March 9, 1998 federal register - KRIS Web · 2011-02-14 · Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 45/Monday, March 9, 1998/Proposed Rules 11483 winter-run chinook salmon as endangered under

fede

ral r

egiste

r

11481

MondayMarch 9, 1998

Part II

Department ofCommerceNational Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Parts 222, 226, and 227Endangered and Threatened Species:West Coast Chinook Salmon; ListingStatus Change; Proposed Rule

11482 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

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 TwoChinook Salmon ESUs and ProposedThreatened Status for Five ChinookSalmon ESUs; Proposed Redefinition,Threatened Status, and Revision ofCritical Habitat for One ChinookSalmon ESU; Proposed Designation ofChinook Salmon Critical Habitat inCalifornia, Oregon, Washington, Idaho

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Proposed rule; proposedredefinition; proposed designation andrevision of critical habitat; request forcomments.

SUMMARY: NMFS completed acomprehensive status review of westcoast chinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha, or O. tshawytscha)populations in Washington, Oregon,Idaho, and California in response topetitions filed to list chinook salmonunder the Endangered Species Act(ESA). Based on this review, NMFSidentified a total of 15 EvolutionarilySignificant Units (ESUs) of chinooksalmon within this range, including twoSnake River ESUs already listed underthe ESA, one previously identified ESU(mid-Columbia River summer/fall run)for which no listing was proposed, andone population (Sacramento Riverwinter run) that was listed as a ‘‘distinctpopulation segment’’ prior to theformulation of the NMFS ESU policy.With respect to the 12 ESUs that are thesubject of this proposed rule, NMFS hasconcluded that two ESUs are at risk ofextinction and five ESUs are at risk ofbecoming endangered in the foreseeablefuture. NMFS also concluded that onecurrently listed ESU should beredefined to include additional chinooksalmon populations and that thisredefined ESU is at risk of becomingendangered in the foreseeable future.NMFS also concluded that four ESUsare not at risk of extinction nor at riskof becoming endangered in theforeseeable future. Finally, NMFS alsorenamed the previously identified Mid-Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU asthe Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU.

NMFS is now issuing a proposed ruleto list two ESUs as endangered, fiveESUs as threatened, and to redefine onecurrently listed ESU to includeadditional chinook populations, underthe ESA. The endangered chinooksalmon are located in California (CentralValley spring-run ESU) and Washington(Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU).The threatened chinook salmon aredispersed throughout California,Oregon, and Washington. They includethe California Central Valley fall-runESU, the Southern Oregon andCalifornia Coastal ESU, the Puget SoundESU, the Lower Columbia River ESU,and the Upper Willamette River ESU.NMFS also proposes to redefine theSnake River fall-run chinook salmonESU to include fall chinook salmonpopulations in the Deschutes River, andproposes to list this redefined ESU as athreatened species. This proposal doesnot affect the current definition andthreatened status of the listed SnakeRiver fall chinook salmon ESU.

In each ESU identified as threatenedor endangered, only naturally spawned,non-introduced chinook salmon areproposed for listing. Prior to the finallisting determinations, NMFS willexamine the relationship betweenhatchery and natural populations ofchinook salmon in these ESUs andassess whether any hatcherypopulations are essential for therecovery of the natural populations andthus will be listed.

NMFS is proposing to designatecritical habitat for the chinook salmonESUs newly proposed for listing withinthis notice, and for the Snake River fall-run ESU, proposing to revise its existingcritical habitat. At this time, proposedcritical habitat for these ESUs is thespecies’ current freshwater andestuarine range, certain marine areas,and includes all waterways, substrate,and adjacent riparian zones belowlongstanding, impassible, naturalbarriers.

NMFS is requesting public commentson the issues pertaining to this proposedrule. NMFS is also requestingsuggestions and comments on integratedlocal/state/tribal/Federal conservationmeasures that will achieve the purposesof the ESA to recover the health ofchinook salmon populations and theecosystems upon which they depend.Should the proposed listing be madefinal, NMFS will adopt protectiveregulations and a recovery plan underthe ESA.DATES: Comments must be received byJune 8, 1998. NMFS will announce thedates and locations of public hearings inWashington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California in a forthcoming FederalRegister notice. Requests for additionalpublic hearings must be received byApril 23, 1998.ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposedrule, requests for reference materials,and requests for public hearings shouldbe sent to Chief, Protected SpeciesDivision, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon Street,Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232–2737.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Garth Griffin, 503–231–2005, CraigWingert, 562–980–4021, or Joe Blum,301–713–1401.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal ESA Actions Relatedto West Coast Chinook

West Coast chinook salmon have beenthe subject of many Federal ESAactions. In November 1985, NMFSreceived a petition to list SacramentoRiver winter-run chinook salmon fromthe American Fisheries Society (AFS).NMFS determined that the petitionedaction might be warranted andannounced it would conduct a review ofthe run’s status (51 FR 5391, February13, 1986). In its status review, NMFSdetermined that Sacramento Riverwinter-run chinook salmon was a‘‘species’’ for the purposes of the ESA,but based upon the conservation andrestoration efforts by California andother Federal resource agencies,declined to list the winter-run chinookat that time (52 FR 6041, February 27,1987). Subsequent low returnsprompted NMFS to adopt an emergencyrule listing Sacramento River winter-runchinook salmon as a threatened speciesunder the ESA (54 FR 10260, August 4,1989). NMFS then issued a proposedrule to list Sacramento River winter-runchinook as a threatened species underthe ESA (55 FR 102260, March 20,1990), and also published a secondemergency rule listing the winter-runchinook as threatened to avoid anylapse in ESA protections whileconsidering the proposed rule (55 FR12191, April 2, 1990). On November 5,1990, NMFS completed its listingdetermination for Sacramento Riverwinter-run chinook, and published afinal rule listing the run as a threatenedspecies under the ESA (55 FR 46515).

In June 1991, AFS petitioned NMFSto reclassify the winter-run as anendangered species. Based on theinformation submitted by AFS, and afterreviewing all other available data,NMFS determined that the petitionedaction may be warranted, andannounced its intention to review thestatus of the winter-run chinook (56 FR58986, November 7, 1991), and thenpublished a proposed rule to reclassify

11483Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

winter-run chinook salmon asendangered under the ESA (57 FR27416, June 19, 1992). Critical habitatfor Sacramento winter-run chinooksalmon was designated on June 16, 1993(58 FR 33212). After several extensionsof the listing determination and thecomment period, NMFS finalized itsproposed rule and re-classified thewinter-run chinook as an endangeredspecies under the ESA (59 FR 440,January 4, 1994).

While NMFS was reviewing andreclassifying the status of SacramentoRiver chinook, NMFS also received apetition from Oregon Trout and five co-petitioners on June 7, 1990, to list SnakeRiver spring/summer and fall chinooksalmon as threatened species under theESA. On September 11, 1990, NMFSdetermined that the petition presentedsubstantial scientific informationindicating that the proposed action maybe warranted, and initiated a statusreview (55 FR 37342). NMFS publisheda proposed rule listing two Snake Riverchinook salmon runs as threatenedunder the ESA on June 27, 1991 (56 FR29542 and 56 FR 29547). NMFSfinalized its rule listing these SnakeRiver chinook salmon runs asthreatened species on April 22, 1992 (57FR 14653).

Meanwhile, on June 3, 1993,American Rivers and 10 otherorganizations petitioned NMFS to addMid-Columbia River summer chinooksalmon to the list of endangered species.NMFS determined that this petitionpresented substantial scientificinformation indicating that thepetitioned action may be warranted, andinitiated a status review (58 FR 46944,September 3, 1993). Subsequently,NMFS determined that mid-ColumbiaRiver summer chinook salmon did notqualify as an ESU, and therefore was nota ‘‘distinct population segment’’ underthe ESA (59 FR 48855, September 23,1994). However, NMFS determined thatmid-Columbia River summer chinooksalmon were part of a larger ESU thatincluded all late-run (summer and fall)Columbia River chinook salmonbetween McNary and Chief Josephdams. NMFS also concluded that thisESU did not warrant listing as athreatened or endangered species (59 FR48855, September 23, 1994).

Immediately prior to thatdetermination, NMFS determined that apetition filed on March 14, 1994, byProfessional Resources Organization-Salmon (PRO-Salmon) to list variouspopulations of chinook salmon inWashington contained substantialscientific information indicating that thepetitioned action may be warranted (59FR 46808, September 12, 1994). NMFS

then announced that it wouldcommence a coast-wide status review ofall west coast chinook salmon (59 FR46808). Shortly after initiating thiscomprehensive coast wide status reviewfor chinook and other salmon species,NMFS received a petition from OregonNatural Resource Council and Dr.Richard Nawa on February 1, 1995, tolist chinook salmon throughout itsrange. NMFS determined that thispetition contained substantial scientificinformation indicating that thepetitioned action may be warranted, andreconfirmed its intention to conduct acomprehensive coast wide status reviewof west coast chinook salmon (60 FR30263, June 8, 1995).

In the intervening period between thetwo most recent petitions to list variouspopulations of west coast chinooksalmon, NMFS published an emergencyrule on August 18, 1994 (59 FR 42529)after determining that the status ofSnake River spring/summer-run andSnake River fall-run chinook salmonwarranted reclassification asendangered, based on projected declinesand low abundance levels of adultchinook salmon. Because emergencyrules under the ESA have a maximumduration of 240 days (see 16 U.S.C.1533(b)(7) and 50 CFR § 424.20(a)),NMFS published a proposed rulereclassifying listed Snake River spring/summer-run and Snake River fall-runchinook salmon ESUs as endangered onDecember 28, 1994 (59 FR 66784). Sincepublishing that proposed rule, acongressional moratorium on listingactivities, a large ESA listingdetermination backlog and other delaysprevented NMFS from completing itsassessment of the proposed rule. Duringthis period, abundance of both stocks ofSnake River chinook salmon hasincreased. Based on these increases,along with improved managementactivities affecting these chinooksalmon, NMFS concluded that the risksfacing these chinook salmon ESUs arelower than they were at the time of theproposed rule, and thus NMFSwithdrew the proposed reclassification(63 FR 1807, January 12, 1998).

During the coast wide chinook salmonstatus review initiated in September,1994, NMFS assessed the best availablescientific and commercial data,including technical information fromPacific Salmon Biological TechnicalCommittees (PSBTCs) and interestedparties in Washington, Oregon, Idaho,and California. The PSBTCs consistedprimarily of scientists (from Federal,state, and local resource agencies,Indian tribes, industries, universities,professional societies, and publicinterest groups) possessing technical

expertise relevant to chinook salmonand their habitats.

A NMFS Biological Review Team,composed of scientists from NMFS’Northwest and Southwest FisheriesScience Centers, NMFS’ Northwest andSouthwest Regional Offices, as well asa representative of the NationalBiological Service, completed a coastwide status review for chinook salmon[Memorandum to W. Stelle and W.Hogarth from M. Schiewe, December 18,1997, Chinook Salmon Status ReviewReport]. The review (summary follows)evaluates the status of 15 chinooksalmon ESUs in the four states. Thecomplete results of NMFS’ status reviewfor chinook salmon populations will bepublished in a forthcoming NOAATechnical Memorandum (Myers et al.,1998).

Chinook Salmon Life History andEcology

Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) areeasily distinguished from otherOncorhynchus species by their largesize. Adults weighing over 120 poundshave been caught in North Americanwaters. Chinook salmon are very similarto coho salmon (O. kisutch) inappearance while at sea (blue-greenback with silver flanks), except for theirlarge size, small black spots on bothlobes of the tail, and black pigmentalong the base of the teeth. Chinooksalmon are anadromous andsemelparous. This means that as adults,they migrate from a marine environmentinto the fresh water streams and riversof their birth (anadromous) where theyspawn and die (semelparous). Adultfemale chinook will prepare a spawningbed, called a redd, in a stream area withsuitable gravel composition, waterdepth and velocity. Redds will varywidely in size and in location withinthe stream or river. The adult femalechinook may deposit eggs in 4 to 5‘‘nesting pockets’’ within a single redd.After laying eggs in a redd, adultchinook will guard the redd from 4 to25 days before dying. Chinook salmoneggs will hatch, depending upon watertemperatures, between 90 to 150 daysafter deposition. Stream flow, gravelquality, and silt load all significantlyinfluence the survival of developingchinook salmon eggs. Juvenile chinookmay spend from 3 months to 2 years infreshwater after emergence and beforemigrating to estuarine areas as smolts,and then into the ocean to feed andmature. Historically, chinook salmonranged as far south as the Ventura River,California, and their northern extentreaches the Russian Far East.

Among chinook salmon, two distinctraces have evolved. One race, described


as a ‘‘stream-type’’ chinook, is foundmost commonly in headwater streams.Stream-type chinook salmon have alonger freshwater residency, andperform extensive offshore migrationsbefore returning to their natal streams inthe spring or summer months. Thesecond race is called the ‘‘ocean-type’’chinook, which is commonly found incoastal streams in North America.Ocean-type chinook typically migrate tosea within the first three months ofemergence, but they may spend up to ayear in freshwater prior to emigration.They also spend their ocean life incoastal waters. Ocean-type chinooksalmon return to their natal streams orrivers as spring, winter, fall, summer,and late-fall runs, but summer and fallruns predominate (Healey, 1991). Thedifference between these life historytypes is also physical, with both geneticand morphological foundations.

Juvenile stream- and ocean-typechinook salmon have adapted todifferent ecological niches. Ocean-typechinook salmon tend to utilize estuariesand coastal areas more extensively forjuvenile rearing. The brackish waterareas in estuaries also moderatephysiological stress during parr-smolttransition. The development of theocean-type life history strategy mayhave been a response to the limitedcarrying capacity of smaller streamsystems and glacially scoured,unproductive, watersheds, or a means ofavoiding the impact of seasonal floodsin the lower portion of many watersheds(Miller and Brannon, 1982).

Stream-type juveniles are much moredependent on freshwater streamecosystems because of their extendedresidence in these areas. A stream-typelife history may be adapted to thosewatersheds, or parts of watersheds, thatare more consistently productive andless susceptible to dramatic changes inwater flow, or which haveenvironmental conditions that wouldseverely limit the success of subyearlingsmolts (Miller and Brannon, 1982;Healey, 1991). At the time of saltwaterentry, stream-type (yearling) smolts aremuch larger, averaging 73–134 mmdepending on the river system, thantheir ocean-type (subyearling)counterparts and are therefore able tomove offshore relatively quickly(Healey, 1991).

Coastwide, chinook salmon remain atsea for 1 to 6 years (more commonly 2to 4 years), with the exception of a smallproportion of yearling males (called jacksalmon) which mature in freshwater orreturn 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-oceanfisheries, indicating divergent migratoryroutes (Healey, 1983 and 1991). Ocean-type chinook salmon tend to migratealong the coast, while stream-typechinook salmon are found far from thecoast in the central North Pacific(Healey 1983 and 1991; Myers et al.,1984). Differences in the oceandistribution of specific stocks may beindicative of resource partitioning andmay be important to the success of thespecies as a whole.

There is a significant geneticinfluence to the freshwater componentof the returning adult migratory process.A number of studies show that chinooksalmon return to their natal streamswith a high degree of fidelity (Rich andHolmes 1928; Quinn and Fresh, 1984;McIssac and Quinn, 1988). Salmon mayhave evolved this trait as a method ofensuring an adequate incubation andrearing habitat. It also provides amechanism for reproductive isolationand local adaptation. Conversely,returning to a stream other than that ofone’s origin is important in colonizingnew areas and responding tounfavorable or perturbed conditions atthe natal stream (Quinn, 1993).

Chinook salmon stocks exhibitconsiderable variability in size and ageof maturation, and at least some portionof this variation is geneticallydetermined. The relationship betweensize and length of migration may alsoreflect the earlier timing of river entryand the cessation of feeding for chinooksalmon stocks that migrate to the upperreaches of river systems. Body size,which is correlated with age, may be animportant factor in migration and reddconstruction success. Roni and Quinn(1995) reported that under high densityconditions on the spawning ground,natural selection may produce stockswith exceptionally large-sized returningadults.

Early researchers recorded theexistence of different temporal ‘‘runs’’or modes in the migration of chinooksalmon from the ocean to freshwater.Freshwater entry and spawning timingare believed to be related to localtemperature and water flow regimes(Miller and Brannon, 1982). Seasonal‘‘runs’’ (ie., spring, summer, fall, orwinter) have been identified on thebasis of when adult chinook salmonenter freshwater to begin their spawningmigration. However, distinct runs alsodiffer in the degree of maturation at thetime of river entry, the thermal regimeand flow characteristics of theirspawning site, and their actual time ofspawning. Egg deposition must occur ata time to ensure that fry emerge duringthe following spring when the river or

estuary productivity is sufficient forjuvenile survival and growth.

Other Life History TraitsPathogen resistance is another locally

adapted trait. Chinook salmon from theColumbia River drainage were lesssusceptible to Ceratomyxa shasta, anendemic pathogen, than stocks fromcoastal rivers where the disease is notknown to occur (Zinn et al., 1977).Alaskan and Columbia River stocks ofchinook salmon exhibit different levelsof susceptibility to the infectioushematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV)(Wertheimer and Winton 1982).Variability in temperature tolerancebetween populations is likely due toselection for local conditions; however,there is little information on the geneticbasis of this trait (Levings, 1993).

Consideration as a ‘‘Species’’ Under theESA

To qualify for listing as a threatenedor endangered species, the identifiedpopulations of chinook salmon must beconsidered ‘‘species’’ under the ESA.The ESA defines a ‘‘species’’ to include‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife orplants, and any distinct populationsegment of any species of vertebrate fishor wildlife which interbreeds whenmature.’’ NMFS published a policy (56FR 58612, November 20, 1991)describing the agency’s application ofthe ESA definition of ‘‘species’’ toanadromous Pacific salmonid species.NMFS’ policy provides that a Pacificsalmonid population will be considereddistinct and, hence, a species under theESA if it represents an ESU of thebiological species. A population mustsatisfy two criteria to be considered anESU, it must be reproductively isolatedfrom other conspecific population units,and it must represent an importantcomponent in the evolutionary legacy ofthe biological species. The firstcriterion, reproductive isolation, neednot be absolute, but must be strongenough to permit evolutionarilyimportant differences to accrue indifferent population units. The secondcriterion is met if the populationcontributes substantially to theecological and genetic diversity of thespecies as a whole. Guidance on theapplication of this policy is contained ina scientific paper ‘‘Pacific Salmon(Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definitionof ‘Species’ under the EndangeredSpecies Act’’ (Waples, 1991) and aNOAA Technical Memorandum‘‘Definition of ‘Species’ Under theEndangered Species Act: Application toPacific Salmon’’ (NMFS F/NWC–194)which are available upon request (seeADDRESSES). The following sections


describe the genetic, ecological, and lifehistory characteristics, as well ashuman-induced genetic changes thatNMFS assessed to determine thenumber and geographic extent ofchinook salmon ESUs.

Reproductive IsolationGenetic data provide useful indirect

information on reproductive isolationbecause they integrate informationabout migration and gene flow overevolutionarily important time frames.

Genetic information obtained fromallozyme, DNA, and chromosomalsampling indicate strong differentiationbetween chinook salmon ESUs, andwere largely consistent with thosedescribed in previous studies of chinooksalmon. Puget Sound populations ofchinook salmon appear to constitute agenetically distinct group, a conclusionthat is consistent with the results ofUtter et al. (1989) and Marshall et al.(1995). In NMFS’ analyses, Washingtoncoastal populations appeared to form agenetically distinct group that was mostsimilar to, but still distinct from, Oregoncoastal populations. The Washingtoncoastal group included the Hoko Riverpopulation in the western part of theStrait of Juan de Fuca. Chinook salmonin the Elwha River, which also drainsinto the Strait of Juan de Fuca, weregenetically intermediate between PugetSound and Washington coastalpopulations.

Chinook salmon populations in theColumbia and Snake Rivers appear to beseparated into two large genetic groups:those producing ocean-type outmigrantsand those producing stream-typeoutmigrants. The first group includespopulations in lower Columbia Rivertributaries, with both spring-run andfall-run (‘‘tule’’) life histories. Theseocean-type populations exhibit a rangeof juvenile life history patterns thatappear to depend on localenvironmental conditions. TheWillamette River hatchery populationsform a distinct subgroup within thelower Columbia River group. Ocean-type chinook salmon populations east ofthe Cascade Range Crest include bothsummer-and fall-run (‘‘bright’’)populations, and are genetically distinctfrom lower Columbia River ocean-typepopulations. Fall-run populations in theSnake River, Deschutes River, andMarion Drain (Yakima River) form adistinct subgroup.

The second major group of chinooksalmon in the Columbia and SnakeRiver drainage consists of spring- orsummer-run fish. Based on analysis ofgenetic clusters, three relatively distinctsubgroups appeared within thesestream-type populations. One subgroup

includes spring-run populations in theKlickitat, John Day, Deschutes, andYakima Rivers of the mid-ColumbiaRiver. A second subgroup includesupper Columbia River spring-runchinook salmon in the Wenatchee andMethow Rivers, but also includesspring-run fish in the Grande RondeRiver and Carson Hatchery. This islikely due to the releases of exoticCarson hatchery stock in these basins,rather than to natural geneticsimilarities. A third subgroup consistsof Snake River spring- and summer-runpopulations in the Imnaha and SalmonRivers, as well as those in the RapidRiver and Lookingglass Hatcheries. TheKlickitat River spring-run populationappears to be genetically intermediatebetween upper and lower ColumbiaRiver groups.

All populations of chinook salmonsouth of the Columbia River drainageappear to consist of ocean-type fish.Populations along the north coast ofOregon form a genetically distinctgroup, consisting of populations northof and including the Elk River, exceptfor the Rock Creek Hatchery spring-runpopulation, which show greater geneticaffinity to southern Oregon coastalpopulations. A southern coastal groupincludes populations south of the ElkRiver to and including populations inthe lower Klamath River in northernCalifornia. However, Euchre Creek,which is located near the Rogue Riverand has been planted extensively withElk River stock, is more similar topopulations north of Cape Blanco.Upper Klamath River populations ofchinook salmon are genetically distinctfrom other northern California, southernOregon and California Central Valleypopulations.

Sacramento and San Joaquin Riverpopulations are genetically distinct fromnorthern California coastal and KlamathRiver populations. Previous studiesgrouped populations in the SacramentoRiver with those in the San JoaquinRiver (Utter et al., 1989; Bartley andGall, 1990; Bartley et al., 1992).However, Hedgecock et al. (1995), Banks(1996), and Nielsen (1995 and 1997)surveyed DNA markers and these resultsindicate that the winter, spring, fall, andlate-fall runs may be genetically distinctfrom one another.

Genetic Changes Due to HumanActivities

The effects of artificial propagationand other human activities such asharvest and habitat modification, can berelevant to ESA listing determinationsin two ways. First, such activities cangenetically change natural populationsso much that they no longer represent

an evolutionarily significant componentof the biological species (Waples, 1991).For example, in 1991, NMFS concludedthat, as a result of massive andprolonged effects of artificialpropagation, harvest, and habitatdegradation, the agency could notidentify natural populations of cohosalmon (O. kisutch) in the lowerColumbia River that qualified for ESAlisting consideration (56 FR 29553, June27, 1991). Second, risks to the viabilityand genetic integrity of native salmonpopulations posed by human activitiesmay contribute to their threatened orendangered status (Goodman, 1990;Hard et al., 1992). The severity of theseeffects on natural populations dependsboth on the nature of the effects (e.g.,harvest rate, gear size, or type ofhatchery practice) and their magnitude(e.g., duration of a hatchery programand number and life-history stage ofhatchery fish involved).

For example, artificial propagation isa common practice to supplementchinook salmon stocks for commercialand recreational fisheries. However, inmany areas, a significant portion of thenaturally spawning population consistsof hatchery-produced chinook salmon.In several of the chinook salmon ESUs,over 50 percent of the naturallyspawning fish are from hatcheries.Many of these hatchery-produced fishare derived from a few stocks whichmay or may not have originated fromthe geographic area where they arereleased. However, in several of theESUs analyzed, insufficient or uncertaininformation exists regarding theinteractions between hatchery andnatural fish, and the relative abundanceof hatchery and natural stocks.

Artificial propagation is important toconsider in ESA evaluations ofanadromous Pacific salmonids forseveral reasons. First, although naturalfish are the focus of ESUdeterminations, possible effects ofartificial propagation on naturalpopulations must also be evaluated. Forexample, stock transfers might changethe genetic bases or phenotypicexpression of life history characteristicsin a natural population in such a waythat the population might seem eitherless or more distinctive than it washistorically. Artificial propagation canalso alter life history characteristicssuch as smolt age and migration andspawn timing (e.g., Crawford, 1979,NRC 1996). Second, artificialpropagation poses a number of risks tonatural populations that may affect theirrisk of extinction or endangerment.Finally, if any natural populations arelisted under the ESA, then it will benecessary to determine the ESA status of


all associated hatchery populations.This latter determination would bemade following a proposed listing andis not considered further in thisdocument.

The impacts of hatchery activities onspecific ESUs is discussed in the Statusof Chinook Salmon ESUs and Summaryof Factors Affecting the Speciessections.

Ecological and Genetic DiversitySeveral types of physical and

biological evidence were considered inevaluating the contribution of chinooksalmon from Washington, Oregon,Idaho, and California to the ecologicaland genetic diversity of the biologicalspecies throughout its range. Factorsexamined included: (1) The physicalenvironment—geology, soil type, airtemperature, precipitation, river flowpatterns, water temperature, andvegetation; (2) biogeography—marine,estuarine, and freshwater fishdistributions; and (3) life history traits—age at smolting, age at spawning, riverentry timing, and spawning timing. Ananalysis of the physical environmentand life history traits providesimportant insight into the ecologicaland genetic diversity of the species andcan reflect unusual or distinctiveadaptations that promote evolutionaryprocesses.

The predominant differentiation inchinook salmon life history types is thatbetween ocean- and stream-typechinook salmon. Ocean-typepopulations typically migrate to theocean in their first year of life and spendmost of their marine life in coastalwaters, whereas stream-typepopulations migrate to sea as yearlingsand often make extensive oceanmigrations.

In some areas within the ColumbiaRiver Basin, stream- and ocean-typechinook salmon stocks spawn inrelatively close proximity to one anotherbut are separated by run timing. Stream-type chinook salmon include spring-runpopulations in the Columbia River andits tributaries east of the Cascade Crest,and spring- and summer-run fish in theSnake River and its tributaries. Ocean-type chinook salmon include fall-runchinook salmon in both the Columbiaand Snake River Basins, summer-runchinook salmon from the ColumbiaRiver, and spring-run fish from thelower Columbia River. There aresubstantial genetic differences betweenstream- and ocean-type chinook salmonin both the Fraser and Columbia RiverBasins, and the genetic analyses showclearly that the two life history formsrepresent two major evolutionarylineages.

Adult run-time has also long beenused to identify different temporal‘‘races’’ of chinook salmon. In caseswhere the run-time differencescorrespond to differences betweenstream- and ocean-type fish (e.g., in theColumbia and Fraser River Basins),relatively large genetic differences (aswell as ecological and life historydifferences) can be found between thedifferent runs. In most coastal areas,however, life history and geneticdifferences between the runs arerelatively modest, relative to the largerdifferences used in designating otherESUs. Although many populations havesome fraction of yearling migrants, allthe coastal populations are part of theocean lineage, and spring- and fall-runfish are very similar in oceandistribution.

Among basins supporting only ocean-type chinook salmon, the SacramentoRiver system is somewhat unusual inthat its large size and ecologicaldiversity historically allowed forsubstantial spatial as well as temporalseparation of different runs. Genetic andlife history data both suggest thatconsiderable differentiation among theruns has occurred in this basin. TheKlamath River Basin, as well as chinooksalmon in Puget Sound, shares somefeatures of coastal rivers but historicallyalso provided an opportunity forsubstantial spatial separation ofdifferent temporal runs. As discussedbelow, the diversity in run timing madeidentifying ESUs difficult in theKlamath and Sacramento River Basins.

NMFS considers differences in lifehistory traits as a possible indicator ofadaptation to different environmentalregimes and resource partitioningwithin those regimes. The relevance ofthe ecologic and genetic basis forspecific chinook salmon life-historytraits as they pertain to each ESU isdiscussed in the brief summary thatfollows.

ESU Determinations

The ESU determinations describedhere represent a synthesis of a largeamount of diverse information. Ingeneral, the proposed geographicboundaries for each ESU (i.e., thewatersheds within which the membersof the ESU are typically found) aresupported by several lines of evidencethat show similar patterns. However, thediverse data sets are not always entirelycongruent (nor would they be expectedto be), and the proposed boundaries arenot necessarily the only ones possible.For example, in some cases (e.g., in theMiddle Columbia River near theCascade Crest), environmental changes

occur over a transition zone rather thanabruptly.

Based on the best available scientificand commercial information, NMFS hasidentified 15 ESUs of chinook salmonfrom Washington, Oregon, Idaho, andCalifornia, including 11 new ESUs, andone redefined ESU. The 15 ESUs arebriefly described and characterizedbelow. Genetic data (from studies ofprotein electrophoresis and DNA) werethe primary evidence considered for thereproductive isolation criterion,supplemented by inferences aboutbarriers to migration created by naturalgeographic features and human-inducedchanges resulting from artificialpropagation and harvest. Factorsconsidered to be most informative inevaluating ecological and geneticdiversity include data pertaining to thephysical environment, ocean conditionsand upwelling, vegetation, estuarineand freshwater fish distributions, riverentry, and spawning timing.

Most of the ESUs described belowinclude multiple spawning populationsof chinook salmon, and most alsoextend over a considerable geographicarea. This result is consistent withNMFS’ species definition paper, whichstates that, in general, ‘‘ESUs shouldcorrespond to more comprehensiveunits unless there is clear evidence thatevolutionarily important differencesexist between smaller populationsegments’’ (Waples, 1991, p. 20).However, considerable diversity ingenetic or life history traits or habitatfeatures exists within most ESUs, andmaintaining this diversity is critical totheir overall health. The descriptionsbelow briefly summarize some of thenotable types of diversity within eachESU, and this diversity is considered inthe next section in evaluating risk to theESUs as a whole.

(1) Sacramento River Winter-Run ESUThis run was determined to be a

distinct population segment by NMFSin 1987, prior to development of theNMFS species policy. The NMFSconcluded that this run meets thecriteria to be considered an ESU. Itincludes chinook salmon entering theSacramento River from November toJune and spawning from late-April tomid-August, with a peak from May toJune. No other chinook salmonpopulations have a similar life historypattern. In general, winter-run chinooksalmon exhibit an ocean-type life-history strategy, with smolts emigratingto the ocean after 5 to 9 months offreshwater residence (Johnson et al.,1992) and remaining near the coasts ofCalifornia and Oregon. Winter-runchinook salmon also mature at a


relatively young age (2–3 years old).DNA analysis indicates substantialgenetic differences between winter-runand other chinook salmon in theSacramento River.

Historically, winter-run populationsexisted in the Upper Sacramento, Pit,McCloud, and Calaveras Rivers. Thespawning habitat for these stocks wasprimarily located in the Sierra NevadaEcoregion (Omernik, 1987).Construction of dams on these rivers inthe 1940s led to the extirpation ofpopulations in the San Joaquin RiverBasin and displaced the SacramentoRiver population to areas below ShastaDam.

(2) Central Valley Spring-Run ESUExisting populations in this ESU

spawn in the Sacramento River and itstributaries. Historically, spring chinooksalmon were the dominant run in theSacramento and San Joaquin RiverBasins (Clark, 1929), but nativepopulations in the San Joaquin Riverhave apparently all been extirpated(Campbell and Moyle, 1990). This ESUincludes chinook salmon entering theSacramento River from March to Julyand spawning from late August throughearly October, with a peak inSeptember. Spring-run fish in theSacramento River exhibit an ocean-typelife history, emigrating as fry,subyearlings, and yearlings. Recoveriesof hatchery chinook salmon implantedwith coded-wire-tags (CWT) areprimarily from ocean fisheries off theCalifornia and Oregon coast. There wereminimal differences in the oceandistribution of fall- and spring-run fishfrom the Feather River Hatchery (asdetermined by CWT analysis); however,due to hybridization that may haveoccurred in the hatchery between thesetwo runs, this similarity in oceanmigration may not be representative ofwild runs.

Substantial ecological differences inthe historical spawning habitat forspring-run versus fall- and late-fall-runfish have been recognized. Springchinook salmon run timing was suitedto gaining access to the upper reaches ofriver systems (up to 1,500 m elevation)prior to the onset of prohibitively highwater temperatures and low flows thatinhibit access to these areas during thefall. Differences in adult size, fecundity,and smolt size also occur betweenspring- and fall/late fall-run chinooksalmon in the Sacramento River.

No allozyme data are available fornaturally spawning Sacramento Riverspring chinook salmon. A sample fromFeather River Hatchery spring-run fish,which may have undergone substantialhybridization with fall chinook salmon,

shows modest (but statisticallysignificant) differences from fall-runhatchery populations. DNA data showmoderate genetic differences betweenthe spring and fall/late-fall runs in theSacramento River; however, these dataare difficult to interpret in the contextof this broad status review becausecomparable data are not available forother geographic regions.

(3) Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-RunESU

This ESU includes fall and late-fallchinook salmon spawning in theSacramento and San Joaquin Rivers andtheir tributaries. These populationsenter the Sacramento and San JoaquinRivers from July through April andspawn from October through February.

Both runs are ocean-type chinooksalmon, emigrating predominantly as fryand subyearlings and remaining off theCalifornia coast during their oceanmigration.

Sacramento/San Joaquin Basinchinook salmon are genetically andphysically distinguishable from all othercoastal forms (Clark, 1929; Synder,1931). Ecologically, the Central Valleyalso differs in many important waysfrom coastal areas. There were also anumber of life-history differences notedbetween Sacramento and San JoaquinRiver Basin fall/late fall-runpopulations. In general, San JoaquinRiver populations tend to mature at anearlier age and spawn later in the yearthan Sacramento River populations.These differences could have beenphenotypic responses to the generallywarmer temperature and lower flowconditions found in the San JoaquinRiver Basin relative to the SacramentoRiver Basin. There was no apparentdifference in the distribution of marineCWT recoveries from Sacramento andSan Joaquin River hatchery populations,nor were there genetic differencesbetween Sacramento and San JoaquinRiver fall/late fall-run populations(based on DNA and allozyme analysis)of a similar magnitude to that used indistinguishing other ESUs. Thisapparent lack of distinguishing lifehistory and genetic characteristics maybe due, in part, to large scale transfersof Sacramento River fall/late fall-runchinook salmon into the San JoaquinRiver Basin.

(4) Southern Oregon and CaliforniaCoastal ESU

This ESU includes all naturallyspawned coastal spring and fall chinooksalmon spawning from Cape Blanco(inclusive of the Elk River) to thesouthern extent of the current range forchinook salmon at Point Bonita (the

northern landmass marking the entranceto San Francisco Bay). The Cape Blancoregion is a major biogeographicboundary for numerous species (e.g.,steelhead and coho salmon). Chinooksalmon spawn in several smalltributaries to San Francisco Bay,however it is uncertain whether thesesmall populations are part of this ESU,or wanderers from Central Valleychinook salmon ESUs.

Chinook salmon from the CentralValley and Klamath River Basinupstream from the Trinity Riverconfluence are genetically andecologically distinguishable from thosein this ESU. Chinook salmon in thisESU exhibit an ocean-type life-history;ocean distribution (based on marineCWT recoveries) is predominantly off ofthe California and Oregon coasts. Life-history information on smallerpopulations, especially in the southernportion of the ESU, is extremely limited.Additionally, only anecdotal orincomplete information exists onabundance of several spring-runpopulations including, the Chetco,Winchuck, Smith, Mad, and Eel Rivers.Allozyme data indicate that this ESU isgenetically distinguishable from theOregon Coast, Upper Klamath andTrinity River, and Central Valley ESUs.This data also shows some divergencebetween chinook populations north andsouth of the Klamath River, but theavailable information is incomplete todescribe chinook salmon south of theKlamath River as a separate ESU. Lifehistory differences also exist betweenspring- and fall-run fish in this ESU, butnot to the same extent as is observed inlarger inland basins.

Ecologically, the majority of the riversystems in this ESU are relatively smalland heavily influenced by a maritimeclimate. Low summer flows and hightemperatures in many rivers result inseasonal physical and thermal barrierbars that block movement byanadromous fish. The Rogue River is thelargest river basin in this ESU andextends inland into the Sierra Nevadaand Cascades Ecoregions.

(5) Upper Klamath and Trinity RiversESU

Included in this ESU are all KlamathRiver Basin populations from theTrinity River and the Klamath Riverupstream from the confluence of theTrinity River. These populationsinclude both spring- and fall-run fishthat enter the Upper Klamath RiverBasin from March through July and Julythrough October and spawn from lateAugust through September andSeptember through early January,respectively. Body morphology


(vertebral counts, lateral-line scalecounts, and fin-ray counts) andreproductive traits (egg size andnumber) for populations from the UpperKlamath River differ from those ofpopulations in the Sacramento RiverBasin. Genetic analysis indicated thatpopulations from the Upper KlamathRiver Basin form a unique group that isquite distinctive compared toneighboring ESUs. The Upper KlamathRiver crosses the Coastal Range, SierraNevada, and Eastern CascadesEcoregions, although dams preventaccess to the upper river headwaters ofthe Klamath River in the EasternCascades Ecoregion.

Within the Upper Klamath RiverBasin, there are statistically significant,but fairly modest, genetic differencesbetween the fall and spring runs. Themajority of the spring- and fall-run fishemigrate to the marine environmentprimarily as subyearlings. Recoveries ofCWTs indicate that both runs have acoastal distribution off of the Californiaand Oregon coasts. There was noapparent difference in the marinedistribution of CWT recoveries fromfall-run (Iron Gate and Trinity RiverHatcheries) and spring-run populations(Trinity River Hatchery).

NMFS was concerned that the onlyestimate of the genetic relationshipbetween spring and fall runs in this ESUis from a comparison of hatchery stocksthat may have undergone someintrogression during hatchery spawningoperations, thus blurring thedistinguishable traits between spring-and fall-run chinook in this ESU. NMFSacknowledges that the ESUdetermination should be revisited ifsubstantial new information fromnatural spring-run populations becomesavailable.

(6) Oregon Coast ESUThis ESU contains coastal

populations of spring- and fall-runchinook salmon from the Elk Rivernorth to the mouth of the ColumbiaRiver. These populations exhibit anocean-type life-history and mature atages 3, 4, and 5. In contrast to the moresoutherly ocean distribution patternshown by populations from the lowerColumbia River and farther south, CWTrecoveries from populations within thisESU are predominantly from BritishColumbia and Alaska coastal fisheries.There is a strong genetic separationbetween Oregon Coast ESU populationsand neighboring ESU populations. ThisESU falls within the Coastal Ecoregionand is characterized by a strongmaritime influence, with moderatetemperatures, high precipitation levels,and easy migration access.

(7) Washington Coast ESU

Coastal populations spawning northof the Columbia River and west of theElwha River are included in this ESU.These populations can be distinguishedfrom those in Puget Sound by theirolder age at maturity and more northerlyocean distribution. Allozyme data alsoindicate geographical differencesbetween populations from this area andthose in Puget Sound, the ColumbiaRiver, and the Oregon coast ESUs.Populations within this ESU are ocean-type chinook salmon and generallymature at age 3, 4, and 5. Oceandistribution for these fish is morenortherly than that for the Puget Soundand Lower Columbia River ESUs. Theboundaries of this ESU lie within theCoastal Ecoregion, which is stronglyinfluenced by the marine environment:high precipitation, moderatetemperatures, and easy migrationaccess.

(8) Puget Sound ESU

This ESU encompasses all naturallyspawned spring, summer and fall runsof chinook salmon in the Puget Soundregion from the North Fork NooksackRiver to the Elwha River on the OlympicPeninsula, inclusive. Chinook salmon inthis area all exhibit an ocean-type lifehistory. Although some spring-runchinook salmon populations in thePuget Sound ESU have a highproportion of yearling smolt emigrants,the proportion varies substantially fromyear to year and appears to beenvironmentally mediated rather thangenetically determined. Puget Soundstocks all tend to mature at ages 3 and4 and exhibit similar, coastally-oriented,ocean migration patterns. There aresubstantial ocean distributiondifferences between Puget Sound andWashington coast stocks, with CWTrecoveries of Washington coastalchinook found in much largerproportions from Alaskan waters. Themarine distribution of Elwha Riverchinook salmon most closely resembledother Puget Sound stocks, rather thanWashington coast stocks.

The NMFS concluded that, on thebasis of substantial genetic separation,the Puget Sound ESU does not includeCanadian populations of chinooksalmon. Allozyme analysis of NorthFork and South Fork Nooksack Riverspring chinook salmon identified themas outliers, but most closely allied withother Puget Sound samples. DNAanalysis identified a number of markersthat appear to be restricted to either thePuget Sound or Washington coastalstocks. Some allozyme markerssuggested an affinity of the Elwha River

population with the Washington coastalstocks, while others suggested anaffinity with Puget Sound stocks.

The boundaries of the Puget SoundESU correspond generally with theboundaries of the Puget LowlandEcoregion. Despite being in therainshadow of the Olympic Mountains,the river systems in the western portionof Puget Sound maintain high flow ratesdue to the melting snowpack in thesurrounding mountains. Temperaturestend to be moderated by the marineenvironment. The Elwha River, which isin the Coastal Ecoregion, is the onlysystem in this ESU which lies outsidethe Puget Sound Ecoregion.Furthermore, the boundary between theWashington Coast and Puget SoundESUs (which includes the Elwha Riverin the Puget Sound ESU) correspondswith ESU boundaries for steelhead andcoho salmon. In life history and geneticattributes, the Elwha River chinooksalmon appear to be transitionalbetween populations from Puget Soundand the Washington Coast ESU.

(9) Lower Columbia River ESUThis ESU includes all naturally

spawned chinook populations from themouth of the Columbia River to the crestof the Cascade Range, excludingpopulations above Willamette Falls.Celilo Falls, which corresponds to theedge of the drier Columbia BasinEcosystem and historically may havepresented a migrational barrier tochinook salmon at certain times of theyear, is the eastern boundary for thisESU. Not included in this ESU are‘‘stream-type’’ spring chinook salmonfound in the Klickitat River (which areconsidered part of the Mid-ColumbiaRiver spring-run ESU) or the introducedCarson spring-chinook salmon. ‘‘Tule’’fall chinook salmon in the Wind andLittle White Salmon Rivers are includedin this ESU, but not introduced ‘‘upriverbright’’ fall chinook salmon populationsin the Wind, White Salmon, andKlickitat Rivers. Available informationsuggests that spring chinook salmonpresently in the Clackamas and SandyRivers are predominantly the result ofintroductions from the Willamette RiverESU and are thus probably notrepresentative of spring chinook salmonfound historically.

In addition to the geographic featuresmentioned above, genetic and life-history data were important factors indefining this ESU. Populations in thisESU are considered ocean type. Somespring-run populations have a largeproportion of yearling migrants, but thistrend may be biased by yearlinghatchery releases. Subyearling migrantswere found to contribute to the


escapement. CWT recoveries for LowerColumbia River ESU populationsindicate a northerly migration route, butwith little contribution to the Alaskanfishery. Populations in this ESU alsotend to mature at age 3 and 4, somewhatyounger than populations from thecoastal, upriver, and Willamette ESUs.Ecologically, the Lower Columbia RiverESU crosses several ecoregions: Coastal,Willamette Valley, Cascades and EastCascades.

(10) Upper Willamette River ESUThis ESU includes naturally spawned

spring-run populations aboveWillamette Falls. Fall chinook salmonabove the Willamette Falls areintroduced and although they arenaturally spawning, they are notconsidered a population for purposes ofdefining this ESU. Historic, naturallyspawned populations in this ESU havean unusual life history that sharesfeatures of both the stream and oceantypes. Scale analysis of returning fishindicate a predominantly yearling smoltlife-history and maturity at 4 years ofage, but these data are primarily fromhatchery fish and may not accuratelyreflect patterns for the natural fish.Young-of-year smolts have been foundto contribute to the returning 3 year-oldyear class. The ocean distribution isconsistent with an ocean-type lifehistory, and CWT recoveries occur inconsiderable numbers in the Alaskanand British Columbian coastal fisheries.Intra-basin transfers have contributed tothe homogenization of Willamette Riverspring chinook salmon stocks; however,Willamette River spring chinook salmonremain one of the most geneticallydistinctive groups of chinook salmon inthe Columbia River Basin.

The geography and ecology of theWillamette Valley is considerablydifferent from surrounding areas.Historically, the Willamette Fallsoffered a narrow temporal window forupriver migration, which may havepromoted isolation from other ColumbiaRiver stocks.

(11) Mid-Columbia River Spring-RunESU

Included in this ESU are stream-typechinook salmon spawning in theKlickitat, Deschutes, John Day, andYakima Rivers. Historically, spring-runpopulations from the Hood, WallaWalla, and Umatilla Rivers may havealso belonged in this ESU, but thesepopulations are now considered extinct.Chinook salmon from this ESU emigrateto the ocean as yearlings and apparentlymigrate far off-shore, as they do notappear in appreciable numbers in anyocean fisheries. The majority of adults

spawn as 4-year-olds, with theexception of fish returning to the uppertributaries of the Yakima River, whichreturn predominantly at age 5.Populations in this ESU are geneticallydistinguishable from other stream-typechinook salmon in the Columbia andSnake Rivers. Streams in this regiondrain desert areas east of the Cascades(Columbia Basin Ecoregion) and areecologically differentiated from thecolder, less productive, glacial streamsof the upper Columbia River spring-runESU and from the generally higherelevation streams of the Snake River.

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

This ESU was first identified as theMid-Columbia River summer/fallchinook salmon ESU. Previously,Waknitz et al. (1995) and NMFS (1994)identified an ESU that included allocean-type chinook salmon spawning inareas between McNary Dam and ChiefJoseph Dam (59 FR 48855, September23, 1994). However, NMFS has nowconcluded that the boundaries of thisESU do not extend downstream fromthe Snake River. In particular, NMFSconcluded that Deschutes River fallchinook salmon are not part of this ESU.The ESU status of the Marion Drainpopulation from the Yakima River isstill unresolved. NMFS also identifiedthe importance of obtaining moredefinitive genetic and life historyinformation for naturally spawning fallchinook salmon elsewhere in theYakima River drainage.

Chinook salmon from this ESUprimarily emigrate to the ocean assubyearlings but mature at an older agethan ocean-type chinook salmon in theLower Columbia and Snake Rivers.Furthermore, a greater proportion ofCWT recoveries for this ESU occur inthe Alaskan coastal fishery than is thecase for Snake River fish. The statusreview for Snake River fall chinooksalmon (Waples et al., 1991; NMFS,1992) also identified genetic andenvironmental differences between theColumbia and Snake Rivers. Substantiallife history and genetic differencesdistinguish fish in this ESU fromstream-type spring chinook salmon fromthe mid- and upper-Columbia Rivers.

The ESU boundaries fall within partof the Columbia Basin Ecoregion. Thearea is generally dry and relies onCascade Range snowmelt for peakspring flows. Historically, this ESUlikely extended farther upstream;spawning habitat was compresseddown-river following construction ofGrand Coulee Dam.

(13) Upper Columbia River Spring-RunESU

This ESU includes stream-typechinook salmon spawning above RockIsland Dam—that is, those in theWenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers.All chinook salmon in the OkanoganRiver are apparently ocean-type and areconsidered part of the Upper ColumbiaRiver summer- and fall-run ESU. Theseupper Columbia River populationsexhibit classical stream-type life-historystrategies: yearling smolt emigrationwith only rare CWT recoveries incoastal fisheries. These populations aregenetically and ecologically wellseparated from the summer- and fall-runpopulations that exist in the lower partsof many of the same river systems.

Rivers in this ESU drain the eastslopes of the Cascade Range and are fedprimarily by snowmelt. The waters tendto be cooler and less turbid than theSnake and Yakima Rivers to the south.Although these fish appear to be closelyrelated genetically to stream-typechinook salmon in the Snake River,NMFS recognized substantial ecologicaldifferences between the Snake andColumbia Rivers, particularly in theupper tributaries favored by stream-typechinook salmon. Allozyme datademonstrate even larger differencesbetween spring chinook salmonpopulations from the mid- and upper-Columbia River.

Artificial propagation programs havehad a considerable influence on thisESU. During the Grand Coulee Fish-Maintenance Project (GCFMP, 1939–1943), all spring chinook salmonreaching Rock Island Dam, includingthose destined for areas above GrandCoulee Dam, were collected and they ortheir progeny were dispersed intostreams in this ESU (Fish and Hanavan,1948). Some ocean-type fish wereundoubtedly also incorporated into thisprogram. Spring-run escapements to theWenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Riverswere severely depressed prior to theGCFMP but increased considerably insubsequent years, suggesting that theeffects of the program may have beensubstantial. Subsequently, widespreadtransplants of Carson stock springchinook salmon (derived from a mixtureof Columbia River and Snake Riverstream-type chinook salmon) have alsocontributed to erosion of the geneticintegrity of this ESU.

In spite of considerablehomogenization, this ESU stillrepresents an important geneticresource, in part because it presumablycontains the last remnants of the genepools for populations from theheadwaters of the Columbia River.


(14) Snake River Fall-Run ESU

This ESU, which includes ocean-typefish, was identified in an earlier statusreview (Waples et al., 1991; NMFS,1992). In that status review and in alater review of mid-Columbia Riversummer chinook salmon (Waknitz et al.,1995), the ESU status of populationsfrom Marion Drain and the DeschutesRiver was not resolved, so these issueswere considered in the current review.

Both populations show a greatergenetic affinity to Snake River fallchinook salmon than to other ocean-type Columbia River populations suchas the Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU. After evaluation, NMFSconcluded that chinook salmonspawning in the Marion Drain could notbe assigned to any historic or currentESU with any certainty.

However, after further review, NMFShas concluded that the Deschutes Riverchinook salmon population should beconsidered part of the Snake River fall-run ESU. The Deschutes Riverhistorically supported a population offall chinook salmon, as evidenced bycounts of fish at Sherars Falls in the1940s. Genetic and life history data forthe current population indicate a closeraffinity to fall chinook salmon in theSnake River than to those in theColumbia River. Similarities wereobserved in the distribution of CWTocean recoveries for Snake River andDeschutes River fall-run chinooksalmon; however, information onDeschutes River fish was based on alimited number of releases over arelatively short time frame. CWTrecovery data indicate that straying bynon-native chinook salmon into theDeschutes River is very low and doesnot appear to be disproportionatelyinfluenced by Snake River fall-runchinook salmon (Hymer et al., 1992).Fall-run chinook populations from theJohn Day, Umatilla, and Walla WallaRivers would also be included in thisESU, but are believed to have beenextirpated.

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

This ESU, which includespopulations of spring- and summer-runchinook salmon from the Snake RiverBasin (excluding the Clearwater River),was identified in a previous statusreview (Matthews and Waples, 1991;NMFS, 1992). These populations showmodest genetic differences, butsubstantial ecological differences, incomparison with Mid- and UpperColumbia River spring- and summer-runchinook salmon populations.Populations from this ESU emigrate to

the ocean as yearlings, mature at ages 4and 5, and are rarely taken in oceanfisheries. The majority of the spawninghabitat occurs in the Northern Rockiesand Blue Mountains ecoregions.

Status of Chinook Salmon ESUsThe ESA defines the term

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any specieswhich is in danger of extinctionthroughout all or a significant portion ofits range.’’ The term ‘‘threatenedspecies’’ is defined as ‘‘any specieswhich is likely to become anendangered species within theforeseeable future throughout all or asignificant portion of its range.’’ Inprevious status reviews (e.g., Weitkampet al., 1995), NMFS has identified anumber of factors that should beconsidered in evaluating the level ofrisk faced by an ESU, including: (1)Absolute numbers of fish and theirspatial and temporal distribution; (2)current abundance in relation tohistorical abundance and currentcarrying capacity of the habitat; (3)trends in abundance; (4) natural andhuman-influenced factors that causevariability in survival and abundance;(5) possible threats to genetic integrity(e.g., from strays or outplants fromhatchery programs); and (6) recentevents (e.g., a drought or changes inharvest management) that havepredictable short-term consequences forabundance of the ESU.

During the coastwide status review forchinook salmon, NMFS evaluated bothqualitative and quantitative informationto determine whether any proposed ESUis threatened or endangered accordingto the ESA. The types of informationused in these assessments are describedbelow, followed by a summary of resultsfor each ESU.

Qualitative EvaluationsQualitative assessments of the status

of chinook salmon stocks have beenpublished by agencies or conservationgroups (Nehlsen et al., 1991; Higgins etal., 1992; Nickelson et al., 1992; WDF etal., 1993; Huntington et al., 1996).Nehlsen et al. (1991) consideredsalmonid stocks throughoutWashington, Idaho, Oregon, andCalifornia and enumerated all stocksthat they found to be extinct or at riskof extinction. Nehlsen et al. (1991)classified stocks as extinct, possiblyextinct, at high risk of extinction, atmoderate risk of extinction, or of specialconcern. They considered it likely thatstocks at high risk of extinction havereached the threshold for classificationas endangered under the ESA. Stockswere placed in this category if they haddeclined from historic levels and were

continuing to decline, or had spawningescapements less than 200. Stocks wereclassified as at moderate risk ofextinction if they had declined fromhistoric levels but presently appear to bestable at a level above 200 spawners.They felt that stocks in this category hadreached the threshold for threatenedunder the ESA. They classified stocks asof special concern if a relatively minordisturbance could threaten them,insufficient data were available forthem, they were influenced by largereleases of hatchery fish, or they possesssome unique characteristic.

Higgins et al. (1992) used the sameclassification scheme as Nehlsen et al.(1991) but provided a more detailedreview of some northern Californiasalmonid stocks. In this review, theirevaluation is relevant only to theSouthern Oregon and California Coastaland Upper Klamath and Trinity RiversESUs.

Nickelson et al. (1992) rated wildcoastal (excluding Columbia RiverBasin) Oregon salmon and steelheadstocks on the basis of their status overthe past 20 years, classifying stocks as‘‘healthy,’’ ‘‘depressed,’’ ‘‘of specialconcern,’’ or ‘‘unknown’’.

WDF et al. (1993) categorized allsalmon and steelhead stocks inWashington on the basis of stock origin,production type, and status (‘‘healthy,’’‘‘depressed,’’ ‘‘critical,’’ or ‘‘unknown’’).

Huntington et al. (1996) surveyed thecondition of healthy native or wildstocks of anadromous salmonids in thePacific Northwest and California. Stockswere classified as healthy based uponabundance, self-sustainability, and nothaving been previously identified as atsubstantial risk of extinction. Healthystocks were described at two levels:‘‘adult abundance at least two-thirds asgreat as would be found in the absenceof human impacts’’ (Level I); and ‘‘adultabundance between one-third and two-thirds as great as expected withouthuman impacts’’ (Level II).

There are problems in applyingresults of these studies to ESAevaluations. A major problem is that thedefinition of ‘‘stock’’ or ‘‘population’’varied considerably in scale amongstudies, and sometimes among regionswithin a study. Identified units range insize from large river basins (e.g.,‘‘Sacramento River’’ in Nehlsen et al.,1991), to minor coastal streams andtributaries. A second problem is thedefinition of categories used to classifystock status. Only Nehlsen et al. (1991)and Higgins et al. (1992) used categoriesintended to relate to ESA ‘‘threatened’’or ‘‘endangered’’ status, and theyapplied their own interpretations ofthese terms to individual stocks, not to


ESUs as defined here. WDF et al. (1993)used general terms describing status ofstocks that cannot be directly related tothe considerations important in ESAevaluations. A third problem is theselection of stocks or populations toinclude in the review. Nehlsen et al.(1991) and Higgins et al. (1992) did notdiscuss stocks not perceived to be atrisk, so it is difficult to determine theproportion of stocks they considered tobe at risk in any given area. For chinooksalmon, WDF et al. (1993) included onlystocks considered to be substantially‘‘wild’’ and included data only for the‘‘wild’’ component for streams that haveboth hatchery and natural fish escapingto spawn, giving an incompleteevaluation of chinook salmon utilizingnatural habitat.

Quantitative EvaluationsQuantitative evaluations of data

included comparisons of current andhistorical abundance of chinook salmon,calculation of recent trends inescapement, and evaluation of theproportion of natural spawningattributable to hatchery fish. Historicalabundance information for these ESUsis largely anecdotal. Time series data areavailable for many populations, but dataextent and quality varied among ESUs.NMFS compiled and analyzed thisinformation to provide several summarystatistics of natural spawningabundance, including (where available)recent total spawning escapement,percent annual change in totalescapement (both long-term and mostrecent ten years), recent naturallyproduced spawning escapement, andaverage percentage of natural spawnersthat were of hatchery origin.

Although this evaluation used thebest data available, there are a numberof limitations to these data, and not allsummary statistics were available for allpopulations. For example, spawnerabundance was generally not measureddirectly; rather, it often had to beestimated from catch (which itself maynot always have been measuredaccurately) or from limited survey data.

Sport and commercial harvest impactswere compiled from a variety of sources.In presenting this information, NMFShas tried to maintain a clear distinctionbetween harvest rates (usuallycalculated as catch divided by catchplus escapement for a cohort or broodyear) and exploitation rates (age-specificrates of exploitation in individualfisheries).

Stream surveys for chinook salmonspawning abundance have beenconducted by various agencies withinmost of the ESUs considered here. Themethods and time-spans of the surveys

vary considerably among regions, so itis difficult to assess the generalreliability of these surveys as populationindices. For most streams where thesesurveys are conducted, they are the bestlocal indication of population trends.

Dam counts provide quantitativeestimates of run size, but in most cases,these counts cannot be resolved to theindividual population level and aresubject to errors stemming fromfallback, run classification, andunaccounted mortality. Runreconstructions providing estimates ofboth adult spawning abundance andfishery recruits are being prepared formany stream-type chinook salmonpopulations in the Columbia RiverBasin (Beamsderfer et al., 1997 draftreport), but were not available in finalform for this review.

As noted above, NMFS attempted todistinguish natural and hatcheryproduction in these evaluations. Doingthis quantitatively would require goodestimates of the proportion of naturalescapement that was of hatchery origin,and knowledge of the effectiveness ofspawning by hatchery fish in naturalenvironments. Unfortunately, this typeof information is rarely available, andfor most ESUs NMFS is limited toreporting whatever estimates ofescapement of hatchery fish to naturalsystems that were made available.

Computed Statistics

To represent current run size orescapement where recent data wereavailable, NMFS computed thegeometric mean of the most recent fiveyears reported, while trying to use onlyestimates that reflect the totalabundance for an entire river basin ortributary, avoiding index counts or damcounts that represent only a smallportion of available habitat.

Recent average abundance is reportedas the geometric mean of the mostrecent 5 years of data. Where time-seriesdata were not available, NMFS relied onrecent estimates from state agencyreports; time periods included in suchestimates varied considerably.

Historic run size estimates fromcannery pack data were made byconverting the largest number of casesof cans packed in a single season tonumbers of fish in the spawning run.

NMFS calculated recent trends fromthe most recent 10 years, using datacollected after 1984 for series having atleast 7 observations since 1984. Noattempt was made to account for theinfluence of hatchery-produced fish onthese estimates, so the estimated trendsinclude the progeny of naturallyspawning hatchery fish.

After evaluating patterns ofabundance drawn on these quantitativeand qualitative assessments, andevaluating other risk factors for chinooksalmon from these ESUs, NMFS reachedthe following conclusions summarizedbelow.

(1) Sacramento River Winter-Run ESUPresently listed as endangered under

the California and Federal EndangeredSpecies Acts, this ESU has beenextensively reviewed by NMFS (NMFS1987, 1989, 1990a,b, 1994b). Thatinformation is only summarized andupdated here.

Historically the winter run wasabundant and comprised populations inthe McCloud, Pit, Little Sacramento,and Calaveras Rivers. Construction ofShasta Dam in the 1940s eliminatedaccess to all of the historic spawninghabitat for winter-run chinook salmonin the Sacramento River Basin. Sincethen, the ESU has been reduced to asingle spawning population confined tothe mainstem Sacramento River belowKeswick Dam (Reynolds et al., 1993).

The fact that this ESU is comprised ofa single population with very limitedspawning and rearing habitat increasesrisk of extinction due to localcatastrophe or poor environmentalconditions. There are no other naturalpopulations in the ESU to buffer it fromnatural fluctuations.

Because the Sacramento River winter-run ESU is currently listed as anendangered species, NMFS did notreview its previous risk conclusion here.

(2) Central Valley Spring-Run ESUNative spring chinook salmon have

been extirpated from all tributaries inthe San Joaquin River Basin, whichrepresents a large portion of the historicrange and abundance of the ESU as awhole. The only streams considered tohave wild spring-run chinook salmonare Mill and Deer Creeks, and possiblyButte Creek (tributaries to theSacramento River), and these arerelatively small populations withsharply declining trends. Demographicand genetic risks due to smallpopulation sizes are thus considered tobe high.

Habitat problems are the mostimportant source of ongoing risk to thisESU. Spring-run fish cannot access mostof their historical spawning and rearinghabitat in the Sacramento and SanJoaquin River Basins (which is nowabove impassable dams), and currentspawning is restricted to the mainstemand a few river tributaries in theSacramento River. The remainingspawning habitat accessible to fish isseverely degraded. Collectively, these


habitat problems greatly reduce theresiliency of this ESU to respond toadditional stresses in the future. Thegeneral degradation of conditions in theSacramento River Basin (includingelevated water temperatures,agricultural and municipal diversionsand returns, restricted and regulatedflows, entrainment of migrating fish intounscreened or poorly screeneddiversions, and the poor quality andquantity of remaining habitat) hasseverely impacted important juvenilerearing habitat and migration corridors.

There appears to be serious concernfor threats to genetic integrity posed byhatchery programs in the Central Valley.Most of the spring-run chinook salmonproduction in the Central Valley is ofhatchery origin, and naturally spawningpopulations may be interbreeding withboth fall/late fall- and spring-runhatchery fish. This problem isexacerbated by the increasingproduction of spring chinook salmonfrom the Feather River and Butte CreekHatcheries, especially in light of reportssuggesting a high degree of mixingbetween spring- and fall/late fall-runbroodstock in the hatcheries. Inaddition, hatchery strays are consideredto be an increasing problem due to themanagement practice of releasing alarger proportion of fish off station (intothe Sacramento River delta and SanFrancisco Bay).

The only previous assessment of riskto stocks in this ESU is that of Nehlsenet al. (1991), who identified severalstocks as being at risk or of specialconcern. Four stocks were identified asextinct (spring/summer-run chinooksalmon in the American, McCloud, Pit,and San Joaquin (including tributaries)Rivers) and two stocks (spring-runchinook salmon in the Sacramento andYuba Rivers) were identified as being ata moderate risk of extinction.

As discussed above, habitat problemswere considered to be the mostimportant source of ongoing risk to thisESU. However, NMFS is also quiteconcerned about threats to geneticintegrity posed by hatchery programs inthe Central Valley, as well as relatedharvest regimes that may not beallowing recovery of this at-riskpopulation. Based on this risk, NMFSconcluded that chinook salmon in thisESU are in danger of extinction.

(3) Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-RunESU

Although total population abundancein this ESU is relatively high, perhapsnear historic levels, NMFS identifiedseveral concerns regarding its status.The abundance of natural fall chinooksalmon in the San Joaquin River Basin

is low leading NMFS to conclude a largeproportion of the historic range of thisESU is severely degraded. Habitatblockage is not as severe for fall/latefall-run chinook salmon as it is forwinter- and spring-run chinook salmonin this region because most of fall/latefall-run spawning habitat was belowdams constructed in the region.However, there has been a severedegradation of the remaining habitat,especially due to agricultural andmunicipal water use activities in theCentral Valley (which result in pointand non-point pollution, elevated watertemperatures, diminished flows, andsmolt and adult entrainment into poorlyscreened or unscreened diversions).Additionally, stray rates are highbecause many hatchery fish are releasedoff-station to avoid adverse riverconditions, resulting in a much largerproportion of hatchery chinook salmonpresent in the natural spawningpopulation.

A mitigating factor for the overall riskto the ESU is that a few of theSacramento and San Joaquin RiverBasin tributaries are showing recent,short-term increases in abundance.However, the streams supportingnatural runs considered to be the leastinfluenced by hatchery fish have thelowest abundance and the mostconsistently negative trends of allpopulations in the ESU. In general, highhatchery production combined withinfrequent monitoring of naturalproduction make assessing thesustainability of natural productionproblematic, resulting in substantialuncertainty in assessing the status ofthis ESU.

Other concerns facing chinook salmonin this ESU are the high ocean andfreshwater harvest rates in recent years,which may be higher than is sustainableby natural populations given theproductivity of the ESU under presenthabitat conditions. The mixed stockocean salmon off California fisheries aremanaged to achieve spawningescapement goals for two main indicatorstocks: Sacramento River fall chinookand Klamath River fall chinook. Harvestmay be further constrained to meetNMFS’ ESA requirements for listedspecies, including Sacramento Riverwinter chinook, Central CaliforniaCoastal and Southern Oregon/NorthernCalifornia coho, and Snake River fallchinook. Since 1993, the need toaddress Indian fishing rights in theKlamath River Basin has requiredsignificant reductions in the oceanharvest rate on Klamath River fallchinook. As a result of the need toconstrain ocean harvest rates onKlamath River fall chinook, commercial

fisheries have not been allowed toharvest Central Valley stocks to theextent that would be permitted by themanagement goal for Sacramento Riverfall chinook alone (122,000 to 180,000adult hatchery and natural spawners).Spawning escapements have been wellabove the goal range in recent years. Arecord number of adults (324,000)returned in 1997. The harvest rate onCentral Valley stocks is indicated by theCentral Valley Harvest Rate Index,which is computed as the chinookharvest south of Point Arena divided bythe sum of the chinook harvest south ofPoint Arena and Central Valley adultchinook spawning escapement of thesame year. This harvest rate index hasaveraged 0.73 over the past 10 years anddeclined somewhat in 1996 and 1997 to0.64 and 0.66 respectively.

The only previous assessment of riskto stocks in this ESU is that of Nehlsenet al. (1991), who identified two stocks(San Joaquin and Cosumnes Rivers) asof special concern.

Even though total populationabundance in this ESU is relativelyhigh, perhaps near historical levels, theabundance of natural fall chinooksalmon in the San Joaquin River Basinis low. Habitat problems wereconsidered to be the most importantsource of ongoing risk to this ESU,although NMFS is extremely concernedabout threats to genetic integrity posedby hatchery and harvest programsrelated to fall/late fall-run chinooksalmon. Therefore, NMFS concludedthat chinook salmon in this ESU are notpresently in danger of extinction but arelikely to become endangered in theforeseeable future.

(4) Southern Oregon and CaliforniaCoastal ESU

This ESU contains chinook salmonfrom the Elk River, Oregon south to thenorthern cape forming San FranciscoBay. Chinook salmon spawningabundance in this ESU is highlyvariable among populations, withpopulations in California and spring-runchinook salmon throughout the ESUbeing of particular concern. There is ageneral pattern of downward trends inabundance in most populations forwhich data are available, with declinesbeing especially pronounced in spring-run populations. The extremelydepressed status of almost all coastalpopulations south of the Klamath Riveris an important source of risk to theESU. NMFS has a general concern thatno current information is available formany river systems in the southernportion of this ESU, which historicallymaintained numerous large populations.Although these California coastal


populations do not form a separate ESU,they represent a considerable portion ofgenetic and ecological diversity withinthis ESU.

Habitat loss and/or degradation iswidespread throughout the range of theESU. The California AdvisoryCommittee on Salmon and SteelheadTrout (CACSST) reported habitatblockages and fragmentation, loggingand agricultural activities, urbanization,and water withdrawals as the mostpredominant problems for anadromoussalmonids in California’s coastal basins(CACSST, 1988). They identifiedassociated habitat problems for eachmajor river system in California. CDFG(1965, Vol. III, Part B) reported that themost vital habitat factor for coastalCalifornia streams was ‘‘degradation dueto improper logging followed bymassive siltation, log jams, etc.’’ Theycited road building as another cause ofsiltation in some areas. They identifieda variety of specific critical habitatproblems in individual basins,including extremes of natural flows(Redwood Creek and Eel River), loggingpractices (Mad, Eel, Mattole, Ten Mile,Noyo, Big, Navarro, Garcia, and GualalaRivers), and dams with no passagefacilities (Eel, and Russian Rivers), andwater diversions (Eel and RussianRivers). Such problems also occur inOregon streams within the ESU. TheRogue River Basin in particular has beenaffected by mining activities andunscreened irrigation diversions (Rivers,1963) in addition to the problemsresulting from logging and damconstruction. Kostow (1995) estimatedthat one-third of spring chinook salmonspawning habitat in the Rogue Riverwas inaccessible following theconstruction of Lost Creek Dam (RiverKilometer (RKm) 253) in 1977. Recentmajor flood events (February 1996 andJanuary 1997) have probably affectedhabitat quality and survival of juvenileswithin this ESU. Although NMFS haslittle information on these floodsspecific to this ESU, effects are probablysimilar to those discussed below for theOregon and Washington Coastal Region.

Artificial propagation programs in theSouthern Oregon and Coastal CaliforniaESU are less extensive than those inKlamath/Trinity or Central Valley ESUs.The Rogue, Chetco and Eel River Basinsand Redwood Creek have receivedconsiderable releases, derived primarilyfrom local sources. Current hatcherycontribution to overall abundance isrelatively low except for the RogueRiver spring run. The hatchery-to-totalrun ratio of Rogue River spring chinooksalmon, as measured at Gold Ray Dam(RKm 201), has exceeded 60% in someyears (Kostow, 1995).

Previous assessments of stocks withinthis ESU have identified several stocksas being at risk or of concern. Nehlsenet al. (1991) identified seven stocks asat high extinction risk and seven stocksas at moderate extinction risk. Higginset al. (1992) provided a more detailedanalysis of some of these stocks, andidentified nine chinook salmon stocksas at risk or of concern. Four of thesestocks agreed with the Nehlsen et al.(1991) designations, while five fallchinook salmon stocks were eitherreassessed from a moderate risk ofextinction to stocks of concern(Redwood Creek, Mad River, and EelRiver) or were additions to the Nehlsenet al. (1991) list as stocks of specialconcern (Little and Bear Rivers). Fallchinook salmon in the Rogue Riverrepresent the only relatively healthypopulation(s) NMFS could identify inthis ESU (Huntington et al., 1996).

There is a general pattern ofdownward trends in abundance in mostpopulations for which data areavailable, with declines being especiallypronounced in spring-run populationswithin this ESU. The lack of populationmonitoring, particularly in theCalifornia portion of the range, led to ahigh degree of uncertainty regarding thestatus of these populations. NMFSconcluded that the extremely depressedstatus of almost all coastal populationssouth of the Klamath River is animportant source of risk to the ESU.Overall, NMFS concluded that chinooksalmon in this ESU are likely to becomeendangered in the foreseeable future.

(5) Upper Klamath and Trinity RiversESU

The question of overall risk wasdifficult to evaluate because of the largedisparity in the status of spring- andfall-run populations within the ESU.Spring-run chinook salmon were oncethe dominant run type in the Klamath-Trinity River Basin. Most spring-runspawning and rearing habitat wasblocked by the construction of dams inthe late 1800s and early 1900s in theKlamath River Basin, and in the 1960sin the Trinity River Basin. As a result ofthese and other factors, spring-runpopulations are at less than 10 percentof their historic levels, and at least 7spring-run populations that once existedin the basin are now considered extinct.The remaining spring runs haverelatively small population sizes and areisolated in just a few areas of the basin,resulting in genetic and demographicrisks.

Fall-run chinook populations in thisESU are stable or increasing slightly.Substantial numbers of fall-run chinooksalmon spawn naturally in many areas

of the ESU. However, naturalpopulations have frequently failed tomeet modest spawning escapementgoals despite active harvestmanagement. In addition to habitatblockages, there continues to be severedegradation of remaining habitat due tomining, agricultural and forestryactivities, and water storage andtransfer. Furthermore, hatcheryproduction in the basin is substantial,with considerable potential forinterbreeding between natural andhatchery fish. NMFS is concerned thathatchery fish spawning naturally maymask declines in natural populations.

Previous assessments of stocks withinthis ESU have identified several stocksas being at risk or of concern. Nehlsenet al. (1991) identified seven stocks asextinct, two stocks (Klamath Riverspring chinook salmon and Shasta Riverfall chinook salmon) as at highextinction risk, and Scott River fallchinook salmon as of special concern.Higgins et al. (1992) provided a moredetailed analysis of some of the stocksidentified by Nehlsen et al. (1991),classifying three chinook salmon stocksas at risk. Additionally, three chinooksalmon stocks were identified as ofspecial concern. Of these, one (ScottRiver fall run) agreed with Nehlsen et al.(1991), while two were additions(Trinity River spring run and SouthFork Trinity River fall run).

In summary, the question of overallrisk was difficult to evaluate because ofthe large disparity in the status ofspring- and fall-run populations withinthe ESU. However, NMFS hasconcluded that, because of the relativehealth of the fall-run populations,chinook salmon in this ESU are not atsignificant risk of extinction, nor arethey likely to become endangered in theforeseeable future.

(6) Oregon Coast ESUProduction in this ESU is mostly

dependent on naturally-spawning fish,and spring-run chinook salmon in thisESU are in relatively better conditionthan those in adjacent ESUs. Long-termtrends in abundance of chinook salmonwithin most populations in this ESU areupward.

In spite of a generally positive outlookfor this ESU, several populations areexhibiting recent and severe (>9 percentper year) short-term declines inabundance. In addition, there areseveral hatchery programs and Salmonand Trout Enhancement Programs(STEP) releasing chinook salmonthroughout the ESU, and many of thefish released are derived from a singlestock (Trask River). Most importantly,there is a lack of clear information on


the degree of straying of these hatcheryfish into naturally-spawningpopulations. There are also manypopulations within the ESU for whichthere are no abundance data; thusNMFS is concerned about the uncertainrisk assessment given these data gaps.Finally, exploitation rates on chinooksalmon from this ESU have been high inthe past, and the level of harvest couldbe a significant source of risk if itcontinues at historically high rates.Also, freshwater habitats are generallyin poor condition, with numerousproblems such as low summer flows,high temperatures, loss of ripariancover, and streambed changes.

Previous assessments of stocks withinthis ESU have identified several asbeing at risk or of concern; however, thepreponderance of stocks have beenidentified as healthy. Nehlsen et al.(1991) identified two stocks as at highextinction risk (South Umpqua Riverand Coquille River spring-run), onestock as at moderate extinction risk(Yachats River fall-run) and five stocksas of special concern. Of the 44 stockswithin this ESU considered byNickelson et al. (1992), 26 wereidentified as healthy, 2 as depressed(South Umpqua River and CoquilleRiver spring chinook salmon), 7 as ofspecial concern due to hatchery strays,and 9 of unknown status (4 of whichthey suggested may not be viable).Huntington et al. (1996) identified 18stocks in their survey: 6 healthy LevelI and 12 healthy Level II stocks.

Abundance of this ESU is relativelyhigh, and fish are well distributedamong numerous, relatively small riverbasins. Long-term trends in abundanceof chinook salmon within mostpopulations in this ESU are upward.NMFS has concluded that chinooksalmon in this ESU are neither presentlyin danger of extinction nor are theylikely to become endangered in theforeseeable future.

(7) Washington Coast ESULong-term trends in population

abundance have been predominantlyupward for the medium and largerpopulations but are sharply downwardfor several of the smaller populations. Ingeneral, abundance and trend indicatorsare more favorable for stocks in thenorthern portion of the ESU, and morefavorable for fall-run populations thanfor spring- or summer-run fish. Thisdisparity was a source of concernregarding the overall health of the ESU.

All basins are affected by habitatdegradation, largely related to forestrypractices. Tributaries inside OlympicNational Park are generally in the bestcondition regarding habitat quality.Special concern was expressed

regarding the status of spring-runpopulations throughout the ESU andfall-run populations in Willapa Bay andparts of the Grays Harbor drainage.

Hatchery production is substantial inseveral basins within the range of theESU, and several populations areidentified as being of compositeproduction. There is considerablepotential for hatchery fish to stray intonatural populations, especially sincesome hatcheries are apparently unableto effectively attract returning adults.Hatchery influence is greatest in thesouthern part of the ESU region,especially in Willapa Bay, where therehave been numerous introductions ofstocks from outside of the ESU.Furthermore, the use of an exoticspring-run stock at the Sol Duc Hatcherywas cited as a cause of concern.

Previous assessments of stocks withinthis ESU have identified several asbeing at risk or of concern, but morestocks have been identified as healthythan at risk. Nehlsen et al. (1991)identified one stock as extinct (PyshtRiver fall run), one as possibly extinct(Ozette River fall run), and one as athigh risk of extinction (WynoocheeRiver spring run), although there issome question whether the WynoocheeRiver spring run ever existed (WDFW,1997a). WDF et al. (1993) consideredthe status of 18 native stocks, andconcluded that 11 were healthy, 4 weredepressed, and 3 were unknown.Huntington et al. (1996) identified 12stocks in their survey: 1 healthy LevelI stock (Quillayute/Bogachiel River fallrun) and 11 healthy Level II stocks.

Recent abundance has been relativelyhigh, although it is less than estimatedpeak historical abundance in thisregion. Chinook salmon in this ESU aredistributed among a relatively largenumber of populations, most of whichare large enough to avoid serious geneticand demographic risks associated withsmall populations. NMFS concludedthat chinook salmon in this ESU are notpresently in danger of extinction nor arethey likely to become endangered in theforeseeable future.

(8) Puget Sound ESUOverall abundance of chinook salmon

in this ESU has declined substantiallyfrom historical levels, and manypopulations are small enough thatgenetic and demographic risks are likelyto be relatively high. Both long- andshort-term trends in abundance arepredominantly downward, and severalpopulations are exhibiting severe short-term declines. Spring chinook salmonpopulations throughout this ESU are alldepressed.

Habitat throughout the ESU has beenblocked or degraded. In general, upper

tributaries have been impacted by forestpractices and lower tributaries andmainstem rivers have been impacted byagriculture and/or urbanization. Dikingfor flood control, draining and filling offreshwater and estuarine wetlands, andsedimentation due to forest practicesand urban development are cited asproblems throughout the ESU (WDF etal., 1993). Blockages by dams, waterdiversions, and shifts in flow regimedue to hydroelectric development andflood control projects are major habitatproblems in several basins. Bishop andMorgan (1996) identified a variety ofimportant habitat issues for streams inthe range of this ESU, including changesin flow regime (all basins),sedimentation (all basins), hightemperatures (Dungeness, Elwha, Green/Duwamish, Skagit, Snohomish, andStillaguamish Rivers), streambedinstability (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 problemsassociated with dams or other structures(Cedar, Elwha, Green/Duwamish,Snohomish, and White Rivers). ThePuget Sound Salmon Stock ReviewGroup (PFMC) provided an extensivereview of habitat conditions for severalof the stocks in this ESU (PFMC, 1997a).They concluded that reductions inhabitat capacity and quality havecontributed to escapement problems forPuget Sound chinook salmon, citingevidence of curtailment of tributary andmainstem habitat due to dams, andlosses of slough and side-channelhabitat due to diking, dredging, andhydromodification.

Nearly 2 billion fish have beenreleased into Puget Sound tributariessince the 1950s. The preponderance ofhatchery production throughout theESU may mask trends in naturalpopulations and makes it difficult todetermine whether they are self-sustaining. This difficulty iscompounded by the dearth of datapertaining to proportion of naturally-spawning fish that are of hatcheryorigin. There has also been widespreaduse of a limited number of hatcherystocks, resulting in increased risk of lossof fitness and diversity amongpopulations. WDF et al. (1993)classified 11 out of 29 stocks in this ESUas being sustained, in part, throughartificial propagation. The vast majorityof these have been derived from localreturning fall-run adults. Returns tohatcheries have accounted for over halfof the total spawning escapement,


although the hatchery contribution tospawner escapement is probably muchhigher than that, due to hatchery-derived strays on the spawning grounds.In the Stillaguamish River, summerchinook have been supplemented undera wild broodstock program for the lastdecade. In some years, returns from thisprogram have comprised up to 30–50%of the natural spawners, suggesting thatthe unaided stock is not able tomaintain itself (NWIFC, 1997). Almostall of the releases into this ESU havecome from stocks within this ESU, withthe majority of within ESU transferscoming from the Green River Hatcheryor hatchery broodstocks that have beenderived from Green River stock(Marshall et al., 1995). Theelectrophoretic similarity betweenGreen River fall-chinook salmon andseveral other fall chinook salmon stocksin Puget Sound (Marshall et al., 1995)suggests that there may have been asignificant effect from some hatcherytransplants. Overall, the pervasive useof Green River stock throughout muchof the extensive hatchery network thatexists in this ESU may reduce thegenetic diversity and fitness of naturallyspawning populations.

Harvest impacts on Puget Soundchinook salmon stocks are quite high.Ocean exploitation rates on naturalstocks averaged 56–59%; totalexploitation rates average 68–83%(1982–89 brood years) (Pacific SalmonCommission (PSC), 1994). Totalexploitation rates on some stocks haveexceeded 90% (PSC, 1994).

Previous assessments of stocks withinthis ESU have identified several stocksas being at risk or of concern. Nehlsenet al. (1991) identified four stocks asextinct, four stocks as possibly extinct,six stocks as at high risk of extinction,one stock as a moderate risk (WhiteRiver spring run), and one stock(Puyallup River fall run) as of specialconcern. WDF et al. (1993) considered28 stocks within the ESU, of which 13were considered to be of native originand predominantly natural production.The status of these 13 stocks was: 2healthy (Upper Skagit River summer runand Upper Sauk River spring run), 5depressed, 2 critical (South-ForkNooksack River spring/summer run andDungeness River spring/summer run),and 4 unknown.

Overall abundance of chinook salmonin this ESU has declined substantiallyfrom historical levels, and both long-andshort-term trends in abundance arepredominantly downward. Severalpopulations are exhibiting severe short-term declines. Spring chinook salmonpopulations throughout this ESU are alldepressed. NMFS concluded that

chinook salmon in this ESU are notpresently in danger of extinction, butthey are likely to become endangered inthe foreseeable future.

(9) Lower Columbia River ESUApart from the relatively large and

apparently healthy fall-run populationin the Lewis River, production in thisESU appears to be predominantlyhatchery-driven with few identifiablenaturally spawned populations.

All basins are affected (to varyingdegrees) by habitat degradation. Majorhabitat problems are primarily related toblockages, forest practices, urbanizationin the Portland and Vancouver areas,and agriculture in floodplains and low-gradient tributaries. Substantial chinooksalmon spawning habitat has beenblocked (or passage substantiallyimpaired) in the Cowlitz (Mayfield Dam1963, RKm 84), Lewis (Merwin Dam1931, RKm 31), Clackamas (North ForkDam 1958, RKm 50), Hood (PowerdaleDam 1929, RKm 7), and Sandy (MarmotDam 1912, RKm 48; Bull Run Riverdams early 1900s) Rivers (WDF et al.,1993; Kostow, 1995).

Hatchery programs to enhancechinook salmon fisheries abundance inthe lower Columbia River began in the1870s, expanded rapidly, and havecontinued throughout this century.Although the majority of the stocks havecome from within this ESU, over 200million fish from outside the ESU havebeen released since 1930. A particularconcern at the present time is thestraying by Rogue River fall chinooksalmon, which are released into thelower Columbia River to augmentharvest opportunities. Availableevidence indicates a pervasive influenceof hatchery fish on natural populationsthroughout this ESU, including bothspring-and fall-run populations (Howellet al., 1985; Marshall et al., 1995). Inaddition, the exchange of eggs betweenhatcheries in this ESU has led to theextensive genetic homogenization ofhatchery stocks (Utter et al., 1989). Thelarge numbers of hatchery fish in thisESU make it difficult to determine theproportion of naturally produced fish.In spite of the heavy impact ofhatcheries, genetic and life historycharacteristics of populations in thisESU still differ from those in otherESUs. The loss of fitness and diversitywithin the ESU as an importantconcern.

Harvest rates on fall-run stocks aremoderately high, with an average totalexploitation rate of 65 percent (1982–89brood years) (PSC, 1994). The averageocean exploitation rate for this periodwas 46 percent, while the freshwaterharvest rate on the fall run has averaged

20 percent, ranging from 30 percent in1991 to 2.4 percent in 1994. Harvestrates are somewhat lower for spring runstocks, with estimates for the LewisRiver averaging 24 percent ocean and 50percent total exploitation rates in 1982–89 (PSC, 1994). In inriver fisheries,approximately 15 percent of the lowerriver hatchery stock was harvested, 29percent of the lower river wild stockwas harvested, and 58 percent of theSpring Creek hatchery stock washarvested, while the average inriverexploitation rate on the stock as a wholewas 29 percent during the 1991–1995period (PFMC, 1996b).

Previous assessments of stocks withinthis ESU have identified several stocksas being at risk or of concern. Nehlsenet al. (1991) identified two stocks asextinct (Lewis River spring run andWind River fall run), four stocks aspossibly extinct, and four stocks as athigh risk of extinction. WDF et al.(1993) considered 20 stocks within theESU, of which only 2 (Lewis River andEast Fork Lewis River fall runs) wereconsidered to be of native origin,predominantly natural production, andhealthy. Huntington et al. (1996)identified one healthy Level I stock intheir survey (Lewis River fall run).

There have been at least sixdocumented extinctions of populationsin this ESU, and it is possible thatextirpation of other native populationshas occurred but has been masked bythe presence of naturally spawninghatchery fish. Long-and short-termtrends in abundance of individualpopulations are mostly negative, someseverely so. About half of thepopulations comprising this ESU arevery small, increasing the likelihoodthat risks due to genetic anddemographic drift processes in smallpopulations will be important. NMFSconcluded that chinook salmon in thisESU are not presently in danger ofextinction but are likely to becomeendangered in the foreseeable future.

(10) Upper Willamette River ESU

While the abundance of WillametteRiver spring chinook salmon has beenrelatively stable over the long term, andthere is evidence of some naturalproduction, it is apparent that at presentproduction and harvest levels thenatural population is not replacingitself. With natural productionaccounting for only 1⁄3 of the naturalspawning escapement, it is questionablewhether natural spawners would becapable of replacing themselves even inthe absence of fisheries. While hatcheryprograms in the Willamette River Basinhave maintained broodlines that are


relatively free of genetic influences fromoutside the basin, they may havehomogenized the population structurewithin the ESU. The introduction offall-run chinook salmon into the basinand laddering of Willamette Falls haveincreased the potential for geneticintrogression between wild spring-andhatchery fall-run chinook salmon, butthere is no direct evidence ofhybridization (other than an overlap inspawning times and spawning location)between these two runs. Prolongedartificial propagation of the majority ofthe production from this ESU may alsohave had deleterious effects on theability of Willamette River springchinook salmon to reproducesuccessfully in the wild.

Habitat blockage and degradation aresignificant problems in this ESU.Available habitat has been reduced byconstruction of dams in the Santiam,McKenzie, and Middle Fork WillametteRiver Basins, and these dams haveprobably adversely affected remainingproduction via thermal effects.Agricultural development andurbanization are the main activities thathave adversely affected habitatthroughout the basin (Bottom et al.,1985, Kostow, 1995).

Another concern for this ESU is thatcommercial and recreational harvestsare high relative to the apparentproductivity of natural populations. Theaverage total harvest mortality rate wasestimated to be 72 percent in 1982–89,with a corresponding ocean exploitationrate of 24 percent (PSC, 1994). Thisestimate does not fully account forescapement, and ODFW is in theprocess of revising harvest rateestimates for this stock; revisedestimates may average 57 percent totalharvest rate, with 16 percent ocean and48 percent freshwater components(Kostow,1995). The inriver recreationalharvest rate (Willamette River sportcatch/estimated run size) for the periodfrom 1991 through 1995 was 33 percent(data from PFMC, 1996b).

The only previous assessment of riskto stocks in this ESU is that of Nehlsenet al. (1991), who identified theWillamette River spring-run chinooksalmon as of special concern. Theynoted vulnerability to minordisturbances, insufficient informationon population trend, and the specialcharacter of this stock as causes forconcern.

NMFS concluded that chinooksalmon in this ESU are not presently indanger of extinction but are likely tobecome endangered in the foreseeablefuture. Total abundance has beenrelatively stable at approximately 20,000to 30,000 fish; however, recent natural

escapement is less than 5,000 fish andhas been declining sharply.Furthermore, it is estimated that abouttwo-thirds of the natural spawners arefirst-generation hatchery fish, suggestingthat the natural population is falling farshort of replacing itself. Anotherconcern for this ESU is that commercialand recreational harvest are highrelative to the apparent productivity ofnatural populations.

(11) Middle Columbia River Spring-RunESU

Total abundance of this ESU is lowrelative to the total basin area, and1994–96 escapements have been verylow. Several historical populations havebeen extirpated, and the few extantpopulations in this ESU are not widelydistributed geographically. In addition,there are only two populations (JohnDay and Yakima Rivers) withsubstantial run sizes. However, thesemajor river basins are predominantlycomprised of naturally produced fish,and both of these exhibit long-termincreasing trends in abundance.Additionally, recent analyses done aspart of the PATH process indicates thatproductivity of natural populations inthe Deschutes and John Day Rivers hasbeen more robust than most otherstream-type chinook salmon in theColumbia River (Schaller et al., 1995).

Habitat problems are common in therange of this ESU. The only largeblockage of spawning area for springchinook salmon is at the Pelton/RoundButte dam complex on the DeschutesRiver, which probably eliminated anatural population utilizing the upperDeschutes River Basin (Kostow, 1995;Nehlsen, 1995). Spawning and rearinghabitat are affected by agricultureincluding water withdrawals, grazing,and riparian vegetation management.Mainstem Columbia River hydroelectricdevelopment has resulted in a majordisruption of migration corridors andaffected flow regimes and estuarinehabitat.

Hatchery production accounts for asubstantial proportion of totalescapement to the region. However,screening procedures at the WarmSprings River weir apparently minimizethe potential for hatchery-wildintrogression in the Deschutes Riverbasin. Although straying is less of aproblem with returning spring-runadults, the use of the composite, out-of-ESU Carson Hatchery stock toreestablish the Umatilla River springrun would be a cause for concern if fishfrom that program stray out of the basin.

Stocks in this ESU experience verylow ocean harvest rates and onlymoderate instream harvest. Harvest rates

have been declining recently (PSC,1996).

Previous assessments of stocks withinthis ESU have identified several asbeing at risk or of concern. Nehlsen etal. (1991) identified five stocks asextinct, one as possibly extinct(Klickitat River spring chinook salmon),and one as of special concern (John DayRiver spring chinook salmon). WDF etal. (1993) considered five stocks withinthe ESU, of which three, all within theYakima River Basin, were considered tobe of native origin and predominantlynatural production (Upper Yakima,Naches, and American Rivers). Despiteincreasing trends in these three stocks,these stocks and the two remaining (notnative/natural) stocks were consideredto be depressed on the basis ofchronically low escapement numbers(WDF et al., 1993).

Despite low abundances relative toestimated historical levels, long-termtrends in abundance have beenrelatively stable, with an approximatelyeven mix of upward and downwardtrends in populations. NMFS concludedthat chinook salmon in this ESU are notpresently in danger of extinction, nor isit likely to become endangered in theforeseeable future.

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

The status of this ESU was recentlyreviewed by NMFS (Waknitz et al.,1995). In the earlier review, this ESUwas determined to be neither at risk ofextinction nor likely to become so.However, new data shows theproportion of naturally spawningsummer chinook salmon of hatcheryorigin has been increasing rapidly inareas above Wells Dam. There iscorresponding concern about thepossible genetic and/or life-historyconsequences to the sustainability ofnatural populations in that area from theshift in hatchery releases fromsubyearlings to yearlings.

Nearly 38 million summer-run fishhave been released from the Wells DamHatchery since 1967. Efforts to establishthe Wells Dam summer-run broodstockremoved a large proportion of thespawners (94 percent of the run in 1969)destined for the Methow River and otherupstream tributaries (Mullan et al.,1992). Additionally, a number of fall-run fish have been incorporated into thesummer-run program, especially duringthe 1980s (Marshall et al., 1995). Largenumbers of fall chinook salmon havebeen released into the mainstemColumbia River and into the YakimaRiver. Although no hatcheries operateon the Yakima River, releases of upriverbright fall-run chinook salmon into the


lower Yakima River (below ProsserDam) are thought to have overwhelmedlocal naturally spawning stocks (WDF etal., 1993; Marshall et al., 1995). Fallchinook salmon also spawn in themainstem Columbia River; this occursprimarily in the Hanford Reach portionof the Columbia River, with additionalspawning sites in the tailrace areas ofmainstem dams. Upriver bright fallchinook salmon hatchery stocksrepresent a composite of stocksintercepted at various dams. This stockhas also been released in large numbersby hatcheries on the mainstemColumbia River. Although the upriverbright stocks incorporatedrepresentatives from the mainstemspawning populations in the HanfordReach and those displaced by theconstruction of Grand Coulee Dam andother mainstem dams, they have alsoincorporated individuals from the SnakeRiver fall-run ESU (Howell et al., 1985).The mixed genetic background ofupriver bright stocks may result in lessaccurate homing (McIssac and Quinn1988; Chapman et al., 1994). However,the naturally spawning Hanford Reachfall-run population appears to stray atvery low levels (Hymer et al., 1992b).

Previous assessments of stocks withinthis ESU have identified several asbeing at risk or of concern. Nehlsen etal. (1991) identified six stocks asextinct, one as a moderate extinctionrisk (Methow River summer chinooksalmon), and one as of special concern(Okanogan River summer chinooksalmon). WDF et al. (1993) considered10 stocks within the ESU, of which 3were considered to be of native originand predominantly natural production.The status of these three stocks was twohealthy (Marion Drain and HanfordReach fall-runs) and one depressed(Okanogan River summer-run).Huntington et al. (1996) identified onehealthy Level I stock in their survey(Hanford Reach fall run).

In an earlier review, NMFS concludedthat this ESU was not in danger ofextinction, nor likely to becomeendangered in the foreseeable future.None of the information reviewed inthis assessment provides a basis forNMFS to change this earlier conclusion.However, if negative trends in this ESUcontinue, NMFS will reevaluate thestatus of these chinook salmon.

(13) Upper Columbia River Spring-RunESU

Access to a substantial portion ofhistorical habitat was blocked by ChiefJoseph and Grand Coulee Dams. Thereare local habitat problems related toirrigation diversions and hydroelectricdevelopment, as well as degraded

riparian and instream habitat fromurbanization and livestock grazing.Mainstem Columbia River hydroelectricdevelopment has resulted in a majordisruption of migration corridors andaffected flow regimes and estuarinehabitat. Some populations in this ESUmust migrate through nine mainstemdams.

Artificial propagation efforts have hada significant impact on spring-runpopulations in this ESU, either throughhatchery-based enhancement or theextensive trapping and transportationactivities associated with the GCFMP.Prior to the implementation of theGCFMP, spring-run chinook salmonpopulations in the Wenatchee, Entiat,and Methow Rivers were at severelydepressed levels (Craig and Suomela,1941). Therefore, it is probable that themajority of returning spring-run adultstrapped at Rock Island Dam for use inthe GCFMP were probably not native tothese three rivers (Chapman et al.,1995). All returning adults were eitherdirectly transported to river spawningsites or spawned in one of the NationalFish Hatcheries (NFHs) built for theGCFMP.

In the years following the GCFMP,several stocks were transferred to theNFHs in this area. Naturally spawningpopulations in tributaries upstream ofhatchery release sites have apparentlyundergone limited introgression byhatchery stocks, based on CWTrecoveries and genetic analysis(Chapman et al. 1995). Artificialpropagation efforts have recentlyfocused on supplementing naturallyspawning populations in this ESU(Bugert, 1998), although it should beemphasized that these naturallyspawning populations were founded bythe same GCFMP homogenized stock.Furthermore, the potential for hatchery-derived non-native stocks to geneticallyimpact naturally spawning populationsexists, especially given the recent lownumbers of fish returning to rivers inthis ESU. Risks associated withinteractions between wild and hatcherychinook salmon are a concern, becausethere continues to be substantialproduction of the composite, non-nativeCarson stock for fishery enhancementand hydropower mitigation.

Harvest rates are low for this ESU,with very low ocean and moderateinstream harvest. Harvest rates havebeen declining recently (ODFW andWDFW, 1995).

Previous assessments of stocks withinthis ESU have identified several asbeing at risk or of concern. Nehlsen etal. (1991) identified six stocks asextinct. Due to lack of information onchinook salmon stocks that are

presumed to be extinct, the relationshipof these stocks to existing ESUs isuncertain. They are listed here based ongeography and to give a completepresentation of the stocks identified byNehlsen et al. (1991). WDF et al. (1993)considered nine stocks within the ESU,of which eight were considered to be ofnative origin and predominantly naturalproduction. The status of all nine stockswas considered depressed. Populationsin this ESU have experienced recordlow returns for the last few years.

Recent total abundance of this ESU isquite low, and escapements in 1994–1996 were the lowest in at least 60years. At least 6 populations of springchinook salmon in this ESU havebecome extinct, and almost allremaining naturally-spawningpopulations have fewer than 100spawners. In addition to extremelysmall population sizes, both recent andlong-term trends in abundance aredownward, some extremely so. NMFSconcluded that chinook salmon in thisESU are in danger of extinction.

(14) Snake River Fall-Run ESUSnake River fall-run chinook salmon

are currently listed as a threatenedspecies under the ESA (57 FR 14653,April 22, 1992). As discussed above,NMFS concluded that the Snake Riverfall-run ESU also includes fall chinooksalmon in the Deschutes River and,historically, populations from the JohnDay, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Riversthat have been extirpated in thetwentieth century.

Almost all historical Snake River fall-run chinook salmon spawning habitat inthe Snake River Basin was blocked bythe Hells Canyon Dam complex; otherhabitat blockages have also occurred inColumbia River tributaries.Hydroelectric development on themainstem Columbia and Snake Riverscontinues to affect juvenile and adultmigration. Remaining habitat has beenreduced by inundation in the mainstemSnake and Columbia Rivers, and theESU’s range has also been affected byagricultural water withdrawals, grazing,and vegetation management.

The continued straying by non-nativehatchery fish into natural productionareas is an additional source of risk tothe Snake River chinook salmon.

Assessing extinction risk to thenewly-configured ESU is difficultbecause of the geographic discontinuityand the disparity in the status of the tworemaining populations. NMFS alsonotes considerable uncertaintyregarding the origins of fall chinooksalmon in the lower Deschutes Riverand their relationship to fish in theupper Deschutes River. Historically, the


Snake River populations dominatedproduction in this ESU; total abundanceis estimated to have been about 72,000in the 1930s and 1940s, and it wasprobably substantially higher beforethat. Production from the DeschutesRiver was presumably only a smallfraction of historic production in theESU. In contrast, recent (1990–96)returns of naturally spawning fish to theDeschutes River (about 6,000 adults peryear) have been much higher than in theSnake River (5-year mean about 500adults per year, including hatcherystrays). The relatively recent extirpationof fall-run chinook in the John Day,Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers is alsoa factor in assessing the risk to theoverall ESU.

Long term trends in abundance aremixed—slightly upward in theDeschutes River and downward in theSnake River. Short-term trends in bothremaining populations are upward.After considering the addition of theDeschutes River fall chinookpopulations to the listed Snake Riverfall-run chinook salmon ESU, NMFSconcluded that the ESU as a whole islikely to become an endangered specieswithin in the foreseeable futurethroughout all or a significant portion ofits range, in spite of the relative healthof the Deschutes River population.

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

This ESU has been extensivelyreviewed by NMFS (Matthews andWaples, 1991; NMFS, 1995b). TheSnake River Spring and summer-runESU is listed as a threatened species andNMFS did not review its previous riskconclusion here.

Summary of Factors Affecting theSpecies

Section 2(a) of the ESA states thatvarious species of fish, wildlife, andplants in the United States have beenrendered extinct as a consequence ofeconomic growth and developmentuntempered by adequate concern forecosystem conservation. Section 4(a)(1)of the ESA and the listing regulations(50 CFR Part 424) set forth proceduresfor listing species. NMFS mustdetermine, through the regulatoryprocess, if a species is endangered orthreatened based upon any one or acombination of the following factors: (1)The present or threatened destruction,modification, or curtailment of itshabitat or range; (2) overutilization forcommercial, recreational, scientific, oreducation purposes; (3) disease orpredation; (4) inadequacy of existingregulatory mechanisms; or (5) other

natural or human-made factors affectingits continued existence.

NMFS has prepared two supportingdocuments which address the factorsthat have led to the decline of chinooksalmon and other salmonids. The first isentitled ‘‘Factors for Decline: ASupplement to the Notice ofDetermination for West CoastSteelhead’’ (NMFS, 1996). That report,available upon request (see ADDRESSES),concluded that all of the factorsidentified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESAhave played a role in the decline ofsteelhead and other salmonids,including chinook salmon. The reportidentifies destruction and modificationof habitat, overutilization forcommercial and recreational purposes,and natural and human-made factors asbeing the primary reasons for thedecline of west coast steelhead, andother salmonids including chinooksalmon. The second document is asupplement to the document referred toabove. This document, entitled ‘‘FactorsContributing to the Decline of WestCoast Chinook Salmon: An Addendumto the 1996 West Coast SteelheadFactors for Decline Report’’ (NMFS,1998 In prep.) discusses specific factorsaffecting chinook salmon. In this report,NMFS concludes that all of the factorsidentified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESAhave played a role in the decline ofchinook salmon, and other salmonids.The report identifies destruction andmodification of habitat, overutilizationfor recreational purposes, and naturaland human-made factors as being theprimary reasons for the decline ofchinook salmon.

The following discussion summarizesfindings regarding factors for declineacross the range of chinook salmon.While these factors have been treatedhere in general terms, it is important tounderscore that impacts from certainfactors are more acute for specific ESUs.For example, impacts from hydropowerdevelopment are more pervasive forESUs in the Columbia River Basin thanfor some coastal ESUs.

A. The Present or ThreatenedDestruction, Modification, orCurtailment of its Habitat or Range

Chinook salmon on the west coast ofthe United States have experienceddeclines in abundance in the pastseveral decades as a result of loss,damage or change to their naturalenvironment. Water diversions foragriculture, flood control, domestic, andhydropower purposes (especially in theColumbia River and Sacramento-SanJoaquin Basins) have greatly reduced oreliminated historically accessiblehabitat, and degraded remaining habitat.

Forestry, agriculture, mining, andurbanization have degraded, simplified,and fragmented habitat. Studies indicatethat in most western states, about 80 to90 percent of the historic riparianhabitat has been eliminated (Botkin etal., 1995; Norse, 1990; Kellogg, 1992;California State Lands Commission,1993). Washington and Oregon wetlandsare estimated to have diminished byone-third, while California hasexperienced a 91 percent loss of itswetland habitat. Loss of habitatcomplexity and habitat fragmentationhave also contributed to the decline ofchinook salmon. For example, innational forests within the range of thenorthern spotted owl in western andeastern Washington, there has been a 58percent reduction in large, deep poolsdue to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures such as boulders andlarge wood (Forest EcosystemManagement Assessment Team(FEMAT), 1993). Similarly, in Oregon,the abundance of large, deep pools onprivate coastal lands has decreased byas much as 80 percent (FEMAT, 1993).Sedimentation from extensive andintensive land use activities (timberharvests, road building, livestockgrazing, and urbanization) is recognizedas a primary cause of habitatdegradation in the range of west coastchinook salmon.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,Recreational, Scientific or EducationalPurposes

Historically, chinook salmon wereabundant in many western coastal andinterior waters of the United States.Chinook salmon have supported, andstill support important tribal,commercial and recreational fisheriesthroughout their range, contributingmillions of dollars to numerous localeconomies, as well as providingimportant cultural and subsistenceneeds for Native Americans. Overfishingin the early days of European settlementled to the depletion of many stocks ofchinook and other salmonids evenbefore extensive habitat degradation.However, following the degradation ofmany west coast aquatic and riparianecosystems, exploitation rates werehigher than many chinook populationscould sustain. Therefore, harvest mayhave contributed to the further declineof some populations.

C. Disease or PredationIntroductions of non-native species

and habitat modifications have resultedin increased predator populations innumerous rivers. Predation by marinemammals is also of concern in areasexperiencing dwindling chinook salmon


runsizes. However, salmonids appear tobe a minor component of the diet ofmarine 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 pelagicschooling fish, juvenile rockfish,lampreys (Jameson and Kenyon, 1977;Roffe and Mate, 1984), benthic andepibenthic species (Brown and Mate,1983) and flatfish (Scheffer and Sperry,1931; Graybill, 1981). Predation maysignificantly influence salmonidabundance in some local populationswhen other prey are absent and physicalconditions lead to the concentration ofadults and juveniles (Cooper andJohnson, 1992).

Infectious disease is one of manyfactors that can influence adult andjuvenile chinook salmon survival.Chinook salmon are exposed tonumerous bacterial, protozoan, viral,and parasitic organisms in spawningand rearing areas, hatcheries, migratoryroutes, and the marine environment.Specific diseases such as bacterialkidney disease (BKD), ceratomyxosis,columnaris, furunculosis, infectioushematopoietic necrosis virus, redmouthand black spot disease, erythrocyticinclusion body syndrome, and whirlingdisease, among others, are present andare known to affect chinook salmon(Rucker et al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek,1987; Foott et al., 1994; Gould andWedemeyer, undated). Very littlecurrent or historical information existsto quantify changes in infection levelsand mortality rates attributable to thesediseases for chinook salmon. However,studies have shown that naturallyspawned fish tend to be less susceptibleto pathogens than hatchery-reared fish(Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et al.,1992). Native chinook salmon haveevolved with certain of these organisms,but the widespread use of artificialpropagation has introduced exoticorganisms not historically present inparticular watersheds. Scientific studiesmay indicate that chinook salmon aremore susceptible to disease organismsthan other salmonids. Habitatconditions such as low water flows andhigh temperatures can exacerbatesusceptibility to disease.

D. The Inadequacy of ExistingRegulatory Mechanisms

A variety of Federal, state, tribal, andlocal laws, regulations, treaties andmeasures affect the abundance andsurvival of west coast chinook salmonand the quality of their habitat. NMFSprepared a separate report entitled‘‘West Coast Steelhead ConservationMeasures, A Supplement to the Notice

of Determination for West CoastSteelhead Under the EndangeredSpecies’’ which summarizes many ofthese existing measures and their effecton steelhead and other salmonids,including chinook salmon. This reportis available from NMFS (see ADDRESSESsection). The following sections brieflydiscuss other regulatory measuresdesigned to conserve chinook and othersalmonids (see also Efforts Being Madeto Protect West Coast Chinook Salmonand Conservation Measures sections).

1. Federal Land and Water ManagementThe Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a

Federal management policy withimportant benefits for chinook salmon.While the NFP covers a very large area,the overall effectiveness of the NFP inconserving chinook salmon is limited bythe extent of Federal lands and the factthat Federal land ownership is notuniformly distributed in watershedswithin the affected ESUs. The extentand distribution of Federal lands limitsthe NFP’s ability to achieve its aquatichabitat restoration objectives atwatershed and river basin scales andhighlights the importance ofcomplementary salmon habitatconservation measures on nonfederallands within the subject ESUs.

On February 25, 1995, the U.S. ForestService and Bureau of LandManagement adopted Implementation ofInterim Strategies for ManagingAnadromous Fish-producingWatersheds in eastern Oregon andWashington, Idaho, and portions ofCalifornia (known as PACFISH). Thestrategy was developed in response tosignificant declines in naturally-reproducing salmonid stocks, includingchinook salmon, and widespreaddegradation of anadromous fish habitatthroughout Federal lands in Idaho,Washington, Oregon, and Californiaoutside the range of the northernspotted owl. Like the NFP, PACFISH isan attempt to provide a consistentapproach for maintaining and restoringaquatic and riparian habitat conditionswhich, in turn, are expected to promotethe sustained natural production ofanadromous fish. However, as with theNFP, PACFISH is limited by the extentof Federal lands and Federal landownership is not uniformly distributedin watersheds within all the affectedESUs.

Within the range of several chinooksalmon ESUs (i.e., Southern Oregon andCalifornia Coastal, Lower ColumbiaRiver, and Puget Sound), much ofavailable chinook salmon habitat iscovered by the requirements of the NFP.These existing conservation efforts haveresulted in improvements in aquatic

habitat conditions for salmonids withinthis region.

Since the adoption of the NFP, NMFShas consulted with the BLM and USFSon ongoing and proposed activities thatmay affect anadromous salmonids,including chinook salmon and theirhabitats. During this period of time,NMFS has reviewed thousands ofactivities throughout northernCalifornia, Oregon, and Washington andhelped develop numerous programmaticbiological assessments (BAs) with theBLM and the USFS. These BAs cover awide range of management activities,including forest and/or resource area-wide routine and non-routine roadmaintenance, hazard tree removal, rangeallotment management, watershed andinstream restoration, special use permits(e.g., mining, ingress/egress), timber saleprograms (e.g., green tree, fuelreduction, thinning, regeneration, andsalvage), and BLM’s land tenureadjustment program. Numerous otherproject-specific BAs were also consultedand conferenced upon. These NationalForest and BLM Resource Area-wideBAs include region-specific bestmanagement practices, all necessarymeasures to minimize impacts for alllisted or proposed anadromoussalmonids, monitoring, andenvironmental baseline checklists foreach project. These BA’s have resultedin a more consistent approach tomanagement of Federal landsthroughout the NFP and PACFISH areas.

2. Federal/State Land and WaterManagement in California

California’s Central Valley chinooksalmon have been the subject of manyconservation efforts aimed at restoringthe Sacramento and San Joaquin Riversover several decades. Past efforts havegenerally been unsuccessful at reducingthe risks facing Central Valley chinooksalmon. Despite a long history ofunproductive conservation andprotection efforts, Federal, state andprivate stakeholders joined to urgeCongressional passage of the CentralValley Project Improvement Act(CVPIA) in 1992, followed by thesigning of the CALFED Bay-DeltaAccord (Accord) in December 1994. TheBay-Delta Accord detailed interimmeasures for environmental protectionand paved the way for the developmentof the long-term CALFED Bay-DeltaProgram. The CALFED Bay-DeltaProgram which began in June of 1995 isa planning effort between state andfederal agencies for developing a long-range, comprehensive solution for theBay-Delta Estuary and its watershed.Collectively, the CVPIA and CALFEDBay-Delta conservation programs may


provide a comprehensive conservationresponse to the extensive ecologicproblems facing at-risk salmonids. TheCVPIA and the CALFED Bay-DeltaProgram are described in more detail inthe Efforts Being Made to Protect WestCoast Chinook Salmon section.

3. State Land ManagementThe California Department of Forestry

and Fire Protection (CDF) enforces theState of California’s forest practice rules(CFPRs) which are promulgated throughthe Board of Forestry (BOF). The CFPRscontain provisions that providesignificant protection for chinooksalmon if fully implemented. However,NMFS believes the CFPRs do not secureproperly functioning riparian habitat.Specifically, the CFPRs do notadequately address large woody debrisrecruitment, streamside tree retention tomaintain bank stability, and canopyretention standards that assure streamtemperatures are properly functioningfor all life stages of chinook salmon. Thecurrent process for approving TimberHarvest Plans (THPs) under the CFPRsdoes not include monitoring of timberharvest operations to determine whethera particular operation damaged habitatand, if so, how it might be mitigated infuture THPs. The CFPR rule that permitssalvage logging is also an area wherebetter environmental review andmonitoring could ensure betterprotection for chinook salmon. For thesereasons, NMFS is working to improvethe condition of riparian buffers inongoing habitat conservation plannegotiations with private landowners.

The Oregon Forest Practices Act(OFPA), while modified in 1995 andimproved over the previous OFPA, doesnot have implementing rules thatadequately protect salmonid habitat. Inparticular, the current OFPA does notprovide adequate protection for theproduction and introduction of largewoody debris (LWD) to medium, smalland non-fish bearing streams. Smallnon-fish bearing streams are vitallyimportant to the quality of downstreamhabitats. These streams carry water,sediment, nutrients, and LWD fromupper portions of the watershed. Thequality of downstream habitats isdetermined, in part, by the timing andamount of organic and inorganicmaterials provided by these smallstreams (Chamberlin et al. in Meehan,1991). Given the existing depletedcondition of most riparian forests onnon-Federal lands, the time needed toattain mature forest conditions, the lackof adequate protection for non-riparianLWD sources in landslide-prone areasand small headwater streams (whichaccount for about half the wood found

naturally in stream channels) (Burnettand Reeves, 1997 citing Van Sickle andGregory, 1990; McDade et al., 1990; andMcGreary, 1994), and current rotationschedules (approximately 50 years),there is a low probability that adequateLWD recruitment could be achievedunder the current requirements of theOFPA. Also, the OFPA does notadequately consider and manage timberharvest and road construction onsensitive, unstable slopes subject tomass wasting, nor does it addresscumulative effects. These issues, andother concerns about the OFPA havebeen analyzed in detail in a recentdocument prepared by NMFS. Thedocument, entitled ‘‘A Draft ProposalConcerning Oregon Forest Practices’’was submitted to the Oregon Board ofForestry Memorandum of AgreementAdvisory Committee and to the OregonGovernor’s Office to advance potentialimprovements in Oregon forest practices(OFP) (NMFS OFP Draft, February 17,1998).

The Washington Department ofNatural Resources implements andenforces the State of Washington’s forestpractice rules (WFPRs) which arepromulgated through the ForestPractices Board. These WFPRs containprovisions that can be protective ofchinook salmon if fully implemented.This is possible given that the WFPRsare based on adaptive management offorest lands through watershed analysis,development of site-specific landmanagement prescriptions, andmonitoring. Watershed Analysisprescriptions can exceed WFPRminimums for stream and riparianprotection. However, NMFS believes theWFPRs, including watershed analysis,do not provide properly functioningriparian and instream habitats.Specifically, the base WFPRs do notadequately address LWD recruitment,tree retention to maintain stream bankintegrity and channel networks withinfloodplains, and chronic and episodicinputs of coarse and fine sediment thatmaintain habitats that are properlyfunctioning for all chinook salmon lifestages.

4. Dredge, Fill, and InwaterConstruction Programs

The Army Corps of Engineers (COE)regulates removal/fill activities undersection 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA), which requires that the COE notpermit a discharge that would ‘‘cause orcontribute to significant degradation ofthe waters of the United States.’’ One ofthe factors that must be considered inthis determination is cumulative effects.However, the COE guidelines do notspecify a methodology for assessing

cumulative impacts or how muchweight to assign them in decision-making. Furthermore, the COE does nothave in place any process to address theadditive effects of the continueddevelopment of waterfront, riverine,coastal, and wetland properties.

5. Water Quality Programs

The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA),enforced in part by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), is intended toprotect beneficial uses, includingfishery resources. To date,implementation has not been effectivein adequately protecting fisheryresources, particularly with respect tonon-point sources of pollution.

Section 303(d)(1)(C) and (D) of theCWA requires states to prepare TotalMaximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for allwater bodies that do not meet Statewater quality standards. TMDLs are amethod for quantitative assessment ofenvironmental problems in a watershedand identifying pollution reductionsneeded to protect drinking water,aquatic life, recreation, and other use ofrivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs mayaddress all pollution sources includingpoint sources such as sewage orindustrial plant discharges, and non-point discharges such as runoff fromroads, farm fields, and forests.

The CWA gives state governments theprimary responsibility for establishingTMDLs. However, EPA is required to doso if a state does not meet thisresponsibility. In California, as a resultof recent litigation, the EPA has made alegal commitment guaranteeing thateither EPA or the State will establishTMDLs that identify pollution reductiontargets for 18 impaired river basins innorthern California by the year 2007.California has made a commitment toestablish TMDLs for approximately halfthe 18 river basins by 2007. The EPAwill develop TMDLs for the remainingbasins and has also agreed to completeall TMDLS if the State fails to meet itscommitment within the agreed upontime frame.

State agencies in Oregon arecommitted to completing TMDLs forcoastal drainages within 4 years, and allimpaired waters within 10 years.Similarly ambitious schedules are beingdeveloped for Washington andCalifornia.

The ability of these TMDLs to protectchinook salmon should be significant inthe long term; however, it will bedifficult to develop them quickly in theshort term and their efficacy inprotecting chinook salmon habitat willbe unknown for years to come.


E. Other Natural or Manmade FactorsAffecting Its Continued Existence

Natural climatic conditions haveexacerbated the problems associatedwith degraded and altered riverine andestuarine habitats. Persistent droughtconditions have reduced already limitedspawning, rearing and migration habitat.Climatic conditions appear to haveresulted in decreased oceanproductivity which, during moreproductive periods, may offset poorproductivity caused by degradedfreshwater habitat conditions.

In an attempt to mitigate the loss ofhabitat, extensive hatchery programshave been implemented throughout therange of west coast chinook salmon.While some of these programs havesucceeded in providing fishingopportunities, the impacts of theseprograms on native, naturally-reproducing stocks are not wellunderstood. Competition, geneticintrogression, and disease transmissionresulting from hatchery introductionsmay significantly reduce the productionand survival of native, naturally-reproducing chinook salmon (NMFS,1996a). Collection of native chinooksalmon for hatchery broodstockpurposes often harms small ordwindling natural populations.Artificial propagation may play animportant role in chinook salmonrecovery and some hatchery populationsof chinook salmon may be deemedessential for the recovery of threatenedor endangered chinook salmon ESUs(see Proposed Determination section).

In the past, non-native chinooksalmon stocks have been introduced asbroodstock in hatcheries and widelytransplanted in many coastal rivers andstreams throughout the range of theproposed chinook salmon ESUs (Bryant,1994; Myers et al., 1998). Because ofproblems associated with this practice,California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) developed its Salmon andSteelhead Stock Management Policy.This policy recognizes that such stockmixing is detrimental and seeks tomaintain the genetic integrity of allidentifiable California stocks of chinooksalmon and other salmonids, as well asminimize interactions between hatcheryand natural populations. To protect thegenetic integrity of salmon andsteelhead stocks, this policy directsCDFG to evaluate each salmon andsteelhead stream and classify itaccording to its probable genetic sourceand degree of integrity.

Hatchery programs and harvestmanagement have strongly influencedchinook salmon populations in theCentral Valley, California ESU, the

Puget Sound ESU, the Lower ColumbiaRiver ESU, the Upper Willamette ESU,and the Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU. Hatchery programs intendedto compensate for habitat losses havemasked declines in natural stocks andhave created unrealistic expectations forfisheries.

The three state agencies (CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game, OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, andthe Washington Department of Fish andWildlife) have adopted and areimplementing natural salmonid policiesdesigned to limit hatchery influences onnatural, indigenous chinook salmon.While some limits have been placed onhatchery production of anadromoussalmonids, more careful management ofcurrent programs and scrutiny ofproposed programs is necessary in orderto minimize impacts on listed species.

Efforts Being Made To Protect WestCoast Chinook Salmon

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requiresthe Secretary of Commerce to makelisting determinations solely on thebasis of the best scientific andcommercial data available and aftertaking into account efforts being madeto protect a species. Therefore, inmaking its listing determinations, NMFSfirst assesses chinook salmon status andidentifies factors that have lead to itsdecline. NMFS then assesses existingconservation actions to determine ifthose measures ameliorate the risksfaced by chinook salmon.

In judging the efficacy of existingconservation efforts, NMFS considersthe following: (1) The substantive,protective, and conservation elements ofsuch efforts; (2) the degree of certaintysuch efforts will be reliablyimplemented; and (3) the presence ofmonitoring provisions that permitadaptive management (NMFS 1996b). Insome cases, conservation efforts may berelatively new and may not have hadtime to demonstrate their biologicalbenefit. In such cases, provisions foradequate monitoring and funding ofconservation efforts are essential toensure intended conservation benefitsare realized (see NMFS 1996b, see also62 FR 24602–24607, May 6, 1997).

During a previous status review forwest coast steelhead, NMFS reviewedan array of protective efforts forsteelhead and other salmonids,including chinook salmon, ranging inscope from regional strategies to localwatershed initiatives. NMFSsummarized some of the major efforts ina document entitled ‘‘SteelheadConservation Efforts: A Supplement tothe Notice of Determination for WestCoast Steelhead Under the Endangered

Species Act.’’ (NMFS, 1996). Thisdocument is available upon request (seeADDRESSES).

Several more recently developedprotective efforts have been directedtowards the conservation of varioussalmonids and the watershedssupporting them. These efforts mayaffect recovery of chinook salmon inCalifornia, Oregon and Washington.

State of California Protective Measuresfor Central Valley Chinook

Spring- and fall/late fall-run chinooksalmon in California’s Central Valley arebeginning to benefit from two majorconservation initiatives that are underdevelopment and simultaneously beingimplemented to conserve and restoresalmonid and other fishery resources inthe rivers and streams of the CentralValley, including the Bay-Delta region.The first of these initiatives is theCentral Valley Project Improvement Act(CVPIA) which Congress passed in1992. The CVPIA is intended to remedyhabitat and other problems associatedwith the construction and operation ofthe Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR)Central Valley Project. The CVPIA hastwo key habitat restoration featuresrelated to the recovery of chinooksalmon in the Central Valley. First, itdirects the Secretary of the Interior todevelop and implement a program thatmakes all reasonable efforts to doublenatural production of anadromous fishin Central Valley streams (Section3406(b)(1)) by the year 2002. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)approached implementation of thisCVPIA directive through developmentof the Anadromous Fish RestorationProgram (AFRP). The AFRP contains atotal of 172 actions and 117 evaluations.The Department of the Interior (DOTI)intends to finalize the AFRP in 1998upon completion of the ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement, whichis required by Section 3409 of theCVPIA. Secondly, the CVPIA annuallydedicates up to 800,000 acre feet (AF) ofwater flows for fish, wildlife, andhabitat restoration purposes (Section3406(b)(2)), and provides for theacquisition of additional water tosupplement the 800,000 AF (Section3406(b)(3)). The FWS, in consultationwith other Federal and State agencies,directs the use of these dedicated waterflows.

On November 20, 1997, DOI releasedits final administrative proposal on themanagement of Section 340(b)(2) waterand a set of flow-related actions for theuse of so-called (b)(2) water during thenext five years. These plans will becontinuously updated to include newinformation, consistent with the


adaptive management approachdescribed in the AFRP. To makerestoration efforts as efficient aspossible, the AFRP has committed tocoordinate restoration efforts with thosedeveloped and implemented by othergroups or programs, including theCALFED Bay-Delta program.

Federal funding has beenappropriated since 1995 to implementrestoration projects identified throughthe AFRP planning and developmentprocess, or through complementaryprograms such as the CALFED Bay-DeltaProgram. In 1996, a total of $1.9 millionwas obligated for 11 restoration projectsor evaluations identified through theAFRP planning process. These projectsincluded restoration managementplanning efforts in the lower TuolumneRiver, Deer Creek, and Butte Creek,modification of a fish ladder on theYuba River, acquisition of riparianproperty and easements on Pine Creekand Big Chico Creek, water exchangepump and riparian restoration projectson Mill Creek, and several monitoringand evaluation projects. In 1997, $9.7million was obligated for over 30projects located throughout the CentralValley. The AFRP’s projected budget forrestoration projects in the Central Valleyin 1998 is $8.2 million. The ARFP’s1998 work plan identifies 27 highpriority projects for funding, and anadditional 14 projects which willproceed contingent on additionalfunding. An estimated $20 million to$35 million will be spent on AFRPrestoration actions per year for 25 years($500 million to $875 million estimatedtotal), most of which will be closelyintegrated with funding for habitatrestoration activities as part of theCALFED Bay-Delta program.

During 1996 and 1997, the AFRPimplemented several fish flow andhabitat restoration actions using theCVPIA provisions. Specific actionsincluded limiting Delta water exportsfor fisheries protection, closing the DeltaCross Channel gates to minimize thediversion of juvenile chinook salmonfrom the Sacramento River into theDelta, and modifying the operation ofwater project facilities in the Delta toevaluate the benefits of actions taken toprotect juvenile chinook salmon. NMFSexpects that similar fisheries protectionmeasures will be implemented in 1998depending on actual hydrologicalconditions.

The second and very ambitiousinitiative that benefits Central Valleyspring and fall/late-fall chinook salmonis the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. InJune 1994, state and Federal agenciessigned a framework agreement thatpledged all agencies to work together to

formulate water quality standards toprotect the Bay-Delta, coordinate stateand Federal water project operations,and develop a long-term Bay-Deltarestoration program. In December 1994,a diverse group of State and Federalagencies, water agencies andenvironmental organizations signed TheBay-Delta Accord which set out specificinterim (3-year) measures forenvironmental protection, includingprotection for Central Valley chinookstocks. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program,which began in June, 1995, is chargedwith developing the long-term Bay-Deltasolution and restoration program.

Three types of environmentalprotection and restoration measures aredetailed in the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord:(1) The control of freshwater outflow inthe Delta to improve estuarineconditions in the shallow-water habitatof the Bay-Delta estuary (Category Imeasures), (2) the regulation of waterproject operations and flows tominimize harmful environmentalimpacts of water exports (Category IImeasures), and (3) the funding andimplementation of projects to addressnon-flow related factors affecting theBay-Delta ecosystem such as unscreeneddiversions, physical habitat degradation,and pollution (Category III measures).Many of the Category I and II measuresidentified in the agreement wereimplemented by a Water QualityControl Plan that was adopted by theState Water Resources Control Board in1995. Efforts were also initiated toimplement Category III non-flowprojects beginning in 1995 and thesehave continued to the present.

In 1995 and 1996, the Category IIIprogram approved a total of $21.1million in funding for a large number ofhabitat restoration, fish screening, landacquisition, research and monitoring,watershed planning, and fish passageprojects distributed throughout theSacramento/San Joaquin River basins,their tributaries and the Bay-Deltasystem. Additional funding wasprovided for most of these projects fromthe CVPIA or other funding sources, andmany constitute specific restorationactions identified in the draft EcosystemRestoration Program Plan (ERPP) that isbeing developed as part of thecomprehensive long-term CALFED Bay-Delta program. The total fundingobligation for these projects exceeded$40 million. A description of theseprojects, the project proponent, thefunding commitments, and the projectstatus are described in a March 1997summary document. In 1997, theCALFED Bay-Delta program announcedits intention to fund a total of 51additional projects using nearly $61

million in Category III funding.Additional funding of nearly $40million was also available as a costshare for other projects if additionalhigh priority projects could beidentified. The selection of these 51projects were intended to addressspecific stressors or factors for declinethat were identified in the planningprocess leading to development of theERPP. The vast majority of these funds(nearly 77 percent) were allocated toprojects addressing floodplain/marshplain changes and changes in riverchannel form. An additional 10 percentwas targeted at entrainment problems,while 8 percent addressed water qualityproblems. Of the total funds committedto new projects, 87 percent will beexpended for implementation projects,with the balance expended forwatershed planning, monitoring, andresearch.

Central Valley spring and fall/late-fallchinook salmon have benefited from theexpenditure of these restorationprogram funds through the placement ofnew fish screens, modifications ofbarriers to fish passage, and habitatrestoration projects, and additionalbenefits are expected to accrue to thesepopulations in the future as newprojects are implemented. In the long-term, NMFS is hopeful that the CVPIAand CALFED Bay-Delta conservationprograms described above can befocused and implemented to provide acomprehensive conservation response tothe extensive habitat problems facingchinook salmon and other species in theCentral Valley. To date, however,projects funded by these programs havefocused on addressing habitat problemsfacing these and other species, and haveplaced an emphasis on problemsassociated with freshwater and oceanharvest or hatchery managementpractices. The CALFED Bay-DeltaProgram’s draft ERPP acknowledges thatcurrent hatchery practices andfreshwater and ocean harvestmanagement practices are stressors (orrisk factors) that are adversely affectingnatural chinook salmon populations inthe Central Valley. It also identifiesgeneral changes that may be needed toreduce the impacts of these stressors,and incorporates the need for improvedharvest and hatchery management in itsprogrammatic implementation plan.However, no Category III funding hasbeen targeted at these problems to date,and a focused plan with both a near- andlong-term implementation strategy todeal with these problems still needs tobe developed. Many habitat restorationprojects or activities identified in theERPP have been funded and are in the


process of being implemented asdiscussed above. Other components ofthe restoration plan will be carried outas part of its long-term implementation.NMFS is encouraged by the ecosystemplanning and restoration strategydeveloped for chinook salmon inCentral Valley and Bay-Delta ecosystem.However, several risk factors that havebeen identified by NMFS as adverselyaffecting chinook salmon in the CentralValley have not been adequatelyaddressed, and plans for theirimplementation needs to be developed.These risk factors include large hatcheryprograms and practices that areadversely affecting natural populationsof spring and fall/late-fall chinooksalmon, and masking our ability toconfidently assess the status of naturallyspawning populations; and ocean andfreshwater harvest rates on naturalstocks of spring and fall/late-fallchinook salmon stocks (hatchery andnatural) that may exceed the basin’sability to naturally sustain these ESUs.

Because the full scope andimplementation strategy for theCALFED Bay-Delta Program’s long-termrestoration program have yet to befinalized and a focused strategy toaddress impacts from harvest andhatchery practices has yet to beadequately developed, NMFS believesthat the conservation benefits providedfor by the CALFED restoration programand other complementary programs arenot currently sufficient to reduce thesubstantial risks facing Central Valleyspring-run and fall/late fall-run chinooksalmon. NMFS is committed to workingclosely with the State and the CALFEDBay-Delta Program to build on the draftERPP and its implementation strategy toensure that all risks to spring-run andfall/late fall-run chinook salmon,including those resulting from currenthatchery and harvest practices, areproperly addressed in the future.

State of Oregon Conservation MeasuresIn April 1996, the Governor of Oregon

completed and submitted to NMFS acomprehensive conservation plandirected specifically at coho salmonstocks on the Coast of Oregon. Thisplan, termed the Oregon Plan forSalmon and Watersheds (OPSW)(formerly known as the Oregon CoastalSalmon Restoration Initiative) hasrecently been expanded to includeconservation measures for coastalsteelhead stocks (Oregon, 1998). For adetailed description of the OPSW, referto the May 6, 1997, listingdetermination for Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62 FR24602–24606). The essential features ofthe OPSW include the following:

1. Identifies and addresses all factorsfor decline of coastal coho andsteelhead, most notably, those factorsrelating to harvest, habitat, and hatcheryactivities.

2. State agencies whose activitiesaffect salmon are held accountable forcoordinating their programs in a mannerthat conserves and restores the speciesand their habitat.

3. Developed a framework forprioritizing conservation and restorationefforts.

4. Developed a comprehensivemonitoring plan that coordinatesFederal, state, and local efforts toimprove current knowledge offreshwater and marine conditions,determine populations trends, evaluatethe effects of artificial propagation, andrate the OPSW’s success or failure inrestoring the salmon.

5. Actions to conserve and restoresalmon must be worked out bycommunities and landowners—thosewho possess local knowledge ofproblems and who have a genuine stakein the outcome.

6. The principle of adaptivemanagement coordinates theprioritization, monitoring andimplementation elements of thisconservation plan. Through thisprocess, there is an explicit mechanismfor learning from experience, evaluatingalternative approaches, and makingneeded changes in the programs andmeasures.

7. The Independent MultidisciplinaryScience Team (IMST) provides anindependent audit of the OPSW’sstrengths and weaknesses. The IMSTassists the adaptive managementprocess by compiling new informationinto an annual review of goals,objectives, and strategies, and byrecommending changes.

8. The annual report made to theGovernor, the legislature, and the publicwill help the agencies make theadjustments described for the adaptivemanagement process.

While NMFS recognizes that many ofthe ongoing protective efforts are likelyto promote the conservation of chinookand other salmonids, in the aggregate,they have not yet achieved chinooksalmon conservation at a scale that isadequate to protect and conserve theeight ESUs proposed for listing (sevennewly defined ESUs and one redefinedESU). NMFS believes that most existingefforts lack some of the critical elementsneeded to provide a high degree ofcertainty that the efforts will besuccessful. These elements include: (1)identification of specific factors fordecline; (2) immediate measuresrequired to protect the best remaining

populations and habitats and prioritiesfor restoration activities; (3) explicit andquantifiable objectives and time lines;(4) adequate and reliable funding; and(5) monitoring programs to determinethe effectiveness of actions, includingmethods to measure whether recoveryobjectives are being met (NMFS CoastalSalmon Conservation: WorkingGuidance For Comprehensive SalmonRestoration Initiatives on the PacificCoast, September 15, 1996).

The best available scientificinformation on the biological status ofthe species supports a proposed listingof eight chinook salmon ESUs under theESA (see Proposed Determination).NMFS concludes that existingprotective efforts at this time areinadequate to alter the proposeddetermination of threatened orendangered for these eight chinooksalmon ESUs. However, during theperiod between publication of thisproposed rule and publication of a finalrule, NMFS will continue to solicitinformation regarding existingprotective efforts (see Public CommentsSolicited). NMFS also will work withFederal, state and tribal fisheriesmanagers to evaluate and enhance theefficacy of the various salmonidconservation efforts.

Proposed DeterminationThe ESA defines an endangered

species as any species in danger ofextinction throughout all or a significantportion of its range, and a threatenedspecies as any species likely to becomean endangered species within theforeseeable future throughout all or asignificant portion of its range (16U.S.C. § 1532(6) and (20)). Section4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that thelisting determination be based solely onthe best scientific and commercial dataavailable, after conducting a review ofthe status of the species and after takinginto account those efforts, if any, beingmade to protect such species.

Based on results from its coastwideassessment, NMFS has concluded thaton the west coast of the United States,there are 15 ESUs of chinook salmonwhich constitute ‘‘species’’ under theESA, including 12 newly identifiedESUs. After evaluating the status ofthese 12 ESUs, NMFS has determinedthat two ESUs (Central Valley spring-run and the Upper Columbia Riverspring-run ESUs) are in danger ofextinction throughout all or a significantportion of their ranges. NMFS has alsodetermined that five ESUs (CentralValley fall/late fall-run, SouthernOregon and California Coastal, PugetSound, Lower Columbia River, UpperWillamette River ESUs) are likely to


become an endangered species withinthe foreseeable future throughout all ora significant portion of their range.NMFS proposes to list these ESUs assuch at this time.

The listed Snake River fall-runchinook salmon ESU is proposed to beredefined to include additional fall-runchinook populations from the DeschutesRiver. NMFS has determined thisredefined ESU is likely to become anendangered species within theforeseeable future throughout all or asignificant portion of its range. Thisproposed reclassification of the SnakeRiver fall-run chinook salmon ESU doesnot affect the threatened status of thecurrently defined ESU (see 63 FR 1807,January 12, 1998).

NMFS has also renamed one ESUwhich was previously reviewed forlisting. The Middle Columbia summerand fall-run ESU is renamed the UpperColumbia River summer and fall-runESU to reflect the inclusion of the fall-run chinook salmon populations fromthe Columbia River above The DallesDam in the newly configured SnakeRiver fall-run ESU. The geographicboundaries for these ESUs (i.e., thewatersheds within which the membersof the ESU spend their freshwaterresidence) are described under ‘‘ESUDeterminations.’’

NMFS also proposes to designatecritical habitat for each of the proposedchinook salmon ESUs, as described inthe following section entitled CriticalHabitat for Pacific Coast ChinookSalmon. Proposed critical habitat foreach chinook salmon ESU proposed forlisting has been characterized in thatsection, as well as in tables attached tothis notice. Existing critical habitat forSnake River fall-run chinook salmon isproposed to be revised to include thegeographic areas of the redefined SnakeRiver fall-run ESU.

Only naturally spawned chinooksalmon are being proposed for listing asthreatened or endangered species ineach of the 8 ESUs. Prior to the finallisting determination, NMFS willexamine the relationship betweenhatchery and natural chinook salmonpopulations in these ESUs, and assesswhether any hatchery populations areessential for their recovery. This mayresult in the inclusion of specifichatchery populations as part of a listedESU in NMFS’ final determination.

Conservation MeasuresConservation measures that may

apply to listed species as endangered orthreatened under the ESA includeconservation measures by tribes, states,local governments, and privateorganizations, Federal, tribal, and state

recovery actions, Federal agencyconsultation requirements, prohibitionson taking, and recognition. Recognitionthrough listing promotes publicawareness and conservation actions byFederal, state, tribal, and local agencies,private organizations, and individuals.

Based on information presented inthis proposed rule, general protectivemeasures that could be implemented tohelp conserve the species are listedbelow. This list does not constituteNMFS’ interpretation of a recovery planunder section 4(f) of the ESA.

1. Measures could be taken topromote land management practicesthat protect and restore chinook salmonhabitat. Land management practicesaffecting chinook salmon habitatinclude timber harvest, road building,agriculture, livestock grazing, and urbandevelopment.

2. Evaluation of existing harvestregulations could identify any changesnecessary to protect chinook salmonpopulations.

3. Artificial propagation programscould be required to incorporatepractices that minimize adverse impactsupon native populations of chinooksalmon.

4. Efforts could be made to ensure thatexisting and proposed dam facilities aredesigned and operated in a manner thatwill not adversely affect chinook salmonpopulations. For example, NMFS couldrequire that fish passage facilities atdams effectively pass migrating juvenileand adult chinook salmon.

5. Water diversions could haveadequate headgate and staff gaugestructures installed to control andmonitor water usage accurately. Waterrights could be enforced to preventirrigators from exceeding the amount ofwater to which they are legally entitled.

6. Irrigation diversions affectingdownstream migrating chinook salmoncould be screened. A thorough review ofthe impact of irrigation diversions onchinook salmon could be conducted.

NMFS recognizes that, to besuccessful, protective regulations andrecovery programs for chinook salmonwill need to be developed in the contextof conserving aquatic ecosystem health.NMFS believes in some cases, Federallands and Federal activities may bear apreponderance of the burden inpreserving proposed populations andthe ecosystems upon which theydepend. However, throughout the rangeof the eight ESUs proposed for listing,chinook salmon habitat occurs and isaffected by activities on state, tribal orprivate land. Agricultural, timber, andurban management activities onnonfederal land could and should beconducted in a manner that avoids

adverse effects to chinook salmonhabitat.

NMFS encourages nonfederallandowners to assess the impacts oftheir actions on potentially threatenedor endangered salmonids. In particular,NMFS encourages the formulation ofwatershed partnerships to promoteconservation in accordance withecosystem principles. Thesepartnerships will be successful only ifstate, tribal, and local governments,landowner representatives,conservationists, and Federal andnonfederal biologists all participate andshare the goal of restoring chinooksalmon to the watersheds.

Several conservation efforts areunderway that may reverse the declineof west coast chinook salmon and othersalmonids. These include the NorthwestForest Plan (on Federal lands within therange of the northern spotted owl),PACFISH (on all additional Federallands with anadromous salmonidpopulations), Oregon’s Plan for Salmonand Watersheds focussing on cohosalmon and steelhead, Washington’sWild Stock Restoration Initiative, theCentral Valley Project Improvement Actand the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (ajoint effort by California and severalFederal agencies to restore theSacramento and San Joaquin Riverestuary), Wy-Kam-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit(The Spirit of the Salmon): TheColumbia River Anadromous FishRestoration Plan from the four NativeAmerican treaty tribes that configure theColumbia River Inter-tribal FishCommission (CRITFC) (CRITFC, 1996),and NMFS’’ Proposed Recovery Plan forSnake River Salmon, and a DraftRecovery Plan for Sacramento winter-run Chinook Salmon.

State of California ConservationMeasures

As discussed in the section entitledEfforts Being Made to Protect WestCoast Chinook Salmon above, theCALFED Bay-Delta program isdeveloping a comprehensive long-termrestoration plan and implementationstrategy that is intended to restore theecosystem health and improve watermanagement for the beneficial uses ofthe Bay-Delta ecosystem. This planningeffort is focused on addressing fourcritical resource areas: ecosystemquality, water quality, system integrity,and water supply reliability. Inaddition, substantial planning has beendirected at developing alternatives forwater conveyance and storage that areconsistent with the objectives of thelong-term plan. A draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement/EnvironmentalImpact Report (DEIS/EIR) is under


development by the CALFED Bay-DeltaProgram that will assess the impacts ofthe entire CALFED Bay-Delta long-termplan and provide additional publicopportunity for comment. The DEIS/EIRis expected to be released during thespring of 1998.

A major component of the long-termCALFED Bay-Delta Program is theEcosystem Restoration Program Plan(ERPP) which is being developed toaddress the ecosystem quality elementof the long-term plan. The draft ERPP iscomprised of three components. Thefirst component, Visions for EcosystemElements (CALFED Bay-Delta Program,ERPP Volume I, June 1997), presents thevisions for ecological processes andfunctions, fish and wildlife habitats, andstressors that impair the health of theprocesses, habitats, and species. Thesecond component, Visions forEcological Zones (CALFED Bay-DeltaProgram, ERPP Volume II, July 1997),presents the visions for the 14 ecologicalzones and their respective ecologicalunits throughout the Sacramento-SanJoaquin River basins and Delta andcontains implementation objectives,targets, and programmatic actions. Thethird component, Vision for AdaptiveManagement (CALFED Bay-DeltaProgram, ERPP Volume III, August1997) provides the ERPP approach toadaptive management and contains theproposed plans to address indicators ofecological health, a monitoring programto acquire and evaluate the data neededregarding indicators, a program offocused research to acquire additionaldata needed to evaluate programalternatives and options, and theapproach to phasing the implementationof the ERPP over its 25 year time span.

The draft ERPP addresses theSacramento and San Joaquin Rivers,their upper watersheds, and the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Within this largegeographic area, the ERPP identifies 14ecological zones where the majority ofrestoration actions will occur.Ecosystem functions that are importantto anadromous salmonids and that areaddressed in the ERPP include: thequantity and quality of Central Valleystreamflow and temperatures, naturalsediment supply, stream meandercorridor, natural floodplain, flood andwatershed processes, Bay-Deltahydraulics and aquatic food chain, tidaland nontidal perennial aquatic habitat,sloughs, quantity and quality ofestuarine, wetland, riverine, andriparian habitats. Environmentalstressors, or risk factors, that areidentified and addressed in the ERPPinclude: water diversions, quality andquantity of water, habitat blockages dueto dams and other manmade structures,

dredging and sediment disposal, gravelmining, encroachment of nonendemicspecies, predation and competition,contaminants, legal and illegal harvest,artificial fish propagation, and landdisturbance.

The total cost for implementing theERPP has been estimated at $1.5 billion,of which about half should be availablethrough state Proposition 204 bonds andexpected federal appropriations. Thesefunds will be used to provide the initialinfusion of funding to move theimplementation of the ERPP forward.The ERPP implementation assumes thatthe $390 million identified inProposition 204 will become availablefor expenditure after the CALFED Bay-Delta Program long-term restorationplan is formally adopted by the CALFEDagencies through filing of a Record ofDecision for the Federal EIS andcertification of the EIR by the CaliforniaResources Agency by late 1998. TheERPP assumes that these funds will beencumbered and expended during the25 year period of implementation whichprovides for a pro-rated availability of$15 million per year. Category IIIfunding is assumed to complete theexpenditure of $180 million during thefirst five years on actions identified forearly implementation. Other sources offunding are expected to be availablethrough Federal appropriations andthrough the CVPIA.

NMFS intends to continue workingclosely with the State of Californiathrough the CALFED Bay-Delta Programin their efforts to formulate a long-termrestoration plan and an associatedimplementation strategy for the Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration. Thishabitat-focused conservation effort, ifcombined with State efforts addressinghatchery and harvest reform (i.e.,reductions in hatchery production,increased marking of hatchery fish,changes in release practices to reducestraying, improved monitoring ofescapement and stray rates, andreductions in ocean and freshwaterharvest rates) could ameliorate the risksfacing fall/late-fall chinook salmonstocks in the Central Valley. The degreeto which these conservation effortsprovide reliable, measurable andpredictable reductions in the identifiedfactors for decline, may provide NMFSwith direct and substantial informationpertinent to making final listingdeterminations for Central Valleychinook stocks.

In the San Joaquin River Basin,collaboration between water interestsand State/Federal resources agencieshas led to a scientifically-based adaptivefisheries management plan known asthe Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan

(VAMP). The VAMP proposes to usecurrent knowledge to provide interimprotections for San Joaquin fall-runchinook salmon smolts; to gatherscientific information on the effects ofvarious San Joaquin River flows andDelta water export rates on the survivalof salmon smolts through the Delta; andto provide environmental benefits in theSan Joaquin River tributaries, lower SanJoaquin River, and Delta. This 12-yearplan will be implemented throughexperimental flows in the San JoaquinBasin and operational changes at theDelta pumping plants during the peaksalmon smolt outmigration period,approximately April 15 to May 15.Additional attraction flows for adultfall-run chinook upstream passage aretargeted for October. In coordinationwith VAMP, the California Departmentof Water Resources will be installingand operating a barrier at the Head ofOld River to improve the survival ofjuvenile chinook emigrating from thelower San Joaquin River. Althoughinitial implementation of the VAMP isscheduled for spring 1998, negotiationsregarding some aspects of the programcontinue. Although the VAMP doesaddress flow conditions in the lowerSan Joaquin River during the springsmolt outmigration period, water qualityconcerns in the San Joaquin Basin stillremain. NMFS expects that additionalinformation regarding the long-termcommitment of all participating partiesto fully implement the plan will beavailable to prior to the final listingdetermination for Central Valley fall/late-fall chinook salmon.

State of California ConservationMeasures for Coastal Chinook

In 1997, the California Statelegislature introduced and passedSenate Bill (SB) 271 which initiated anorth coast salmonid habitat restorationprogram in California. This program isexpected to provide significant benefitsfor coastal chinook salmon populations,in addition to other coastal salmonidsbeginning this year. SB 271 specificallycreated the Salmon and Steelhead TroutRestoration Account, and directed theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) to expend these funds on a widerange of watershed planning, on-the-ground habitat restoration projects, andother restoration-related efforts for thepurpose of restoring anadromoussalmonid populations in California’scoastal watersheds, primarily north ofSan Francisco. SB 271 immediatelytransferred $3 million to the Account forCDFG to expend on the program in 1997and 1998, and directed that $8 millionbe transferred to the Account annuallyfor five years (beginning in fiscal year


1998–99 and continuing through fiscalyear 2002–03) to continue funding thisprogram. In total, SB 271 will provide$43 million in funding for north coastrestoration projects over this six yearperiod.

SB 271 requires that nearly 90 percentof the $43 million in funding be spenton project grants issued through CDFG’sexisting Fishery Restoration GrantsProgram, and allows CDFG to use theremaining funds for project contractadministration activities and biologicalsupport staff necessary to achieve therestoration objectives of the legislation.SB 271 specifies that: (1) fundedprojects emphasize the development ofcoordinated watershed improvementactivities, (2) the highest priority begiven to funding projects that restorehabitat for salmon and/or steelhead thatare eligible for protection as listed orcandidate species under the State orFederal ESA, and (3) funded projectstreat causes of fish habitat degradationand be designed to restore the structureand function of fish habitat. In addition,SB 271 specifically allocates: (1) at least65 percent of all Account funding forsalmonid habitat protection andrestoration projects, with at least 75percent of that funding used for upslopewatershed and riparian area protectionand restoration activities, and (2) up to35 percent of the Account funding forprojects such as watershed evaluation,assessment, and planning, projectmonitoring and evaluations, support towatershed organizations, projectmaintenance and monitoring, privatesector training, and watershed/fisheryeducation.

In July 1997, California’s Governoralso signed Executive Order W–159–97that created a Watershed Restorationand Protection Council (WPRC) that wascharged with: (1) providing oversight ofState activities aimed at watershedprotection and enhancement includingthe conservation and restoration ofanadromous salmonids in California,and (2) directing the development of aWatershed Protection Program whichprovides for anadromous salmonidconservation. In furtherance ofimplementing the Governor’s ExecutiveOrder and the development of aWatershed Protection Program foranadromous salmonids, CDFGestablished and began implementing itsown Watershed Initiative in 1997 and1998. As described above, CDFGreceived $3 million in funding from SB271 in 1997–98 which was used to fundits Watershed Initiative for coastalanadromous salmonids. These funds arecurrently in the process of beingdispersed, together with a relativelylimited amount of funds from other

sources (e.g. Proposition 70, Proposition99, Commercial Salmon Stamp Account,Steelhead Catch-Restoration Card, andWildlife Conservation Board), in theform of grants through CDFG’s FisheryRestoration Grants Program.

CDFG expects to allocate these grantfunds as follows: (1) at least $1.3 millionfor watershed and riparian habitatrestoration, (2) up to $425,000 forinstream habitat restoration, and (3) upto $900,000 for watershed evaluation,assessment, planning, restorationproject maintenance and monitoring,and a wide range of other activities.Other State agencies that haveresponsibilities as a result of theGovernor’s Executive Order aremodifying existing budgets andpreparing budget proposals for theupcoming fiscal year (1998–99) to assistin implementing the State’s coastalwatershed initiative. For fiscal year1998–99, CDFG has submitted a BudgetChange Proposal for its WatershedInitiative which calls for theexpenditure of $8.0 million in SB 271funds for: (1) eight new positions toassist in watershed planning efforts andgrant proposal development ($1.0million), and (2) habitat restoration andwatershed planning projects in the formof grants ($7.0 million). CDFGanticipates that SB 271 funding will beexpended in a similar manner and levelthrough fiscal year 2002–03 to supportthe new staff resources created in thecurrent year. The funding of thesecurrent and near term watershedplanning and habitat restoration effortsis expected to provide significantbenefits to chinook salmon stocks inCalifornia’s coastal watersheds and inthe Klamath/Trinity Basin. Over thenext year, NMFS expects to work withthe State in the development of itsWatershed Protection Program and theimplementation of its WatershedInitiative. NMFS is encouraged by theirefforts and will consider them in itsfinal listing determination for theSouthern Oregon and California CoastalESU.

State of Washington ConservationMeasures

The State of Washington is currentlyin the process of developing a statewidestrategy to protect and restore wildsteelhead and other salmon and troutspecies. In May of 1997, Governor GaryLocke and other State officials signed aMemorandum of Agreement creating theJoint Natural Resources Cabinet (JointCabinet). This body is comprised ofState agency directors or theirequivalents from a wide variety ofagencies whose activities andconstituents influence Washington’s

natural resources. The goal of the JointCabinet is to restore healthy salmon,steelhead and trout populations byimproving those habitats on which thefish rely. The Joint Cabinet’s currentactivities include development of theLower Columbia SteelheadConservation Initiative (LCSCI), whichis intended to comprehensively addressprotection and recovery of steelhead inthe lower Columbia River area.

The scope of the LCSCI includesWashington’s steelhead stocks in twotransboundary ESUs that are shared byboth Washington and Oregon. Theinitiative area includes all ofWashington’s stocks in the LowerColumbia River ESU (Cowlitz to Windrivers) and the portion of the SouthwestWashington ESU in the Columbia River(Grays River to Germany Creek). Whencompleted, conservation and restorationefforts in the LCSCI area will form acomprehensive, coordinated, and timelyprotection and rebuilding framework.Benefits to steelhead and other fishspecies in the LCSCI area will alsoaccrue due to the growing bi-statepartnership with Oregon.

Advance work on the Initiative wasperformed by the WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). That work emphasized harvestand hatchery issues and relatedconservation measures. Consistent withcreation of the Joint Cabinet,conservation planning has recently beenexpanded to include major involvementby other state agencies and stakeholders,and to address habitat and tributarydam/hydropower components.

The utility of the LCSCI is to providea framework to describe concepts,strategies, opportunities, andcommitments that will be criticallyneeded to maintain the diversity andlong term productivity of steelhead inthe lower Columbia River for futuregenerations. The initiative does notrepresent a formal watershed planningprocess; rather, it is intended to becomplementary to such processes asthey may occur in the future. The LCSCIdetails a range of concerns includingnatural production and geneticconservation, recreational harvest andopportunity, hatchery strategies, habitatprotection and restoration goals,monitoring of stock status and habitathealth, evaluation of the effectiveness ofspecific conservation actions, and anadaptive management structure toimplement and modify the plan’strajectory as time progresses. It alsoaddresses improved enforcement ofhabitat and fishery regulations, andstrategies for outreach and education.

The LCSCI is currently a ‘‘work-in-progress’’ and will evolve and change


over time as new information becomesavailable. Input will be obtainedthrough continuing outreach efforts bylocal governments and stakeholders.Further refinements to strategies,actions, and commitments will occurusing public and stakeholder reviewand input, and continued interactionwith the State of Oregon, tribes, andother government entities, includingNMFS. The LCSCI will be subjected toindependent technical review. In sum,these input and coordination processeswill play a key role in determining theextent to which the eventualconservation package will benefit wildsteelhead.

NMFS intends to continue workingwith the State of Washington andstakeholders involved in theformulation of the LCSCI. Ultimately,when completed, this conservationeffort may ameliorate risks facing manysalmonid species in this region. In thenear term, for steelhead and other listedspecies, individual components of theconservation effort may be utilized inpromulgating protective regulationsunder section 4(d) of the ESA.

State of Oregon Conservation MeasuresAs discussed in the section entitled

Efforts Being Made to Protect WestCoast Chinook Salmon, the Governor ofOregon completed and submitted toNMFS a comprehensive conservationplan directed specifically at cohosalmon and steelhead stocks on theCoast of Oregon. The OPSW containsconservation elements that may apply tothe needs of chinook salmon in Oregonstreams.

The elements of the OPSW mostlikely to benefit chinook salmonconservation include: (1) a frameworkfor prioritizing conservation andrestoration efforts; (2) a comprehensivemonitoring plan that coordinatesFederal, state, and local efforts toimprove current knowledge offreshwater and marine conditions,determine populations trends, evaluatethe effects of artificial propagation, andevaluate the OPSW’s success or failurein restoring chinook salmon; (3) arecognition that actions to conserve andrestore salmon must be worked out bycommunities and landowners—thosewho possess local knowledge ofproblems and who have a genuine stakein the outcome. Watershed councils,soil and water conservation districts,and other grassroots efforts are thevehicles for getting this work done; (4)an explicit mechanism for learning fromexperience, evaluating alternativeapproaches, and making neededchanges in the programs and measures;(5) the IMST whose purpose is to

provide an independent audit of theOPSW’s strengths and weaknesses; and(6) a yearly report be made to theGovernor, the legislature, and thepublic. This will help the agencies makethe adjustments prescribed for theadaptive management process.

Native American Tribal ConservationEfforts

A comprehensive salmon restorationplan for Columbia Basin salmon wasprepared by the Nez Perce, WarmSprings, Umatilla and Yakama IndianNations. This plan, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (The Spirit of theSalmon)(CRITFC, 1996) is morecomprehensive than past draft recoveryplans for Columbia River basin salmonin that it proposes actions to protectsalmon not currently listed under theESA. The tribal plan sets goals andobjectives to meet the restoration needsof the fish, as well as some of themultiple needs of these sovereignnations. The plan also provides someguidance for management of tribal landswithin the range of anadromous salmon.NMFS will work closely with the fourtribes as conservation measures relatedto at-risk Columbia Basin salmonids arefurther developed and implemented.

NMFS is encouraged by these effortsand believes they may constitutesignificant strides in regional efforts todevelop a scientifically well groundedconservation plan for these stocks, andfor chinook salmon. NMFS intends tosupport and work closely with theseefforts. The degree to which theseconservation efforts are able to providereliable, scientifically well groundedimprovements through a variety ofmeasures to provide for theconservation of these stocks may have adirect and substantial effect on any finallisting determination of NMFS.

Prohibitions and Protective MeasuresSection 4(d) of the ESA requires

NMFS to issue regulations it findsnecessary and advisable to provide forthe conservation of a listed species.Section 9 of the ESA prohibitsviolations of protective regulations forthreatened species promulgated undersection 4(d). The 4(d) protectiveregulations may prohibit, with respectto threatened species, some or all of theacts which section 9(a) of the ESAprohibits with respect to endangeredspecies. These 9(a) prohibitions and 4(d)regulations apply to all individuals,organizations, and agencies subject toU.S. jurisdiction. NMFS intends to havefinal 4(d) protective regulations in effectat the time of final listingdeterminations for eight proposed westcoast chinook salmon ESUs. The

process for completing the 4(d) rule willprovide the opportunity for publiccomment on the proposed protectiveregulations.

In the case of threatened species,NMFS also has flexibility under section4(d) to tailor protective regulationsbased on the contents of availableconservation measures. Even though, inseveral ESUs, existing conservationefforts and plans are not sufficient topreclude the need for listings at thistime, they are nevertheless valuable forimproving watershed health andrestoring fishery resources. In thosecases where well-developed, reliableconservation plans exist, NMFS maychoose to incorporate them into therecovery planning process, starting withthe protective regulations. NMFS hasalready adopted 4(d) rules that exempta limited range of activities from takeprohibitions. For example, the interim4(d) rule for the Southern Oregon/Northern California coho (62 FR 24588,May 7, 1997) exempts habitatrestoration activities conducted inaccordance with approved plans andfisheries conducted in accordance withan approved state management plan. Inthe future, 4(d) rules may containlimited take prohibitions applicable toactivities such as forestry, agriculture,and road construction when suchactivities are conducted in accordancewith approved conservation plans.

These are all examples where NMFSmay apply take prohibitions in light ofthe protections provided in a strongconservation program. There may beother circumstances as well in whichNMFS would use the flexibility ofsection 4(d). For example, in some casesthere may be a healthy population ofsalmon or steelhead within an overallESU that is listed. In such a case, it maynot be necessary to apply the full rangeof prohibitions available in section 9.NMFS intends to use the flexibility ofthe ESA to respond appropriately to thebiological condition of each ESU and tothe strength of programs to protectthem.

Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requiresthat Federal agencies confer with NMFSon any actions likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of a speciesproposed for listing and on actionslikely to result in the destruction oradverse modification of proposedcritical habitat. For listed species,section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agenciesto ensure that activities they authorize,fund, or conduct are not likely tojeopardize the continued existence of alisted species or to destroy or adverselymodify its critical habitat. If a Federalaction may affect a listed species or itscritical habitat, the responsible Federal


agency must enter into consultationwith NMFS.

Examples of Federal actions likely toaffect chinook salmon includeauthorized land management activitiesof the USFS and BLM, as well asoperation of hydroelectric and storageprojects of the BOR and COE. Suchactivities include timber sales andharvest, permitting livestock grazing,hydroelectric power generation, andflood control. Federal actions, includingthe COE section 404 permittingactivities under the CWA, COEpermitting activities under the Riverand Harbors Act, FERC licenses for non-Federal development and operation ofhydropower, and Federal salmonhatcheries, may also requireconsultation.

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) ofthe ESA provide NMFS with authorityto grant exceptions to the ESA’s‘‘taking’’ prohibitions. Section10(a)(1)(A) scientific research andenhancement permits may be issued toentities (Federal and non-Federal)conducting research that involves adirected take of listed species. Adirected take refers to the intentionaltake of listed species. NMFS has issuedsection 10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permits for currentlylisted chinook salmon (e.g., Snake Riverchinook salmon and Sacramento Riverwinter-run chinook salmon) for anumber of activities, including trappingand tagging, electroshocking todetermine population presence andabundance, removal of fish fromirrigation ditches, and collection ofadult fish for artificial propagationprograms.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental takepermits may be issued to non-Federalentities performing activities which mayincidentally take listed species. Thetypes of activities potentially requiringa section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental takepermit include the operation and releaseof artificially propagated fish by state orprivately operated and fundedhatcheries, state or academic researchnot receiving Federal authorization orfunding, the implementation of statefishing regulations, logging, roadbuilding, grazing, and diverting waterinto private lands.

NMFS Policies on Endangered andThreatened Fish and Wildlife

On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly withthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,published a series of policies regardinglistings under the ESA, including apolicy for peer review of scientific data(59 FR 34270) and a policy to identify,to the maximum extent possible, thoseactivities that would or would not

constitute a violation of section 9 of theESA (59 FR 34272).

Role of Peer ReviewThe intent of the peer review policy

is to ensure that listings are based on thebest scientific and commercial dataavailable. Prior to a final listing, NMFSwill solicit the expert opinions of atleast three qualified specialists,concurrent with the public commentperiod. Independent peer reviewers willbe selected from the academic andscientific community, Native Americantribal groups, Federal and state agencies,and the private sector.

Identification of Those Activities ThatWould Constitute a Violation of Section9 of the ESA

NMFS and the FWS published in theFederal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR34272), a policy that NMFS shallidentify, to the maximum extentpracticable at the time a species islisted, those activities that would orwould not constitute a violation ofsection 9 of the ESA. The intent of thispolicy is to increase public awareness ofthe effect of this listing on proposed andongoing activities within the species’range. At the time of the final rule,NMFS will identify to the extent knownspecific activities that will not beconsidered likely to result in violationof section 9, as well as activities thatwill be considered likely to result inviolation. NMFS believes that, based onthe best available information, thefollowing actions will not result in aviolation of section 9:

1. Possession of chinook salmon fromany chinook salmon ESU listed asthreatened which are acquired lawfullyby permit issued by NMFS pursuant tosection 10 of the ESA, or by the termsof an incidental take statement pursuantto section 7 of the ESA.

2. Federally funded or approvedprojects that involve activities such assilviculture, grazing, mining, roadconstruction, dam construction andoperation, discharge of fill material,stream channelization or diversion forwhich section 7 consultation has beencompleted, and when activities areconducted in accordance with any termsand conditions provided by NMFS in anincidental take statement accompanyinga biological opinion.

Activities that NMFS believes couldpotentially harm chinook salmon in anyof the proposed ESUs, and result in aviolation of the section 9 takeprohibition include, but are not limitedto:

1. Land-use activities that adverselyaffect chinook salmon habitat in anyproposed ESU (e.g., logging, grazing,

farming, urban development, roadconstruction in riparian areas and areassusceptible to mass wasting and surfaceerosion).

2. Destruction/alteration of thechinook salmon habitat in any proposedESU, such as removal of large woodydebris and ‘‘sinker logs’’ or riparianshade canopy, dredging, discharge of fillmaterial, draining, ditching, diverting,blocking, or altering stream channels orsurface or ground water flow.

3. Discharges or dumping of toxicchemicals or other pollutants (e.g.,sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters orriparian areas supporting the chinooksalmon in any proposed ESU.

4. Violation of discharge permits.5. Pesticide applications.6. Interstate and foreign commerce of

chinook salmon from any of theproposed ESUs and import/export ofchinook salmon from any ESU withouta threatened or endangered speciespermit.

7. Collecting or handling of chinooksalmon from any of the proposed ESUs.Permits to conduct these activities areavailable for purposes of scientificresearch or to enhance the propagationor survival of the species.

8. Introduction of non-native specieslikely to prey on chinook salmon in anyproposed ESU or displace them fromtheir habitat.

These lists are not exhaustive. Theyare intended to provide some examplesof the types of activities that might ormight not be considered by NMFS asconstituting a take of chinook salmon inany of the proposed ESUs under theESA and its regulations. Questionsregarding whether specific activitieswill constitute a violation of the section9 take prohibition, and general inquiriesregarding prohibitions and permits,should be directed to NMFS (seeADDRESSES).

Critical HabitatSection 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires

that, to the maximum extent prudentand determinable, NMFS designatecritical habitat concurrently with adetermination that a species isendangered or threatened. NMFS hasdetermined that sufficient informationexists to propose designating criticalhabitat for the seven proposed chinooksalmon ESUs. NMFS will consider allavailable information and data infinalizing this proposal.

Use of the term ‘‘essential habitat’’within this Notice refers to criticalhabitat as defined by the ESA andshould not be confused with therequirement to describe and identifyEssential Fish Habitat (EFH) pursuant tothe Magnuson-Stevens Fishery


Conservation and Management Act, 16U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Definition of Critical HabitatCritical habitat is defined in section

3(5)(A) of the ESA as ‘‘(i) the specificareas within the geographical areaoccupied by the species * * * on whichare found those physical or biologicalfeatures (I) essential to the conservationof the species and (II) which mayrequire special managementconsiderations or protection; and (ii)specific areas outside the geographicalarea occupied by the species * * *upon a determination by the Secretaryof Commerce (Secretary) that such areasare essential for the conservation of thespecies.’’ (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). Theterm ‘‘conservation,’’ as defined insection 3(3) of the ESA, means ‘‘ * * *to use and the use of all methods andprocedures which are necessary to bringany endangered species or threatenedspecies to the point at which themeasures provided pursuant to this Actare no longer necessary.’’ (see 16 U.S.C.1532(3)).

In proposing to designate criticalhabitat, NMFS considers the followingrequirements of the species: (1) Spacefor individual and population growth,and for normal behavior; (2) food, water,air, light, minerals, or other nutritionalor physiological requirements; (3) coveror shelter; (4) sites for breeding,reproduction, or rearing of offspring;and, generally, (5) habitats that areprotected from disturbance or arerepresentative of the historicgeographical and ecologicaldistributions of this species (see 50 CFR424.12(b)). In addition to these factors,NMFS also focuses on the knownphysical and biological features(primary constituent elements) withinthe designated area that are essential tothe conservation of the species and mayrequire special managementconsiderations or protection. Theseessential features may include, but arenot limited to, spawning sites, foodresources, water quality and quantity,and riparian vegetation (see 50 CFR424.12(b)).

Consideration of Economic and OtherFactors

The economic and other impacts of acritical habitat designation will beconsidered and evaluated in thisproposed rulemaking. NMFS willidentify present and anticipatedactivities that may adversely modify thearea(s) being considered or be affectedby a designation. An area may beexcluded from a critical habitatdesignation if NMFS determines that theoverall benefits of exclusion outweigh

the benefits of designation, unless theexclusion will result in the extinction ofthe species (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).

The impacts considered in thisanalysis are only those incrementalimpacts specifically resulting from acritical habitat designation, above theeconomic and other impacts attributableto listing the species or resulting fromother laws and regulations. Since listinga species under the ESA providessignificant protection to a species’habitat, the economic and other impactsresulting from the critical habitatdesignation, over and above the impactsof the listing itself, are minimal. Ingeneral, the designation of criticalhabitat highlights geographical areas ofconcern and reinforces the substantiveprotection resulting from the listingitself.

Impacts attributable to listing includethose resulting from the ‘‘take’’prohibitions contained in section 9 ofthe ESA and associated regulations.‘‘Take,’’ as defined in the ESA, means toharass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, orto attempt to engage in any suchconduct (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harmcan occur through destruction ormodification of habitat (whether or notdesignated as critical) that significantlyimpairs essential behaviors, includingbreeding, feeding, rearing, or migration.

Significance of Designating CriticalHabitat

The designation of critical habitatdoes not, in and of itself, restrict humanactivities within an area or mandate anyspecific management or recoveryactions. A critical habitat designationcontributes to species conservationprimarily by identifying important areasand by describing the features withinthose areas that are essential to thespecies, thus alerting public and privateentities to the area’s importance. Underthe ESA, the only regulatory impact ofa critical habitat designation is throughthe provisions of section 7. Section 7applies only to actions with Federalinvolvement (e.g., authorized, funded,or conducted by a Federal agency) anddoes not affect exclusively state orprivate activities.

Under the section 7 provisions, adesignation of critical habitat wouldrequire Federal agencies to ensure thatany action they authorize, fund, or carryout is not likely to destroy or adverselymodify designated critical habitat.Activities that destroy or adverselymodify critical habitat are defined asthose actions that ‘‘appreciablydiminish the value of critical habitat forboth the survival and recovery’’ of thespecies (see 50 CFR 402.02). Regardless

of a critical habitat designation, Federalagencies must ensure that their actionsare not likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of the proposedspecies. Activities that jeopardize aspecies are defined as those actions that‘‘reasonably would be expected, directlyor indirectly, to reduce appreciably thelikelihood of both the survival andrecovery’’ of the species (see 50 CFR402.02). Using these definitions,activities that would destroy oradversely modify critical habitat wouldalso be likely to jeopardize the species.Therefore, the protection provided by acritical habitat designation generallyduplicates the protection providedunder the section 7 jeopardy provision.Critical habitat may provide additionalbenefits to a species in cases whereareas outside the species’ current rangehave been designated. When actionsmay affect these areas, Federal agenciesare required to consult with NMFSunder section 7 (see 50 CFR 402.14(a)),a requirement which may not have beenrecognized but for the critical habitatdesignation.

A designation of critical habitatprovides a clear indication to Federalagencies as to when section 7consultation is required, particularly incases where the action would not resultin immediate mortality, injury, or harmto individuals of a listed species (e.g., anaction occurring within the critical areawhen a migratory species is notpresent). The critical habitatdesignation, describing the essentialfeatures of the habitat, also assists indetermining which activities conductedoutside the designated area are subjectto section 7 (i.e., activities that mayaffect essential features of thedesignated area).

A critical habitat designation will alsoassist Federal agencies in planningfuture actions, since the designationestablishes, in advance, those habitatsthat will be given special considerationin section 7 consultations. With adesignation of critical habitat, potentialconflicts between Federal actions andendangered or threatened species can beidentified and possibly avoided early inthe agency’s planning process.

Another indirect benefit of a criticalhabitat designation is that it helps focusFederal, state, and private conservationand management efforts in such areas.Management efforts may address specialconsiderations needed in critical habitatareas, including conservationregulations to restrict private as well asFederal activities. The economic andother impacts of these actions would beconsidered at the time of those proposedregulations and, therefore, are notconsidered in the critical habitat


designation process. Other Federal,state, tribal and local managementprograms, such as zoning or wetlandsand riparian lands protection, may alsoprovide special protection for criticalhabitat areas.

Process for Designating Critical HabitatDeveloping a proposed critical habitat

designation involves three mainconsiderations. First, the biologicalneeds of the species are evaluated andhabitat areas and features that areessential to the conservation of thespecies are identified. If alternativeareas exist that would provide for theconservation of the species, suchalternatives are also identified. Second,the need for special managementconsiderations or protection of thearea(s) or features is evaluated. Finally,the probable economic and otherimpacts of designating these essentialareas as ‘‘critical habitat’’ are evaluated.After considering the requirements ofthe species, the need for specialmanagement, and the impacts of thedesignation, the proposed criticalhabitat is published in the FederalRegister for comment. The final criticalhabitat designation, consideringcomments on the proposal and impactsassessment, is typically publishedwithin one year of the proposed rule.Final critical habitat designations maybe revised, using the same process, asnew information becomes available.

A description of the critical habitat,need for special management, impactsof designating critical habitat, and theproposed action are described in thefollowing sections.

Critical Habitat of Pacific CoastChinook Salmon

Biological information for proposedchinook salmon can be found in NMFSspecies’ status reviews (Myers et al.,1998; Waknitz et al., 1995; Waples et al.,1991); species life history summaries(Ricker, 1972; Taylor, 1991; Healey,1991; Burgner, 1991); and in FederalRegister notices of proposed and finallisting determinations (55 FR 102260,March 20, 1990; 56 FR 29542 and29544, June 27, 1991; 57 FR 36626,August 14, 1992; 57 FR 57051,December 2, 1992; 59 FR 42529, August18, 1994; 59 FR 48855, September 23,1994; 59 FR 66784, December 28, 1994;63 FR 1807, January 12, 1998).

The current geographic range ofchinook salmon from California,Oregon, Washington, and Idahoincludes vast areas of the North PacificOcean, nearshore marine zone, andextensive estuarine and riverine areas.The marine distribution for stream-typechinook salmon includes extensive

areas far from the coast in the centralNorth Pacific. Ocean-type chinooksalmon typically migrate along coastalwaters. Coastal chinook populationsoriginating from south of Cape Blancotend to migrate south, while thosechinook salmon populations originatingin coastal streams north of Cape Blancotend to migrate northerly (Bakun 1973,1975; Nicholas and Hankin, 1988;Healey 1983 and 1991; Myers et al.,1984).

In California, major estuaries and baysknown to support Central Valleychinook salmon include San FranciscoBay, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay.Within the Central Valley spring-runchinook salmon ESU, major rivers andestuaries known to support chinooksalmon include the Sacramento River,American River, Feather River, YubaRiver, and Deer, Mill, Butte, Clear andAntelope Creeks. Within California’sCentral Valley fall/late fall-run chinooksalmon ESU, major rivers and estuariesknown to support chinook salmoninclude the Sacramento River; itstributaries including but not limited tothe American River, Feather River, YubaRiver, and Deer, Mill, Battle and ClearCreeks; as well as the San Joaquin Riverand its tributaries, including but notlimited to the Mokelumne, Consumnes,Stanislaus, Tuolumne and MercedRivers. Within the California portion ofthe Southern Oregon and CaliforniaCoastal chinook salmon ESU, majorrivers, estuaries, and bays known tosupport chinook salmon include theSmith River, lower Klamath River, MadRiver, Redwood Creek, Humboldt Bay,Eel River, Mattole River, and theRussian River. Many smaller streams inthe California portion of this ESU alsocontain chinook salmon.

In Oregon, major rivers, estuaries, andbays known to support chinook salmonwithin the Oregon portion of theSouthern Oregon and California Coastalchinook salmon ESU include the RogueRiver and several of its tributaries, andthe Pistol, Chetco and Winchuck Rivers.Within the range of the Oregon portionof the lower Columbia River chinooksalmon ESU, major rivers, estuaries, andbays known to support chinook salmoninclude Youngs Bay, Klaskanine River,and the Clackamas, Sandy and HoodRivers. Major rivers known to supportchinook salmon within the upperWillamette River ESU include theMollala River, North Santiam River andMcKenzie River. Major rivers known tosupport chinook salmon within theOregon portion of the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU include theDeschutes River, the lower GrandeRonde River, the Imnaha River, and the

Oregon portion of the Columbia andSnake Rivers.

In Washington, major rivers, estuaries,and bays known to support chinooksalmon within the lower ColumbiaRiver ESU include the Grays River,Elochoman River, Kalama River, LewisRiver, Washougal River and WhiteSalmon River. Major rivers, estuaries,and bays known to support chinooksalmon within the Puget Sound ESUinclude the Nooksack River, SkagitRiver and many of its tributaries, theStilliguamish River, Snohomish River,Duwamish River, Puyallup River, andthe Elwha River. Major estuarine, bayand marine areas known to supportchinook salmon within the Puget SoundESU also include the South Sound,Hood Canal, Elliott Bay, PossessionSound, Admiralty Inlet, SaratogaPassage, Rosario Strait, Strait of Georgia,Haro Strait, and the Strait of Juan DeFuca. Major rivers known to supportchinook salmon within the upperColumbia River spring-run ESU includethe Wenatchee River, Entiat River, andMethow River.

In parts of Oregon, Washington andIdaho, major rivers known to supportchinook salmon within the Snake Riverfall-run ESU include the lower GrandeRonde River, the Columbia River, theSnake River, the lower Salmon River,and the lower Clearwater River belowits confluence with Lolo Creek.

Many smaller rivers and streams ineach ESU also provide essentialspawning, rearing and estuarine habitatfor chinook salmon, but use and accesscan be constrained by seasonalfluctuations in hydrologic conditions.

Defining specific river reaches that arecritical for chinook salmon is difficultbecause of the current low abundance ofthe species and of our imperfectunderstanding of the species’ freshwaterdistribution, both current and historical.This is due, in large part, to the lack ofcomprehensive sampling effortdedicated to monitoring the species.

In California, Oregon, Washingtonand Idaho, several recent efforts havebeen made to characterize the species’distribution (Healey, 1983 and 1991,Bryant and Olson, in prep.; TheWilderness Society (TWS), 1993;Bryant, 1994; McPhail and Lindsey1970; Yoshiyama et al., 1996; Myers etal., 1998) or to identify watershedsimportant to at-risk populations ofsalmonids and resident fishes (FEMAT,1993). However, the limited data acrossthe range of all ESUs, as well asdissimilarities in data types within theESUs, make it difficult to define thisspecies’ distribution at a fine scale.Chinook salmon, though considerablyreduced in population size, are still


distributed or have the potential fordistribution throughout nearly allwatersheds within the geographic rangeof each ESU. Notable exceptions areareas above several impassable dams(see Barriers Within the Species’ Range).

Any attempt to describe the currentdistribution of chinook salmon musttake into account the fact that existingpopulations and densities are a smallfraction of historical levels. Manychinook salmon stocks are extremelydepressed relative to past abundanceand there are limited data to assesspopulation numbers or trends. Severalof these stocks are heavily influenced byhatcheries and apparently have littlenatural production in mainstem reaches.

Within the range of all chinooksalmon ESUs, the species’ life cycle canbe separated into five essential habitattypes: (1) Juvenile summer and winterrearing areas; (2) juvenile migrationcorridors; (3) areas for growth anddevelopment to adulthood; (4) adultmigration corridors; and (5) spawningareas. Areas 1 and 5 are often located insmall headwater streams, while areas 2and 4 include these tributaries as wellas mainstem reaches and estuarinezones. Growth and development toadulthood (area 3) occurs primarily innear- and off-shore marine waters,although final maturation takes place infreshwater tributaries when the adultsreturn to spawn. Within all of theseareas, essential features of chinooksalmon critical habitat includeadequate: (1) substrate, (2) water quality,(3) water quantity, (4) watertemperature, (5) water velocity, (6)cover/shelter, (7) food, (8) riparianvegetation, (9) space, and (10) safepassage conditions. Given the vastgeographic range occupied by each ofthese chinook salmon ESUs and thediverse habitat types used by thevarious life stages, it is not practical todescribe specific values or conditionsfor each of these essential habitatfeatures. However, good summaries ofthese environmental parameters andfreshwater factors that have contributedto the decline of this and othersalmonids can be found in reviews byCDFG, 1965; CACSST, 1988; Brown andMoyle, 1991; Bjornn and Reiser, 1991;Nehlsen et al., 1991; Higgins et al.,1992; California State LandsCommission (CSLC), 1993; Botkin et al.,1995; NMFS, 1996; and Spence et al.,1996.

At the time of this proposed rule,NMFS believes that chinook salmon’scurrent freshwater, estuarine, andcertain marine range encompasses allessential habitat features and isadequate to ensure the species’conservation. Therefore, designation of

habitat areas outside the species’ currentrange is not indicated. Habitat quality inthis current range is intrinsically relatedto the quality of upland areas and ofinaccessible headwater or intermittentstreams which provide key habitatelements (e.g., large woody debris,gravel, water quality) crucial forchinook salmon in downstream reaches.NMFS recognizes that estuarine habitatsare important for rearing and migratingchinook salmon and has included themin this designation. Marine habitats (i.e.,oceanic or nearshore areas seaward ofthe mouth of coastal rivers) are also vitalto the species, and ocean conditions arebelieved to have a major influence onchinook salmon survival (see review inPearcy, 1992). In most cases, NMFSbelieves there is no need for specialmanagement consideration or protectionof this habitat. In the case of the PugetSound ESU, due to the uniquecombination of geographic features,proximity to a large number of riversand streams supporting chinook salmon,and wide range of human activitiesoccurring within Puget Sound’s marinearea, it appears to be necessary toinclude the marine areas describedabove. NMFS is not proposing todesignate other critical habitat in marineareas at this time. If additionalinformation becomes available thatsupports the inclusion of such areas,NMFS may revise this designation.

Based on consideration of the bestavailable information regarding thespecies’ current distribution, NMFSbelieves that the preferred approach toidentifying the freshwater and estuarineportion of critical habitat is to designateall areas (and their adjacent riparianzones) accessible to the species withinthe range of each ESU. NMFS has takenthis approach in previous criticalhabitat designations for other species(e.g., Snake River salmon, UmpquaRiver cutthroat trout, and proposed fortwo coho salmon ESUs) which inhabita wide range of freshwater habitats, inparticular small tributary streams (58 FR68543, December 28, 1993; 63 FR 1388,January 9, 1998; 62 FR 62741, November25, 1997). NMFS believes that adoptinga more inclusive, watershed-baseddescription of critical habitat isappropriate because it (1) recognizes thespecies’ use of diverse habitats andunderscores the need to account for allof the habitat types supporting thespecies’ freshwater and estuarine lifestages, from small headwater streams tomigration corridors and estuarinerearing areas; (2) takes into account thenatural variability in habitat use (e.g.,some streams may have fish presentonly in years with plentiful rainfall) that

makes precise mapping difficult; and (3)reinforces the important linkagebetween aquatic areas and adjacentriparian/upslope areas.

An array of management issuesencompasses these habitats and theirfeatures, and special managementconsiderations will be needed,especially on lands and streams underFederal ownership (see Activities thatMay Affect Critical Habitat and Need forSpecial Management Considerations orProtection sections). While marine areasare also a critical link in this cycle,NMFS does not believe that specialmanagement considerations are neededto conserve the habitat features in theseareas. Hence, except for the PugetSound ESU, only the freshwater andestuarine areas are being proposed forcritical habitat at this time.

Barriers Within the Species’ RangeWithin the range of all threatened and

endangered ESUs, chinook salmon facea multitude of barriers that limit theaccess of juvenile and adult fish toessential freshwater habitats. Whilesome of these are natural barriers (e.g.,waterfalls or high-gradient velocitybarriers) that have been in existence forhundreds or thousands of years, moresignificant are the manmade barriersthat have been created in the pastcentury (CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993;Botkin et al., 1995; National ResearchCouncil, 1996). The extent of suchbarriers as culverts and road crossingstructures that impede or block fishpassage appears to be substantial. Forexample, of 532 fish presence surveysconducted in Oregon coastal basinsduring the 1995 survey season, nearly15 percent of the confirmed ‘‘end of fishuse’’ were due to human barriers,principally road culverts (OCSRI, 1997).Pushup dams/diversions and irrigationwithdrawals also present significantbarriers or lethal conditions (e.g., highwater temperatures) to chinook salmonin California, Oregon, Washington andIdaho. However, because thesemanmade barriers can, under certainflow conditions, be surmounted by fishor present only a temporary/seasonalbarrier, NMFS does not consider themto delineate the upstream extent ofcritical habitat.

Since these man-made impassiblebarriers are widely distributedthroughout the range of each ESU, theycan have a major downstream influenceon chinook salmon. Such impacts caninclude the following: Depletion andstorage of natural flows, which candrastically alter natural hydrologicalcycles; increase juvenile and adultmortality due to migration delaysresulting from insufficient flows or


habitat blockages; stranding of fishresulting from rapid flow fluctuations;entrainment of juveniles into poorlyscreened or unscreened diversions; andincreased mortality resulting fromincreased water temperatures (CACSST,1988; Bergren and Filardo, 1991; CDFG,1991; Reynolds et al., 1993; Chapman etal., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995; NMFS,1996). In addition to these factors,reduced flows negatively affect fishhabitats due to increased deposition offine sediments in spawning gravels,decreased recruitment of large woodydebris and spawning gravels, andencroachment of riparian and non-endemic vegetation into spawning andrearing areas, resulting in reducedavailable habitat (CACSST, 1988;FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995;NMFS, 1996). These dam-related factorswill be effectively addressed throughsection 7 consultations and the recoveryplanning process.

Numerous hydropower and waterstorage projects have been built whichblock access to former spawning andrearing habitats used by chinooksalmon, or alter the timing and quantityof waterflow to downstream riverreaches. NMFS has identified a total of44 dams within the range of the ESUsthat currently block upstream ordownstream passage for chinook salmon(see Hydrolic Unit Tables 10–17).Blocked habitat can constitute as muchas 90 percent of the historic range ofeach ESU. While these blocked areas areproportionally significant in certainbasins (e.g., California’s Central Valleyand the Snake River), NMFS concludesat this time that currently availablehabitat may be sufficient for theconservation of the affected chinooksalmon ESUs. NMFS solicits commentsand scientific information on this issueand will consider such informationprior to issuing any final critical habitatdesignation. This may result in theinclusion of areas above some man-made impassible barriers in a futurecritical habitat designation. NMFS mayalso re-evaluate this conclusion duringthe recovery planning process and insection 7 consultations.

Need for Special ManagementConsiderations or Protection

In order to assure that the essentialareas and features are maintained orrestored, special management may beneeded. Activities that may requirespecial management considerations forfreshwater, estuarine, and marine lifestages of proposed chinook salmoninclude, but are not limited to (1) landmanagement; (2) timber harvest; (3)point and non-point water pollution; (4)livestock grazing; (5) habitat restoration;

(6) irrigation water withdrawals andreturns; (7) mining; (8) roadconstruction; (9) dam operation andmaintenance; and (10) dredge and fillactivities. Not all of these activities arenecessarily of current concern withinevery watershed, estuary, or marinearea; however, they indicate thepotential types of activities that willrequire consultation in the future. Nospecial management considerationshave been identified for proposedchinook salmon while they are residingin the ocean environment, except asnoted for the Puget Sound ESU.

Activities That May Affect CriticalHabitat

A wide range of activities may affectthe essential habitat requirements ofproposed chinook salmon (see Summaryof Factors for Decline section above fora more in-depth discussion). Theseactivities include water and landmanagement actions of Federalagencies, including the USFS, BLM,COE, BOR, the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHA), the EPA, and theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) and related or similar actions ofother federally regulated projects andlands, including livestock grazingallocations by the USFS and BLM;hydropower sites licensed by the FERC;dams built or operated by the COE orBOR; timber sales conducted by theUSFS and BLM; road building activitiesauthorized by the FHA, USFS, andBLM; and mining and road buildingactivities authorized by the states ofCalifornia, Oregon, Washington, andIdaho. Other actions of concern includedredge and fill, mining, and bankstabilization activities authorized orconducted by the COE. Additionally,actions of concern could includeapproval of water quality standards andpesticide labeling and use restrictionsadministered by the EPA.

The Federal agencies that will mostlikely be affected by this critical habitatdesignation include the USFS, BLM,BOR, COE, FHA, EPA, and FERC. Thisdesignation will provide these agencies,private entities, and the public withclear notification of critical habitatdesignated for proposed chinook salmonand the boundaries of the habitat andprotection provided for that habitat bythe section 7 consultation process. Thisdesignation will also assist theseagencies and others in evaluating thepotential effects of their activities onproposed chinook salmon and theircritical habitat and in determining whenconsultation with NMFS is appropriate.

Expected Economic Impacts

The economic impacts to beconsidered in a critical habitatdesignation are the incremental effectsof critical habitat designation above theeconomic impacts attributable to eitherlisting or to laws and regulations otherthan the ESA (see Consideration ofEconomic and Other Factors section ofthis notice). Incremental impacts resultfrom special management activities inareas outside the present distribution ofthe proposed species that have beendetermined to be essential to theconservation of the species. However,NMFS has determined that the species’present freshwater, estuarine, as well ascertain marine areas within the species’range, contains sufficient habitat forconservation of the species. Therefore,the economic impacts associated withthis critical habitat designation areexpected to be minimal.

USFS, BLM, BOR, and the COEmanage areas of proposed criticalhabitat for the proposed chinook salmonESUs. The COE and other Federalagencies that may be involved withfunding or permits for projects incritical habitat areas may also beaffected by this designation. BecauseNMFS believes that virtually all‘‘adverse modification’’ determinationspertaining to critical habitat would alsoresult in ‘‘jeopardy’’ conclusions,designation of critical habitat is notexpected to result in significantincremental restrictions on Federalagency activities. Critical habitatdesignation will, therefore, result infew, if any, additional economic effectsbeyond those that may have beencaused by listing and by other statutes.

Public Comments Solicited

NMFS has exercised its bestprofessional judgement in developingthis proposal to list eight chinooksalmon ESUs and designate their criticalhabitat under the ESA. To ensure thatthe final action resulting from thisproposal will be as accurate andeffective as possible, NMFS is solicitingcomments and suggestions from thepublic, other governmental agencies, thescientific community, industry, and anyother interested parties. NMFS willappreciate any additional informationregarding, in particular: (1) thebiological or other relevant dataconcerning any threat to chinooksalmon; (2) the range, distribution, andpopulation size of chinook salmon in allidentified ESUs; (3) current or plannedactivities in the subject areas and theirpossible impact on this species; (4)chinook salmon escapement,particularly escapement data partitioned


into natural and hatchery components;(5) the proportion of naturally-reproducing fish that were reared asjuveniles in a hatchery; (6) homing andstraying of natural and hatchery fish; (7)the reproductive success of naturally-reproducing hatchery fish (i.e.,hatchery-produced fish that spawn innatural habitat) and their relationship tothe identified ESUs; (8) efforts beingmade to protect native, naturally-reproducing populations of chinooksalmon in Washington, Oregon, Idahoand California; and (9) suggestions forspecific regulations under section 4(d)of the ESA that should apply tothreatened chinook salmon ESUs.Suggested regulations may addressactivities, plans, or guidelines that,despite their potential to result in thetake of listed fish, will ultimatelypromote the conservation and recoveryof threatened chinook salmon.

NMFS is also requesting quantitativeevaluations describing the quality andextent of freshwater, estuarine, andmarine habitats for juvenile and adultchinook salmon as well as informationon areas that may qualify as criticalhabitat in Washington, Oregon, Idaho,and California for the proposed ESUs.Areas that include the physical andbiological features essential to therecovery of the species should beidentified. NMFS recognizes that thereare areas within the proposedboundaries of some ESUs thathistorically constituted chinook salmonhabitat, but may not be currentlyoccupied by chinook salmon. NMFS isrequesting information about chinooksalmon in these currently unoccupiedareas (in particular) and whether thesehabitats should be considered essentialto the recovery of the species, or else beexcluded from designation. Essentialfeatures include, but are not limited to:(1) Habitat for individual andpopulation growth, and for normalbehavior; (2) food, water, air, light,minerals, or other nutritional orphysiological requirements; (3) cover orshelter; (4) sites for reproduction andrearing of offspring; and (5) habitats thatare protected from disturbance or arerepresentative of the historicgeographical and ecologicaldistributions of the species.

For areas potentially qualifying ascritical habitat, NMFS is requestinginformation describing: (1) Theactivities that affect the area or could beaffected by the designation, and (2) theeconomic costs and benefits ofadditional requirements of managementmeasures likely to result from thedesignation.

The economic cost to be considered inthe critical habitat designation under

the ESA is the probable economicimpact ‘‘of the [critical habitat]designation upon proposed or ongoingactivities’’ (50 CFR 424.19). NMFS mustconsider the incremental costsspecifically resulting from a criticalhabitat designation that are above theeconomic effects attributable to listingthe species. Economic effectsattributable to listing include actionsresulting from section 7 consultationsunder the ESA to avoid jeopardy to thespecies and from the taking prohibitionsunder section 9 of the ESA. Commentsconcerning economic impacts shoulddistinguish the costs of listing from theincremental costs that can be attributedto the designation of specific areas ascritical habitat.

NMFS will review all publiccomments and any additionalinformation regarding the status of thechinook salmon ESUs described hereinand, as required under the ESA, willcomplete a final rule within 1 year ofthis proposed rule. The availability ofnew information may cause NMFS toreassess the status of chinook salmonESUs, or to reassess the geographicextent of critical habitat.

Joint Commerce-Interior ESAimplementing regulations state that theSecretary ‘‘shall promptly hold at leastone public hearing if any person sorequests within 45 days of publicationof a proposed regulation to list * * * orto designate or revise critical habitat.’’(see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). Publichearings on the proposed rule will bescheduled and announced in aforthcoming Federal Register Notice.These hearings will provide theopportunity for the public to givecomments and to permit an exchange ofinformation and opinion amonginterested parties. NMFS encourages thepublic’s involvement in such ESAmatters. Written comments on theproposed rule may also be submitted toGarth Griffin (see ADDRESSES andDATES).

ReferencesA complete list of all cited references

is available upon request (seeADDRESSES).

ClassificationThe 1982 amendments to the ESA, in

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict theinformation that may be consideredwhen assessing species for listing. Basedon this limitation of criteria for a listingdecision and the opinion in PacificLegal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS hascategorically excluded all ESA listingactions from environmental assessmentrequirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act under NOAAAdministrative Order 216–6.

NMFS has also determined that anEnvironmental Assessment or anEnvironmental Impact Statement, asdefined under the authority of theNational Environmental Policy Act of1969, need not be prepared for thiscritical habitat designation. See DouglasCounty v. Babbitt, 48 F.3D 1495 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996).

The Assistant Administrator forFisheries, NOAA (AA), has determinedthat this rule is not significant forpurposes of E.O. 12866.

NMFS is proposing to designatingonly the current range of this species ascritical habitat. The current rangeencompasses a wide range of habitats,including small tributary reaches, aswell as mainstem, off-channel, estuarineand marine areas. Areas excluded fromthis proposed designation includehistorically occupied areas aboveimpassible dams, and headwater areasabove impassable natural barriers (e.g.,long-standing, natural waterfalls).NMFS has concluded that at the time ofthis proposal, currently inhabited areaswithin the range of west coast chinooksalmon are the minimum habitatnecessary to ensure conservation andrecovery of the species.

Since NMFS is designating thecurrent range of the listed species ascritical habitat, this designation will notimpose any additional requirements oreconomic effects upon small entities,beyond those which may accrue fromsection 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requiresFederal agencies to ensure that anyaction they carry out, authorize, or fundis not likely to jeopardize the continuedexistence of any listed species or resultin the destruction or adversemodification of critical habitat (16U.S.C. Sec. 1536(a)(2)). The consultationrequirements of section 7 arenondiscretionary and are effective at thetime of species’ listing. Therefore,Federal agencies must consult withNMFS and ensure their actions do notjeopardize a species once it is listed,regardless of whether critical habitat isdesignated.

In the future, if NMFS determines thatdesignation of habitat areas outside thespecies’ current range is necessary forconservation and recovery, NMFS willanalyze the incremental costs of thataction and assess its potential impactson small entities, as required by theRegulatory Flexibility Act. Until thattime, a more detailed analysis would bepremature and would not reflect thetrue economic impacts of the proposedaction on local businesses,organizations, and governments.


Accordingly, the Assistant GeneralCounsel for Legislation and Regulationof the Department of Commerce hascertified to the Chief Counsel forAdvocacy of the Small BusinessAdministration that the proposed rule,if adopted, would not have a significanteconomic impact of a substantialnumber of small entities, as described inthe Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This rule does not contain acollection-of-information requirementfor purposes of the PaperworkReduction Act.

At this time NMFS is notpromulgating protective regulationspursuant to ESA section 4(d). In thefuture, prior to finalizing its 4(d)regulations for these threatened ESUs,NMFS will comply with all relevantNEPA and RFA requirements.

The AA has determined that theproposed listing and designation isconsistent, to the maximum extentpracticable, with the approved CoastalZone Management Program of the Statesof California, Oregon, and Washington.This determination has been submittedfor review by the responsible stateagencies under section 307 of theCoastal Zone Management Act.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 222

Administrative practice andprocedure, Endangered and threatenedwildlife, Exports, Imports, Reportingand record-keeping requirements,Transportation.

50 CFR Part 226

Endangered and threatened species.

50 CFR Part 227

Endangered and threatened species,Exports, Imports, Marine mammals,Transportation.

Dated: February 26, 1998.Rolland A. Schmitten,Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, 50 CFR parts 222, 226, and227 are amended to read as follows:

PART 222—ENDANGERED FISH ORWILDLIFE

1. The authority citation of part 222continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart D,§ 222.32 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 etseq.

2. In § 222.23, paragraph (a) isamended by removing the secondsentence and by adding five sentencesin its place to read as follows:

§ 222.23 Permits for scientific purposes orto enhance the propagation or survival ofthe affected endangered species.

(a) * * * The species listed asendangered under either theEndangered Species Conservation Act of1969 or the Endangered Species Act of1973 and currently under thejurisdiction of the Secretary ofCommerce are: Shortnose sturgeon(Acipenser brevirostrum); Totoaba(Cynoscian macdonaldi), Snake Riversockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka),Umpqua River cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki); SouthernCalifornia steelhead (Oncorhynchusmykiss), which includes all naturallyspawned populations of steelhead (andtheir progeny) in streams from the SantaMaria River, San Luis Obispo County,California (inclusive) to Malibu Creek,Los Angeles County, California(inclusive); Upper Columbia Riversteelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),which includes the Wells Hatcherystock and all naturally spawnedpopulations of steelhead (and theirprogeny) in streams in the ColumbiaRiver Basin upstream from the YakimaRiver, Washington, to the UnitedStates—Canada Border; Central Valleyspring-run chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), whichincludes all naturally spawnedpopulations of chinook (and theirprogeny) in the Sacramento River andits tributaries in California. Alsoincluded are river reaches and estuarineareas of the Sacramento-San JoaquinDelta, all waters from Chipps Islandwestward to Carquinez Bridge,including Honker Bay, Grizzly Bay,Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, allwaters of San Pablo Bay westward of theCarquinez Bridge, and all waters of SanFrancisco Bay (north of the SanFrancisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) fromSan Pablo Bay to the Golden GateBridge. Excluded are areas abovespecific dams identified in Table 10 ofthis part or above longstanding,naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,natural waterfalls in existence for atleast several hundred years); UpperColumbia River spring-run chinooksalmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),which includes all naturally spawnedpopulations of chinook (and theirprogeny) in all river reaches accessibleto chinook salmon in Columbia Rivertributaries upstream of the Rock IslandDam and downstream of Chief JosephDam in Washington, excluding theOkanogan River. Also included are riverreaches and estuarine areas in theColumbia River from a straight lineconnecting the west end of the Clatsopjetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and thewest end of the Peacock jetty (north

jetty, Washington side) upstream toChief Joseph Dam in Washington.Excluded are areas above specific damsidentified in Table 16 of this part orabove longstanding, naturallyimpassable barriers (i.e., naturalwaterfalls in existence for at leastseveral hundred years); SacramentoRiver winter-run chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); WesternNorth Pacific (Korean) gray whale(Eschrichtius robustus), Blue whale(Balaenoptera musculus), Humpbackwhale (Megaptera novaeangliae),Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus),Right whales (Eubalaena spp.), Fin orfinback whale (Balaenoptera physalus),Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis),Sperm whale (Physeter catodon);Cochito (Phocoena Sinus), Chinese riverdolphin (Lipotes vexillifer); Indus Riverdolphin (Platanista minor); Caribbeanmonk seal (Monachus tropicalis);Hawaiian monk seal (Monachusschauinslandi); Mediterranean monkseal (Monachus monachus); Saimaa seal(Phoca hispida saimensis); Steller sealion (Eumetopias jubatus), westernpopulation, which consists of Steller sealions from breeding colonies locatedwest of 144° W. long.; Leatherback seaturtle (Dermochelys coriacea); Pacifichawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelysimbricata bissa); Atlantic hawksbill seaturtle (Eretmochelys imbricataimbricata); and Atlantic ridley sea turtle(Lepidochelys kempii). * * ** * * * *

PART 226—DESIGNATED CRITICALHABITAT

3. The authority citation for part 226continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

4. Section 226.28 is added to subpartC to read as follows:

§ 226.28 Central Valley spring-run chinooksalmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), CentralValley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Southern Oregonand California coastal chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Soundchinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),Lower Columbia River chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Upper WillametteRiver chinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha), Upper Columbia River spring-runchinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),Snake River fall-run chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

Critical habitat consists of the water,substrate, and adjacent riparian zone ofaccessible estuarine and riverinereaches, as well as some marine areas,in hydrologic units and countiesidentified in Tables 10 through 17 ofthis part for all of the chinook salmonESUs listed above. Accessible reaches


are those within the historical range ofthe ESUs that can still be occupied byany life stage of chinook salmon.Inaccessible reaches are those abovelongstanding, naturally impassablebarriers (i.e., natural waterfalls inexistence for at least several hundredyears) and specific dams within thehistorical range of each ESU identifiedin Tables 10 through 17 of this part.Adjacent riparian zones are defined asthose areas within a slope distance of300 ft (91.4 m) from the normal line ofhigh water of a stream channel oradjacent off-channel habitats (600 ft or182.8 m, when both sides of the channelare included). Hydrologic units arethose defined by the Department of theInterior (DOI), U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) publication, ‘‘Hydrologic UnitMaps, Water Supply Paper 2294, 1986,’’and the following DOI, USGS, 1:500,000scale hydrologic unit maps: State ofCalifornia (1978), State of Idaho (1981),State of Oregon (1974), and State ofWashington (1974) which areincorporated by reference. Thisincorporation by reference wasapproved by the Director of the Officeof the Federal Register in accordancewith 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.Copies of the USGS publication andmaps may be obtained from the USGS,Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO80225. Copies may be inspected atNMFS, Protected Resources Division,525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland,OR 97232–2737, or NMFS, Office ofProtected Resources, 1315 East-WestHighway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or atthe Office of the Federal Register, 800North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700,Washington, DC.

(a) Central Valley Spring-run chinooksalmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)geographic boundaries. Critical habitatis designated to include all river reachesaccessible to chinook salmon in theSacramento River and its tributaries inCalifornia. Also included are riverreaches and estuarine areas of theSacramento-San Joaquin Delta, allwaters from Chipps Island westward toCarquinez Bridge, including HonkerBay, Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, andCarquinez Strait, all waters of San PabloBay westward of the Carquinez Bridge,and all waters of San Francisco Bay(north of the San Francisco/OaklandBay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay to theGolden Gate Bridge. Excluded are areasabove specific dams identified in Table10 of this part or above longstanding,naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,natural waterfalls in existence for atleast several hundred years).

(b) Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-runchinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha) geographic boundaries.

Critical habitat is designated to includeall river reaches accessible to chinooksalmon in the Sacramento and SanJoaquin Rivers and their tributaries inCalifornia. Also included are riverreaches and estuarine areas of theSacramento-San Joaquin Delta, allwaters from Chipps Island westward toCarquinez Bridge, including HonkerBay, Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, andCarquinez Strait, all waters of San PabloBay westward of the Carquinez Bridge,and all waters of San Francisco Bay(north of the San Francisco/OaklandBay Bridge from San Pablo Bay to theGolden Gate Bridge. Excluded are areasupstream of the Merced River and areasabove specific dams identified in Table11 of this part or above longstanding,naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,natural waterfalls in existence for atleast several hundred years).

(c) Southern Oregon and CaliforniaCoastal chinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha) geographic boundaries.Critical habitat is designated to includeall river reaches and estuarine areasaccessible to chinook salmon in thedrainages of San Francisco and SanPablo Bays, westward to the GoldenGate Bridge, and includes all estuarineand river reaches accessible to proposedchinook salmon on the California andsouthern Oregon coast to Cape Blanco(inclusive). Excluded are the Klamathand Trinity Rivers upstream of theirconfluence. Also excluded are areasabove specific dams identified in Table12 of this part or above longstanding,naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,natural waterfalls in existence for atleast several hundred years).

(d) Pudget Sound chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) geographicboundaries. Critical habitat isdesignated to include all marine,estuarine and river reaches accessible tochinook salmon in Puget Sound. PugetSound marine areas include SouthSound, Hood Canal, and North Sound tothe international boundary at the outerextent of the Strait of Georgia, HaroStrait and the Straits of Juan De Fuca toa straight line extending north from thewest end of Freshway Bay, inclusive.Excluded are areas above specific damsidentified in Table 13 of this part orabove longstanding, naturallyimpassable barriers (i.e., naturalwaterfalls in existence for at leastseveral hundred years).

(e) Lower Columbia River ChinookSalmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)Geographic boundaries. Critical habitatis designated to include all river reachesaccessible to chinook salmon inColumbia River tributaries between theGrays and White Salmon Rivers inWashington and the Willamette and

Hood Rivers in Oregon, inclusive. Alsoincluded are river reaches and estuarineareas in the Columbia River from astraight line connecting the west end ofthe Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregonside) and the west end of the Peacockjetty (north jetty, Washington side)upstream to The Dalles Dam. Excludedare areas above specific dams identifiedin Table 14 of this part or abovelongstanding, naturally impassablebarriers (i.e., natural waterfalls inexistence for at least several hundredyears).

(f) Upper Willamette River chinooksalmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)geographic boundaries. Critical habitatis designated to include all river reachesaccessible to chinook salmon in theWillamette River and its tributariesabove Willamette Falls. Also includedare river reaches and estuarine areas inthe Columbia River from a straight lineconnecting the west end of the Clatsopjetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and thewest end of the Peacock jetty (northjetty, Washington side) upstream to andincluding the Willamette River inOregon. Excluded are areas abovespecific dams identified in Table 15 ofthis part or above longstanding,naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,natural waterfalls in existence for atleast several hundred years).

(g) Upper Columbia River Spring-runChinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha) Geographic boundaries.Critical habitat is designated to includeall river reaches accessible to chinooksalmon in Columbia River tributariesupstream of the Rock Island Dam anddownstream of Chief Joseph Dam inWashington, excluding the OkanoganRiver. Also included are river reachesand estuarine areas in the ColumbiaRiver from a straight line connecting thewest end of the Clatsop jetty (southjetty, Oregon side) and the west end ofthe Peacock jetty (north jetty,Washington side) upstream to ChiefJoseph Dam in Washington. Excludedare areas above specific dams identifiedin Table 16 of this part or abovelongstanding, naturally impassablebarriers (i.e., natural waterfalls inexistence for at least several hundredyears).

(h) Snake River Fall-run ChinookSalmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)Geographic boundaries. Critical habitatis designated to include all river reachesaccessible to chinook salmon in theColumbia River from The Dalles Damupstream to the confluence with theSnake River in Washington (inclusive).Critical habitat in the Snake Riverincludes its tributaries in Idaho, Oregon,and Washington (exclusive of the upperGrande Ronde River and the Wallowa


River in Oregon, the Clearwater Riverabove its confluence with Lolo Creek inIdaho, and the Salmon River upstreamof its confluence with French Creek inIdaho). Also included are river reachesand estuarine areas in the ColumbiaRiver from a straight line connecting the

west end of the Clatsop jetty (southjetty, Oregon side) and the west end ofthe Peacock jetty (north jetty,Washington side) upstream to TheDalles Dam. Excluded are areas abovespecific dams identified in Table 17 ofthis part or above longstanding,

naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,natural waterfalls in existence for atleast several hundred years).

5. Tables 10 through 17 are added topart 226 to read as follows:

TABLE 10 TO PART 226.—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES1 Containing Critical Habitat for Endangered Central Val-ley, California Spring-Run Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of CriticalHabitat

Hydrologic unit name Hydrologicunit No.

Counties contained in hydrologic unit and within rangeof ESU Dams (reservoirs)

San Pablo Bay .......................................... 18050002 San Mateo, CA, Alameda (CA), Contra Costa (CA),Marin (CA), Somona (CA), Napa (CA), Solano (CA).

San Pablo Reservoir.

San Francisco Bay .................................... 18050004 Santa Clara (CA), San Mateo (CA), Alameda (CA),Contra Costa (CA), Marin (CA).

Coyote ....................................................... 18050003 Santa Clara (CA), San Mateo (CA), Alameda (CA) ....... Calavera Reservoir.Suisun Bay ................................................ 18050001 Contra Costa (CA), Solano (CA), Napa (CA) .................Lower Sacramento .................................... 18020109 Solano (CA), Sacramento (CA), Yolo (CA), Placer (CA),

Sutter (CA).Lower American ........................................ 18020111 Sacramento (CA), El Dorado (CA), Placer (CA) ............ Nimbus Dam.Upper Coon-Upper Auburn ....................... 18020127 Placer (CA) .....................................................................Lower Bear ................................................ 18020108 Placer (CA), Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA) .............................. Camp Far West Dam.Lower Feather ........................................... 18020106 Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA), Butte (CA) ................................ Oroville Dam.Lower Yuba ............................................... 18020107 Yuba (CA) ....................................................................... Englebright Dam.Lower Butte ............................................... 18020105 Sutter (CA), Butte (CA), Colusa (CA), Glenn (CA) .........Sacramento-Stone Corral .......................... 18020104 Yolo (CA), Colusa (CA), Sutter (CA), Glenn (CA), Butte

(CA).Upper Butte ............................................... 18020120 Butte (CA), Tehama (CA) ...............................................Sacramento-Lower Thomes ...................... 18020103 Glenn (CA), Butte (CA), Tehama (CA) ........................... Black Butte Dam.Mill-Big Chico ............................................ 18020119 Butte (CA), Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA) .........................Upper Elder-Upper Thomes ...................... 18020114 Tehama (CA) ..................................................................Cottonwood Headwaters ........................... 18020113 Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA) ............................................Lower Cottonwood .................................... 18020102 Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA).Sacramento-Lower Cow-Lower Clear ....... 18020101 Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA) ............................................ Keswick Dam, Shasta

Dam.Upper Cow-Battle ...................................... 18020118 Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA) ............................................ Whiskeytown Dam.Sacramento-Upper Clear .......................... 18020112 Shasta (CA) ....................................................................

1 Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as critical habitat for this ESU. ConsultUSGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.

TABLE 11 TO PART 226.—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES 1 CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED CEN-TRAL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA FALL-RUN CHINOOK SALMON, AND DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EX-TENT OF CRITICAL HABITAT

Hydrologic unit name Hydrologicunit No. Counties within hydrologic unit and within range of ESU Dams (reservoirs)

San Pablo Bay .......................................... 18050002 San Mateo, CA, Alameda (CA), Contra Costa (CA),Marin (CA), Somona (CA), Napa (CA), Solano (CA).

San Pablo Reservoir.

San Francisco Bay .................................... 18050004 Santa Clara (CA), San Mateo (CA), Alameda (CA),Contra Costa (CA), Marin (CA).

Coyote ....................................................... 18050003 Santa Clara (CA), San Mateo (CA), Alameda (CA) ....... Calavera Reservoir.Suisun Bay ................................................ 18050001 Contra Costa (CA), Solano (CA), Napa (CA) .................San Joaquin Delta ..................................... 18040003 Stanislaus (CA), San Joaquin (CA), Alameda (CA),

Contra Costa (CA), Sacramento (CA).Middle San Joaquin-Lower Merced-Lower

Stanislaus.18040002 Merced (CA), Stanislaus (CA), San Joaquin (CA) ......... Crocker Diversion La

Grange.Lower Calaveras-Mormon Slough ............. 18040004 Stanislaus (CA), San Joaquin (CA), Calaveras (CA) ..... New Hogan.Lower Consumnes-Lower Mokelumne ...... 18040005 San Joaquin (CA), Calaveras (CA), Amador (CA), Sac-

ramento (CA), El Dorado (CA).Camanche.

Upper Consumnes .................................... 18040013 Sacramento (CA), Amador, (CA), El Dorado (CA) .........Lower Sacramento .................................... 18020109 Solano (CA), Sacramento (CA), Yolo (CA), Placer (CA),

Sutter (CA).Lower American ........................................ 18020111 Sacramento (CA), El Dorado (CA), Placer (CA) ............ Nimbus.Upper Coon-Upper Auburn ....................... 18020127 Placer (CA).Lower Bear ................................................ 18020108 Placer (CA), Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA) .............................. Camp Far West.Lower Feather ........................................... 18020106 Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA), Butte (CA) ................................ Oroville.Lower Yuba ............................................... 18020107 Yuba (CA) Englebright.Lower Butte ............................................... 18020105 Sutter (CA), Butte (CA), Colusa (CA), Glenn (CA) .........


TABLE 11 TO PART 226.—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES 1 CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED CEN-TRAL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA FALL-RUN CHINOOK SALMON, AND DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EX-TENT OF CRITICAL HABITAT


Sacramento-Stone Corral .......................... 18020104 Yolo (CA), Colusa (CA), Sutter (CA), Glenn (CA), Butte(CA).

Upper Butte ............................................... 18020120 Butte (CA), Tehama (CA).Sacramento-Lower Thomes ...................... 18020103 Glenn (CA), Butte (CA), Tehama (CA) ........................... Black Butte.Mill-Big Chico ............................................ 18020119 Butte (CA), Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA) .........................Upper Elder-Upper Thomes ...................... 18020114 Tehama (CA). .................................................................Cottonwood Headwaters ........................... 18020113 Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA).Lower Cottonwood .................................... 18020102 Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA).Sacramento-Lower Cow-Lower Clear ....... 18020101 Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA). Keswick Dam Shasta.Upper Cow-Battle ...................................... 18020118 Tehama (CA), Shasta (CA) ............................................ Whiskeytown.Sacramento-Upper Clear .......................... 18020112 Shasta (CA).


TABLE 12 TO PART 226.—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES 1 CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED SOUTH-ERN OREGON AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL CHINOOK SALMON; DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EX-TENT OF CRITICAL HABITAT



Tomales-Drakes Bay ................................. 18050005 Marin (CA), Somona (CA) .............................................. Kent Lake Dam NicasioReservoir.

Bodega Bay ............................................... 18010111 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA).Russian ...................................................... 18010110 Somona (CA), Mendocino (CA) ...................................... Lake Mendocino.Gualala-Salmon ......................................... 18010109 Somona (CA), Mendocino (CA).Big-Navarro-Garcia .................................... 18010108 Mendocino (CA).Upper Eel .................................................. 18010103 Mendocino (CA), Lake (CA), Glenn (CA), Trnity (CA).Middle Fork Eel ......................................... 18010104 Mendocino (CA), Trinity (CA), Humboldt (CA) ............... Lake Pillsbury.Lower Eel .................................................. 18010105 Mendocino (CA), Humboldt (CA).South Fork Eel .......................................... 18010106 Mendocino (CA), Humboldt (CA).Mattole ....................................................... 18010107 Lake (CA), Mendocino (CA).Mad-Redwood ........................................... 18010102 Humboldt (CA), Trinity (CA).Lower Klamath .......................................... 18010209 Humboldt, (CA), Del Norte (CA), Siskiyou (CA).Smith ......................................................... 18010101 Del Norte (CA), Curry (OR).Chetco ....................................................... 17100312 Curry (OR), Del Norte (CA).Sixes .......................................................... 17100306 Curry (OR), Coos (OR).Illinois ......................................................... 17100311 Josephine (OR), Del Norte (CA).Lower Rogue ............................................. 17100310 Curry (OR), Josephine (OR) Jackson (OR).Applegate .................................................. 17100309 Josephine (OR), Jackson (OR) Del Norte (CA) ............. Applegate Dam.Middle Rogue ............................................ 17100308 Jackson (OR), Douglas (OR) .......................................... Savage Rapids Dam.Upper Rogue ............................................. 17100307 Jackson (OR), Klamath (OR) .......................................... Lost Creek Dam.


TABLE 13 TO PART 226—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES1 CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED PUGETSOUND CHINOOK SALMON, AND DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EXTENT OF CRITICAL HABITAT



Nisqually .................................................... 17110015 Pierce (WA), Thurston (WA).Deschutes .................................................. 17110016 Thurston (WA), Lewis (WA).Puyallup ..................................................... 17110014 Pierce (WA), King (WA).Duwamish .................................................. 17110013 King (WA), Pierce (WA) .................................................. Howard Hanson.Lake Washington ....................................... 17110012 King (WA), Snohomish (WA) .......................................... Cedar Falls Dam.Puget Sound .............................................. 17110019 Thurston (WA), Mason (WA), Kitsap (WA), Pierce

(WA), King (WA), Snohomish (WA), Jefferson (WA),Skagit (WA).

Skokomish ................................................. 17110017 Mason (WA), Jefferson (WA), Grays Harbor (WA) ........ Cushman Dam.Hood Canal ............................................... 17110018 Mason (WA), Jefferson (WA), Kitsap (WA).Snoqualmie ................................................ 17110010 King (WA), Snohomish (WA) .......................................... Tolt Dam.Skyhomish ................................................. 17110009 King (WA), Snohomish (WA).Snohomish ................................................. 17110011 Snohomish (WA).Stillaguamish ............................................. 17110008 Snohomish (WA), Skagit (WA).


TABLE 13 TO PART 226—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES1 CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED PUGETSOUND CHINOOK SALMON, AND DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EXTENT OF CRITICAL HABITAT—Continued



Sauk .......................................................... 17110006 Snohomish (WA), Skagit (WA).Upper Skagit .............................................. 17110005 Skagit (WA), Whatcom (WA).Lower Skagit .............................................. 17110007 Skagit (WA), Snohomish (WA).Nooksack ................................................... 17110004 Skagit (WA), Whatcom (WA).Fraser ........................................................ 17110001 Whatcom (WA).Strait of Georgia ........................................ 17110002 Skagit (WA), Whatcom (WA).San Juan Islands ....................................... 17110003 San Juan (WA).Dungeness-Elwha ..................................... 17110020 Jefferson (WA), Clallam (WA) ......................................... Elwha Dam.Crescent-Hoko ........................................... 17110021 Clallam (WA).


TABLE 14 TO PART 226.—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES 1 CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED LOWERCOLUMBIA RIVER CHINOOK SALMON, AND DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EXTENT OF CRITICALHABITAT


Lower Columbia ........................................ 17080006 Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA), Clatsop (OR).Lower Columbia-Clatskanie ...................... 17080003 Wahkiakum (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Skamania (WA),

Clatsop (OR), Columbia (OR).Lower Cowlitz ............................................ 17080005 Cowlitz (WA), Lewis (WA), Skamania (WA) ................... Mayfield Dam.Lewis ......................................................... 17080002 Cowlitz (WA), Clark (WA), Skamania (WA), Klickitat

(WA).Merwin Dam, Yale Dam

Cougar Dam.Lower Columbia-Sandy ............................. 17080001 Clark (WA), Skamania (WA), Multnomah (OR),

Clackamas (OR).Bull Run Dam.

Lower Willamette ....................................... 17090012 Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR), Clackamas (OR).Clackamas ................................................. 17090011 Clackamas (OR), Marion (OR) ....................................... Oak Grove Dam.Middle Columbia—Hood ........................... 17070105 Hood River (OR), Wasco (OR), Klickitat (WA),

Skamania (WA).Condit Dam.


TABLE 15 TO PART 226.—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES1 CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED UPPERWILLAMETTE RIVER CHINOOK SALMON, AND DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EXTENT OF CRITICALHABITAT



Clatsop (OR), Columbia (OR).Lower Columbia-Sandy ............................. 17080001 Clark (WA), Skamania (WA), Multnomah (OR),

Clackamas (OR).Lower Willamette ....................................... 17090012 Columbia (OR), Multnomah (OR), Clackamas (OR).Tualatin ...................................................... 17090010 Yamhill (OR), Washington (OR), Tillamook (OR),

Clakamas (OR), Multnomah (OR), Columbia (OR).Middle Willamette ...................................... 17090007 Polk (OR), Marion (OR), Yamhill (OR), Washington

(OR), Clakamas (OR).Yamhill ....................................................... 17090008 Lincoln (OR), Polk (OR), Yamhill (OR), Tillamook (OR),

Washington (OR).Molalla-Pudding ......................................... 17090009 Marion (OR), Clakamas (OR).North Santiam ........................................... 17090005 Marion (OR), Linn (OR).Upper Willamette ....................................... 17090003 Polk (OR), Benton (OR), Lane (OR), Linn (OR), Lincoln

(OR).South Santiam ........................................... 17090006 Linn (OR) ........................................................................ Green Peter Dam, Foster

Dam.McKenzie ................................................... 17090004 Lane (OR), Linn (OR) ..................................................... Cougar Dam.Middle Fork Willamette .............................. 17090001 Lane (OR), Douglas (OR) ............................................... Dexter Dam.Coast Fork Willamette ............................... 17090002 Lane (OR), Douglas (OR).



TABLE 16 TO PART 226—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES 1 CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED UPPERCOLUMBIA RIVER SPRING-RUN CHINOOK SALMON, AND DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EXTENTOF CRITICAL HABITAT



Lower Columbia ........................................ 17080006 Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum (WA), Clatsop (OR) ...............Lower Columbia-Clatskanie ...................... 17080003 Wahkiakum (WA), Cowlitz (WA), Skamania (WA),



Middle Columbia-Hood .............................. 17070105 Hood River (OR), Wasco (OR), Klickitat (WA),Skamania (WA).

Condit Dam.

Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula .................. 17070101 Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR), Sherman (OR), Umatilla(OR), Benton (A), Klickitat (WA), Walla Walla (WA).

Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids .................. 17020016 Benton (WA), Franklin (WA), Grant (WA) .......................Upper Columbia—Entiat ............................ 17020010 Chelan (WA), Douglas (WA), Grant (WA), Kittias (WA)Wenatchee ................................................ 17020011 Chelan (WA).Chief Joseph ............................................. 17020005 Chelan (WA), Douglas (WA), Okanogan (WA) ............... Chief Joseph.Methow ...................................................... 17020008 Okanogan (WA).Okanogan .................................................. 17020006 Okanogan (WA).Similkameen .............................................. 17020007 Okanogan (WA).


TABLE 17 TO PART 226—HYDROLOGIC UNITS AND COUNTIES 1 CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED SNAKERIVER FALL-RUN CHINOOK SALMON, AND DAMS/RESERVOIRS REPRESENTING THE UPSTREAM EXTENT OF CRITICALHABITAT






Middle Columbia-Hood .............................. 17070105 Hood River (OR), Wasco (OR) Klickitat (WA),Skamania (WA).

Condit Dam.

Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula .................. 17070101 Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR), Sherman (OR), Umatilla(OR), Benton (A), Klickitat (WA), Walla Walla (WA).

Lower Deschutes ....................................... 17070306 Jefferson (OR), Wasco (OR), Sherman (OR) ................. Pelton Dam Round Butte.Trout .......................................................... 17070307 Crook (OR), Jefferson (OR), Wasco (OR) ......................Lower John Day ........................................ 17070204 Crook (OR), Wheeler (OR), Jefferson (OR), Grant

(OR), Gilliam (OR), Morrow (OR) Sherman (OR),Wasco (OR).

Upper John Day ........................................ 17070201 Wheeler (OR), Grant (OR), Harney (OR) .......................North Fork—John Day .............................. 17070202 Grant (OR), Wheeler (OR), Morrow (OR), Umatilla (OR).Middle Fork—John Day ............................. 17070203 Grant (OR).Willow ........................................................ 17070104 Morrow (OR), Gilliam (OR).Umatilla ...................................................... 17070103 Morrow (OR), Umatilla (OR).Walla Walla ............................................... 17070102 Umatilla (OR), Wallowa (OR), Walla Walla (WA), Co-

lumbia (WA).Lower Snake ............................................. 17060110 Franklin (WA), Columbia (WA), Walla Walla (WA) .........Lower Snake-Tucannon ............................ 7060107 Columbia (WA), Whitman (WA) Garfield (WA), Asotin

(WA).Lower Snake—Asotin ................................ 17060103 Wallowa (OR), Garfield (WA), Asotin (WA) Nez Perce

(ID).Lower Salmon ........................................... 17060209 Valley (ID), Idaho (ID), Lewis (ID), Nez Perce (ID) ........Clearwater ................................................. 17060306 Nez Perce (ID), Lewis (ID), Clearwater (ID) Latah (ID).Lower Grande Ronde ................................ 17060106 Union (OR), Wallowa (OR), Columbia (WA), Garfield

(WA), Asotin (WA).Imnaha ....................................................... 17060102 Baker (OR), Union (OR), Wallowa (OR), Columbia

(WA), Walla Walla (WA).Hells Canyon ............................................. 17060101 Wallowa (OR), Idaho (ID) ............................................... Hells Canyon, Oxbow Dam

Brownlee.

1 Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGShydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific county and basin boundaries.


PART 227—THREATENED FISH ANDWILDLIFE

6. The authority citation for part 227continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart B,§ 227.12 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 etseq.

7. In § 227.4, paragraph (g) is revised,paragraph (p) is added and reserved,and paragraphs (q) through (u) areadded to read as follows:

§ 227.4 Enumeration of threatenedspecies.* * * * *

(g) Snake River fall-run chinooksalmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).Includes all naturally spawnedpopulations of chinook salmon (andtheir progeny) from the Columbia Riverand its tributaries upstream from atransitional point between Washingtonand Oregon east of the Hood River andthe White Salmon River, to itsconfluence with the Snake River, andalso includes the Snake River and itstributaries upstream to Hells Canyon

Dam. These tributaries include thelower Grande Ronde, Imnaha, lowerSalmon and lower Clearwater Rivers inparts of Oregon, Washington and Idaho.* * * * *

(p) [Reserved](q) Central Valley fall/late fall-run

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha). Includes all naturallyspawned populations of chinook salmon(and their progeny) in the Sacramentoand San Joaquin River Basins and theirtributaries, east of Carquinez Strait,California.

(r) Southern Oregon and Californiacoastal chinook salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha). Includes all naturallyspawned populations of chinook salmon(and their progeny) from rivers andstreams between Cape Blanco, Oregonsouth to the northern entrance of SanFrancisco Bay, California.

(s) Puget Sound chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Includesall naturally spawned populations ofchinook salmon (and their progeny)from rivers and streams flowing into

Puget Sound including the Straits ofJuan De Fuca from the Elwha River,eastward, including rivers and streamsflowing into Hood Canal, South Sound,North Sound and the Strait of Georgiain Washington.

(t) Lower Columbia River chinooksalmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).Includes all naturally spawnedpopulations of chinook salmon (andtheir progeny) from the Columbia Riverand its tributaries from its mouth at thePacific Ocean upstream to a transitionalpoint between Washington and Oregoneast of the Hood River and the WhiteSalmon River, and includes theWillamette River to Willamette Falls,Oregon.

(u) Upper Willamette River chinooksalmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).Includes all naturally spawned spring-run populations of chinook salmon (andtheir progeny) in the Willamette River,and its tributaries, above WillametteFalls, Oregon.[FR Doc. 98–5484 Filed 3–2–98; 2:49 pm]BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

Documents

March 9, 1998 federal register - KRIS Web · 2011-02-14 · Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 45/Monday, March 9, 1998/Proposed Rules 11483 winter-run chinook salmon as endangered under