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

[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]

[Proposed Rules]

[Pages 11482-11520]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 98-5484]

[[Page 11481]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II

Department of Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

50 CFR Parts 222, 226, and 227

Endangered and Threatened Species: West Coast Chinook Salmon; Listing

Status Change; Proposed Rule

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

Rules

[[Page 11482]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 222, 226, and 227

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

RIN 0648-AK65

Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Endangered Status for

Two Chinook Salmon ESUs and Proposed Threatened Status for Five Chinook

Salmon ESUs; Proposed Redefinition, Threatened Status, and Revision of

Critical Habitat for One Chinook Salmon ESU; Proposed Designation of

Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat in California, Oregon, Washington,

Idaho

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed redefinition; proposed designation and

revision of critical habitat; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of west coast

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, or O. tshawytscha)

populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California in response to

petitions filed to list chinook salmon under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA). Based on this review, NMFS identified a total of 15

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of chinook salmon within this

range, including two Snake River ESUs already listed under the ESA, one

previously identified ESU (mid-Columbia River summer/fall run) for

which no listing was proposed, and one population (Sacramento River

winter run) that was listed as a ``distinct population segment'' prior

to the formulation of the NMFS ESU policy. With respect to the 12 ESUs

that are the subject of this proposed rule, NMFS has concluded that two

ESUs are at risk of extinction and five ESUs are at risk of becoming

endangered in the foreseeable future. NMFS also concluded that one

currently listed ESU should be redefined to include additional chinook

salmon populations and that this redefined ESU is at risk of becoming

endangered in the foreseeable future. NMFS also concluded that four

ESUs are not at risk of extinction nor at risk of becoming endangered

in the foreseeable future. Finally, NMFS also renamed the previously

identified Mid-Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU as the Upper Columbia

River summer/fall-run ESU.

NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to list two ESUs as endangered,

five ESUs as threatened, and to redefine one currently listed ESU to

include additional chinook populations, under the ESA. The endangered

chinook salmon are located in California (Central Valley spring-run

ESU) and Washington (Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU). The

threatened chinook salmon are dispersed throughout California, Oregon,

and Washington. They include the California Central Valley fall-run

ESU, the Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU, the Puget Sound

ESU, the Lower Columbia River ESU, and the Upper Willamette River ESU.

NMFS also proposes to redefine the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon

ESU to include fall chinook salmon populations in the Deschutes River,

and proposes to list this redefined ESU as a threatened species. This

proposal does not affect the current definition and threatened status

of the listed Snake River fall chinook salmon ESU.

In each ESU identified as threatened or endangered, only naturally

spawned, non-introduced chinook salmon are proposed for listing. Prior

to the final listing determinations, NMFS will examine the relationship

between hatchery and natural populations of chinook salmon in these

ESUs and assess whether any hatchery populations are essential for the

recovery of the natural populations and thus will be listed.

NMFS is proposing to designate critical habitat for the chinook

salmon ESUs newly proposed for listing within this notice, and for the

Snake River fall-run ESU, proposing to revise its existing critical

habitat. At this time, proposed critical habitat for these ESUs is the

species' current freshwater and estuarine range, certain marine areas,

and includes all waterways, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones

below longstanding, impassible, natural barriers.

NMFS is requesting public comments on the issues pertaining to this

proposed rule. NMFS is also requesting suggestions and comments on

integrated local/state/tribal/Federal conservation measures that will

achieve the purposes of the ESA to recover the health of chinook salmon

populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Should the

proposed listing be made final, NMFS will adopt protective regulations

and a recovery plan under the ESA.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 8, 1998. NMFS will announce

the dates and locations of public hearings in Washington, Oregon,

Idaho, and California in a forthcoming Federal Register notice.

Requests for additional public hearings must be received by April 23,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule, requests for reference

materials, and requests for public hearings should be sent to Chief,

Protected Species Division, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500,

Portland, OR 97232-2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, 503-231-2005, Craig

Wingert, 562-980-4021, or Joe Blum, 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Chinook

West Coast chinook salmon have been the subject of many Federal ESA

actions. In November 1985, NMFS received a petition to list Sacramento

River winter-run chinook salmon from the American Fisheries Society

(AFS). NMFS determined that the petitioned action might be warranted

and announced it would conduct a review of the run's status (51 FR

5391, February 13, 1986). In its status review, NMFS determined that

Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon was a ``species'' for the

purposes of the ESA, but based upon the conservation and restoration

efforts by California and other Federal resource agencies, declined to

list the winter-run chinook at that time (52 FR 6041, February 27,

1987). Subsequent low returns prompted NMFS to adopt an emergency rule

listing Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon as a threatened

species under the ESA (54 FR 10260, August 4, 1989). NMFS then issued a

proposed rule to list Sacramento River winter-run chinook as a

threatened species under the ESA (55 FR 102260, March 20, 1990), and

also published a second emergency rule listing the winter-run chinook

as threatened to avoid any lapse in ESA protections while considering

the proposed rule (55 FR 12191, April 2, 1990). On November 5, 1990,

NMFS completed its listing determination for Sacramento River winter-

run chinook, and published a final rule listing the run as a threatened

species under the ESA (55 FR 46515).

In June 1991, AFS petitioned NMFS to reclassify the winter-run as

an endangered species. Based on the information submitted by AFS, and

after reviewing all other available data, NMFS determined that the

petitioned action may be warranted, and announced its intention to

review the status of the winter-run chinook (56 FR 58986, November 7,

1991), and then published a proposed rule to reclassify

[[Page 11483]]

winter-run chinook salmon as endangered under the ESA (57 FR 27416,

June 19, 1992). Critical habitat for Sacramento winter-run chinook

salmon was designated on June 16, 1993 (58 FR 33212). After several

extensions of the listing determination and the comment period, NMFS

finalized its proposed rule and re-classified the winter-run chinook as

an endangered species under the ESA (59 FR 440, January 4, 1994).

While NMFS was reviewing and reclassifying the status of Sacramento

River chinook, NMFS also received a petition from Oregon Trout and five

co-petitioners on June 7, 1990, to list Snake River spring/summer and

fall chinook salmon as threatened species under the ESA. On September

11, 1990, NMFS determined that the petition presented substantial

scientific information indicating that the proposed action may be

warranted, and initiated a status review (55 FR 37342). NMFS published

a proposed rule listing two Snake River chinook salmon runs as

threatened under the ESA on June 27, 1991 (56 FR 29542 and 56 FR

29547). NMFS finalized its rule listing these Snake River chinook

salmon runs as threatened species on April 22, 1992 (57 FR 14653).

Meanwhile, on June 3, 1993, American Rivers and 10 other

organizations petitioned NMFS to add Mid-Columbia River summer chinook

salmon to the list of endangered species. NMFS determined that this

petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that

the petitioned action may be warranted, and initiated a status review

(58 FR 46944, September 3, 1993). Subsequently, NMFS determined that

mid-Columbia River summer chinook salmon did not qualify as an ESU, and

therefore was not a ``distinct population segment'' under the ESA (59

FR 48855, September 23, 1994). However, NMFS determined that mid-

Columbia River summer chinook salmon were part of a larger ESU that

included all late-run (summer and fall) Columbia River chinook salmon

between McNary and Chief Joseph dams. NMFS also concluded that this ESU

did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species (59 FR

48855, September 23, 1994).

Immediately prior to that determination, NMFS determined that a

petition filed on March 14, 1994, by Professional Resources

Organization-Salmon (PRO-Salmon) to list various populations of chinook

salmon in Washington contained substantial scientific information

indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (59 FR 46808,

September 12, 1994). NMFS then announced that it would commence a

coast-wide status review of all west coast chinook salmon (59 FR

46808). Shortly after initiating this comprehensive coast wide status

review for chinook and other salmon species, NMFS received a petition

from Oregon Natural Resource Council and Dr. Richard Nawa on February

1, 1995, to list chinook salmon throughout its range. NMFS determined

that this petition contained substantial scientific information

indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and reconfirmed

its intention to conduct a comprehensive coast wide status review of

west coast chinook salmon (60 FR 30263, June 8, 1995).

In the intervening period between the two most recent petitions to

list various populations of west coast chinook salmon, NMFS published

an emergency rule on August 18, 1994 (59 FR 42529) after determining

that the status of Snake River spring/summer-run and Snake River fall-

run chinook salmon warranted reclassification as endangered, based on

projected declines and low abundance levels of adult chinook salmon.

Because emergency rules under the ESA have a maximum duration of 240

days (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7) and 50 CFR Sec. 424.20(a)), NMFS

published a proposed rule reclassifying listed Snake River spring/

summer-run and Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESUs as endangered

on December 28, 1994 (59 FR 66784). Since publishing that proposed

rule, a congressional moratorium on listing activities, a large ESA

listing determination backlog and other delays prevented NMFS from

completing its assessment of the proposed rule. During this period,

abundance of both stocks of Snake River chinook salmon has increased.

Based on these increases, along with improved management activities

affecting these chinook salmon, NMFS concluded that the risks facing

these chinook salmon ESUs are lower than they were at the time of the

proposed rule, and thus NMFS withdrew the proposed reclassification (63

FR 1807, January 12, 1998).

During the coast wide chinook salmon status review initiated in

September, 1994, NMFS assessed the best available scientific and

commercial data, including technical information from Pacific Salmon

Biological Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and interested parties in

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The PSBTCs consisted

primarily of scientists (from Federal, state, and local resource

agencies, Indian tribes, industries, universities, professional

societies, and public interest groups) possessing technical expertise

relevant to chinook salmon and their habitats.

A NMFS Biological Review Team, composed of scientists from NMFS'

Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers, NMFS' Northwest and

Southwest Regional Offices, as well as a representative of the National

Biological Service, completed a coast wide status review for chinook

salmon [Memorandum to W. Stelle and W. Hogarth from M. Schiewe,

December 18, 1997, Chinook Salmon Status Review Report]. The review

(summary follows) evaluates the status of 15 chinook salmon ESUs in the

four states. The complete results of NMFS' status review for chinook

salmon populations will be published in a forthcoming NOAA Technical

Memorandum (Myers et al., 1998).

Chinook Salmon Life History and Ecology

Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) are easily distinguished from other

Oncorhynchus species by their large size. Adults weighing over 120

pounds have been caught in North American waters. Chinook salmon are

very similar to coho salmon (O. kisutch) in appearance while at sea

(blue-green back with silver flanks), except for their large size,

small black spots on both lobes of the tail, and black pigment along

the base of the teeth. Chinook salmon are anadromous and semelparous.

This means that as adults, they migrate from a marine environment into

the fresh water streams and rivers of their birth (anadromous) where

they spawn and die (semelparous). Adult female chinook will prepare a

spawning bed, called a redd, in a stream area with suitable gravel

composition, water depth and velocity. Redds will vary widely in size

and in location within the stream or river. The adult female chinook

may deposit eggs in 4 to 5 ``nesting pockets'' within a single redd.

After laying eggs in a redd, adult chinook will guard the redd from 4

to 25 days before dying. Chinook salmon eggs will hatch, depending upon

water temperatures, between 90 to 150 days after deposition. Stream

flow, gravel quality, and silt load all significantly influence the

survival of developing chinook salmon eggs. Juvenile chinook may spend

from 3 months to 2 years in freshwater after emergence and before

migrating to estuarine areas as smolts, and then into the ocean to feed

and mature. Historically, chinook salmon ranged as far south as the

Ventura River, California, and their northern extent reaches the

Russian Far East.

Among chinook salmon, two distinct races have evolved. One race,

described

[[Page 11484]]

as a ``stream-type'' chinook, is found most commonly in headwater

streams. Stream-type chinook salmon have a longer freshwater residency,

and perform extensive offshore migrations before returning to their

natal streams in the spring or summer months. The second race is called

the ``ocean-type'' chinook, which is commonly found in coastal streams

in North America. Ocean-type chinook typically migrate to sea within

the first three months of emergence, but they may spend up to a year in

freshwater prior to emigration. They also spend their ocean life in

coastal waters. Ocean-type chinook salmon return to their natal streams

or rivers as spring, winter, fall, summer, and late-fall runs, but

summer and fall runs predominate (Healey, 1991). The difference between

these life history types is also physical, with both genetic and

morphological foundations.

Juvenile stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon have adapted to

different ecological niches. Ocean-type chinook salmon tend to utilize

estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for juvenile rearing. The

brackish water areas in estuaries also moderate physiological stress

during parr-smolt transition. The development of the ocean-type life

history strategy may have been a response to the limited carrying

capacity of smaller stream systems and glacially scoured, unproductive,

watersheds, or a means of avoiding the impact of seasonal floods in the

lower portion of many watersheds (Miller and Brannon, 1982).

Stream-type juveniles are much more dependent on freshwater stream

ecosystems because of their extended residence in these areas. A

stream-type life history may be adapted to those watersheds, or parts

of watersheds, that are more consistently productive and less

susceptible to dramatic changes in water flow, or which have

environmental conditions that would severely limit the success of

subyearling smolts (Miller and Brannon, 1982; Healey, 1991). At the

time of saltwater entry, stream-type (yearling) smolts are much larger,

averaging 73-134 mm depending on the river system, than their ocean-

type (subyearling) counterparts and are therefore able to move offshore

relatively quickly (Healey, 1991).

Coastwide, chinook salmon remain at sea for 1 to 6 years (more

commonly 2 to 4 years), with the exception of a small proportion of

yearling males (called jack salmon) which mature in freshwater or

return after 2 or 3 months in salt water (Rutter, 1904; Gilbert, 1912;

Rich, 1920; Mullan et al., 1992). Ocean- and stream-type chinook salmon

are recovered differentially in coastal and mid-ocean fisheries,

indicating divergent migratory routes (Healey, 1983 and 1991). Ocean-

type chinook salmon tend to migrate along the coast, while stream-type

chinook salmon are found far from the coast in the central North

Pacific (Healey 1983 and 1991; Myers et al., 1984). Differences in the

ocean distribution of specific stocks may be indicative of resource

partitioning and may be important to the success of the species as a

whole.

There is a significant genetic influence to the freshwater

component of the returning adult migratory process. A number of studies

show that chinook salmon return to their natal streams with a high

degree of fidelity (Rich and Holmes 1928; Quinn and Fresh, 1984;

McIssac and Quinn, 1988). Salmon may have evolved this trait as a

method of ensuring an adequate incubation and rearing habitat. It also

provides a mechanism for reproductive isolation and local adaptation.

Conversely, returning to a stream other than that of one's origin is

important in colonizing new areas and responding to unfavorable or

perturbed conditions at the natal stream (Quinn, 1993).

Chinook salmon stocks exhibit considerable variability in size and

age of maturation, and at least some portion of this variation is

genetically determined. The relationship between size and length of

migration may also reflect the earlier timing of river entry and the

cessation of feeding for chinook salmon stocks that migrate to the

upper reaches of river systems. Body size, which is correlated with

age, may be an important factor in migration and redd construction

success. Roni and Quinn (1995) reported that under high density

conditions on the spawning ground, natural selection may produce stocks

with exceptionally large-sized returning adults.

Early researchers recorded the existence of different temporal

``runs'' or modes in the migration of chinook salmon from the ocean to

freshwater. Freshwater entry and spawning timing are believed to be

related to local temperature and water flow regimes (Miller and

Brannon, 1982). Seasonal ``runs'' (ie., spring, summer, fall, or

winter) have been identified on the basis of when adult chinook salmon

enter freshwater to begin their spawning migration. However, distinct

runs also differ in the degree of maturation at the time of river

entry, the thermal regime and flow characteristics of their spawning

site, and their actual time of spawning. Egg deposition must occur at a

time to ensure that fry emerge during the following spring when the

river or estuary productivity is sufficient for juvenile survival and

growth.

Other Life History Traits

Pathogen resistance is another locally adapted trait. Chinook

salmon from the Columbia River drainage were less susceptible to

Ceratomyxa shasta, an endemic pathogen, than stocks from coastal rivers

where the disease is not known to occur (Zinn et al., 1977). Alaskan

and Columbia River stocks of chinook salmon exhibit different levels of

susceptibility to the infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV)

(Wertheimer and Winton 1982). Variability in temperature tolerance

between populations is likely due to selection for local conditions;

however, there is little information on the genetic basis of this trait

(Levings, 1993).

Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA

To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, the

identified populations of chinook salmon must be considered ``species''

under the ESA. The ESA defines a ``species'' to include ``any

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population

segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds

when mature.'' NMFS published a policy (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991)

describing the agency's application of the ESA definition of

``species'' to anadromous Pacific salmonid species. NMFS' policy

provides that a Pacific salmonid population will be considered distinct

and, hence, a species under the ESA if it represents an ESU of the

biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be

considered an ESU, it must be reproductively isolated from other

conspecific population units, and it must represent an important

component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The

first criterion, reproductive isolation, need not be absolute, but must

be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to

accrue in different population units. The second criterion is met if

the population contributes substantially to the ecological and genetic

diversity of the species as a whole. Guidance on the application of

this policy is contained in a scientific paper ``Pacific Salmon

(Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition of `Species' under the

Endangered Species Act'' (Waples, 1991) and a NOAA Technical Memorandum

``Definition of `Species' Under the Endangered Species Act: Application

to Pacific Salmon'' (NMFS F/NWC-194) which are available upon request

(see ADDRESSES). The following sections

[[Page 11485]]

describe the genetic, ecological, and life history characteristics, as

well as human-induced genetic changes that NMFS assessed to determine

the number and geographic extent of chinook salmon ESUs.

Reproductive Isolation

Genetic data provide useful indirect information on reproductive

isolation because they integrate information about migration and gene

flow over evolutionarily important time frames.

Genetic information obtained from allozyme, DNA, and chromosomal

sampling indicate strong differentiation between chinook salmon ESUs,

and were largely consistent with those described in previous studies of

chinook salmon. Puget Sound populations of chinook salmon appear to

constitute a genetically distinct group, a conclusion that is

consistent with the results of Utter et al. (1989) and Marshall et al.

(1995). In NMFS' analyses, Washington coastal populations appeared to

form a genetically distinct group that was most similar to, but still

distinct from, Oregon coastal populations. The Washington coastal group

included the Hoko River population in the western part of the Strait of

Juan de Fuca. Chinook salmon in the Elwha River, which also drains into

the Strait of Juan de Fuca, were genetically intermediate between Puget

Sound and Washington coastal populations.

Chinook salmon populations in the Columbia and Snake Rivers appear

to be separated into two large genetic groups: those producing ocean-

type outmigrants and those producing stream-type outmigrants. The first

group includes populations in lower Columbia River tributaries, with

both spring-run and fall-run (``tule'') life histories. These ocean-

type populations exhibit a range of juvenile life history patterns that

appear to depend on local environmental conditions. The Willamette

River hatchery populations form a distinct subgroup within the lower

Columbia River group. Ocean-type chinook salmon populations east of the

Cascade Range Crest include both summer-and fall-run (``bright'')

populations, and are genetically distinct from lower Columbia River

ocean-type populations. Fall-run populations in the Snake River,

Deschutes River, and Marion Drain (Yakima River) form a distinct

subgroup.

The second major group of chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake

River drainage consists of spring- or summer-run fish. Based on

analysis of genetic clusters, three relatively distinct subgroups

appeared within these stream-type populations. One subgroup includes

spring-run populations in the Klickitat, John Day, Deschutes, and

Yakima Rivers of the mid-Columbia River. A second subgroup includes

upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon in the Wenatchee and

Methow Rivers, but also includes spring-run fish in the Grande Ronde

River and Carson Hatchery. This is likely due to the releases of exotic

Carson hatchery stock in these basins, rather than to natural genetic

similarities. A third subgroup consists of Snake River spring- and

summer-run populations in the Imnaha and Salmon Rivers, as well as

those in the Rapid River and Lookingglass Hatcheries. The Klickitat

River spring-run population appears to be genetically intermediate

between upper and lower Columbia River groups.

All populations of chinook salmon south of the Columbia River

drainage appear to consist of ocean-type fish. Populations along the

north coast of Oregon form a genetically distinct group, consisting of

populations north of and including the Elk River, except for the Rock

Creek Hatchery spring-run population, which show greater genetic

affinity to southern Oregon coastal populations. A southern coastal

group includes populations south of the Elk River to and including

populations in the lower Klamath River in northern California. However,

Euchre Creek, which is located near the Rogue River and has been

planted extensively with Elk River stock, is more similar to

populations north of Cape Blanco. Upper Klamath River populations of

chinook salmon are genetically distinct from other northern California,

southern Oregon and California Central Valley populations.

Sacramento and San Joaquin River populations are genetically

distinct from northern California coastal and Klamath River

populations. Previous studies grouped populations in the Sacramento

River with those in the San Joaquin River (Utter et al., 1989; Bartley

and Gall, 1990; Bartley et al., 1992). However, Hedgecock et al.

(1995), Banks (1996), and Nielsen (1995 and 1997) surveyed DNA markers

and these results indicate that the winter, spring, fall, and late-fall

runs may be genetically distinct from one another.

Genetic Changes Due to Human Activities

The effects of artificial propagation and other human activities

such as harvest and habitat modification, can be relevant to ESA

listing determinations in two ways. First, such activities can

genetically change natural populations so much that they no longer

represent an evolutionarily significant component of the biological

species (Waples, 1991). For example, in 1991, NMFS concluded that, as a

result of massive and prolonged effects of artificial propagation,

harvest, and habitat degradation, the agency could not identify natural

populations of coho salmon (O. kisutch) in the lower Columbia River

that qualified for ESA listing consideration (56 FR 29553, June 27,

1991). Second, risks to the viability and genetic integrity of native

salmon populations posed by human activities may contribute to their

threatened or endangered status (Goodman, 1990; Hard et al., 1992). The

severity of these effects on natural populations depends both on the

nature of the effects (e.g., harvest rate, gear size, or type of

hatchery practice) and their magnitude (e.g., duration of a hatchery

program and number and life-history stage of hatchery fish involved).

For example, artificial propagation is a common practice to

supplement chinook salmon stocks for commercial and recreational

fisheries. However, in many areas, a significant portion of the

naturally spawning population consists of hatchery-produced chinook

salmon. In several of the chinook salmon ESUs, over 50 percent of the

naturally spawning fish are from hatcheries. Many of these hatchery-

produced fish are derived from a few stocks which may or may not have

originated from the geographic area where they are released. However,

in several of the ESUs analyzed, insufficient or uncertain information

exists regarding the interactions between hatchery and natural fish,

and the relative abundance of hatchery and natural stocks.

Artificial propagation is important to consider in ESA evaluations

of anadromous Pacific salmonids for several reasons. First, although

natural fish are the focus of ESU determinations, possible effects of

artificial propagation on natural populations must also be evaluated.

For example, stock transfers might change the genetic bases or

phenotypic expression of life history characteristics in a natural

population in such a way that the population might seem either less or

more distinctive than it was historically. Artificial propagation can

also alter life history characteristics such as smolt age and migration

and spawn timing (e.g., Crawford, 1979, NRC 1996). Second, artificial

propagation poses a number of risks to natural populations that may

affect their risk of extinction or endangerment. Finally, if any

natural populations are listed under the ESA, then it will be necessary

to determine the ESA status of

[[Page 11486]]

all associated hatchery populations. This latter determination would be

made following a proposed listing and is not considered further in this

document.

The impacts of hatchery activities on specific ESUs is discussed in

the Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs and Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species sections.

Ecological and Genetic Diversity

Several types of physical and biological evidence were considered

in evaluating the contribution of chinook salmon from Washington,

Oregon, Idaho, and California to the ecological and genetic diversity

of the biological species throughout its range. Factors examined

included: (1) The physical environment--geology, soil type, air

temperature, precipitation, river flow patterns, water temperature, and

vegetation; (2) biogeography--marine, estuarine, and freshwater fish

distributions; and (3) life history traits--age at smolting, age at

spawning, river entry timing, and spawning timing. An analysis of the

physical environment and life history traits provides important insight

into the ecological and genetic diversity of the species and can

reflect unusual or distinctive adaptations that promote evolutionary

processes.

The predominant differentiation in chinook salmon life history

types is that between ocean- and stream-type chinook salmon. Ocean-type

populations typically migrate to the ocean in their first year of life

and spend most of their marine life in coastal waters, whereas stream-

type populations migrate to sea as yearlings and often make extensive

ocean migrations.

In some areas within the Columbia River Basin, stream- and ocean-

type chinook salmon stocks spawn in relatively close proximity to one

another but are separated by run timing. Stream-type chinook salmon

include spring-run populations in the Columbia River and its

tributaries east of the Cascade Crest, and spring- and summer-run fish

in the Snake River and its tributaries. Ocean-type chinook salmon

include fall-run chinook salmon in both the Columbia and Snake River

Basins, summer-run chinook salmon from the Columbia River, and spring-

run fish from the lower Columbia River. There are substantial genetic

differences between stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon in both the

Fraser and Columbia River Basins, and the genetic analyses show clearly

that the two life history forms represent two major evolutionary

lineages.

Adult run-time has also long been used to identify different

temporal ``races'' of chinook salmon. In cases where the run-time

differences correspond to differences between stream- and ocean-type

fish (e.g., in the Columbia and Fraser River Basins), relatively large

genetic differences (as well as ecological and life history

differences) can be found between the different runs. In most coastal

areas, however, life history and genetic differences between the runs

are relatively modest, relative to the larger differences used in

designating other ESUs. Although many populations have some fraction of

yearling migrants, all the coastal populations are part of the ocean

lineage, and spring- and fall-run fish are very similar in ocean

distribution.

Among basins supporting only ocean-type chinook salmon, the

Sacramento River system is somewhat unusual in that its large size and

ecological diversity historically allowed for substantial spatial as

well as temporal separation of different runs. Genetic and life history

data both suggest that considerable differentiation among the runs has

occurred in this basin. The Klamath River Basin, as well as chinook

salmon in Puget Sound, shares some features of coastal rivers but

historically also provided an opportunity for substantial spatial

separation of different temporal runs. As discussed below, the

diversity in run timing made identifying ESUs difficult in the Klamath

and Sacramento River Basins.

NMFS considers differences in life history traits as a possible

indicator of adaptation to different environmental regimes and resource

partitioning within those regimes. The relevance of the ecologic and

genetic basis for specific chinook salmon life-history traits as they

pertain to each ESU is discussed in the brief summary that follows.

ESU Determinations

The ESU determinations described here represent a synthesis of a

large amount of diverse information. In general, the proposed

geographic boundaries for each ESU (i.e., the watersheds within which

the members of the ESU are typically found) are supported by several

lines of evidence that show similar patterns. However, the diverse data

sets are not always entirely congruent (nor would they be expected to

be), and the proposed boundaries are not necessarily the only ones

possible. For example, in some cases (e.g., in the Middle Columbia

River near the Cascade Crest), environmental changes occur over a

transition zone rather than abruptly.

Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,

NMFS has identified 15 ESUs of chinook salmon from Washington, Oregon,

Idaho, and California, including 11 new ESUs, and one redefined ESU.

The 15 ESUs are briefly described and characterized below. Genetic data

(from studies of protein electrophoresis and DNA) were the primary

evidence considered for the reproductive isolation criterion,

supplemented by inferences about barriers to migration created by

natural geographic features and human-induced changes resulting from

artificial propagation and harvest. Factors considered to be most

informative in evaluating ecological and genetic diversity include data

pertaining to the physical environment, ocean conditions and upwelling,

vegetation, estuarine and freshwater fish distributions, river entry,

and spawning timing.

Most of the ESUs described below include multiple spawning

populations of chinook salmon, and most also extend over a considerable

geographic area. This result is consistent with NMFS' species

definition paper, which states that, in general, ``ESUs should

correspond to more comprehensive units unless there is clear evidence

that evolutionarily important differences exist between smaller

population segments'' (Waples, 1991, p. 20). However, considerable

diversity in genetic or life history traits or habitat features exists

within most ESUs, and maintaining this diversity is critical to their

overall health. The descriptions below briefly summarize some of the

notable types of diversity within each ESU, and this diversity is

considered in the next section in evaluating risk to the ESUs as a

whole.

(1) Sacramento River Winter-Run ESU

This run was determined to be a distinct population segment by NMFS

in 1987, prior to development of the NMFS species policy. The NMFS

concluded that this run meets the criteria to be considered an ESU. It

includes chinook salmon entering the Sacramento River from November to

June and spawning from late-April to mid-August, with a peak from May

to June. No other chinook salmon populations have a similar life

history pattern. In general, winter-run chinook salmon exhibit an

ocean-type life-history strategy, with smolts emigrating to the ocean

after 5 to 9 months of freshwater residence (Johnson et al., 1992) and

remaining near the coasts of California and Oregon. Winter-run chinook

salmon also mature at a

[[Page 11487]]

relatively young age (2-3 years old). DNA analysis indicates

substantial genetic differences between winter-run and other chinook

salmon in the Sacramento River.

Historically, winter-run populations existed in the Upper

Sacramento, Pit, McCloud, and Calaveras Rivers. The spawning habitat

for these stocks was primarily located in the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion

(Omernik, 1987). Construction of dams on these rivers in the 1940s led

to the extirpation of populations in the San Joaquin River Basin and

displaced the Sacramento River population to areas below Shasta Dam.

(2) Central Valley Spring-Run ESU

Existing populations in this ESU spawn in the Sacramento River and

its tributaries. Historically, spring chinook salmon were the dominant

run in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Clark, 1929), but

native populations in the San Joaquin River have apparently all been

extirpated (Campbell and Moyle, 1990). This ESU includes chinook salmon

entering the Sacramento River from March to July and spawning from late

August through early October, with a peak in September. Spring-run fish

in the Sacramento River exhibit an ocean-type life history, emigrating

as fry, subyearlings, and yearlings. Recoveries of hatchery chinook

salmon implanted with coded-wire-tags (CWT) are primarily from ocean

fisheries off the California and Oregon coast. There were minimal

differences in the ocean distribution of fall- and spring-run fish from

the Feather River Hatchery (as determined by CWT analysis); however,

due to hybridization that may have occurred in the hatchery between

these two runs, this similarity in ocean migration may not be

representative of wild runs.

Substantial ecological differences in the historical spawning

habitat for spring-run versus fall- and late-fall-run fish have been

recognized. Spring chinook salmon run timing was suited to gaining

access to the upper reaches of river systems (up to 1,500 m elevation)

prior to the onset of prohibitively high water temperatures and low

flows that inhibit access to these areas during the fall. Differences

in adult size, fecundity, and smolt size also occur between spring- and

fall/late fall-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River.

No allozyme data are available for naturally spawning Sacramento

River spring chinook salmon. A sample from Feather River Hatchery

spring-run fish, which may have undergone substantial hybridization

with fall chinook salmon, shows modest (but statistically significant)

differences from fall-run hatchery populations. DNA data show moderate

genetic differences between the spring and fall/late-fall runs in the

Sacramento River; however, these data are difficult to interpret in the

context of this broad status review because comparable data are not

available for other geographic regions.

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

This ESU includes fall and late-fall chinook salmon spawning in the

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. These

populations enter the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers from July

through April and spawn from October through February.

Both runs are ocean-type chinook salmon, emigrating predominantly

as fry and subyearlings and remaining off the California coast during

their ocean migration.

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin chinook salmon are genetically and

physically distinguishable from all other coastal forms (Clark, 1929;

Synder, 1931). Ecologically, the Central Valley also differs in many

important ways from coastal areas. There were also a number of life-

history differences noted between Sacramento and San Joaquin River

Basin fall/late fall-run populations. In general, San Joaquin River

populations tend to mature at an earlier age and spawn later in the

year than Sacramento River populations. These differences could have

been phenotypic responses to the generally warmer temperature and lower

flow conditions found in the San Joaquin River Basin relative to the

Sacramento River Basin. There was no apparent difference in the

distribution of marine CWT recoveries from Sacramento and San Joaquin

River hatchery populations, nor were there genetic differences between

Sacramento and San Joaquin River fall/late fall-run populations (based

on DNA and allozyme analysis) of a similar magnitude to that used in

distinguishing other ESUs. This apparent lack of distinguishing life

history and genetic characteristics may be due, in part, to large scale

transfers of Sacramento River fall/late fall-run chinook salmon into

the San Joaquin River Basin.

(4) Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU

This ESU includes all naturally spawned coastal spring and fall

chinook salmon spawning from Cape Blanco (inclusive of the Elk River)

to the southern extent of the current range for chinook salmon at Point

Bonita (the northern landmass marking the entrance to San Francisco

Bay). The Cape Blanco region is a major biogeographic boundary for

numerous species (e.g., steelhead and coho salmon). Chinook salmon

spawn in several small tributaries to San Francisco Bay, however it is

uncertain whether these small populations are part of this ESU, or

wanderers from Central Valley chinook salmon ESUs.

Chinook salmon from the Central Valley and Klamath River Basin

upstream from the Trinity River confluence are genetically and

ecologically distinguishable from those in this ESU. Chinook salmon in

this ESU exhibit an ocean-type life-history; ocean distribution (based

on marine CWT recoveries) is predominantly off of the California and

Oregon coasts. Life-history information on smaller populations,

especially in the southern portion of the ESU, is extremely limited.

Additionally, only anecdotal or incomplete information exists on

abundance of several spring-run populations including, the Chetco,

Winchuck, Smith, Mad, and Eel Rivers. Allozyme data indicate that this

ESU is genetically distinguishable from the Oregon Coast, Upper Klamath

and Trinity River, and Central Valley ESUs. This data also shows some

divergence between chinook populations north and south of the Klamath

River, but the available information is incomplete to describe chinook

salmon south of the Klamath River as a separate ESU. Life history

differences also exist between spring- and fall-run fish in this ESU,

but not to the same extent as is observed in larger inland basins.

Ecologically, the majority of the river systems in this ESU are

relatively small and heavily influenced by a maritime climate. Low

summer flows and high temperatures in many rivers result in seasonal

physical and thermal barrier bars that block movement by anadromous

fish. The Rogue River is the largest river basin in this ESU and

extends inland into the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Ecoregions.

(5) Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU

Included in this ESU are all Klamath River Basin populations from

the Trinity River and the Klamath River upstream from the confluence of

the Trinity River. These populations include both spring- and fall-run

fish that enter the Upper Klamath River Basin from March through July

and July through October and spawn from late August through September

and September through early January, respectively. Body morphology

[[Page 11488]]

(vertebral counts, lateral-line scale counts, and fin-ray counts) and

reproductive traits (egg size and number) for populations from the

Upper Klamath River differ from those of populations in the Sacramento

River Basin. Genetic analysis indicated that populations from the Upper

Klamath River Basin form a unique group that is quite distinctive

compared to neighboring ESUs. The Upper Klamath River crosses the

Coastal Range, Sierra Nevada, and Eastern Cascades Ecoregions, although

dams prevent access to the upper river headwaters of the Klamath River

in the Eastern Cascades Ecoregion.

Within the Upper Klamath River Basin, there are statistically

significant, but fairly modest, genetic differences between the fall

and spring runs. The majority of the spring- and fall-run fish emigrate

to the marine environment primarily as subyearlings. Recoveries of CWTs

indicate that both runs have a coastal distribution off of the

California and Oregon coasts. There was no apparent difference in the

marine distribution of CWT recoveries from fall-run (Iron Gate and

Trinity River Hatcheries) and spring-run populations (Trinity River

Hatchery).

NMFS was concerned that the only estimate of the genetic

relationship between spring and fall runs in this ESU is from a

comparison of hatchery stocks that may have undergone some

introgression during hatchery spawning operations, thus blurring the

distinguishable traits between spring- and fall-run chinook in this

ESU. NMFS acknowledges that the ESU determination should be revisited

if substantial new information from natural spring-run populations

becomes available.

(6) Oregon Coast ESU

This ESU contains coastal populations of spring- and fall-run

chinook salmon from the Elk River north to the mouth of the Columbia

River. These populations exhibit an ocean-type life-history and mature

at ages 3, 4, and 5. In contrast to the more southerly ocean

distribution pattern shown by populations from the lower Columbia River

and farther south, CWT recoveries from populations within this ESU are

predominantly from British Columbia and Alaska coastal fisheries. There

is a strong genetic separation between Oregon Coast ESU populations and

neighboring ESU populations. This ESU falls within the Coastal

Ecoregion and is characterized by a strong maritime influence, with

moderate temperatures, high precipitation levels, and easy migration

access.

(7) Washington Coast ESU

Coastal populations spawning north of the Columbia River and west

of the Elwha River are included in this ESU. These populations can be

distinguished from those in Puget Sound by their older age at maturity

and more northerly ocean distribution. Allozyme data also indicate

geographical differences between populations from this area and those

in Puget Sound, the Columbia River, and the Oregon coast ESUs.

Populations within this ESU are ocean-type chinook salmon and generally

mature at age 3, 4, and 5. Ocean distribution for these fish is more

northerly than that for the Puget Sound and Lower Columbia River ESUs.

The boundaries of this ESU lie within the Coastal Ecoregion, which is

strongly influenced by the marine environment: high precipitation,

moderate temperatures, and easy migration access.

(8) Puget Sound ESU

This ESU encompasses all naturally spawned spring, summer and fall

runs of chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region from the North Fork

Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula, inclusive.

Chinook salmon in this area all exhibit an ocean-type life history.

Although some spring-run chinook salmon populations in the Puget Sound

ESU have a high proportion of yearling smolt emigrants, the proportion

varies substantially from year to year and appears to be

environmentally mediated rather than genetically determined. Puget

Sound stocks all tend to mature at ages 3 and 4 and exhibit similar,

coastally-oriented, ocean migration patterns. There are substantial

ocean distribution differences between Puget Sound and Washington coast

stocks, with CWT recoveries of Washington coastal chinook found in much

larger proportions from Alaskan waters. The marine distribution of

Elwha River chinook salmon most closely resembled other Puget Sound

stocks, rather than Washington coast stocks.

The NMFS concluded that, on the basis of substantial genetic

separation, the Puget Sound ESU does not include Canadian populations

of chinook salmon. Allozyme analysis of North Fork and South Fork

Nooksack River spring chinook salmon identified them as outliers, but

most closely allied with other Puget Sound samples. DNA analysis

identified a number of markers that appear to be restricted to either

the Puget Sound or Washington coastal stocks. Some allozyme markers

suggested an affinity of the Elwha River population with the Washington

coastal stocks, while others suggested an affinity with Puget Sound

stocks.

The boundaries of the Puget Sound ESU correspond generally with the

boundaries of the Puget Lowland Ecoregion. Despite being in the

rainshadow of the Olympic Mountains, the river systems in the western

portion of Puget Sound maintain high flow rates due to the melting

snowpack in the surrounding mountains. Temperatures tend to be

moderated by the marine environment. The Elwha River, which is in the

Coastal Ecoregion, is the only system in this ESU which lies outside

the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Furthermore, the boundary between the

Washington Coast and Puget Sound ESUs (which includes the Elwha River

in the Puget Sound ESU) corresponds with ESU boundaries for steelhead

and coho salmon. In life history and genetic attributes, the Elwha

River chinook salmon appear to be transitional between populations from

Puget Sound and the Washington Coast ESU.

(9) Lower Columbia River ESU

This ESU includes all naturally spawned chinook populations from

the mouth of the Columbia River to the crest of the Cascade Range,

excluding populations above Willamette Falls. Celilo Falls, which

corresponds to the edge of the drier Columbia Basin Ecosystem and

historically may have presented a migrational barrier to chinook salmon

at certain times of the year, is the eastern boundary for this ESU. Not

included in this ESU are ``stream-type'' spring chinook salmon found in

the Klickitat River (which are considered part of the Mid-Columbia

River spring-run ESU) or the introduced Carson spring-chinook salmon.

``Tule'' fall chinook salmon in the Wind and Little White Salmon Rivers

are included in this ESU, but not introduced ``upriver bright'' fall

chinook salmon populations in the Wind, White Salmon, and Klickitat

Rivers. Available information suggests that spring chinook salmon

presently in the Clackamas and Sandy Rivers are predominantly the

result of introductions from the Willamette River ESU and are thus

probably not representative of spring chinook salmon found

historically.

In addition to the geographic features mentioned above, genetic and

life-history data were important factors in defining this ESU.

Populations in this ESU are considered ocean type. Some spring-run

populations have a large proportion of yearling migrants, but this

trend may be biased by yearling hatchery releases. Subyearling migrants

were found to contribute to the

[[Page 11489]]

escapement. CWT recoveries for Lower Columbia River ESU populations

indicate a northerly migration route, but with little contribution to

the Alaskan fishery. Populations in this ESU also tend to mature at age

3 and 4, somewhat younger than populations from the coastal, upriver,

and Willamette ESUs. Ecologically, the Lower Columbia River ESU crosses

several ecoregions: Coastal, Willamette Valley, Cascades and East

Cascades.

(10) Upper Willamette River ESU

This ESU includes naturally spawned spring-run populations above

Willamette Falls. Fall chinook salmon above the Willamette Falls are

introduced and although they are naturally spawning, they are not

considered a population for purposes of defining this ESU. Historic,

naturally spawned populations in this ESU have an unusual life history

that shares features of both the stream and ocean types. Scale analysis

of returning fish indicate a predominantly yearling smolt life-history

and maturity at 4 years of age, but these data are primarily from

hatchery fish and may not accurately reflect patterns for the natural

fish. Young-of-year smolts have been found to contribute to the

returning 3 year-old year class. The ocean distribution is consistent

with an ocean-type life history, and CWT recoveries occur in

considerable numbers in the Alaskan and British Columbian coastal

fisheries. Intra-basin transfers have contributed to the homogenization

of Willamette River spring chinook salmon stocks; however, Willamette

River spring chinook salmon remain one of the most genetically

distinctive groups of chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin.

The geography and ecology of the Willamette Valley is considerably

different from surrounding areas. Historically, the Willamette Falls

offered a narrow temporal window for upriver migration, which may have

promoted isolation from other Columbia River stocks.

(11) Mid-Columbia River Spring-Run ESU

Included in this ESU are stream-type chinook salmon spawning in the

Klickitat, Deschutes, John Day, and Yakima Rivers. Historically,

spring-run populations from the Hood, Walla Walla, and Umatilla Rivers

may have also belonged in this ESU, but these populations are now

considered extinct. Chinook salmon from this ESU emigrate to the ocean

as yearlings and apparently migrate far off-shore, as they do not

appear in appreciable numbers in any ocean fisheries. The majority of

adults spawn as 4-year-olds, with the exception of fish returning to

the upper tributaries of the Yakima River, which return predominantly

at age 5. Populations in this ESU are genetically distinguishable from

other stream-type chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers.

Streams in this region drain desert areas east of the Cascades

(Columbia Basin Ecoregion) and are ecologically differentiated from the

colder, less productive, glacial streams of the upper Columbia River

spring-run ESU and from the generally higher elevation streams of the

Snake River.

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

This ESU was first identified as the Mid-Columbia River summer/fall

chinook salmon ESU. Previously, Waknitz et al. (1995) and NMFS (1994)

identified an ESU that included all ocean-type chinook salmon spawning

in areas between McNary Dam and Chief Joseph Dam (59 FR 48855,

September 23, 1994). However, NMFS has now concluded that the

boundaries of this ESU do not extend downstream from the Snake River.

In particular, NMFS concluded that Deschutes River fall chinook salmon

are not part of this ESU. The ESU status of the Marion Drain population

from the Yakima River is still unresolved. NMFS also identified the

importance of obtaining more definitive genetic and life history

information for naturally spawning fall chinook salmon elsewhere in the

Yakima River drainage.

Chinook salmon from this ESU primarily emigrate to the ocean as

subyearlings but mature at an older age than ocean-type chinook salmon

in the Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers. Furthermore, a greater

proportion of CWT recoveries for this ESU occur in the Alaskan coastal

fishery than is the case for Snake River fish. The status review for

Snake River fall chinook salmon (Waples et al., 1991; NMFS, 1992) also

identified genetic and environmental differences between the Columbia

and Snake Rivers. Substantial life history and genetic differences

distinguish fish in this ESU from stream-type spring chinook salmon

from the mid- and upper-Columbia Rivers.

The ESU boundaries fall within part of the Columbia Basin

Ecoregion. The area is generally dry and relies on Cascade Range

snowmelt for peak spring flows. Historically, this ESU likely extended

farther upstream; spawning habitat was compressed down-river following

construction of Grand Coulee Dam.

(13) Upper Columbia River Spring-Run ESU

This ESU includes stream-type chinook salmon spawning above Rock

Island Dam--that is, those in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers.

All chinook salmon in the Okanogan River are apparently ocean-type and

are considered part of the Upper Columbia River summer- and fall-run

ESU. These upper Columbia River populations exhibit classical stream-

type life-history strategies: yearling smolt emigration with only rare

CWT recoveries in coastal fisheries. These populations are genetically

and ecologically well separated from the summer- and fall-run

populations that exist in the lower parts of many of the same river

systems.

Rivers in this ESU drain the east slopes of the Cascade Range and

are fed primarily by snowmelt. The waters tend to be cooler and less

turbid than the Snake and Yakima Rivers to the south. Although these

fish appear to be closely related genetically to stream-type chinook

salmon in the Snake River, NMFS recognized substantial ecological

differences between the Snake and Columbia Rivers, particularly in the

upper tributaries favored by stream-type chinook salmon. Allozyme data

demonstrate even larger differences between spring chinook salmon

populations from the mid- and upper-Columbia River.

Artificial propagation programs have had a considerable influence

on this ESU. During the Grand Coulee Fish-Maintenance Project (GCFMP,

1939-1943), all spring chinook salmon reaching Rock Island Dam,

including those destined for areas above Grand Coulee Dam, were

collected and they or their progeny were dispersed into streams in this

ESU (Fish and Hanavan, 1948). Some ocean-type fish were undoubtedly

also incorporated into this program. Spring-run escapements to the

Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers were severely depressed prior to

the GCFMP but increased considerably in subsequent years, suggesting

that the effects of the program may have been substantial.

Subsequently, widespread transplants of Carson stock spring chinook

salmon (derived from a mixture of Columbia River and Snake River

stream-type chinook salmon) have also contributed to erosion of the

genetic integrity of this ESU.

In spite of considerable homogenization, this ESU still represents

an important genetic resource, in part because it presumably contains

the last remnants of the gene pools for populations from the headwaters

of the Columbia River.

[[Page 11490]]

(14) Snake River Fall-Run ESU

This ESU, which includes ocean-type fish, was identified in an

earlier status review (Waples et al., 1991; NMFS, 1992). In that status

review and in a later review of mid-Columbia River summer chinook

salmon (Waknitz et al., 1995), the ESU status of populations from

Marion Drain and the Deschutes River was not resolved, so these issues

were considered in the current review.

Both populations show a greater genetic affinity to Snake River

fall chinook salmon than to other ocean-type Columbia River populations

such as the Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU. After evaluation,

NMFS concluded that chinook salmon spawning in the Marion Drain could

not be assigned to any historic or current ESU with any certainty.

However, after further review, NMFS has concluded that the

Deschutes River chinook salmon population should be considered part of

the Snake River fall-run ESU. The Deschutes River historically

supported a population of fall chinook salmon, as evidenced by counts

of fish at Sherars Falls in the 1940s. Genetic and life history data

for the current population indicate a closer affinity to fall chinook

salmon in the Snake River than to those in the Columbia River.

Similarities were observed in the distribution of CWT ocean recoveries

for Snake River and Deschutes River fall-run chinook salmon; however,

information on Deschutes River fish was based on a limited number of

releases over a relatively short time frame. CWT recovery data indicate

that straying by non-native chinook salmon into the Deschutes River is

very low and does not appear to be disproportionately influenced by

Snake River fall-run chinook salmon (Hymer et al., 1992). Fall-run

chinook populations from the John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers

would also be included in this ESU, but are believed to have been

extirpated.

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

This ESU, which includes populations of spring- and summer-run

chinook salmon from the Snake River Basin (excluding the Clearwater

River), was identified in a previous status review (Matthews and

Waples, 1991; NMFS, 1992). These populations show modest genetic

differences, but substantial ecological differences, in comparison with

Mid- and Upper Columbia River spring- and summer-run chinook salmon

populations. Populations from this ESU emigrate to the ocean as

yearlings, mature at ages 4 and 5, and are rarely taken in ocean

fisheries. The majority of the spawning habitat occurs in the Northern

Rockies and Blue Mountains ecoregions.

Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs

The ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as ``any species

which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is defined as

``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its

range.'' In previous status reviews (e.g., Weitkamp et al., 1995), NMFS

has identified a number of factors that should be considered in

evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU, including: (1) Absolute

numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal distribution; (2)

current abundance in relation to historical abundance and current

carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in abundance; (4) natural

and human-influenced factors that cause variability in survival and

abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity (e.g., from strays

or outplants from hatchery programs); and (6) recent events (e.g., a

drought or changes in harvest management) that have predictable short-

term consequences for abundance of the ESU.

During the coastwide status review for chinook salmon, NMFS

evaluated both qualitative and quantitative information to determine

whether any proposed ESU is threatened or endangered according to the

ESA. The types of information used in these assessments are described

below, followed by a summary of results for each ESU.

Qualitative Evaluations

Qualitative assessments of the status of chinook salmon stocks have

been published by agencies or conservation groups (Nehlsen et al.,

1991; Higgins et al., 1992; Nickelson et al., 1992; WDF et al., 1993;

Huntington et al., 1996). Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered salmonid

stocks throughout Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California and

enumerated all stocks that they found to be extinct or at risk of

extinction. Nehlsen et al. (1991) classified stocks as extinct,

possibly extinct, at high risk of extinction, at moderate risk of

extinction, or of special concern. They considered it likely that

stocks at high risk of extinction have reached the threshold for

classification as endangered under the ESA. Stocks were placed in this

category if they had declined from historic levels and were continuing

to decline, or had spawning escapements less than 200. Stocks were

classified as at moderate risk of extinction if they had declined from

historic levels but presently appear to be stable at a level above 200

spawners. They felt that stocks in this category had reached the

threshold for threatened under the ESA. They classified stocks as of

special concern if a relatively minor disturbance could threaten them,

insufficient data were available for them, they were influenced by

large releases of hatchery fish, or they possess some unique

characteristic.

Higgins et al. (1992) used the same classification scheme as

Nehlsen et al. (1991) but provided a more detailed review of some

northern California salmonid stocks. In this review, their evaluation

is relevant only to the Southern Oregon and California Coastal and

Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESUs.

Nickelson et al. (1992) rated wild coastal (excluding Columbia

River Basin) Oregon salmon and steelhead stocks on the basis of their

status over the past 20 years, classifying stocks as ``healthy,''

``depressed,'' ``of special concern,'' or ``unknown''.

WDF et al. (1993) categorized all salmon and steelhead stocks in

Washington on the basis of stock origin, production type, and status

(``healthy,'' ``depressed,'' ``critical,'' or ``unknown'').

Huntington et al. (1996) surveyed the condition of healthy native

or wild stocks of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and

California. Stocks were classified as healthy based upon abundance,

self-sustainability, and not having been previously identified as at

substantial risk of extinction. Healthy stocks were described at two

levels: ``adult abundance at least two-thirds as great as would be

found in the absence of human impacts'' (Level I); and ``adult

abundance between one-third and two-thirds as great as expected without

human impacts'' (Level II).

There are problems in applying results of these studies to ESA

evaluations. A major problem is that the definition of ``stock'' or

``population'' varied considerably in scale among studies, and

sometimes among regions within a study. Identified units range in size

from large river basins (e.g., ``Sacramento River'' in Nehlsen et al.,

1991), to minor coastal streams and tributaries. A second problem is

the definition of categories used to classify stock status. Only

Nehlsen et al. (1991) and Higgins et al. (1992) used categories

intended to relate to ESA ``threatened'' or ``endangered'' status, and

they applied their own interpretations of these terms to individual

stocks, not to

[[Page 11491]]

ESUs as defined here. WDF et al. (1993) used general terms describing

status of stocks that cannot be directly related to the considerations

important in ESA evaluations. A third problem is the selection of

stocks or populations to include in the review. Nehlsen et al. (1991)

and Higgins et al. (1992) did not discuss stocks not perceived to be at

risk, so it is difficult to determine the proportion of stocks they

considered to be at risk in any given area. For chinook salmon, WDF et

al. (1993) included only stocks considered to be substantially ``wild''

and included data only for the ``wild'' component for streams that have

both hatchery and natural fish escaping to spawn, giving an incomplete

evaluation of chinook salmon utilizing natural habitat.

Quantitative Evaluations

Quantitative evaluations of data included comparisons of current

and historical abundance of chinook salmon, calculation of recent

trends in escapement, and evaluation of the proportion of natural

spawning attributable to hatchery fish. Historical abundance

information for these ESUs is largely anecdotal. Time series data are

available for many populations, but data extent and quality varied

among ESUs. NMFS compiled and analyzed this information to provide

several summary statistics of natural spawning abundance, including

(where available) recent total spawning escapement, percent annual

change in total escapement (both long-term and most recent ten years),

recent naturally produced spawning escapement, and average percentage

of natural spawners that were of hatchery origin.

Although this evaluation used the best data available, there are a

number of limitations to these data, and not all summary statistics

were available for all populations. For example, spawner abundance was

generally not measured directly; rather, it often had to be estimated

from catch (which itself may not always have been measured accurately)

or from limited survey data.

Sport and commercial harvest impacts were compiled from a variety

of sources. In presenting this information, NMFS has tried to maintain

a clear distinction between harvest rates (usually calculated as catch

divided by catch plus escapement for a cohort or brood year) and

exploitation rates (age-specific rates of exploitation in individual

fisheries).

Stream surveys for chinook salmon spawning abundance have been

conducted by various agencies within most of the ESUs considered here.

The methods and time-spans of the surveys vary considerably among

regions, so it is difficult to assess the general reliability of these

surveys as population indices. For most streams where these surveys are

conducted, they are the best local indication of population trends.

Dam counts provide quantitative estimates of run size, but in most

cases, these counts cannot be resolved to the individual population

level and are subject to errors stemming from fallback, run

classification, and unaccounted mortality. Run reconstructions

providing estimates of both adult spawning abundance and fishery

recruits are being prepared for many stream-type chinook salmon

populations in the Columbia River Basin (Beamsderfer et al., 1997 draft

report), but were not available in final form for this review.

As noted above, NMFS attempted to distinguish natural and hatchery

production in these evaluations. Doing this quantitatively would

require good estimates of the proportion of natural escapement that was

of hatchery origin, and knowledge of the effectiveness of spawning by

hatchery fish in natural environments. Unfortunately, this type of

information is rarely available, and for most ESUs NMFS is limited to

reporting whatever estimates of escapement of hatchery fish to natural

systems that were made available.

Computed Statistics

To represent current run size or escapement where recent data were

available, NMFS computed the geometric mean of the most recent five

years reported, while trying to use only estimates that reflect the

total abundance for an entire river basin or tributary, avoiding index

counts or dam counts that represent only a small portion of available

habitat.

Recent average abundance is reported as the geometric mean of the

most recent 5 years of data. Where time-series data were not available,

NMFS relied on recent estimates from state agency reports; time periods

included in such estimates varied considerably.

Historic run size estimates from cannery pack data were made by

converting the largest number of cases of cans packed in a single

season to numbers of fish in the spawning run.

NMFS calculated recent trends from the most recent 10 years, using

data collected after 1984 for series having at least 7 observations

since 1984. No attempt was made to account for the influence of

hatchery-produced fish on these estimates, so the estimated trends

include the progeny of naturally spawning hatchery fish.

After evaluating patterns of abundance drawn on these quantitative

and qualitative assessments, and evaluating other risk factors for

chinook salmon from these ESUs, NMFS reached the following conclusions

summarized below.

(1) Sacramento River Winter-Run ESU

Presently listed as endangered under the California and Federal

Endangered Species Acts, this ESU has been extensively reviewed by NMFS

(NMFS 1987, 1989, 1990a,b, 1994b). That information is only summarized

and updated here.

Historically the winter run was abundant and comprised populations

in the McCloud, Pit, Little Sacramento, and Calaveras Rivers.

Construction of Shasta Dam in the 1940s eliminated access to all of the

historic spawning habitat for winter-run chinook salmon in the

Sacramento River Basin. Since then, the ESU has been reduced to a

single spawning population confined to the mainstem Sacramento River

below Keswick Dam (Reynolds et al., 1993).

The fact that this ESU is comprised of a single population with

very limited spawning and rearing habitat increases risk of extinction

due to local catastrophe or poor environmental conditions. There are no

other natural populations in the ESU to buffer it from natural

fluctuations.

Because the Sacramento River winter-run ESU is currently listed as

an endangered species, NMFS did not review its previous risk conclusion

here.

(2) Central Valley Spring-Run ESU

Native spring chinook salmon have been extirpated from all

tributaries in the San Joaquin River Basin, which represents a large

portion of the historic range and abundance of the ESU as a whole. The

only streams considered to have wild spring-run chinook salmon are Mill

and Deer Creeks, and possibly Butte Creek (tributaries to the

Sacramento River), and these are relatively small populations with

sharply declining trends. Demographic and genetic risks due to small

population sizes are thus considered to be high.

Habitat problems are the most important source of ongoing risk to

this ESU. Spring-run fish cannot access most of their historical

spawning and rearing habitat in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River

Basins (which is now above impassable dams), and current spawning is

restricted to the mainstem and a few river tributaries in the

Sacramento River. The remaining spawning habitat accessible to fish is

severely degraded. Collectively, these

[[Page 11492]]

habitat problems greatly reduce the resiliency of this ESU to respond

to additional stresses in the future. The general degradation of

conditions in the Sacramento River Basin (including elevated water

temperatures, agricultural and municipal diversions and returns,

restricted and regulated flows, entrainment of migrating fish into

unscreened or poorly screened diversions, and the poor quality and

quantity of remaining habitat) has severely impacted important juvenile

rearing habitat and migration corridors.

There appears to be serious concern for threats to genetic

integrity posed by hatchery programs in the Central Valley. Most of the

spring-run chinook salmon production in the Central Valley is of

hatchery origin, and naturally spawning populations may be

interbreeding with both fall/late fall- and spring-run hatchery fish.

This problem is exacerbated by the increasing production of spring

chinook salmon from the Feather River and Butte Creek Hatcheries,

especially in light of reports suggesting a high degree of mixing

between spring- and fall/late fall-run broodstock in the hatcheries. In

addition, hatchery strays are considered to be an increasing problem

due to the management practice of releasing a larger proportion of fish

off station (into the Sacramento River delta and San Francisco Bay).

The only previous assessment of risk to stocks in this ESU is that

of Nehlsen et al. (1991), who identified several stocks as being at

risk or of special concern. Four stocks were identified as extinct

(spring/summer-run chinook salmon in the American, McCloud, Pit, and

San Joaquin (including tributaries) Rivers) and two stocks (spring-run

chinook salmon in the Sacramento and Yuba Rivers) were identified as

being at a moderate risk of extinction.

As discussed above, habitat problems were considered to be the most

important source of ongoing risk to this ESU. However, NMFS is also

quite concerned about threats to genetic integrity posed by hatchery

programs in the Central Valley, as well as related harvest regimes that

may not be allowing recovery of this at-risk population. Based on this

risk, NMFS concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are in danger of

extinction.

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

Although total population abundance in this ESU is relatively high,

perhaps near historic levels, NMFS identified several concerns

regarding its status. The abundance of natural fall chinook salmon in

the San Joaquin River Basin is low leading NMFS to conclude a large

proportion of the historic range of this ESU is severely degraded.

Habitat blockage is not as severe for fall/late fall-run chinook salmon

as it is for winter- and spring-run chinook salmon in this region

because most of fall/late fall-run spawning habitat was below dams

constructed in the region. However, there has been a severe degradation

of the remaining habitat, especially due to agricultural and municipal

water use activities in the Central Valley (which result in point and

non-point pollution, elevated water temperatures, diminished flows, and

smolt and adult entrainment into poorly screened or unscreened

diversions). Additionally, stray rates are high because many hatchery

fish are released off-station to avoid adverse river conditions,

resulting in a much larger proportion of hatchery chinook salmon

present in the natural spawning population.

A mitigating factor for the overall risk to the ESU is that a few

of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin tributaries are showing

recent, short-term increases in abundance. However, the streams

supporting natural runs considered to be the least influenced by

hatchery fish have the lowest abundance and the most consistently

negative trends of all populations in the ESU. In general, high

hatchery production combined with infrequent monitoring of natural

production make assessing the sustainability of natural production

problematic, resulting in substantial uncertainty in assessing the

status of this ESU.

Other concerns facing chinook salmon in this ESU are the high ocean

and freshwater harvest rates in recent years, which may be higher than

is sustainable by natural populations given the productivity of the ESU

under present habitat conditions. The mixed stock ocean salmon off

California fisheries are managed to achieve spawning escapement goals

for two main indicator stocks: Sacramento River fall chinook and

Klamath River fall chinook. Harvest may be further constrained to meet

NMFS' ESA requirements for listed species, including Sacramento River

winter chinook, Central California Coastal and Southern Oregon/Northern

California coho, and Snake River fall chinook. Since 1993, the need to

address Indian fishing rights in the Klamath River Basin has required

significant reductions in the ocean harvest rate on Klamath River fall

chinook. As a result of the need to constrain ocean harvest rates on

Klamath River fall chinook, commercial fisheries have not been allowed

to harvest Central Valley stocks to the extent that would be permitted

by the management goal for Sacramento River fall chinook alone (122,000

to 180,000 adult hatchery and natural spawners). Spawning escapements

have been well above the goal range in recent years. A record number of

adults (324,000) returned in 1997. The harvest rate on Central Valley

stocks is indicated by the Central Valley Harvest Rate Index, which is

computed as the chinook harvest south of Point Arena divided by the sum

of the chinook harvest south of Point Arena and Central Valley adult

chinook spawning escapement of the same year. This harvest rate index

has averaged 0.73 over the past 10 years and declined somewhat in 1996

and 1997 to 0.64 and 0.66 respectively.

The only previous assessment of risk to stocks in this ESU is that

of Nehlsen et al. (1991), who identified two stocks (San Joaquin and

Cosumnes Rivers) as of special concern.

Even though total population abundance in this ESU is relatively

high, perhaps near historical levels, the abundance of natural fall

chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River Basin is low. Habitat problems

were considered to be the most important source of ongoing risk to this

ESU, although NMFS is extremely concerned about threats to genetic

integrity posed by hatchery and harvest programs related to fall/late

fall-run chinook salmon. Therefore, NMFS concluded that chinook salmon

in this ESU are not presently in danger of extinction but are likely to

become endangered in the foreseeable future.

(4) Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU

This ESU contains chinook salmon from the Elk River, Oregon south

to the northern cape forming San Francisco Bay. Chinook salmon spawning

abundance in this ESU is highly variable among populations, with

populations in California and spring-run chinook salmon throughout the

ESU being of particular concern. There is a general pattern of downward

trends in abundance in most populations for which data are available,

with declines being especially pronounced in spring-run populations.

The extremely depressed status of almost all coastal populations south

of the Klamath River is an important source of risk to the ESU. NMFS

has a general concern that no current information is available for many

river systems in the southern portion of this ESU, which historically

maintained numerous large populations. Although these California

coastal

[[Page 11493]]

populations do not form a separate ESU, they represent a considerable

portion of genetic and ecological diversity within this ESU.

Habitat loss and/or degradation is widespread throughout the range

of the ESU. The California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead

Trout (CACSST) reported habitat blockages and fragmentation, logging

and agricultural activities, urbanization, and water withdrawals as the

most predominant problems for anadromous salmonids in California's

coastal basins (CACSST, 1988). They identified associated habitat

problems for each major river system in California. CDFG (1965, Vol.

III, Part B) reported that the most vital habitat factor for coastal

California streams was ``degradation due to improper logging followed

by massive siltation, log jams, etc.'' They cited road building as

another cause of siltation in some areas. They identified a variety of

specific critical habitat problems in individual basins, including

extremes of natural flows (Redwood Creek and Eel River), logging

practices (Mad, Eel, Mattole, Ten Mile, Noyo, Big, Navarro, Garcia, and

Gualala Rivers), and dams with no passage facilities (Eel, and Russian

Rivers), and water diversions (Eel and Russian Rivers). Such problems

also occur in Oregon streams within the ESU. The Rogue River Basin in

particular has been affected by mining activities and unscreened

irrigation diversions (Rivers, 1963) in addition to the problems

resulting from logging and dam construction. Kostow (1995) estimated

that one-third of spring chinook salmon spawning habitat in the Rogue

River was inaccessible following the construction of Lost Creek Dam

(River Kilometer (RKm) 253) in 1977. Recent major flood events

(February 1996 and January 1997) have probably affected habitat quality

and survival of juveniles within this ESU. Although NMFS has little

information on these floods specific to this ESU, effects are probably

similar to those discussed below for the Oregon and Washington Coastal

Region.

Artificial propagation programs in the Southern Oregon and Coastal

California ESU are less extensive than those in Klamath/Trinity or

Central Valley ESUs. The Rogue, Chetco and Eel River Basins and Redwood

Creek have received considerable releases, derived primarily from local

sources. Current hatchery contribution to overall abundance is

relatively low except for the Rogue River spring run. The hatchery-to-

total run ratio of Rogue River spring chinook salmon, as measured at

Gold Ray Dam (RKm 201), has exceeded 60% in some years (Kostow, 1995).

Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified

several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)

identified seven stocks as at high extinction risk and seven stocks as

at moderate extinction risk. Higgins et al. (1992) provided a more

detailed analysis of some of these stocks, and identified nine chinook

salmon stocks as at risk or of concern. Four of these stocks agreed

with the Nehlsen et al. (1991) designations, while five fall chinook

salmon stocks were either reassessed from a moderate risk of extinction

to stocks of concern (Redwood Creek, Mad River, and Eel River) or were

additions to the Nehlsen et al. (1991) list as stocks of special

concern (Little and Bear Rivers). Fall chinook salmon in the Rogue

River represent the only relatively healthy population(s) NMFS could

identify in this ESU (Huntington et al., 1996).

There is a general pattern of downward trends in abundance in most

populations for which data are available, with declines being

especially pronounced in spring-run populations within this ESU. The

lack of population monitoring, particularly in the California portion

of the range, led to a high degree of uncertainty regarding the status

of these populations. NMFS concluded that the extremely depressed

status of almost all coastal populations south of the Klamath River is

an important source of risk to the ESU. Overall, NMFS concluded that

chinook salmon in this ESU are likely to become endangered in the

foreseeable future.

(5) Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU

The question of overall risk was difficult to evaluate because of

the large disparity in the status of spring- and fall-run populations

within the ESU. Spring-run chinook salmon were once the dominant run

type in the Klamath-Trinity River Basin. Most spring-run spawning and

rearing habitat was blocked by the construction of dams in the late

1800s and early 1900s in the Klamath River Basin, and in the 1960s in

the Trinity River Basin. As a result of these and other factors,

spring-run populations are at less than 10 percent of their historic

levels, and at least 7 spring-run populations that once existed in the

basin are now considered extinct. The remaining spring runs have

relatively small population sizes and are isolated in just a few areas

of the basin, resulting in genetic and demographic risks.

Fall-run chinook populations in this ESU are stable or increasing

slightly. Substantial numbers of fall-run chinook salmon spawn

naturally in many areas of the ESU. However, natural populations have

frequently failed to meet modest spawning escapement goals despite

active harvest management. In addition to habitat blockages, there

continues to be severe degradation of remaining habitat due to mining,

agricultural and forestry activities, and water storage and transfer.

Furthermore, hatchery production in the basin is substantial, with

considerable potential for interbreeding between natural and hatchery

fish. NMFS is concerned that hatchery fish spawning naturally may mask

declines in natural populations.

Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified

several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)

identified seven stocks as extinct, two stocks (Klamath River spring

chinook salmon and Shasta River fall chinook salmon) as at high

extinction risk, and Scott River fall chinook salmon as of special

concern. Higgins et al. (1992) provided a more detailed analysis of

some of the stocks identified by Nehlsen et al. (1991), classifying

three chinook salmon stocks as at risk. Additionally, three chinook

salmon stocks were identified as of special concern. Of these, one

(Scott River fall run) agreed with Nehlsen et al. (1991), while two

were additions (Trinity River spring run and South Fork Trinity River

fall run).

In summary, the question of overall risk was difficult to evaluate

because of the large disparity in the status of spring- and fall-run

populations within the ESU. However, NMFS has concluded that, because

of the relative health of the fall-run populations, chinook salmon in

this ESU are not at significant risk of extinction, nor are they likely

to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

(6) Oregon Coast ESU

Production in this ESU is mostly dependent on naturally-spawning

fish, and spring-run chinook salmon in this ESU are in relatively

better condition than those in adjacent ESUs. Long-term trends in

abundance of chinook salmon within most populations in this ESU are

upward.

In spite of a generally positive outlook for this ESU, several

populations are exhibiting recent and severe (>9 percent per year)

short-term declines in abundance. In addition, there are several

hatchery programs and Salmon and Trout Enhancement Programs (STEP)

releasing chinook salmon throughout the ESU, and many of the fish

released are derived from a single stock (Trask River). Most

importantly, there is a lack of clear information on

[[Page 11494]]

the degree of straying of these hatchery fish into naturally-spawning

populations. There are also many populations within the ESU for which

there are no abundance data; thus NMFS is concerned about the uncertain

risk assessment given these data gaps. Finally, exploitation rates on

chinook salmon from this ESU have been high in the past, and the level

of harvest could be a significant source of risk if it continues at

historically high rates. Also, freshwater habitats are generally in

poor condition, with numerous problems such as low summer flows, high

temperatures, loss of riparian cover, and streambed changes.

Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified

several as being at risk or of concern; however, the preponderance of

stocks have been identified as healthy. Nehlsen et al. (1991)

identified two stocks as at high extinction risk (South Umpqua River

and Coquille River spring-run), one stock as at moderate extinction

risk (Yachats River fall-run) and five stocks as of special concern. Of

the 44 stocks within this ESU considered by Nickelson et al. (1992), 26

were identified as healthy, 2 as depressed (South Umpqua River and

Coquille River spring chinook salmon), 7 as of special concern due to

hatchery strays, and 9 of unknown status (4 of which they suggested may

not be viable). Huntington et al. (1996) identified 18 stocks in their

survey: 6 healthy Level I and 12 healthy Level II stocks.

Abundance of this ESU is relatively high, and fish are well

distributed among numerous, relatively small river basins. Long-term

trends in abundance of chinook salmon within most populations in this

ESU are upward. NMFS has concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are

neither presently in danger of extinction nor are they likely to become

endangered in the foreseeable future.

(7) Washington Coast ESU

Long-term trends in population abundance have been predominantly

upward for the medium and larger populations but are sharply downward

for several of the smaller populations. In general, abundance and trend

indicators are more favorable for stocks in the northern portion of the

ESU, and more favorable for fall-run populations than for spring- or

summer-run fish. This disparity was a source of concern regarding the

overall health of the ESU.

All basins are affected by habitat degradation, largely related to

forestry practices. Tributaries inside Olympic National Park are

generally in the best condition regarding habitat quality. Special

concern was expressed regarding the status of spring-run populations

throughout the ESU and fall-run populations in Willapa Bay and parts of

the Grays Harbor drainage.

Hatchery production is substantial in several basins within the

range of the ESU, and several populations are identified as being of

composite production. There is considerable potential for hatchery fish

to stray into natural populations, especially since some hatcheries are

apparently unable to effectively attract returning adults. Hatchery

influence is greatest in the southern part of the ESU region,

especially in Willapa Bay, where there have been numerous introductions

of stocks from outside of the ESU. Furthermore, the use of an exotic

spring-run stock at the Sol Duc Hatchery was cited as a cause of

concern.

Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified

several as being at risk or of concern, but more stocks have been

identified as healthy than at risk. Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified

one stock as extinct (Pysht River fall run), one as possibly extinct

(Ozette River fall run), and one as at high risk of extinction

(Wynoochee River spring run), although there is some question whether

the Wynoochee River spring run ever existed (WDFW, 1997a). WDF et al.

(1993) considered the status of 18 native stocks, and concluded that 11

were healthy, 4 were depressed, and 3 were unknown. Huntington et al.

(1996) identified 12 stocks in their survey: 1 healthy Level I stock

(Quillayute/Bogachiel River fall run) and 11 healthy Level II stocks.

Recent abundance has been relatively high, although it is less than

estimated peak historical abundance in this region. Chinook salmon in

this ESU are distributed among a relatively large number of

populations, most of which are large enough to avoid serious genetic

and demographic risks associated with small populations. NMFS concluded

that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in danger of

extinction nor are they likely to become endangered in the foreseeable

future.

(8) Puget Sound ESU

Overall abundance of chinook salmon in this ESU has declined

substantially from historical levels, and many populations are small

enough that genetic and demographic risks are likely to be relatively

high. Both long- and short-term trends in abundance are predominantly

downward, and several populations are exhibiting severe short-term

declines. Spring chinook salmon populations throughout this ESU are all

depressed.

Habitat throughout the ESU has been blocked or degraded. In

general, upper tributaries have been impacted by forest practices and

lower tributaries and mainstem rivers have been impacted by agriculture

and/or urbanization. Diking for flood control, draining and filling of

freshwater and estuarine wetlands, and sedimentation due to forest

practices and urban development are cited as problems throughout the

ESU (WDF et al., 1993). Blockages by dams, water diversions, and shifts

in flow regime due to hydroelectric development and flood control

projects are major habitat problems in several basins. Bishop and

Morgan (1996) identified a variety of important habitat issues for

streams in the range of this ESU, including changes in flow regime (all

basins), sedimentation (all basins), high temperatures (Dungeness,

Elwha, Green/Duwamish, Skagit, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers),

streambed instability (most basins), estuarine loss (most basins), loss

of large woody debris (Elwha, Snohomish, and White Rivers), loss of

pool habitat (Nooksack, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers), and

blockage or passage problems associated with dams or other structures

(Cedar, Elwha, Green/Duwamish, Snohomish, and White Rivers). The Puget

Sound Salmon Stock Review Group (PFMC) provided an extensive review of

habitat conditions for several of the stocks in this ESU (PFMC, 1997a).

They concluded that reductions in habitat capacity and quality have

contributed to escapement problems for Puget Sound chinook salmon,

citing evidence of curtailment of tributary and mainstem habitat due to

dams, and losses of slough and side-channel habitat due to diking,

dredging, and hydromodification.

Nearly 2 billion fish have been released into Puget Sound

tributaries since the 1950s. The preponderance of hatchery production

throughout the ESU may mask trends in natural populations and makes it

difficult to determine whether they are self-sustaining. This

difficulty is compounded by the dearth of data pertaining to proportion

of naturally-spawning fish that are of hatchery origin. There has also

been widespread use of a limited number of hatchery stocks, resulting

in increased risk of loss of fitness and diversity among populations.

WDF et al. (1993) classified 11 out of 29 stocks in this ESU as being

sustained, in part, through artificial propagation. The vast majority

of these have been derived from local returning fall-run adults.

Returns to hatcheries have accounted for over half of the total

spawning escapement,

[[Page 11495]]

although the hatchery contribution to spawner escapement is probably

much higher than that, due to hatchery-derived strays on the spawning

grounds. In the Stillaguamish River, summer chinook have been

supplemented under a wild broodstock program for the last decade. In

some years, returns from this program have comprised up to 30-50% of

the natural spawners, suggesting that the unaided stock is not able to

maintain itself (NWIFC, 1997). Almost all of the releases into this ESU

have come from stocks within this ESU, with the majority of within ESU

transfers coming from the Green River Hatchery or hatchery broodstocks

that have been derived from Green River stock (Marshall et al., 1995).

The electrophoretic similarity between Green River fall-chinook salmon

and several other fall chinook salmon stocks in Puget Sound (Marshall

et al., 1995) suggests that there may have been a significant effect

from some hatchery transplants. Overall, the pervasive use of Green

River stock throughout much of the extensive hatchery network that

exists in this ESU may reduce the genetic diversity and fitness of

naturally spawning populations.

Harvest impacts on Puget Sound chinook salmon stocks are quite

high. Ocean exploitation rates on natural stocks averaged 56-59%; total

exploitation rates average 68-83% (1982-89 brood years) (Pacific Salmon

Commission (PSC), 1994). Total exploitation rates on some stocks have

exceeded 90% (PSC, 1994).

Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified

several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)

identified four stocks as extinct, four stocks as possibly extinct, six

stocks as at high risk of extinction, one stock as a moderate risk

(White River spring run), and one stock (Puyallup River fall run) as of

special concern. WDF et al. (1993) considered 28 stocks within the ESU,

of which 13 were considered to be of native origin and predominantly

natural production. The status of these 13 stocks was: 2 healthy (Upper

Skagit River summer run and Upper Sauk River spring run), 5 depressed,

2 critical (South-Fork Nooksack River spring/summer run and Dungeness

River spring/summer run), and 4 unknown.

Overall abundance of chinook salmon in this ESU has declined

substantially from historical levels, and both long-and short-term

trends in abundance are predominantly downward. Several populations are

exhibiting severe short-term declines. Spring chinook salmon

populations throughout this ESU are all depressed. NMFS concluded that

chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in danger of extinction,

but they are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

(9) Lower Columbia River ESU

Apart from the relatively large and apparently healthy fall-run

population in the Lewis River, production in this ESU appears to be

predominantly hatchery-driven with few identifiable naturally spawned

populations.

All basins are affected (to varying degrees) by habitat

degradation. Major habitat problems are primarily related to blockages,

forest practices, urbanization in the Portland and Vancouver areas, and

agriculture in floodplains and low-gradient tributaries. Substantial

chinook salmon spawning habitat has been blocked (or passage

substantially impaired) in the Cowlitz (Mayfield Dam 1963, RKm 84),

Lewis (Merwin Dam 1931, RKm 31), Clackamas (North Fork Dam 1958, RKm

50), Hood (Powerdale Dam 1929, RKm 7), and Sandy (Marmot Dam 1912, RKm

48; Bull Run River dams early 1900s) Rivers (WDF et al., 1993; Kostow,

1995).

Hatchery programs to enhance chinook salmon fisheries abundance in

the lower Columbia River began in the 1870s, expanded rapidly, and have

continued throughout this century. Although the majority of the stocks

have come from within this ESU, over 200 million fish from outside the

ESU have been released since 1930. A particular concern at the present

time is the straying by Rogue River fall chinook salmon, which are

released into the lower Columbia River to augment harvest

opportunities. Available evidence indicates a pervasive influence of

hatchery fish on natural populations throughout this ESU, including

both spring-and fall-run populations (Howell et al., 1985; Marshall et

al., 1995). In addition, the exchange of eggs between hatcheries in

this ESU has led to the extensive genetic homogenization of hatchery

stocks (Utter et al., 1989). The large numbers of hatchery fish in this

ESU make it difficult to determine the proportion of naturally produced

fish. In spite of the heavy impact of hatcheries, genetic and life

history characteristics of populations in this ESU still differ from

those in other ESUs. The loss of fitness and diversity within the ESU

as an important concern.

Harvest rates on fall-run stocks are moderately high, with an

average total exploitation rate of 65 percent (1982-89 brood years)

(PSC, 1994). The average ocean exploitation rate for this period was 46

percent, while the freshwater harvest rate on the fall run has averaged

20 percent, ranging from 30 percent in 1991 to 2.4 percent in 1994.

Harvest rates are somewhat lower for spring run stocks, with estimates

for the Lewis River averaging 24 percent ocean and 50 percent total

exploitation rates in 1982-89 (PSC, 1994). In inriver fisheries,

approximately 15 percent of the lower river hatchery stock was

harvested, 29 percent of the lower river wild stock was harvested, and

58 percent of the Spring Creek hatchery stock was harvested, while the

average inriver exploitation rate on the stock as a whole was 29

percent during the 1991-1995 period (PFMC, 1996b).

Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified

several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)

identified two stocks as extinct (Lewis River spring run and Wind River

fall run), four stocks as possibly extinct, and four stocks as at high

risk of extinction. WDF et al. (1993) considered 20 stocks within the

ESU, of which only 2 (Lewis River and East Fork Lewis River fall runs)

were considered to be of native origin, predominantly natural

production, and healthy. Huntington et al. (1996) identified one

healthy Level I stock in their survey (Lewis River fall run).

There have been at least six documented extinctions of populations

in this ESU, and it is possible that extirpation of other native

populations has occurred but has been masked by the presence of

naturally spawning hatchery fish. Long-and short-term trends in

abundance of individual populations are mostly negative, some severely

so. About half of the populations comprising this ESU are very small,

increasing the likelihood that risks due to genetic and demographic

drift processes in small populations will be important. NMFS concluded

that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in danger of

extinction but are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable

future.

(10) Upper Willamette River ESU

While the abundance of Willamette River spring chinook salmon has

been relatively stable over the long term, and there is evidence of

some natural production, it is apparent that at present production and

harvest levels the natural population is not replacing itself. With

natural production accounting for only \1/3\ of the natural spawning

escapement, it is questionable whether natural spawners would be

capable of replacing themselves even in the absence of fisheries. While

hatchery programs in the Willamette River Basin have maintained

broodlines that are

[[Page 11496]]

relatively free of genetic influences from outside the basin, they may

have homogenized the population structure within the ESU. The

introduction of fall-run chinook salmon into the basin and laddering of

Willamette Falls have increased the potential for genetic introgression

between wild spring-and hatchery fall-run chinook salmon, but there is

no direct evidence of hybridization (other than an overlap in spawning

times and spawning location) between these two runs. Prolonged

artificial propagation of the majority of the production from this ESU

may also have had deleterious effects on the ability of Willamette

River spring chinook salmon to reproduce successfully in the wild.

Habitat blockage and degradation are significant problems in this

ESU. Available habitat has been reduced by construction of dams in the

Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette River Basins, and these

dams have probably adversely affected remaining production via thermal

effects. Agricultural development and urbanization are the main

activities that have adversely affected habitat throughout the basin

(Bottom et al., 1985, Kostow, 1995).

Another concern for this ESU is that commercial and recreational

harvests are high relative to the apparent productivity of natural

populations. The average total harvest mortality rate was estimated to

be 72 percent in 1982-89, with a corresponding ocean exploitation rate

of 24 percent (PSC, 1994). This estimate does not fully account for

escapement, and ODFW is in the process of revising harvest rate

estimates for this stock; revised estimates may average 57 percent

total harvest rate, with 16 percent ocean and 48 percent freshwater

components (Kostow,1995). The inriver recreational harvest rate

(Willamette River sport catch/estimated run size) for the period from

1991 through 1995 was 33 percent (data from PFMC, 1996b).

The only previous assessment of risk to stocks in this ESU is that

of Nehlsen et al. (1991), who identified the Willamette River spring-

run chinook salmon as of special concern. They noted vulnerability to

minor disturbances, insufficient information on population trend, and

the special character of this stock as causes for concern.

NMFS concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in

danger of extinction but are likely to become endangered in the

foreseeable future. Total abundance has been relatively stable at

approximately 20,000 to 30,000 fish; however, recent natural escapement

is less than 5,000 fish and has been declining sharply. Furthermore, it

is estimated that about two-thirds of the natural spawners are first-

generation hatchery fish, suggesting that the natural population is

falling far short of replacing itself. Another concern for this ESU is

that commercial and recreational harvest are high relative to the

apparent productivity of natural populations.

(11) Middle Columbia River Spring-Run ESU

Total abundance of this ESU is low relative to the total basin

area, and 1994-96 escapements have been very low. Several historical

populations have been extirpated, and the few extant populations in

this ESU are not widely distributed geographically. In addition, there

are only two populations (John Day and Yakima Rivers) with substantial

run sizes. However, these major river basins are predominantly

comprised of naturally produced fish, and both of these exhibit long-

term increasing trends in abundance. Additionally, recent analyses done

as part of the PATH process indicates that productivity of natural

populations in the Deschutes and John Day Rivers has been more robust

than most other stream-type chinook salmon in the Columbia River

(Schaller et al., 1995).

Habitat problems are common in the range of this ESU. The only

large blockage of spawning area for spring chinook salmon is at the

Pelton/Round Butte dam complex on the Deschutes River, which probably

eliminated a natural population utilizing the upper Deschutes River

Basin (Kostow, 1995; Nehlsen, 1995). Spawning and rearing habitat are

affected by agriculture including water withdrawals, grazing, and

riparian vegetation management. Mainstem Columbia River hydroelectric

development has resulted in a major disruption of migration corridors

and affected flow regimes and estuarine habitat.

Hatchery production accounts for a substantial proportion of total

escapement to the region. However, screening procedures at the Warm

Springs River weir apparently minimize the potential for hatchery-wild

introgression in the Deschutes River basin. Although straying is less

of a problem with returning spring-run adults, the use of the

composite, out-of-ESU Carson Hatchery stock to reestablish the Umatilla

River spring run would be a cause for concern if fish from that program

stray out of the basin.

Stocks in this ESU experience very low ocean harvest rates and only

moderate instream harvest. Harvest rates have been declining recently

(PSC, 1996).

Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified

several as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)

identified five stocks as extinct, one as possibly extinct (Klickitat

River spring chinook salmon), and one as of special concern (John Day

River spring chinook salmon). WDF et al. (1993) considered five stocks

within the ESU, of which three, all within the Yakima River Basin, were

considered to be of native origin and predominantly natural production

(Upper Yakima, Naches, and American Rivers). Despite increasing trends

in these three stocks, these stocks and the two remaining (not native/

natural) stocks were considered to be depressed on the basis of

chronically low escapement numbers (WDF et al., 1993).

Despite low abundances relative to estimated historical levels,

long-term trends in abundance have been relatively stable, with an

approximately even mix of upward and downward trends in populations.

NMFS concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in

danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become endangered in the

foreseeable future.

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

The status of this ESU was recently reviewed by NMFS (Waknitz et

al., 1995). In the earlier review, this ESU was determined to be

neither at risk of extinction nor likely to become so. However, new

data shows the proportion of naturally spawning summer chinook salmon

of hatchery origin has been increasing rapidly in areas above Wells

Dam. There is corresponding concern about the possible genetic and/or

life-history consequences to the sustainability of natural populations

in that area from the shift in hatchery releases from subyearlings to

yearlings.

Nearly 38 million summer-run fish have been released from the Wells

Dam Hatchery since 1967. Efforts to establish the Wells Dam summer-run

broodstock removed a large proportion of the spawners (94 percent of

the run in 1969) destined for the Methow River and other upstream

tributaries (Mullan et al., 1992). Additionally, a number of fall-run

fish have been incorporated into the summer-run program, especially

during the 1980s (Marshall et al., 1995). Large numbers of fall chinook

salmon have been released into the mainstem Columbia River and into the

Yakima River. Although no hatcheries operate on the Yakima River,

releases of upriver bright fall-run chinook salmon into the

[[Page 11497]]

lower Yakima River (below Prosser Dam) are thought to have overwhelmed

local naturally spawning stocks (WDF et al., 1993; Marshall et al.,

1995). Fall chinook salmon also spawn in the mainstem Columbia River;

this occurs primarily in the Hanford Reach portion of the Columbia

River, with additional spawning sites in the tailrace areas of mainstem

dams. Upriver bright fall chinook salmon hatchery stocks represent a

composite of stocks intercepted at various dams. This stock has also

been released in large numbers by hatcheries on the mainstem Columbia

River. Although the upriver bright stocks incorporated representatives

from the mainstem spawning populations in the Hanford Reach and those

displaced by the construction of Grand Coulee Dam and other mainstem

dams, they have also incorporated individuals from the Snake River

fall-run ESU (Howell et al., 1985). The mixed genetic background of

upriver bright stocks may result in less accurate homing (McIssac and

Quinn 1988; Chapman et al., 1994). However, the naturally spawning

Hanford Reach fall-run population appears to stray at very low levels

(Hymer et al., 1992b).

Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified

several as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)

identified six stocks as extinct, one as a moderate extinction risk

(Methow River summer chinook salmon), and one as of special concern

(Okanogan River summer chinook salmon). WDF et al. (1993) considered 10

stocks within the ESU, of which 3 were considered to be of native

origin and predominantly natural production. The status of these three

stocks was two healthy (Marion Drain and Hanford Reach fall-runs) and

one depressed (Okanogan River summer-run). Huntington et al. (1996)

identified one healthy Level I stock in their survey (Hanford Reach

fall run).

In an earlier review, NMFS concluded that this ESU was not in

danger of extinction, nor likely to become endangered in the

foreseeable future. None of the information reviewed in this assessment

provides a basis for NMFS to change this earlier conclusion. However,

if negative trends in this ESU continue, NMFS will reevaluate the

status of these chinook salmon.

(13) Upper Columbia River Spring-Run ESU

Access to a substantial portion of historical habitat was blocked

by Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams. There are local habitat problems

related to irrigation diversions and hydroelectric development, as well

as degraded riparian and instream habitat from urbanization and

livestock grazing. Mainstem Columbia River hydroelectric development

has resulted in a major disruption of migration corridors and affected

flow regimes and estuarine habitat. Some populations in this ESU must

migrate through nine mainstem dams.

Artificial propagation efforts have had a significant impact on

spring-run populations in this ESU, either through hatchery-based

enhancement or the extensive trapping and transportation activities

associated with the GCFMP. Prior to the implementation of the GCFMP,

spring-run chinook salmon populations in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and

Methow Rivers were at severely depressed levels (Craig and Suomela,

1941). Therefore, it is probable that the majority of returning spring-

run adults trapped at Rock Island Dam for use in the GCFMP were

probably not native to these three rivers (Chapman et al., 1995). All

returning adults were either directly transported to river spawning

sites or spawned in one of the National Fish Hatcheries (NFHs) built

for the GCFMP.

In the years following the GCFMP, several stocks were transferred

to the NFHs in this area. Naturally spawning populations in tributaries

upstream of hatchery release sites have apparently undergone limited

introgression by hatchery stocks, based on CWT recoveries and genetic

analysis (Chapman et al. 1995). Artificial propagation efforts have

recently focused on supplementing naturally spawning populations in

this ESU (Bugert, 1998), although it should be emphasized that these

naturally spawning populations were founded by the same GCFMP

homogenized stock. Furthermore, the potential for hatchery-derived non-

native stocks to genetically impact naturally spawning populations

exists, especially given the recent low numbers of fish returning to

rivers in this ESU. Risks associated with interactions between wild and

hatchery chinook salmon are a concern, because there continues to be

substantial production of the composite, non-native Carson stock for

fishery enhancement and hydropower mitigation.

Harvest rates are low for this ESU, with very low ocean and

moderate instream harvest. Harvest rates have been declining recently

(ODFW and WDFW, 1995).

Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified

several as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)

identified six stocks as extinct. Due to lack of information on chinook

salmon stocks that are presumed to be extinct, the relationship of

these stocks to existing ESUs is uncertain. They are listed here based

on geography and to give a complete presentation of the stocks

identified by Nehlsen et al. (1991). WDF et al. (1993) considered nine

stocks within the ESU, of which eight were considered to be of native

origin and predominantly natural production. The status of all nine

stocks was considered depressed. Populations in this ESU have

experienced record low returns for the last few years.

Recent total abundance of this ESU is quite low, and escapements in

1994-1996 were the lowest in at least 60 years. At least 6 populations

of spring chinook salmon in this ESU have become extinct, and almost

all remaining naturally-spawning populations have fewer than 100

spawners. In addition to extremely small population sizes, both recent

and long-term trends in abundance are downward, some extremely so. NMFS

concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are in danger of extinction.

(14) Snake River Fall-Run ESU

Snake River fall-run chinook salmon are currently listed as a

threatened species under the ESA (57 FR 14653, April 22, 1992). As

discussed above, NMFS concluded that the Snake River fall-run ESU also

includes fall chinook salmon in the Deschutes River and, historically,

populations from the John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers that

have been extirpated in the twentieth century.

Almost all historical Snake River fall-run chinook salmon spawning

habitat in the Snake River Basin was blocked by the Hells Canyon Dam

complex; other habitat blockages have also occurred in Columbia River

tributaries. Hydroelectric development on the mainstem Columbia and

Snake Rivers continues to affect juvenile and adult migration.

Remaining habitat has been reduced by inundation in the mainstem Snake

and Columbia Rivers, and the ESU's range has also been affected by

agricultural water withdrawals, grazing, and vegetation management.

The continued straying by non-native hatchery fish into natural

production areas is an additional source of risk to the Snake River

chinook salmon.

Assessing extinction risk to the newly-configured ESU is difficult

because of the geographic discontinuity and the disparity in the status

of the two remaining populations. NMFS also notes considerable

uncertainty regarding the origins of fall chinook salmon in the lower

Deschutes River and their relationship to fish in the upper Deschutes

River. Historically, the

[[Page 11498]]

Snake River populations dominated production in this ESU; total

abundance is estimated to have been about 72,000 in the 1930s and

1940s, and it was probably substantially higher before that. Production

from the Deschutes River was presumably only a small fraction of

historic production in the ESU. In contrast, recent (1990-96) returns

of naturally spawning fish to the Deschutes River (about 6,000 adults

per year) have been much higher than in the Snake River (5-year mean

about 500 adults per year, including hatchery strays). The relatively

recent extirpation of fall-run chinook in the John Day, Umatilla and

Walla Walla Rivers is also a factor in assessing the risk to the

overall ESU.

Long term trends in abundance are mixed--slightly upward in the

Deschutes River and downward in the Snake River. Short-term trends in

both remaining populations are upward. After considering the addition

of the Deschutes River fall chinook populations to the listed Snake

River fall-run chinook salmon ESU, NMFS concluded that the ESU as a

whole is likely to become an endangered species within in the

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its

range, in spite of the relative health of the Deschutes River

population.

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

This ESU has been extensively reviewed by NMFS (Matthews and

Waples, 1991; NMFS, 1995b). The Snake River Spring and summer-run ESU

is listed as a threatened species and NMFS did not review its previous

risk conclusion here.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 2(a) of the ESA states that various species of fish,

wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as

a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate

concern for ecosystem conservation. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the

listing regulations (50 CFR Part 424) set forth procedures for listing

species. NMFS must determine, through the regulatory process, if a

species is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a combination

of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors

affecting its continued existence.

NMFS has prepared two supporting documents which address the

factors that have led to the decline of chinook salmon and other

salmonids. The first is entitled ``Factors for Decline: A Supplement to

the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996).

That report, available upon request (see ADDRESSES), concluded that all

of the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a

role in the decline of steelhead and other salmonids, including chinook

salmon. The report identifies destruction and modification of habitat,

overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes, and natural

and human-made factors as being the primary reasons for the decline of

west coast steelhead, and other salmonids including chinook salmon. The

second document is a supplement to the document referred to above. This

document, entitled ``Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast

Chinook Salmon: An Addendum to the 1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors

for Decline Report'' (NMFS, 1998 In prep.) discusses specific factors

affecting chinook salmon. In this report, NMFS concludes that all of

the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a role

in the decline of chinook salmon, and other salmonids. The report

identifies destruction and modification of habitat, overutilization for

recreational purposes, and natural and human-made factors as being the

primary reasons for the decline of chinook salmon.

The following discussion summarizes findings regarding factors for

decline across the range of chinook salmon. While these factors have

been treated here in general terms, it is important to underscore that

impacts from certain factors are more acute for specific ESUs. For

example, impacts from hydropower development are more pervasive for

ESUs in the Columbia River Basin than for some coastal ESUs.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of its Habitat or Range

Chinook salmon on the west coast of the United States have

experienced declines in abundance in the past several decades as a

result of loss, damage or change to their natural environment. Water

diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower

purposes (especially in the Columbia River and Sacramento-San Joaquin

Basins) have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible

habitat, and degraded remaining habitat.

Forestry, agriculture, mining, and urbanization have degraded,

simplified, and fragmented habitat. Studies indicate that in most

western states, about 80 to 90 percent of the historic riparian habitat

has been eliminated (Botkin et al., 1995; Norse, 1990; Kellogg, 1992;

California State Lands Commission, 1993). Washington and Oregon

wetlands are estimated to have diminished by one-third, while

California has experienced a 91 percent loss of its wetland habitat.

Loss of habitat complexity and habitat fragmentation have also

contributed to the decline of chinook salmon. For example, in national

forests within the range of the northern spotted owl in western and

eastern Washington, there has been a 58 percent reduction in large,

deep pools due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures

such as boulders and large wood (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment

Team (FEMAT), 1993). Similarly, in Oregon, the abundance of large, deep

pools on private coastal lands has decreased by as much as 80 percent

(FEMAT, 1993). Sedimentation from extensive and intensive land use

activities (timber harvests, road building, livestock grazing, and

urbanization) is recognized as a primary cause of habitat degradation

in the range of west coast chinook salmon.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or

Educational Purposes

Historically, chinook salmon were abundant in many western coastal

and interior waters of the United States. Chinook salmon have

supported, and still support important tribal, commercial and

recreational fisheries throughout their range, contributing millions of

dollars to numerous local economies, as well as providing important

cultural and subsistence needs for Native Americans. Overfishing in the

early days of European settlement led to the depletion of many stocks

of chinook and other salmonids even before extensive habitat

degradation. However, following the degradation of many west coast

aquatic and riparian ecosystems, exploitation rates were higher than

many chinook populations could sustain. Therefore, harvest may have

contributed to the further decline of some populations.

C. Disease or Predation

Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have

resulted in increased predator populations in numerous rivers.

Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in areas experiencing

dwindling chinook salmon

[[Page 11499]]

runsizes. However, salmonids appear to be a minor component of the diet

of marine mammals (Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Jameson and Kenyon, 1977;

Graybill, 1981; Brown and Mate, 1983; Roffe and Mate, 1984; Hanson,

1993). Principal food sources are small pelagic schooling fish,

juvenile rockfish, lampreys (Jameson and Kenyon, 1977; Roffe and Mate,

1984), benthic and epibenthic species (Brown and Mate, 1983) and

flatfish (Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Graybill, 1981). Predation may

significantly influence salmonid abundance in some local populations

when other prey are absent and physical conditions lead to the

concentration of adults and juveniles (Cooper and Johnson, 1992).

Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult

and juvenile chinook salmon survival. Chinook salmon are exposed to

numerous bacterial, protozoan, viral, and parasitic organisms in

spawning and rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and the

marine environment. Specific diseases such as bacterial kidney disease

(BKD), ceratomyxosis, columnaris, furunculosis, infectious

hematopoietic necrosis virus, redmouth and black spot disease,

erythrocytic inclusion body syndrome, and whirling disease, among

others, are present and are known to affect chinook salmon (Rucker et

al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Foott et al., 1994; Gould and

Wedemeyer, undated). Very little current or historical information

exists to quantify changes in infection levels and mortality rates

attributable to these diseases for chinook salmon. However, studies

have shown that naturally spawned fish tend to be less susceptible to

pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et

al., 1992). Native chinook salmon have evolved with certain of these

organisms, but the widespread use of artificial propagation has

introduced exotic organisms not historically present in particular

watersheds. Scientific studies may indicate that chinook salmon are

more susceptible to disease organisms than other salmonids. Habitat

conditions such as low water flows and high temperatures can exacerbate

susceptibility to disease.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

A variety of Federal, state, tribal, and local laws, regulations,

treaties and measures affect the abundance and survival of west coast

chinook salmon and the quality of their habitat. NMFS prepared a

separate report entitled ``West Coast Steelhead Conservation Measures,

A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead

Under the Endangered Species'' which summarizes many of these existing

measures and their effect on steelhead and other salmonids, including

chinook salmon. This report is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES

section). The following sections briefly discuss other regulatory

measures designed to conserve chinook and other salmonids (see also

Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon and

Conservation Measures sections).

1. Federal Land and Water Management

The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a Federal management policy with

important benefits for chinook salmon. While the NFP covers a very

large area, the overall effectiveness of the NFP in conserving chinook

salmon is limited by the extent of Federal lands and the fact that

Federal land ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds

within the affected ESUs. The extent and distribution of Federal lands

limits the NFP's ability to achieve its aquatic habitat restoration

objectives at watershed and river basin scales and highlights the

importance of complementary salmon habitat conservation measures on

nonfederal lands within the subject ESUs.

On February 25, 1995, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management adopted Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing

Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington,

Idaho, and portions of California (known as PACFISH). The strategy was

developed in response to significant declines in naturally-reproducing

salmonid stocks, including chinook salmon, and widespread degradation

of anadromous fish habitat throughout Federal lands in Idaho,

Washington, Oregon, and California outside the range of the northern

spotted owl. Like the NFP, PACFISH is an attempt to provide a

consistent approach for maintaining and restoring aquatic and riparian

habitat conditions which, in turn, are expected to promote the

sustained natural production of anadromous fish. However, as with the

NFP, PACFISH is limited by the extent of Federal lands and Federal land

ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within all the

affected ESUs.

Within the range of several chinook salmon ESUs (i.e., Southern

Oregon and California Coastal, Lower Columbia River, and Puget Sound),

much of available chinook salmon habitat is covered by the requirements

of the NFP. These existing conservation efforts have resulted in

improvements in aquatic habitat conditions for salmonids within this

region.

Since the adoption of the NFP, NMFS has consulted with the BLM and

USFS on ongoing and proposed activities that may affect anadromous

salmonids, including chinook salmon and their habitats. During this

period of time, NMFS has reviewed thousands of activities throughout

northern California, Oregon, and Washington and helped develop numerous

programmatic biological assessments (BAs) with the BLM and the USFS.

These BAs cover a wide range of management activities, including forest

and/or resource area-wide routine and non-routine road maintenance,

hazard tree removal, range allotment management, watershed and instream

restoration, special use permits (e.g., mining, ingress/egress), timber

sale programs (e.g., green tree, fuel reduction, thinning,

regeneration, and salvage), and BLM's land tenure adjustment program.

Numerous other project-specific BAs were also consulted and conferenced

upon. These National Forest and BLM Resource Area-wide BAs include

region-specific best management practices, all necessary measures to

minimize impacts for all listed or proposed anadromous salmonids,

monitoring, and environmental baseline checklists for each project.

These BA's have resulted in a more consistent approach to management of

Federal lands throughout the NFP and PACFISH areas.

2. Federal/State Land and Water Management in California

California's Central Valley chinook salmon have been the subject of

many conservation efforts aimed at restoring the Sacramento and San

Joaquin Rivers over several decades. Past efforts have generally been

unsuccessful at reducing the risks facing Central Valley chinook

salmon. Despite a long history of unproductive conservation and

protection efforts, Federal, state and private stakeholders joined to

urge Congressional passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement

Act (CVPIA) in 1992, followed by the signing of the CALFED Bay-Delta

Accord (Accord) in December 1994. The Bay-Delta Accord detailed interim

measures for environmental protection and paved the way for the

development of the long-term CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The CALFED Bay-

Delta Program which began in June of 1995 is a planning effort between

state and federal agencies for developing a long-range, comprehensive

solution for the Bay-Delta Estuary and its watershed. Collectively, the

CVPIA and CALFED Bay-Delta conservation programs may

[[Page 11500]]

provide a comprehensive conservation response to the extensive ecologic

problems facing at-risk salmonids. The CVPIA and the CALFED Bay-Delta

Program are described in more detail in the Efforts Being Made to

Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon section.

3. State Land Management

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)

enforces the State of California's forest practice rules (CFPRs) which

are promulgated through the Board of Forestry (BOF). The CFPRs contain

provisions that provide significant protection for chinook salmon if

fully implemented. However, NMFS believes the CFPRs do not secure

properly functioning riparian habitat. Specifically, the CFPRs do not

adequately address large woody debris recruitment, streamside tree

retention to maintain bank stability, and canopy retention standards

that assure stream temperatures are properly functioning for all life

stages of chinook salmon. The current process for approving Timber

Harvest Plans (THPs) under the CFPRs does not include monitoring of

timber harvest operations to determine whether a particular operation

damaged habitat and, if so, how it might be mitigated in future THPs.

The CFPR rule that permits salvage logging is also an area where better

environmental review and monitoring could ensure better protection for

chinook salmon. For these reasons, NMFS is working to improve the

condition of riparian buffers in ongoing habitat conservation plan

negotiations with private landowners.

The Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA), while modified in 1995 and

improved over the previous OFPA, does not have implementing rules that

adequately protect salmonid habitat. In particular, the current OFPA

does not provide adequate protection for the production and

introduction of large woody debris (LWD) to medium, small and non-fish

bearing streams. Small non-fish bearing streams are vitally important

to the quality of downstream habitats. These streams carry water,

sediment, nutrients, and LWD from upper portions of the watershed. The

quality of downstream habitats is determined, in part, by the timing

and amount of organic and inorganic materials provided by these small

streams (Chamberlin et al. in Meehan, 1991). Given the existing

depleted condition of most riparian forests on non-Federal lands, the

time needed to attain mature forest conditions, the lack of adequate

protection for non-riparian LWD sources in landslide-prone areas and

small headwater streams (which account for about half the wood found

naturally in stream channels) (Burnett and Reeves, 1997 citing Van

Sickle and Gregory, 1990; McDade et al., 1990; and McGreary, 1994), and

current rotation schedules (approximately 50 years), there is a low

probability that adequate LWD recruitment could be achieved under the

current requirements of the OFPA. Also, the OFPA does not adequately

consider and manage timber harvest and road construction on sensitive,

unstable slopes subject to mass wasting, nor does it address cumulative

effects. These issues, and other concerns about the OFPA have been

analyzed in detail in a recent document prepared by NMFS. The document,

entitled ``A Draft Proposal Concerning Oregon Forest Practices'' was

submitted to the Oregon Board of Forestry Memorandum of Agreement

Advisory Committee and to the Oregon Governor's Office to advance

potential improvements in Oregon forest practices (OFP) (NMFS OFP

Draft, February 17, 1998).

The Washington Department of Natural Resources implements and

enforces the State of Washington's forest practice rules (WFPRs) which

are promulgated through the Forest Practices Board. These WFPRs contain

provisions that can be protective of chinook salmon if fully

implemented. This is possible given that the WFPRs are based on

adaptive management of forest lands through watershed analysis,

development of site-specific land management prescriptions, and

monitoring. Watershed Analysis prescriptions can exceed WFPR minimums

for stream and riparian protection. However, NMFS believes the WFPRs,

including watershed analysis, do not provide properly functioning

riparian and instream habitats. Specifically, the base WFPRs do not

adequately address LWD recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream

bank integrity and channel networks within floodplains, and chronic and

episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that maintain habitats that

are properly functioning for all chinook salmon life stages.

4. Dredge, Fill, and Inwater Construction Programs

The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates removal/fill activities

under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which requires that the

COE not permit a discharge that would ``cause or contribute to

significant degradation of the waters of the United States.'' One of

the factors that must be considered in this determination is cumulative

effects. However, the COE guidelines do not specify a methodology for

assessing cumulative impacts or how much weight to assign them in

decision-making. Furthermore, the COE does not have in place any

process to address the additive effects of the continued development of

waterfront, riverine, coastal, and wetland properties.

5. Water Quality Programs

The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), enforced in part by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is intended to protect

beneficial uses, including fishery resources. To date, implementation

has not been effective in adequately protecting fishery resources,

particularly with respect to non-point sources of pollution.

Section 303(d)(1)(C) and (D) of the CWA requires states to prepare

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all water bodies that do not meet

State water quality standards. TMDLs are a method for quantitative

assessment of environmental problems in a watershed and identifying

pollution reductions needed to protect drinking water, aquatic life,

recreation, and other use of rivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs may

address all pollution sources including point sources such as sewage or

industrial plant discharges, and non-point discharges such as runoff

from roads, farm fields, and forests.

The CWA gives state governments the primary responsibility for

establishing TMDLs. However, EPA is required to do so if a state does

not meet this responsibility. In California, as a result of recent

litigation, the EPA has made a legal commitment guaranteeing that

either EPA or the State will establish TMDLs that identify pollution

reduction targets for 18 impaired river basins in northern California

by the year 2007. California has made a commitment to establish TMDLs

for approximately half the 18 river basins by 2007. The EPA will

develop TMDLs for the remaining basins and has also agreed to complete

all TMDLS if the State fails to meet its commitment within the agreed

upon time frame.

State agencies in Oregon are committed to completing TMDLs for

coastal drainages within 4 years, and all impaired waters within 10

years. Similarly ambitious schedules are being developed for Washington

and California.

The ability of these TMDLs to protect chinook salmon should be

significant in the long term; however, it will be difficult to develop

them quickly in the short term and their efficacy in protecting chinook

salmon habitat will be unknown for years to come.

[[Page 11501]]

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Natural climatic conditions have exacerbated the problems

associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats.

Persistent drought conditions have reduced already limited spawning,

rearing and migration habitat. Climatic conditions appear to have

resulted in decreased ocean productivity which, during more productive

periods, may offset poor productivity caused by degraded freshwater

habitat conditions.

In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat, extensive hatchery

programs have been implemented throughout the range of west coast

chinook salmon. While some of these programs have succeeded in

providing fishing opportunities, the impacts of these programs on

native, naturally-reproducing stocks are not well understood.

Competition, genetic introgression, and disease transmission resulting

from hatchery introductions may significantly reduce the production and

survival of native, naturally-reproducing chinook salmon (NMFS, 1996a).

Collection of native chinook salmon for hatchery broodstock purposes

often harms small or dwindling natural populations. Artificial

propagation may play an important role in chinook salmon recovery and

some hatchery populations of chinook salmon may be deemed essential for

the recovery of threatened or endangered chinook salmon ESUs (see

Proposed Determination section).

In the past, non-native chinook salmon stocks have been introduced

as broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal

rivers and streams throughout the range of the proposed chinook salmon

ESUs (Bryant, 1994; Myers et al., 1998). Because of problems associated

with this practice, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

developed its Salmon and Steelhead Stock Management Policy. This policy

recognizes that such stock mixing is detrimental and seeks to maintain

the genetic integrity of all identifiable California stocks of chinook

salmon and other salmonids, as well as minimize interactions between

hatchery and natural populations. To protect the genetic integrity of

salmon and steelhead stocks, this policy directs CDFG to evaluate each

salmon and steelhead stream and classify it according to its probable

genetic source and degree of integrity.

Hatchery programs and harvest management have strongly influenced

chinook salmon populations in the Central Valley, California ESU, the

Puget Sound ESU, the Lower Columbia River ESU, the Upper Willamette

ESU, and the Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU. Hatchery programs

intended to compensate for habitat losses have masked declines in

natural stocks and have created unrealistic expectations for fisheries.

The three state agencies (California Department of Fish and Game,

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department

of Fish and Wildlife) have adopted and are implementing natural

salmonid policies designed to limit hatchery influences on natural,

indigenous chinook salmon. While some limits have been placed on

hatchery production of anadromous salmonids, more careful management of

current programs and scrutiny of proposed programs is necessary in

order to minimize impacts on listed species.

Efforts Being Made To Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to

make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific

and commercial data available and after taking into account efforts

being made to protect a species. Therefore, in making its listing

determinations, NMFS first assesses chinook salmon status and

identifies factors that have lead to its decline. NMFS then assesses

existing conservation actions to determine if those measures ameliorate

the risks faced by chinook salmon.

In judging the efficacy of existing conservation efforts, NMFS

considers the following: (1) The substantive, protective, and

conservation elements of such efforts; (2) the degree of certainty such

efforts will be reliably implemented; and (3) the presence of

monitoring provisions that permit adaptive management (NMFS 1996b). In

some cases, conservation efforts may be relatively new and may not have

had time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases,

provisions for adequate monitoring and funding of conservation efforts

are essential to ensure intended conservation benefits are realized

(see NMFS 1996b, see also 62 FR 24602-24607, May 6, 1997).

During a previous status review for west coast steelhead, NMFS

reviewed an array of protective efforts for steelhead and other

salmonids, including chinook salmon, ranging in scope from regional

strategies to local watershed initiatives. NMFS summarized some of the

major efforts in a document entitled ``Steelhead Conservation Efforts:

A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead

Under the Endangered Species Act.'' (NMFS, 1996). This document is

available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Several more recently developed protective efforts have been

directed towards the conservation of various salmonids and the

watersheds supporting them. These efforts may affect recovery of

chinook salmon in California, Oregon and Washington.

State of California Protective Measures for Central Valley Chinook

Spring- and fall/late fall-run chinook salmon in California's

Central Valley are beginning to benefit from two major conservation

initiatives that are under development and simultaneously being

implemented to conserve and restore salmonid and other fishery

resources in the rivers and streams of the Central Valley, including

the Bay-Delta region. The first of these initiatives is the Central

Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) which Congress passed in 1992.

The CVPIA is intended to remedy habitat and other problems associated

with the construction and operation of the Bureau of Reclamation's

(BOR) Central Valley Project. The CVPIA has two key habitat restoration

features related to the recovery of chinook salmon in the Central

Valley. First, it directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and

implement a program that makes all reasonable efforts to double natural

production of anadromous fish in Central Valley streams (Section

3406(b)(1)) by the year 2002. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

approached implementation of this CVPIA directive through development

of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP). The AFRP contains a

total of 172 actions and 117 evaluations. The Department of the

Interior (DOTI) intends to finalize the AFRP in 1998 upon completion of

the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which is required by

Section 3409 of the CVPIA. Secondly, the CVPIA annually dedicates up to

800,000 acre feet (AF) of water flows for fish, wildlife, and habitat

restoration purposes (Section 3406(b)(2)), and provides for the

acquisition of additional water to supplement the 800,000 AF (Section

3406(b)(3)). The FWS, in consultation with other Federal and State

agencies, directs the use of these dedicated water flows.

On November 20, 1997, DOI released its final administrative

proposal on the management of Section 340(b)(2) water and a set of

flow-related actions for the use of so-called (b)(2) water during the

next five years. These plans will be continuously updated to include

new information, consistent with the

[[Page 11502]]

adaptive management approach described in the AFRP. To make restoration

efforts as efficient as possible, the AFRP has committed to coordinate

restoration efforts with those developed and implemented by other

groups or programs, including the CALFED Bay-Delta program.

Federal funding has been appropriated since 1995 to implement

restoration projects identified through the AFRP planning and

development process, or through complementary programs such as the

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. In 1996, a total of $1.9 million was

obligated for 11 restoration projects or evaluations identified through

the AFRP planning process. These projects included restoration

management planning efforts in the lower Tuolumne River, Deer Creek,

and Butte Creek, modification of a fish ladder on the Yuba River,

acquisition of riparian property and easements on Pine Creek and Big

Chico Creek, water exchange pump and riparian restoration projects on

Mill Creek, and several monitoring and evaluation projects. In 1997,

$9.7 million was obligated for over 30 projects located throughout the

Central Valley. The AFRP's projected budget for restoration projects in

the Central Valley in 1998 is $8.2 million. The ARFP's 1998 work plan

identifies 27 high priority projects for funding, and an additional 14

projects which will proceed contingent on additional funding. An

estimated $20 million to $35 million will be spent on AFRP restoration

actions per year for 25 years ($500 million to $875 million estimated

total), most of which will be closely integrated with funding for

habitat restoration activities as part of the CALFED Bay-Delta program.

During 1996 and 1997, the AFRP implemented several fish flow and

habitat restoration actions using the CVPIA provisions. Specific

actions included limiting Delta water exports for fisheries protection,

closing the Delta Cross Channel gates to minimize the diversion of

juvenile chinook salmon from the Sacramento River into the Delta, and

modifying the operation of water project facilities in the Delta to

evaluate the benefits of actions taken to protect juvenile chinook

salmon. NMFS expects that similar fisheries protection measures will be

implemented in 1998 depending on actual hydrological conditions.

The second and very ambitious initiative that benefits Central

Valley spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon is the CALFED Bay-Delta

Program. In June 1994, state and Federal agencies signed a framework

agreement that pledged all agencies to work together to formulate water

quality standards to protect the Bay-Delta, coordinate state and

Federal water project operations, and develop a long-term Bay-Delta

restoration program. In December 1994, a diverse group of State and

Federal agencies, water agencies and environmental organizations signed

The Bay-Delta Accord which set out specific interim (3-year) measures

for environmental protection, including protection for Central Valley

chinook stocks. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which began in June,

1995, is charged with developing the long-term Bay-Delta solution and

restoration program.

Three types of environmental protection and restoration measures

are detailed in the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord: (1) The control of

freshwater outflow in the Delta to improve estuarine conditions in the

shallow-water habitat of the Bay-Delta estuary (Category I measures),

(2) the regulation of water project operations and flows to minimize

harmful environmental impacts of water exports (Category II measures),

and (3) the funding and implementation of projects to address non-flow

related factors affecting the Bay-Delta ecosystem such as unscreened

diversions, physical habitat degradation, and pollution (Category III

measures). Many of the Category I and II measures identified in the

agreement were implemented by a Water Quality Control Plan that was

adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 1995. Efforts

were also initiated to implement Category III non-flow projects

beginning in 1995 and these have continued to the present.

In 1995 and 1996, the Category III program approved a total of

$21.1 million in funding for a large number of habitat restoration,

fish screening, land acquisition, research and monitoring, watershed

planning, and fish passage projects distributed throughout the

Sacramento/San Joaquin River basins, their tributaries and the Bay-

Delta system. Additional funding was provided for most of these

projects from the CVPIA or other funding sources, and many constitute

specific restoration actions identified in the draft Ecosystem

Restoration Program Plan (ERPP) that is being developed as part of the

comprehensive long-term CALFED Bay-Delta program. The total funding

obligation for these projects exceeded $40 million. A description of

these projects, the project proponent, the funding commitments, and the

project status are described in a March 1997 summary document. In 1997,

the CALFED Bay-Delta program announced its intention to fund a total of

51 additional projects using nearly $61 million in Category III

funding. Additional funding of nearly $40 million was also available as

a cost share for other projects if additional high priority projects

could be identified. The selection of these 51 projects were intended

to address specific stressors or factors for decline that were

identified in the planning process leading to development of the ERPP.

The vast majority of these funds (nearly 77 percent) were allocated to

projects addressing floodplain/marsh plain changes and changes in river

channel form. An additional 10 percent was targeted at entrainment

problems, while 8 percent addressed water quality problems. Of the

total funds committed to new projects, 87 percent will be expended for

implementation projects, with the balance expended for watershed

planning, monitoring, and research.

Central Valley spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon have

benefited from the expenditure of these restoration program funds

through the placement of new fish screens, modifications of barriers to

fish passage, and habitat restoration projects, and additional benefits

are expected to accrue to these populations in the future as new

projects are implemented. In the long-term, NMFS is hopeful that the

CVPIA and CALFED Bay-Delta conservation programs described above can be

focused and implemented to provide a comprehensive conservation

response to the extensive habitat problems facing chinook salmon and

other species in the Central Valley. To date, however, projects funded

by these programs have focused on addressing habitat problems facing

these and other species, and have placed an emphasis on problems

associated with freshwater and ocean harvest or hatchery management

practices. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program's draft ERPP acknowledges that

current hatchery practices and freshwater and ocean harvest management

practices are stressors (or risk factors) that are adversely affecting

natural chinook salmon populations in the Central Valley. It also

identifies general changes that may be needed to reduce the impacts of

these stressors, and incorporates the need for improved harvest and

hatchery management in its programmatic implementation plan. However,

no Category III funding has been targeted at these problems to date,

and a focused plan with both a near- and long-term implementation

strategy to deal with these problems still needs to be developed. Many

habitat restoration projects or activities identified in the ERPP have

been funded and are in the

[[Page 11503]]

process of being implemented as discussed above. Other components of

the restoration plan will be carried out as part of its long-term

implementation. NMFS is encouraged by the ecosystem planning and

restoration strategy developed for chinook salmon in Central Valley and

Bay-Delta ecosystem. However, several risk factors that have been

identified by NMFS as adversely affecting chinook salmon in the Central

Valley have not been adequately addressed, and plans for their

implementation needs to be developed. These risk factors include large

hatchery programs and practices that are adversely affecting natural

populations of spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon, and masking

our ability to confidently assess the status of naturally spawning

populations; and ocean and freshwater harvest rates on natural stocks

of spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon stocks (hatchery and

natural) that may exceed the basin's ability to naturally sustain these

ESUs.

Because the full scope and implementation strategy for the CALFED

Bay-Delta Program's long-term restoration program have yet to be

finalized and a focused strategy to address impacts from harvest and

hatchery practices has yet to be adequately developed, NMFS believes

that the conservation benefits provided for by the CALFED restoration

program and other complementary programs are not currently sufficient

to reduce the substantial risks facing Central Valley spring-run and

fall/late fall-run chinook salmon. NMFS is committed to working closely

with the State and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to build on the draft

ERPP and its implementation strategy to ensure that all risks to

spring-run and fall/late fall-run chinook salmon, including those

resulting from current hatchery and harvest practices, are properly

addressed in the future.

State of Oregon Conservation Measures

In April 1996, the Governor of Oregon completed and submitted to

NMFS a comprehensive conservation plan directed specifically at coho

salmon stocks on the Coast of Oregon. This plan, termed the Oregon Plan

for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) (formerly known as the Oregon Coastal

Salmon Restoration Initiative) has recently been expanded to include

conservation measures for coastal steelhead stocks (Oregon, 1998). For

a detailed description of the OPSW, refer to the May 6, 1997, listing

determination for Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62

FR 24602-24606). The essential features of the OPSW include the

following:

1. Identifies and addresses all factors for decline of coastal coho

and steelhead, most notably, those factors relating to harvest,

habitat, and hatchery activities.

2. State agencies whose activities affect salmon are held

accountable for coordinating their programs in a manner that conserves

and restores the species and their habitat.

3. Developed a framework for prioritizing conservation and

restoration efforts.

4. Developed a comprehensive monitoring plan that coordinates

Federal, state, and local efforts to improve current knowledge of

freshwater and marine conditions, determine populations trends,

evaluate the effects of artificial propagation, and rate the OPSW's

success or failure in restoring the salmon.

5. Actions to conserve and restore salmon must be worked out by

communities and landowners--those who possess local knowledge of

problems and who have a genuine stake in the outcome.

6. The principle of adaptive management coordinates the

prioritization, monitoring and implementation elements of this

conservation plan. Through this process, there is an explicit mechanism

for learning from experience, evaluating alternative approaches, and

making needed changes in the programs and measures.

7. The Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) provides

an independent audit of the OPSW's strengths and weaknesses. The IMST

assists the adaptive management process by compiling new information

into an annual review of goals, objectives, and strategies, and by

recommending changes.

8. The annual report made to the Governor, the legislature, and the

public will help the agencies make the adjustments described for the

adaptive management process.

While NMFS recognizes that many of the ongoing

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.