) Coho Program
n/a
Youngs Bay (Oregon).
Warrention High School (STEP) Coho Program
n/a
Youngs Bay (Oregon).
Elochoman Type-S Coho Program
Type-S
Elochoman River (Washington).
Elochoman Type-N Coho Program
Type-N
Elochoman River (Washington).
Cathlamet High School FFA Type-N Coho Program
Type-N
Elochoman River (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 Coho Program
n/a
Lower Cowlitz River (Washington).
Friends of the Cowlitz Coho Program
n/a
Lower Cowlitz River (Washington).
North Fork Toutle River Hatchery
Type-S
Cowlitz River (Washington).
Lewis River Type-N Coho Program
Type-N
North Fork Lewis River (Washington).
Lewis River Type-S Coho Program
Type-S
North Fork Lewis River (Washington).
Fish First Wild Coho Program
n/a
North Fork Lewis River (Washington).
Fish First Type-N Coho Program
Type-N
North Fork Lewis River (Washington).
Syverson Project Type-N Coho program
Type-N
Salmon River (Washington).
Sandy Hatchery (ODFW stock #11)
Late
Sandy River (Oregon).
Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow Complex (ODFW stock #14)
n/a
Lower Columbia River Gorge (Oregon)
Columbia River chum ESU
Chinook River/Sea Resources Hatchery
Fall
Chinook River (Washington).
Grays River
Fall
Grays River (Washington).
Washougal Hatchery/Duncan Creek
Fall
Washougal River (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 Hatchery
Summer
Southwestern Hood 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 Hatchery
Summer
Sequim Bay (Washington).
Southern California
O. mykiss
ESU
n/a
South-Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU
n/a
Central California Coast
O. mykiss
ESU
Scott Creek/Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project, Kingfisher Flat Hatchery
Winter
Big Creek, Scott Creek (California).
Don Clausen Fish Hatchery
Winter
Russian River (California).
California Central Valley
O. mykiss
ESU
Coleman NFH
Winter
Battle Creek, Sacramento River (California).
Feather River Hatchery
Winter
Feather River (California).
Northern California
O. mykiss
ESU
Yager Creek Hatchery
Winter
Yager Creek, Van Duzen River (California).
North Fork Gualala River Hatchery/Gualala River Steelhead Project
Winter
North Fork Gualala River (California).
Upper Willamette River
O. mykiss
ESU
n/a
Lower Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU
Cowlitz Trout Hatchery
Late Winter
Cispus River (Washington).
Cowlitz Trout Hatchery
Late Winter
Upper Cowlitz River (Washington).
Cowlitz Trout Hatchery
Late Winter
Tilton River (Washington).
Cowlitz Trout Hatchery
Late Winter
Lower Cowlitz River (Washington).
Kalama River Wild
Winter
Kalama River (Washington).
Summer
Kalama River (Washington).
Clackamas Hatchery (ODFW stock #122)
Late Winter
Clackamas River (Oregon).
Sandy Hatchery (ODFW stock #11)
Late Winter
Sandy River (Oregon).
Hood River (ODFW stock #50)
Winter
Hood River (Oregon).
Summer
Hood River (Oregon).
Middle Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU
Touchet River Endemic
Summer
Touchet River (Washington).
Yakima River Kelt Reconditioning Program
Summer
Satus Creek (Washington).
Summer
Toppenish Creek (Washington).
Summer
Naches River (Washington).
Summer
Upper Yakima River (Washington).
Umatilla River (ODFW stock #91)
Summer
Umatilla River (Oregon).
Deschutes River (ODFW stock #66)
Summer
Deschutes River (Oregon).
Upper Columbia River
O. mykiss
ESU
Wenatchee River Steelhead
Summer
Wenatchee River (Washington).
Wells Hatchery Steelhead
Summer
Methow River (Washington).
Summer
Okanogan River (Washington).
Winthrop NFH Steelhead (Wells Steelhead)
Summer
Methow River (Washington).
Omak Creek Steelhead
Summer
Okanogan River (Washington).
Ringold Hatchery (Wells Steelhead)
Summer
Middle Columbia River (Washington).
Snake River Basin
O. mykiss
ESU
Tucannon River
Summer
Tucannon River (Washington).
Dworshak NFH
Summer
South Fork Clearwater River (Idaho).
Lolo Creek
Summer
Salmon River (Idaho).
North Fork Clearwater
Summer
North Fork Clearwater River (Idaho).
East Fork Salmon River
Summer
East Fork Salmon River (Idaho).
Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha River Hatchery (ODFW stock #29)
Summer
Imnaha River (Oregon).
Updated Viability Assessments of ESUs
NMFS' Pacific Salmonid BRT evaluated the risk of extinction faced by naturally spawning populations in each of the ESUs addressed in this proposed rule (NMFS, 2003b). As noted above, the BRT did not explicitly consider hatchery stocks or protective efforts in their evaluations. For each ESU the BRT evaluated overall extinction risk after assessing ESU-level risk for the four VSP criteria: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. NMFS then assessed the effects of ESU hatchery programs on ESU viability and extinction risk relative to the BRT's assessment for the naturally spawning component of the ESU (Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report; NMFS, 2004b). The effects of hatchery programs on the extinction risk of an ESU in-total was evaluated on the basis of the factors that the BRT determined are currently limiting the ESU (
e.g.
, abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity), and how artificial propagation efforts within the ESU affect those factors. The Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop (NMFS, 2004c) reviewed the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003a), evaluated the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b), and assessed the overall extinction risk of ESUs with associated hatchery stocks. The BRT and the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop expressed the extinction risk for the naturally spawning populations in an ESU, and for the ESU in-total, respectively. The level of extinction risk was categorized into three categories: “in danger of extinction;” “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future;” or “not in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” Although these overall risk categories resemble the definitions of “endangered” and “threatened” as defined in the ESA, the BRT and the Workshop did not evaluate protective efforts in assessing ESU extinction risk (efforts being made to protect the species are evaluated in the “Evaluation of Protective Efforts” section, below). Thus, the extinction risk assessments described in this section are not necessarily indicative of whether an ESU warrants listing as a threatened or endangered species. The reader is referred to the BRT's report (NMFS, 2003b), the Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b), and the Workshop Report (NMFS, 2004c) for more detailed descriptions of the viability of individual natural populations and hatchery stocks within these ESUs.
Snake River Sockeye ESU
The residual form of Redfish Lake sockeye, determined to be part of the ESU in 1993, is represented by a few hundred fish. Snake River sockeye historically was distributed in four lakes within the Stanley Basin, but the only remaining population resides in Redfish Lake. Only 16 naturally produced adults have returned to Redfish Lake since the Snake River sockeye ESU was listed as an endangered species in 1991. All 16 fish were taken into the Redfish Lake Captive Propagation Program, which was initiated as an emergency measure in 1991. The return of over 250 adults in 2000 was encouraging; however, subsequent returns from the captive program in 2001 and 2002 have been fewer than 30 fish.
The BRT found extremely high risks for each of the four VSP categories. Informed by this assessment, the BRT unanimously concluded that the Snake River sockeye ESU is “in danger of extinction.”
There is a single artificial propagation program producing Snake River sockeye salmon in the Snake River basin. The Redfish Lake sockeye salmon stock was originally founded by collecting the entire anadromous adult return of 16 fish between 1990 and 1997, the collection of a small number of residual sockeye salmon, and the collection of a few hundred smolts migrating from Redfish Lake. These fish were put into a Captive Broodstock program as an emergency measure to prevent extinction of this ESU. Since 1997, nearly 400 hatchery-origin anadromous sockeye adults have returned to the Stanley Basin from juveniles released by the program. Redfish Lake sockeye salmon have also been reintroduced into Alturas and Pettit Lakes using progeny from the captive broodstock program. The captive broodstock program presently consists of several hundred fish of different year classes maintained at facilities in Eagle (Idaho) and Manchester (Washington).
NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU extinction risk concluded that the Redfish Lake Captive Broodstock Program does not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). The Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop noted that the Captive
Broodstock Program has prevented likely extinction of the ESU. This program has increased the total number of anadromous adults, attempted to increase the number of lakes in which sockeye salmon are present in the upper Salmon River (Stanley Basin), and preserved what genetic diversity remains in the ESU. Although the program has increased the number of anadromous adults in some years, it has yet to produce consistent returns. The majority of the ESU now resides in the captive program composed of only a few hundred fish. The long-term effects of captive rearing are unknown. The consideration of artificial propagation does not substantially mitigate the BRT's assessment of extreme risks to ESU abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Snake River sockeye ESU in-total is “in danger of extinction” (NMFS, 2004c).
Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU
Evaluating extinction risk for the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU is complicated by incomplete data with uncertain errors and biases. The Makah Tribe's fisheries program, however, is engaged in significant efforts to improve sampling techniques and to adjust for biases in historical data. The number of returning adults has increased in recent years, but is believed to be well below historical levels. An uncertain fraction of the returns is of hatchery origin, generating uncertainty in evaluating the productivity of the naturally spawning component of the ESU. Accurately assessing trends in natural spawners is further complicated by the poor visibility in the lake. Habitat degradation, siltation, and a declining lake level have resulted in the loss of numerous beach spawning sites. The BRT expressed concern that the reduction in the number of spawning aggregations poses risks for ESU spatial structure and diversity.
The BRT expressed moderately high concern for each of the VSP risk categories. Informed by this risk assessment, the majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future,” with the minority being split between “in danger of extinction” and “not in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.”
There are two artificially propagated stocks considered to be part of the Ozette Lake sockeye salmon ESU (Table 2). The program, operated by the Makah Tribe, is derived from native broodstock and has the primary objective of establishing viable sockeye salmon spawning aggregations in two Ozette Lake tributaries where spawning has not been observed for many decades, if ever. The program includes research, monitoring, and evaluation activities designed to determine success in recovering the propagated populations to viable levels, and to determine the demographic, ecological, and genetic effects on target and non-target (
i.e.
, Ozette Lake beach) spawning aggregations. The Makah Program will sunset after 12 years of operation.
NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU extinction risk concluded that the Makah supplementation program at Umbrella Creek and Big River does not substantially reduce the extinction risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). The program has increased the abundance of natural spawners and natural-origin sockeye in the Ozette Lake tributaries. However, it is unknown whether these tributaries were historically spawning habitat. The program (by design) has not increased the abundance of natural spawners or natural origin beach spawners in Ozette Lake. Despite the relative increases in abundance due to the supplementation program, the total ESU abundance remains small for a single sockeye population. The contribution of artificial propagation to ESU productivity is uncertain. Only since 2000 have the hatchery returns been sufficient to meet the program's broodstock goals. The Makah program at present serves as an important genetic reserve with the continuing loss of beach spawning habitat. The reintroduction of spawners to Ozette Lake tributaries reduces risks to ESU spatial structure. However, the isolation of the hatchery program and adaptation to tributary habitats may cause the tributary spawning aggregations to diverge from founding beach spawning aggregations. Although the program has a beneficial effect on ESU abundance and spatial structure, it has neutral or uncertain effects on ESU productivity and diversity. Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU in-total is “likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future” (NMFS, 2004c).
Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook ESU
The Sacramento River winter-run ESU is represented by a single extant naturally spawning population that has been completely displaced from its historical spawning habitat by the construction of Shasta and Keswick Dams. The remaining spawning habitat is artificially maintained by cold-water releases from the reservoir behind Shasta Dam. The naturally spawning component of the ESU has exhibited marked improvements in abundance and productivity in recent years. The recent increases in abundance are encouraging, relative to the years of critically low abundance of the 1980s and early 1990s; however, the recent 5-year geometric mean is only 3 percent of the peak post-1967 5-year geometric mean. The BRT was particularly concerned about risks to the ESU's diversity and spatial structure. Construction of Shasta Dam merged at least four independent winter-run chinook populations into a single population, representing a substantial loss of genetic diversity, life-history variability, and local adaptation. Episodes of critically low abundance, particularly in the early 1990's, for the single remaining population imposed “bottlenecks” that further reduced genetic diversity. The BRT found extremely high risk for each of the four VSP risk categories. Informed by this risk assessment, the majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of the Sacramento winter-run ESU is “in danger of extinction.” The minority opinion of the BRT was that the ESU is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.”
Two artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESU (Table 2; NMFS, 2004b). The artificial propagation of winter-run chinook is carried out at the Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH) on the mainstem Sacramento River above Keswick Dam. The captive broodstock program is maintained at two locations: the Livingston Stone NFH and at the University of California's Bodega Marine Laboratory. These programs have been operated for conservation purposes since the early 1990's and both were identified as high priority recovery actions in NMFS' 1997 Draft Recovery Plan for this ESU. The artificial propagation program was established to supplement the abundance of the naturally spawning winter-run chinook
population and thereby assist in its population growth and recovery. The captive broodstock program was established in the early 1990s when the naturally spawning population was at critically low levels (less than 200 spawners) in order to preserve the ESU's remaining genetic resources and to establish a reserve for potential use in the artificial propagation program. Because of increased natural escapement over the last several years, consideration is being given to terminating the captive broodstock program.
An assessment of the effects of these artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU in-total concluded that they decrease risk to some degree by contributing to increased ESU abundance and diversity, but have a neutral or uncertain effect on productivity and spatial structure of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). Spawning escapement of winter-run has increased since the inception of the program and may account for up to 10 percent of the total number of fish spawning naturally in a given year. Improvements in freshwater habitat conditions, harvest management, as well as improved ocean conditions, however, are thought to be the major factors responsible for the increased abundance of the ESU since the early 1990s. Effects on productivity are uncertain, but studies are underway to assess the effect of artificial propagation on fitness and productivity of artificially propagated fish. Although abundance of spawners has increased, in part due to artificial propagation, the spatial distribution of spawners has not expanded. The primary reason is that the naturally spawning population is artificially maintained by cool water releases from Shasta/Keswick dams, and the spatial distribution of spawners is largely governed by water year type and the ability of the Central Valley Project to manage water temperatures in the upper Sacramento River. A second naturally spawning population is considered critical to the long-term viability of this ESU, and plans are underway to eventually establish a second population in the upper Battle Creek watershed using the artificial propagation program as a source of fish. However, the program has yet to be implemented because of the need to complete habitat restoration efforts in that watershed. The artificial propagation program has contributed to maintaining diversity of the ESU through careful use of spawning protocols and other tools that maximize genetic diversity of propagated fish and minimize impacts on naturally spawning populations. In addition, the artificial propagation and captive broodstock programs collectively serve as a genetic repository which serves to preserve the genome of the ESU.
Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that this ESU in-total is “in danger of extinction” (NMFS, 2004c).
Central Valley Spring-run Chinook ESU
Extensive construction of dams throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin basin has reduced the California Central Valley spring chinook ESU to only a small portion of its historical distribution, generating concerns about risks to the spatial structure and diversity of the ESU. The ESU has been reduced to only three extant natural populations from an estimated 17 historical populations. The remaining naturally spawning spring-run chinook populations (Mill, Deer, and Butte creek tributaries to the Sacramento River) are in close geographic proximity, increasing the ESU's vulnerability to disease or catastrophic events. The BRT was also concerned that the Feather River spring-run chinook hatchery population, which is not considered part of the ESU (see Table 2; NMFS, 2004b), represents a risk factor for the extant ESU natural populations. The Feather River Hatchery produces spring chinook fish that are genetically more similar to fall chinook, probably due to hybridization at the hatchery. The off-site release location for fish produced at the hatchery is believed to contribute to a high straying rate of hatchery fish which increases the likelihood of non-ESU hatchery fish interacting negatively with the extant natural populations in the ESU. Furthermore, few of the Feather River Hatchery fish are marked (approximately 10 percent), making their impact on ESU spring-run chinook populations difficult to resolve. Although the recent 5-year mean abundance for the three naturally spawning populations in the ESU remains small (ranging from nearly 500 to over 4,500 spawners), short- and long-term productivity trends are positive, and population sizes have shown continued increases over the abundance levels of the 1980s (with 5-year mean population sizes of 67 to 243 spawners). The BRT noted moderately high risk for the abundance, spatial structure, and diversity VSP criteria, and a lower risk for the productivity criterion reflecting recent positive trends. Informed by this risk assessment, the strong majority opinion of the BRT was that the Central Valley spring-run chinook ESU is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” The minority opinion of the BRT was that the ESU is “in danger of extinction.” There are no artificially propagated populations of spring chinook in this ESU that mitigate the BRT's assessment that the ESU is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.”
California Coastal Chinook ESU
Evaluation of the viability of the naturally spawning component of the California Coastal chinook ESU is hindered by the limited availability of data, particularly regarding the abundance and spatial distribution of natural populations within the ESU. Additionally, the data that are available are of varying type, quality and temporal coverage, and are generally not amenable to rigorous estimation of abundance or robust statistical analyses of trends. The little historical and current abundance information that is available indicates that (putative) natural ESU population abundance levels remain depressed relative to historical levels. Evidence suggests that populations have been extirpated or nearly extirpated in the southern part of the ESU, or are extremely low in abundance. This observation, in combination with the apparent loss of the spring-run chinook life history in the Eel River Basin and elsewhere in the ESU, indicates risks to the diversity of the ESU. Recently available natural abundance estimates in the Russian River are in excess of 1,300 fish for 2000-2002. These data suggest either the presence of a naturally producing population in the Russian River, or represent straying from other basins or ESUs. No data are available to assess the genetic relationship of the Russian River fish to populations in this or other ESUs. The BRT found moderately high risks for all VSP risk categories, and underscored a strong concern due to the paucity of information and the resultant uncertainty generated in evaluating ESU viability. Informed by this risk assessment and the related uncertainty, the majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of the California Coastal chinook ESU is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” The minority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of the ESU is “in danger of extinction.”
Seven artificial propagation programs that produce chinook salmon are considered to be part of the California Coastal chinook ESU (Table 2; NMFS,
2004b). Six of these programs (Freshwater Creek, Yager Creek, Redwood Creek, Hollow Tree Creek, Mattole River Salmon Group, and Mad River Hatchery) are relatively small programs with production goals of less than 80,000 fish that have been operated for restoration purposes for more than 20 years. Because of state funding limitations, it is likely that these programs will be terminated after 2004. These programs are small-scale supplementation facilities operated by local groups or companies in cooperation with the CDFG under its cooperative hatchery program. The Van Arsdale Fish Station has been operated for over 30 years by CDFG for supplementation purposes in the upper Eel River. Because of State funding limitations, the operations at the Station were terminated in 2003. The seven hatchery programs are primarily located in the northern portion of the ESU's range and most are in the Eel River.
An assessment of the effects of these small artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU in-total concluded that they collectively decrease risk to some degree by contributing to local increases in abundance, but have a neutral or uncertain effect on productivity, spatial structure or diversity of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). There have been no demonstrable increases in natural abundance from the five cooperative hatchery programs, with the possible exception of increased abundance in the Freshwater Creek natural population and as a result of the rescue and rearing activities by the Mattole Salmon Group. In part, this is because there is limited natural population monitoring in the watersheds where the hatchery programs are located. No efforts have been undertaken to assess the productivity of hatchery produced fish or to assess the effects of hatchery produced fish on natural origin fish productivity. The seven hatchery populations in this ESU are primarily located in the northern portion of the ESU's range and overlap with natural origin fish populations. With the exception of Freshwater Creek where local distribution may have expanded in association with the natural population increase, there are no demonstrable beneficial effects on spatial structure. The six cooperative programs use only natural-origin fish as broodstock and mark all production with an adipose fin clip to ensure there is limited hatchery selection on fish that are released.
Informed by the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS' assessment of the effects of artificial propagation programs on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop concluded that this ESU in-total is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future” (NMFS, 2004c).
Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU
There are no direct estimates of natural-origin spawner abundance for the Upper Willamette River chinook ESU. The abundance of adult spring chinook salmon (hatchery and natural fish) passing Willamette Falls has remained relatively steady over the past 50 years (ranging from approximately 20,000 to 70,000 fish), but is only a fraction of peak abundance levels observed in the 1920s (approximately 300,000 adults). Interpretation of abundance levels is confounded by a high but uncertain fraction of hatchery produced fish. The McKenzie River population has shown substantial increases in total abundance (hatchery origin and natural origin fish) in the last 2 years, while trends in other natural populations in the ESU are generally mixed. With the relatively large incidence of naturally spawning hatchery fish in the ESU, it is difficult to determine trends in productivity for natural-origin fish. The BRT estimated that despite improving trends in total productivity (including hatchery origin and natural origin fish) since 1995, productivity would be below replacement in the absence of artificial propagation. The BRT was particularly concerned that approximately 30 to 40 percent of total historical habitat is now inaccessible behind dams. These inaccessible areas, however, represent a majority of the historical spawning habitat. The restriction of natural production to just a few areas increases the ESU's vulnerability to environmental variability and catastrophic events. Losses of local adaptation and genetic diversity through the mixing of hatchery stocks within the ESU, and the introgression of out-of-ESU hatchery fall-run chinook, have represented threats to ESU diversity. However, the BRT was encouraged by the recent cessation of the fall-run hatchery, as well as by improved marking rates of hatchery fish to assist in monitoring and in the management of a marked-fish selective fishery.
The BRT found moderately high risks for all VSP categories. Informed by this risk assessment, the strong majority opinion of the BRT was that the naturally spawned component of the Upper Willamette River chinook ESU is “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” The minority opinion was that this ESU is “in danger of extinction.”
Seven artificial propagation programs in the W
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.