[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11482-11520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5484]
[[Page 11481]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Parts 222, 226, and 227
Endangered and Threatened Species: West Coast Chinook Salmon; Listing
Status Change; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 45 / Monday, March 9, 1998 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 11482]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 222, 226, and 227
[Docket No. 980225050-8050-01; I.D. 022398C]
RIN 0648-AK65
Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Endangered Status for
Two Chinook Salmon ESUs and Proposed Threatened Status for Five Chinook
Salmon ESUs; Proposed Redefinition, Threatened Status, and Revision of
Critical Habitat for One Chinook Salmon ESU; Proposed Designation of
Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat in California, Oregon, Washington,
Idaho
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed redefinition; proposed designation and
revision of critical habitat; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of west coast
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, or O. tshawytscha)
populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California in response to
petitions filed to list chinook salmon under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Based on this review, NMFS identified a total of 15
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of chinook salmon within this
range, including two Snake River ESUs already listed under the ESA, one
previously identified ESU (mid-Columbia River summer/fall run) for
which no listing was proposed, and one population (Sacramento River
winter run) that was listed as a ``distinct population segment'' prior
to the formulation of the NMFS ESU policy. With respect to the 12 ESUs
that are the subject of this proposed rule, NMFS has concluded that two
ESUs are at risk of extinction and five ESUs are at risk of becoming
endangered in the foreseeable future. NMFS also concluded that one
currently listed ESU should be redefined to include additional chinook
salmon populations and that this redefined ESU is at risk of becoming
endangered in the foreseeable future. NMFS also concluded that four
ESUs are not at risk of extinction nor at risk of becoming endangered
in the foreseeable future. Finally, NMFS also renamed the previously
identified Mid-Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU as the Upper Columbia
River summer/fall-run ESU.
NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to list two ESUs as endangered,
five ESUs as threatened, and to redefine one currently listed ESU to
include additional chinook populations, under the ESA. The endangered
chinook salmon are located in California (Central Valley spring-run
ESU) and Washington (Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU). The
threatened chinook salmon are dispersed throughout California, Oregon,
and Washington. They include the California Central Valley fall-run
ESU, the Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU, the Puget Sound
ESU, the Lower Columbia River ESU, and the Upper Willamette River ESU.
NMFS also proposes to redefine the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon
ESU to include fall chinook salmon populations in the Deschutes River,
and proposes to list this redefined ESU as a threatened species. This
proposal does not affect the current definition and threatened status
of the listed Snake River fall chinook salmon ESU.
In each ESU identified as threatened or endangered, only naturally
spawned, non-introduced chinook salmon are proposed for listing. Prior
to the final listing determinations, NMFS will examine the relationship
between hatchery and natural populations of chinook salmon in these
ESUs and assess whether any hatchery populations are essential for the
recovery of the natural populations and thus will be listed.
NMFS is proposing to designate critical habitat for the chinook
salmon ESUs newly proposed for listing within this notice, and for the
Snake River fall-run ESU, proposing to revise its existing critical
habitat. At this time, proposed critical habitat for these ESUs is the
species' current freshwater and estuarine range, certain marine areas,
and includes all waterways, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones
below longstanding, impassible, natural barriers.
NMFS is requesting public comments on the issues pertaining to this
proposed rule. NMFS is also requesting suggestions and comments on
integrated local/state/tribal/Federal conservation measures that will
achieve the purposes of the ESA to recover the health of chinook salmon
populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Should the
proposed listing be made final, NMFS will adopt protective regulations
and a recovery plan under the ESA.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 8, 1998. NMFS will announce
the dates and locations of public hearings in Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and California in a forthcoming Federal Register notice.
Requests for additional public hearings must be received by April 23,
1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule, requests for reference
materials, and requests for public hearings should be sent to Chief,
Protected Species Division, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500,
Portland, OR 97232-2737.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, 503-231-2005, Craig
Wingert, 562-980-4021, or Joe Blum, 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Chinook
West Coast chinook salmon have been the subject of many Federal ESA
actions. In November 1985, NMFS received a petition to list Sacramento
River winter-run chinook salmon from the American Fisheries Society
(AFS). NMFS determined that the petitioned action might be warranted
and announced it would conduct a review of the run's status (51 FR
5391, February 13, 1986). In its status review, NMFS determined that
Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon was a ``species'' for the
purposes of the ESA, but based upon the conservation and restoration
efforts by California and other Federal resource agencies, declined to
list the winter-run chinook at that time (52 FR 6041, February 27,
1987). Subsequent low returns prompted NMFS to adopt an emergency rule
listing Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon as a threatened
species under the ESA (54 FR 10260, August 4, 1989). NMFS then issued a
proposed rule to list Sacramento River winter-run chinook as a
threatened species under the ESA (55 FR 102260, March 20, 1990), and
also published a second emergency rule listing the winter-run chinook
as threatened to avoid any lapse in ESA protections while considering
the proposed rule (55 FR 12191, April 2, 1990). On November 5, 1990,
NMFS completed its listing determination for Sacramento River winter-
run chinook, and published a final rule listing the run as a threatened
species under the ESA (55 FR 46515).
In June 1991, AFS petitioned NMFS to reclassify the winter-run as
an endangered species. Based on the information submitted by AFS, and
after reviewing all other available data, NMFS determined that the
petitioned action may be warranted, and announced its intention to
review the status of the winter-run chinook (56 FR 58986, November 7,
1991), and then published a proposed rule to reclassify
[[Page 11483]]
winter-run chinook salmon as endangered under the ESA (57 FR 27416,
June 19, 1992). Critical habitat for Sacramento winter-run chinook
salmon was designated on June 16, 1993 (58 FR 33212). After several
extensions of the listing determination and the comment period, NMFS
finalized its proposed rule and re-classified the winter-run chinook as
an endangered species under the ESA (59 FR 440, January 4, 1994).
While NMFS was reviewing and reclassifying the status of Sacramento
River chinook, NMFS also received a petition from Oregon Trout and five
co-petitioners on June 7, 1990, to list Snake River spring/summer and
fall chinook salmon as threatened species under the ESA. On September
11, 1990, NMFS determined that the petition presented substantial
scientific information indicating that the proposed action may be
warranted, and initiated a status review (55 FR 37342). NMFS published
a proposed rule listing two Snake River chinook salmon runs as
threatened under the ESA on June 27, 1991 (56 FR 29542 and 56 FR
29547). NMFS finalized its rule listing these Snake River chinook
salmon runs as threatened species on April 22, 1992 (57 FR 14653).
Meanwhile, on June 3, 1993, American Rivers and 10 other
organizations petitioned NMFS to add Mid-Columbia River summer chinook
salmon to the list of endangered species. NMFS determined that this
petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted, and initiated a status review
(58 FR 46944, September 3, 1993). Subsequently, NMFS determined that
mid-Columbia River summer chinook salmon did not qualify as an ESU, and
therefore was not a ``distinct population segment'' under the ESA (59
FR 48855, September 23, 1994). However, NMFS determined that mid-
Columbia River summer chinook salmon were part of a larger ESU that
included all late-run (summer and fall) Columbia River chinook salmon
between McNary and Chief Joseph dams. NMFS also concluded that this ESU
did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species (59 FR
48855, September 23, 1994).
Immediately prior to that determination, NMFS determined that a
petition filed on March 14, 1994, by Professional Resources
Organization-Salmon (PRO-Salmon) to list various populations of chinook
salmon in Washington contained substantial scientific information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (59 FR 46808,
September 12, 1994). NMFS then announced that it would commence a
coast-wide status review of all west coast chinook salmon (59 FR
46808). Shortly after initiating this comprehensive coast wide status
review for chinook and other salmon species, NMFS received a petition
from Oregon Natural Resource Council and Dr. Richard Nawa on February
1, 1995, to list chinook salmon throughout its range. NMFS determined
that this petition contained substantial scientific information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and reconfirmed
its intention to conduct a comprehensive coast wide status review of
west coast chinook salmon (60 FR 30263, June 8, 1995).
In the intervening period between the two most recent petitions to
list various populations of west coast chinook salmon, NMFS published
an emergency rule on August 18, 1994 (59 FR 42529) after determining
that the status of Snake River spring/summer-run and Snake River fall-
run chinook salmon warranted reclassification as endangered, based on
projected declines and low abundance levels of adult chinook salmon.
Because emergency rules under the ESA have a maximum duration of 240
days (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7) and 50 CFR Sec. 424.20(a)), NMFS
published a proposed rule reclassifying listed Snake River spring/
summer-run and Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESUs as endangered
on December 28, 1994 (59 FR 66784). Since publishing that proposed
rule, a congressional moratorium on listing activities, a large ESA
listing determination backlog and other delays prevented NMFS from
completing its assessment of the proposed rule. During this period,
abundance of both stocks of Snake River chinook salmon has increased.
Based on these increases, along with improved management activities
affecting these chinook salmon, NMFS concluded that the risks facing
these chinook salmon ESUs are lower than they were at the time of the
proposed rule, and thus NMFS withdrew the proposed reclassification (63
FR 1807, January 12, 1998).
During the coast wide chinook salmon status review initiated in
September, 1994, NMFS assessed the best available scientific and
commercial data, including technical information from Pacific Salmon
Biological Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and interested parties in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The PSBTCs consisted
primarily of scientists (from Federal, state, and local resource
agencies, Indian tribes, industries, universities, professional
societies, and public interest groups) possessing technical expertise
relevant to chinook salmon and their habitats.
A NMFS Biological Review Team, composed of scientists from NMFS'
Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers, NMFS' Northwest and
Southwest Regional Offices, as well as a representative of the National
Biological Service, completed a coast wide status review for chinook
salmon [Memorandum to W. Stelle and W. Hogarth from M. Schiewe,
December 18, 1997, Chinook Salmon Status Review Report]. The review
(summary follows) evaluates the status of 15 chinook salmon ESUs in the
four states. The complete results of NMFS' status review for chinook
salmon populations will be published in a forthcoming NOAA Technical
Memorandum (Myers et al., 1998).
Chinook Salmon Life History and Ecology
Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) are easily distinguished from other
Oncorhynchus species by their large size. Adults weighing over 120
pounds have been caught in North American waters. Chinook salmon are
very similar to coho salmon (O. kisutch) in appearance while at sea
(blue-green back with silver flanks), except for their large size,
small black spots on both lobes of the tail, and black pigment along
the base of the teeth. Chinook salmon are anadromous and semelparous.
This means that as adults, they migrate from a marine environment into
the fresh water streams and rivers of their birth (anadromous) where
they spawn and die (semelparous). Adult female chinook will prepare a
spawning bed, called a redd, in a stream area with suitable gravel
composition, water depth and velocity. Redds will vary widely in size
and in location within the stream or river. The adult female chinook
may deposit eggs in 4 to 5 ``nesting pockets'' within a single redd.
After laying eggs in a redd, adult chinook will guard the redd from 4
to 25 days before dying. Chinook salmon eggs will hatch, depending upon
water temperatures, between 90 to 150 days after deposition. Stream
flow, gravel quality, and silt load all significantly influence the
survival of developing chinook salmon eggs. Juvenile chinook may spend
from 3 months to 2 years in freshwater after emergence and before
migrating to estuarine areas as smolts, and then into the ocean to feed
and mature. Historically, chinook salmon ranged as far south as the
Ventura River, California, and their northern extent reaches the
Russian Far East.
Among chinook salmon, two distinct races have evolved. One race,
described
[[Page 11484]]
as a ``stream-type'' chinook, is found most commonly in headwater
streams. Stream-type chinook salmon have a longer freshwater residency,
and perform extensive offshore migrations before returning to their
natal streams in the spring or summer months. The second race is called
the ``ocean-type'' chinook, which is commonly found in coastal streams
in North America. Ocean-type chinook typically migrate to sea within
the first three months of emergence, but they may spend up to a year in
freshwater prior to emigration. They also spend their ocean life in
coastal waters. Ocean-type chinook salmon return to their natal streams
or rivers as spring, winter, fall, summer, and late-fall runs, but
summer and fall runs predominate (Healey, 1991). The difference between
these life history types is also physical, with both genetic and
morphological foundations.
Juvenile stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon have adapted to
different ecological niches. Ocean-type chinook salmon tend to utilize
estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for juvenile rearing. The
brackish water areas in estuaries also moderate physiological stress
during parr-smolt transition. The development of the ocean-type life
history strategy may have been a response to the limited carrying
capacity of smaller stream systems and glacially scoured, unproductive,
watersheds, or a means of avoiding the impact of seasonal floods in the
lower portion of many watersheds (Miller and Brannon, 1982).
Stream-type juveniles are much more dependent on freshwater stream
ecosystems because of their extended residence in these areas. A
stream-type life history may be adapted to those watersheds, or parts
of watersheds, that are more consistently productive and less
susceptible to dramatic changes in water flow, or which have
environmental conditions that would severely limit the success of
subyearling smolts (Miller and Brannon, 1982; Healey, 1991). At the
time of saltwater entry, stream-type (yearling) smolts are much larger,
averaging 73-134 mm depending on the river system, than their ocean-
type (subyearling) counterparts and are therefore able to move offshore
relatively quickly (Healey, 1991).
Coastwide, chinook salmon remain at sea for 1 to 6 years (more
commonly 2 to 4 years), with the exception of a small proportion of
yearling males (called jack salmon) which mature in freshwater or
return after 2 or 3 months in salt water (Rutter, 1904; Gilbert, 1912;
Rich, 1920; Mullan et al., 1992). Ocean- and stream-type chinook salmon
are recovered differentially in coastal and mid-ocean fisheries,
indicating divergent migratory routes (Healey, 1983 and 1991). Ocean-
type chinook salmon tend to migrate along the coast, while stream-type
chinook salmon are found far from the coast in the central North
Pacific (Healey 1983 and 1991; Myers et al., 1984). Differences in the
ocean distribution of specific stocks may be indicative of resource
partitioning and may be important to the success of the species as a
whole.
There is a significant genetic influence to the freshwater
component of the returning adult migratory process. A number of studies
show that chinook salmon return to their natal streams with a high
degree of fidelity (Rich and Holmes 1928; Quinn and Fresh, 1984;
McIssac and Quinn, 1988). Salmon may have evolved this trait as a
method of ensuring an adequate incubation and rearing habitat. It also
provides a mechanism for reproductive isolation and local adaptation.
Conversely, returning to a stream other than that of one's origin is
important in colonizing new areas and responding to unfavorable or
perturbed conditions at the natal stream (Quinn, 1993).
Chinook salmon stocks exhibit considerable variability in size and
age of maturation, and at least some portion of this variation is
genetically determined. The relationship between size and length of
migration may also reflect the earlier timing of river entry and the
cessation of feeding for chinook salmon stocks that migrate to the
upper reaches of river systems. Body size, which is correlated with
age, may be an important factor in migration and redd construction
success. Roni and Quinn (1995) reported that under high density
conditions on the spawning ground, natural selection may produce stocks
with exceptionally large-sized returning adults.
Early researchers recorded the existence of different temporal
``runs'' or modes in the migration of chinook salmon from the ocean to
freshwater. Freshwater entry and spawning timing are believed to be
related to local temperature and water flow regimes (Miller and
Brannon, 1982). Seasonal ``runs'' (ie., spring, summer, fall, or
winter) have been identified on the basis of when adult chinook salmon
enter freshwater to begin their spawning migration. However, distinct
runs also differ in the degree of maturation at the time of river
entry, the thermal regime and flow characteristics of their spawning
site, and their actual time of spawning. Egg deposition must occur at a
time to ensure that fry emerge during the following spring when the
river or estuary productivity is sufficient for juvenile survival and
growth.
Other Life History Traits
Pathogen resistance is another locally adapted trait. Chinook
salmon from the Columbia River drainage were less susceptible to
Ceratomyxa shasta, an endemic pathogen, than stocks from coastal rivers
where the disease is not known to occur (Zinn et al., 1977). Alaskan
and Columbia River stocks of chinook salmon exhibit different levels of
susceptibility to the infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV)
(Wertheimer and Winton 1982). Variability in temperature tolerance
between populations is likely due to selection for local conditions;
however, there is little information on the genetic basis of this trait
(Levings, 1993).
Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA
To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, the
identified populations of chinook salmon must be considered ``species''
under the ESA. The ESA defines a ``species'' to include ``any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
when mature.'' NMFS published a policy (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991)
describing the agency's application of the ESA definition of
``species'' to anadromous Pacific salmonid species. NMFS' policy
provides that a Pacific salmonid population will be considered distinct
and, hence, a species under the ESA if it represents an ESU of the
biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be
considered an ESU, it must be reproductively isolated from other
conspecific population units, and it must represent an important
component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The
first criterion, reproductive isolation, need not be absolute, but must
be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to
accrue in different population units. The second criterion is met if
the population contributes substantially to the ecological and genetic
diversity of the species as a whole. Guidance on the application of
this policy is contained in a scientific paper ``Pacific Salmon
(Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition of `Species' under the
Endangered Species Act'' (Waples, 1991) and a NOAA Technical Memorandum
``Definition of `Species' Under the Endangered Species Act: Application
to Pacific Salmon'' (NMFS F/NWC-194) which are available upon request
(see ADDRESSES). The following sections
[[Page 11485]]
describe the genetic, ecological, and life history characteristics, as
well as human-induced genetic changes that NMFS assessed to determine
the number and geographic extent of chinook salmon ESUs.
Reproductive Isolation
Genetic data provide useful indirect information on reproductive
isolation because they integrate information about migration and gene
flow over evolutionarily important time frames.
Genetic information obtained from allozyme, DNA, and chromosomal
sampling indicate strong differentiation between chinook salmon ESUs,
and were largely consistent with those described in previous studies of
chinook salmon. Puget Sound populations of chinook salmon appear to
constitute a genetically distinct group, a conclusion that is
consistent with the results of Utter et al. (1989) and Marshall et al.
(1995). In NMFS' analyses, Washington coastal populations appeared to
form a genetically distinct group that was most similar to, but still
distinct from, Oregon coastal populations. The Washington coastal group
included the Hoko River population in the western part of the Strait of
Juan de Fuca. Chinook salmon in the Elwha River, which also drains into
the Strait of Juan de Fuca, were genetically intermediate between Puget
Sound and Washington coastal populations.
Chinook salmon populations in the Columbia and Snake Rivers appear
to be separated into two large genetic groups: those producing ocean-
type outmigrants and those producing stream-type outmigrants. The first
group includes populations in lower Columbia River tributaries, with
both spring-run and fall-run (``tule'') life histories. These ocean-
type populations exhibit a range of juvenile life history patterns that
appear to depend on local environmental conditions. The Willamette
River hatchery populations form a distinct subgroup within the lower
Columbia River group. Ocean-type chinook salmon populations east of the
Cascade Range Crest include both summer-and fall-run (``bright'')
populations, and are genetically distinct from lower Columbia River
ocean-type populations. Fall-run populations in the Snake River,
Deschutes River, and Marion Drain (Yakima River) form a distinct
subgroup.
The second major group of chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake
River drainage consists of spring- or summer-run fish. Based on
analysis of genetic clusters, three relatively distinct subgroups
appeared within these stream-type populations. One subgroup includes
spring-run populations in the Klickitat, John Day, Deschutes, and
Yakima Rivers of the mid-Columbia River. A second subgroup includes
upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon in the Wenatchee and
Methow Rivers, but also includes spring-run fish in the Grande Ronde
River and Carson Hatchery. This is likely due to the releases of exotic
Carson hatchery stock in these basins, rather than to natural genetic
similarities. A third subgroup consists of Snake River spring- and
summer-run populations in the Imnaha and Salmon Rivers, as well as
those in the Rapid River and Lookingglass Hatcheries. The Klickitat
River spring-run population appears to be genetically intermediate
between upper and lower Columbia River groups.
All populations of chinook salmon south of the Columbia River
drainage appear to consist of ocean-type fish. Populations along the
north coast of Oregon form a genetically distinct group, consisting of
populations north of and including the Elk River, except for the Rock
Creek Hatchery spring-run population, which show greater genetic
affinity to southern Oregon coastal populations. A southern coastal
group includes populations south of the Elk River to and including
populations in the lower Klamath River in northern California. However,
Euchre Creek, which is located near the Rogue River and has been
planted extensively with Elk River stock, is more similar to
populations north of Cape Blanco. Upper Klamath River populations of
chinook salmon are genetically distinct from other northern California,
southern Oregon and California Central Valley populations.
Sacramento and San Joaquin River populations are genetically
distinct from northern California coastal and Klamath River
populations. Previous studies grouped populations in the Sacramento
River with those in the San Joaquin River (Utter et al., 1989; Bartley
and Gall, 1990; Bartley et al., 1992). However, Hedgecock et al.
(1995), Banks (1996), and Nielsen (1995 and 1997) surveyed DNA markers
and these results indicate that the winter, spring, fall, and late-fall
runs may be genetically distinct from one another.
Genetic Changes Due to Human Activities
The effects of artificial propagation and other human activities
such as harvest and habitat modification, can be relevant to ESA
listing determinations in two ways. First, such activities can
genetically change natural populations so much that they no longer
represent an evolutionarily significant component of the biological
species (Waples, 1991). For example, in 1991, NMFS concluded that, as a
result of massive and prolonged effects of artificial propagation,
harvest, and habitat degradation, the agency could not identify natural
populations of coho salmon (O. kisutch) in the lower Columbia River
that qualified for ESA listing consideration (56 FR 29553, June 27,
1991). Second, risks to the viability and genetic integrity of native
salmon populations posed by human activities may contribute to their
threatened or endangered status (Goodman, 1990; Hard et al., 1992). The
severity of these effects on natural populations depends both on the
nature of the effects (e.g., harvest rate, gear size, or type of
hatchery practice) and their magnitude (e.g., duration of a hatchery
program and number and life-history stage of hatchery fish involved).
For example, artificial propagation is a common practice to
supplement chinook salmon stocks for commercial and recreational
fisheries. However, in many areas, a significant portion of the
naturally spawning population consists of hatchery-produced chinook
salmon. In several of the chinook salmon ESUs, over 50 percent of the
naturally spawning fish are from hatcheries. Many of these hatchery-
produced fish are derived from a few stocks which may or may not have
originated from the geographic area where they are released. However,
in several of the ESUs analyzed, insufficient or uncertain information
exists regarding the interactions between hatchery and natural fish,
and the relative abundance of hatchery and natural stocks.
Artificial propagation is important to consider in ESA evaluations
of anadromous Pacific salmonids for several reasons. First, although
natural fish are the focus of ESU determinations, possible effects of
artificial propagation on natural populations must also be evaluated.
For example, stock transfers might change the genetic bases or
phenotypic expression of life history characteristics in a natural
population in such a way that the population might seem either less or
more distinctive than it was historically. Artificial propagation can
also alter life history characteristics such as smolt age and migration
and spawn timing (e.g., Crawford, 1979, NRC 1996). Second, artificial
propagation poses a number of risks to natural populations that may
affect their risk of extinction or endangerment. Finally, if any
natural populations are listed under the ESA, then it will be necessary
to determine the ESA status of
[[Page 11486]]
all associated hatchery populations. This latter determination would be
made following a proposed listing and is not considered further in this
document.
The impacts of hatchery activities on specific ESUs is discussed in
the Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs and Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species sections.
Ecological and Genetic Diversity
Several types of physical and biological evidence were considered
in evaluating the contribution of chinook salmon from Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and California to the ecological and genetic diversity
of the biological species throughout its range. Factors examined
included: (1) The physical environment--geology, soil type, air
temperature, precipitation, river flow patterns, water temperature, and
vegetation; (2) biogeography--marine, estuarine, and freshwater fish
distributions; and (3) life history traits--age at smolting, age at
spawning, river entry timing, and spawning timing. An analysis of the
physical environment and life history traits provides important insight
into the ecological and genetic diversity of the species and can
reflect unusual or distinctive adaptations that promote evolutionary
processes.
The predominant differentiation in chinook salmon life history
types is that between ocean- and stream-type chinook salmon. Ocean-type
populations typically migrate to the ocean in their first year of life
and spend most of their marine life in coastal waters, whereas stream-
type populations migrate to sea as yearlings and often make extensive
ocean migrations.
In some areas within the Columbia River Basin, stream- and ocean-
type chinook salmon stocks spawn in relatively close proximity to one
another but are separated by run timing. Stream-type chinook salmon
include spring-run populations in the Columbia River and its
tributaries east of the Cascade Crest, and spring- and summer-run fish
in the Snake River and its tributaries. Ocean-type chinook salmon
include fall-run chinook salmon in both the Columbia and Snake River
Basins, summer-run chinook salmon from the Columbia River, and spring-
run fish from the lower Columbia River. There are substantial genetic
differences between stream- and ocean-type chinook salmon in both the
Fraser and Columbia River Basins, and the genetic analyses show clearly
that the two life history forms represent two major evolutionary
lineages.
Adult run-time has also long been used to identify different
temporal ``races'' of chinook salmon. In cases where the run-time
differences correspond to differences between stream- and ocean-type
fish (e.g., in the Columbia and Fraser River Basins), relatively large
genetic differences (as well as ecological and life history
differences) can be found between the different runs. In most coastal
areas, however, life history and genetic differences between the runs
are relatively modest, relative to the larger differences used in
designating other ESUs. Although many populations have some fraction of
yearling migrants, all the coastal populations are part of the ocean
lineage, and spring- and fall-run fish are very similar in ocean
distribution.
Among basins supporting only ocean-type chinook salmon, the
Sacramento River system is somewhat unusual in that its large size and
ecological diversity historically allowed for substantial spatial as
well as temporal separation of different runs. Genetic and life history
data both suggest that considerable differentiation among the runs has
occurred in this basin. The Klamath River Basin, as well as chinook
salmon in Puget Sound, shares some features of coastal rivers but
historically also provided an opportunity for substantial spatial
separation of different temporal runs. As discussed below, the
diversity in run timing made identifying ESUs difficult in the Klamath
and Sacramento River Basins.
NMFS considers differences in life history traits as a possible
indicator of adaptation to different environmental regimes and resource
partitioning within those regimes. The relevance of the ecologic and
genetic basis for specific chinook salmon life-history traits as they
pertain to each ESU is discussed in the brief summary that follows.
ESU Determinations
The ESU determinations described here represent a synthesis of a
large amount of diverse information. In general, the proposed
geographic boundaries for each ESU (i.e., the watersheds within which
the members of the ESU are typically found) are supported by several
lines of evidence that show similar patterns. However, the diverse data
sets are not always entirely congruent (nor would they be expected to
be), and the proposed boundaries are not necessarily the only ones
possible. For example, in some cases (e.g., in the Middle Columbia
River near the Cascade Crest), environmental changes occur over a
transition zone rather than abruptly.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
NMFS has identified 15 ESUs of chinook salmon from Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and California, including 11 new ESUs, and one redefined ESU.
The 15 ESUs are briefly described and characterized below. Genetic data
(from studies of protein electrophoresis and DNA) were the primary
evidence considered for the reproductive isolation criterion,
supplemented by inferences about barriers to migration created by
natural geographic features and human-induced changes resulting from
artificial propagation and harvest. Factors considered to be most
informative in evaluating ecological and genetic diversity include data
pertaining to the physical environment, ocean conditions and upwelling,
vegetation, estuarine and freshwater fish distributions, river entry,
and spawning timing.
Most of the ESUs described below include multiple spawning
populations of chinook salmon, and most also extend over a considerable
geographic area. This result is consistent with NMFS' species
definition paper, which states that, in general, ``ESUs should
correspond to more comprehensive units unless there is clear evidence
that evolutionarily important differences exist between smaller
population segments'' (Waples, 1991, p. 20). However, considerable
diversity in genetic or life history traits or habitat features exists
within most ESUs, and maintaining this diversity is critical to their
overall health. The descriptions below briefly summarize some of the
notable types of diversity within each ESU, and this diversity is
considered in the next section in evaluating risk to the ESUs as a
whole.
(1) Sacramento River Winter-Run ESU
This run was determined to be a distinct population segment by NMFS
in 1987, prior to development of the NMFS species policy. The NMFS
concluded that this run meets the criteria to be considered an ESU. It
includes chinook salmon entering the Sacramento River from November to
June and spawning from late-April to mid-August, with a peak from May
to June. No other chinook salmon populations have a similar life
history pattern. In general, winter-run chinook salmon exhibit an
ocean-type life-history strategy, with smolts emigrating to the ocean
after 5 to 9 months of freshwater residence (Johnson et al., 1992) and
remaining near the coasts of California and Oregon. Winter-run chinook
salmon also mature at a
[[Page 11487]]
relatively young age (2-3 years old). DNA analysis indicates
substantial genetic differences between winter-run and other chinook
salmon in the Sacramento River.
Historically, winter-run populations existed in the Upper
Sacramento, Pit, McCloud, and Calaveras Rivers. The spawning habitat
for these stocks was primarily located in the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion
(Omernik, 1987). Construction of dams on these rivers in the 1940s led
to the extirpation of populations in the San Joaquin River Basin and
displaced the Sacramento River population to areas below Shasta Dam.
(2) Central Valley Spring-Run ESU
Existing populations in this ESU spawn in the Sacramento River and
its tributaries. Historically, spring chinook salmon were the dominant
run in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Clark, 1929), but
native populations in the San Joaquin River have apparently all been
extirpated (Campbell and Moyle, 1990). This ESU includes chinook salmon
entering the Sacramento River from March to July and spawning from late
August through early October, with a peak in September. Spring-run fish
in the Sacramento River exhibit an ocean-type life history, emigrating
as fry, subyearlings, and yearlings. Recoveries of hatchery chinook
salmon implanted with coded-wire-tags (CWT) are primarily from ocean
fisheries off the California and Oregon coast. There were minimal
differences in the ocean distribution of fall- and spring-run fish from
the Feather River Hatchery (as determined by CWT analysis); however,
due to hybridization that may have occurred in the hatchery between
these two runs, this similarity in ocean migration may not be
representative of wild runs.
Substantial ecological differences in the historical spawning
habitat for spring-run versus fall- and late-fall-run fish have been
recognized. Spring chinook salmon run timing was suited to gaining
access to the upper reaches of river systems (up to 1,500 m elevation)
prior to the onset of prohibitively high water temperatures and low
flows that inhibit access to these areas during the fall. Differences
in adult size, fecundity, and smolt size also occur between spring- and
fall/late fall-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento River.
No allozyme data are available for naturally spawning Sacramento
River spring chinook salmon. A sample from Feather River Hatchery
spring-run fish, which may have undergone substantial hybridization
with fall chinook salmon, shows modest (but statistically significant)
differences from fall-run hatchery populations. DNA data show moderate
genetic differences between the spring and fall/late-fall runs in the
Sacramento River; however, these data are difficult to interpret in the
context of this broad status review because comparable data are not
available for other geographic regions.
(3) Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-Run ESU
This ESU includes fall and late-fall chinook salmon spawning in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. These
populations enter the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers from July
through April and spawn from October through February.
Both runs are ocean-type chinook salmon, emigrating predominantly
as fry and subyearlings and remaining off the California coast during
their ocean migration.
Sacramento/San Joaquin Basin chinook salmon are genetically and
physically distinguishable from all other coastal forms (Clark, 1929;
Synder, 1931). Ecologically, the Central Valley also differs in many
important ways from coastal areas. There were also a number of life-
history differences noted between Sacramento and San Joaquin River
Basin fall/late fall-run populations. In general, San Joaquin River
populations tend to mature at an earlier age and spawn later in the
year than Sacramento River populations. These differences could have
been phenotypic responses to the generally warmer temperature and lower
flow conditions found in the San Joaquin River Basin relative to the
Sacramento River Basin. There was no apparent difference in the
distribution of marine CWT recoveries from Sacramento and San Joaquin
River hatchery populations, nor were there genetic differences between
Sacramento and San Joaquin River fall/late fall-run populations (based
on DNA and allozyme analysis) of a similar magnitude to that used in
distinguishing other ESUs. This apparent lack of distinguishing life
history and genetic characteristics may be due, in part, to large scale
transfers of Sacramento River fall/late fall-run chinook salmon into
the San Joaquin River Basin.
(4) Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU
This ESU includes all naturally spawned coastal spring and fall
chinook salmon spawning from Cape Blanco (inclusive of the Elk River)
to the southern extent of the current range for chinook salmon at Point
Bonita (the northern landmass marking the entrance to San Francisco
Bay). The Cape Blanco region is a major biogeographic boundary for
numerous species (e.g., steelhead and coho salmon). Chinook salmon
spawn in several small tributaries to San Francisco Bay, however it is
uncertain whether these small populations are part of this ESU, or
wanderers from Central Valley chinook salmon ESUs.
Chinook salmon from the Central Valley and Klamath River Basin
upstream from the Trinity River confluence are genetically and
ecologically distinguishable from those in this ESU. Chinook salmon in
this ESU exhibit an ocean-type life-history; ocean distribution (based
on marine CWT recoveries) is predominantly off of the California and
Oregon coasts. Life-history information on smaller populations,
especially in the southern portion of the ESU, is extremely limited.
Additionally, only anecdotal or incomplete information exists on
abundance of several spring-run populations including, the Chetco,
Winchuck, Smith, Mad, and Eel Rivers. Allozyme data indicate that this
ESU is genetically distinguishable from the Oregon Coast, Upper Klamath
and Trinity River, and Central Valley ESUs. This data also shows some
divergence between chinook populations north and south of the Klamath
River, but the available information is incomplete to describe chinook
salmon south of the Klamath River as a separate ESU. Life history
differences also exist between spring- and fall-run fish in this ESU,
but not to the same extent as is observed in larger inland basins.
Ecologically, the majority of the river systems in this ESU are
relatively small and heavily influenced by a maritime climate. Low
summer flows and high temperatures in many rivers result in seasonal
physical and thermal barrier bars that block movement by anadromous
fish. The Rogue River is the largest river basin in this ESU and
extends inland into the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Ecoregions.
(5) Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU
Included in this ESU are all Klamath River Basin populations from
the Trinity River and the Klamath River upstream from the confluence of
the Trinity River. These populations include both spring- and fall-run
fish that enter the Upper Klamath River Basin from March through July
and July through October and spawn from late August through September
and September through early January, respectively. Body morphology
[[Page 11488]]
(vertebral counts, lateral-line scale counts, and fin-ray counts) and
reproductive traits (egg size and number) for populations from the
Upper Klamath River differ from those of populations in the Sacramento
River Basin. Genetic analysis indicated that populations from the Upper
Klamath River Basin form a unique group that is quite distinctive
compared to neighboring ESUs. The Upper Klamath River crosses the
Coastal Range, Sierra Nevada, and Eastern Cascades Ecoregions, although
dams prevent access to the upper river headwaters of the Klamath River
in the Eastern Cascades Ecoregion.
Within the Upper Klamath River Basin, there are statistically
significant, but fairly modest, genetic differences between the fall
and spring runs. The majority of the spring- and fall-run fish emigrate
to the marine environment primarily as subyearlings. Recoveries of CWTs
indicate that both runs have a coastal distribution off of the
California and Oregon coasts. There was no apparent difference in the
marine distribution of CWT recoveries from fall-run (Iron Gate and
Trinity River Hatcheries) and spring-run populations (Trinity River
Hatchery).
NMFS was concerned that the only estimate of the genetic
relationship between spring and fall runs in this ESU is from a
comparison of hatchery stocks that may have undergone some
introgression during hatchery spawning operations, thus blurring the
distinguishable traits between spring- and fall-run chinook in this
ESU. NMFS acknowledges that the ESU determination should be revisited
if substantial new information from natural spring-run populations
becomes available.
(6) Oregon Coast ESU
This ESU contains coastal populations of spring- and fall-run
chinook salmon from the Elk River north to the mouth of the Columbia
River. These populations exhibit an ocean-type life-history and mature
at ages 3, 4, and 5. In contrast to the more southerly ocean
distribution pattern shown by populations from the lower Columbia River
and farther south, CWT recoveries from populations within this ESU are
predominantly from British Columbia and Alaska coastal fisheries. There
is a strong genetic separation between Oregon Coast ESU populations and
neighboring ESU populations. This ESU falls within the Coastal
Ecoregion and is characterized by a strong maritime influence, with
moderate temperatures, high precipitation levels, and easy migration
access.
(7) Washington Coast ESU
Coastal populations spawning north of the Columbia River and west
of the Elwha River are included in this ESU. These populations can be
distinguished from those in Puget Sound by their older age at maturity
and more northerly ocean distribution. Allozyme data also indicate
geographical differences between populations from this area and those
in Puget Sound, the Columbia River, and the Oregon coast ESUs.
Populations within this ESU are ocean-type chinook salmon and generally
mature at age 3, 4, and 5. Ocean distribution for these fish is more
northerly than that for the Puget Sound and Lower Columbia River ESUs.
The boundaries of this ESU lie within the Coastal Ecoregion, which is
strongly influenced by the marine environment: high precipitation,
moderate temperatures, and easy migration access.
(8) Puget Sound ESU
This ESU encompasses all naturally spawned spring, summer and fall
runs of chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region from the North Fork
Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula, inclusive.
Chinook salmon in this area all exhibit an ocean-type life history.
Although some spring-run chinook salmon populations in the Puget Sound
ESU have a high proportion of yearling smolt emigrants, the proportion
varies substantially from year to year and appears to be
environmentally mediated rather than genetically determined. Puget
Sound stocks all tend to mature at ages 3 and 4 and exhibit similar,
coastally-oriented, ocean migration patterns. There are substantial
ocean distribution differences between Puget Sound and Washington coast
stocks, with CWT recoveries of Washington coastal chinook found in much
larger proportions from Alaskan waters. The marine distribution of
Elwha River chinook salmon most closely resembled other Puget Sound
stocks, rather than Washington coast stocks.
The NMFS concluded that, on the basis of substantial genetic
separation, the Puget Sound ESU does not include Canadian populations
of chinook salmon. Allozyme analysis of North Fork and South Fork
Nooksack River spring chinook salmon identified them as outliers, but
most closely allied with other Puget Sound samples. DNA analysis
identified a number of markers that appear to be restricted to either
the Puget Sound or Washington coastal stocks. Some allozyme markers
suggested an affinity of the Elwha River population with the Washington
coastal stocks, while others suggested an affinity with Puget Sound
stocks.
The boundaries of the Puget Sound ESU correspond generally with the
boundaries of the Puget Lowland Ecoregion. Despite being in the
rainshadow of the Olympic Mountains, the river systems in the western
portion of Puget Sound maintain high flow rates due to the melting
snowpack in the surrounding mountains. Temperatures tend to be
moderated by the marine environment. The Elwha River, which is in the
Coastal Ecoregion, is the only system in this ESU which lies outside
the Puget Sound Ecoregion. Furthermore, the boundary between the
Washington Coast and Puget Sound ESUs (which includes the Elwha River
in the Puget Sound ESU) corresponds with ESU boundaries for steelhead
and coho salmon. In life history and genetic attributes, the Elwha
River chinook salmon appear to be transitional between populations from
Puget Sound and the Washington Coast ESU.
(9) Lower Columbia River ESU
This ESU includes all naturally spawned chinook populations from
the mouth of the Columbia River to the crest of the Cascade Range,
excluding populations above Willamette Falls. Celilo Falls, which
corresponds to the edge of the drier Columbia Basin Ecosystem and
historically may have presented a migrational barrier to chinook salmon
at certain times of the year, is the eastern boundary for this ESU. Not
included in this ESU are ``stream-type'' spring chinook salmon found in
the Klickitat River (which are considered part of the Mid-Columbia
River spring-run ESU) or the introduced Carson spring-chinook salmon.
``Tule'' fall chinook salmon in the Wind and Little White Salmon Rivers
are included in this ESU, but not introduced ``upriver bright'' fall
chinook salmon populations in the Wind, White Salmon, and Klickitat
Rivers. Available information suggests that spring chinook salmon
presently in the Clackamas and Sandy Rivers are predominantly the
result of introductions from the Willamette River ESU and are thus
probably not representative of spring chinook salmon found
historically.
In addition to the geographic features mentioned above, genetic and
life-history data were important factors in defining this ESU.
Populations in this ESU are considered ocean type. Some spring-run
populations have a large proportion of yearling migrants, but this
trend may be biased by yearling hatchery releases. Subyearling migrants
were found to contribute to the
[[Page 11489]]
escapement. CWT recoveries for Lower Columbia River ESU populations
indicate a northerly migration route, but with little contribution to
the Alaskan fishery. Populations in this ESU also tend to mature at age
3 and 4, somewhat younger than populations from the coastal, upriver,
and Willamette ESUs. Ecologically, the Lower Columbia River ESU crosses
several ecoregions: Coastal, Willamette Valley, Cascades and East
Cascades.
(10) Upper Willamette River ESU
This ESU includes naturally spawned spring-run populations above
Willamette Falls. Fall chinook salmon above the Willamette Falls are
introduced and although they are naturally spawning, they are not
considered a population for purposes of defining this ESU. Historic,
naturally spawned populations in this ESU have an unusual life history
that shares features of both the stream and ocean types. Scale analysis
of returning fish indicate a predominantly yearling smolt life-history
and maturity at 4 years of age, but these data are primarily from
hatchery fish and may not accurately reflect patterns for the natural
fish. Young-of-year smolts have been found to contribute to the
returning 3 year-old year class. The ocean distribution is consistent
with an ocean-type life history, and CWT recoveries occur in
considerable numbers in the Alaskan and British Columbian coastal
fisheries. Intra-basin transfers have contributed to the homogenization
of Willamette River spring chinook salmon stocks; however, Willamette
River spring chinook salmon remain one of the most genetically
distinctive groups of chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin.
The geography and ecology of the Willamette Valley is considerably
different from surrounding areas. Historically, the Willamette Falls
offered a narrow temporal window for upriver migration, which may have
promoted isolation from other Columbia River stocks.
(11) Mid-Columbia River Spring-Run ESU
Included in this ESU are stream-type chinook salmon spawning in the
Klickitat, Deschutes, John Day, and Yakima Rivers. Historically,
spring-run populations from the Hood, Walla Walla, and Umatilla Rivers
may have also belonged in this ESU, but these populations are now
considered extinct. Chinook salmon from this ESU emigrate to the ocean
as yearlings and apparently migrate far off-shore, as they do not
appear in appreciable numbers in any ocean fisheries. The majority of
adults spawn as 4-year-olds, with the exception of fish returning to
the upper tributaries of the Yakima River, which return predominantly
at age 5. Populations in this ESU are genetically distinguishable from
other stream-type chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers.
Streams in this region drain desert areas east of the Cascades
(Columbia Basin Ecoregion) and are ecologically differentiated from the
colder, less productive, glacial streams of the upper Columbia River
spring-run ESU and from the generally higher elevation streams of the
Snake River.
(12) Upper-Columbia River Summer-and Fall-Run ESU
This ESU was first identified as the Mid-Columbia River summer/fall
chinook salmon ESU. Previously, Waknitz et al. (1995) and NMFS (1994)
identified an ESU that included all ocean-type chinook salmon spawning
in areas between McNary Dam and Chief Joseph Dam (59 FR 48855,
September 23, 1994). However, NMFS has now concluded that the
boundaries of this ESU do not extend downstream from the Snake River.
In particular, NMFS concluded that Deschutes River fall chinook salmon
are not part of this ESU. The ESU status of the Marion Drain population
from the Yakima River is still unresolved. NMFS also identified the
importance of obtaining more definitive genetic and life history
information for naturally spawning fall chinook salmon elsewhere in the
Yakima River drainage.
Chinook salmon from this ESU primarily emigrate to the ocean as
subyearlings but mature at an older age than ocean-type chinook salmon
in the Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers. Furthermore, a greater
proportion of CWT recoveries for this ESU occur in the Alaskan coastal
fishery than is the case for Snake River fish. The status review for
Snake River fall chinook salmon (Waples et al., 1991; NMFS, 1992) also
identified genetic and environmental differences between the Columbia
and Snake Rivers. Substantial life history and genetic differences
distinguish fish in this ESU from stream-type spring chinook salmon
from the mid- and upper-Columbia Rivers.
The ESU boundaries fall within part of the Columbia Basin
Ecoregion. The area is generally dry and relies on Cascade Range
snowmelt for peak spring flows. Historically, this ESU likely extended
farther upstream; spawning habitat was compressed down-river following
construction of Grand Coulee Dam.
(13) Upper Columbia River Spring-Run ESU
This ESU includes stream-type chinook salmon spawning above Rock
Island Dam--that is, those in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers.
All chinook salmon in the Okanogan River are apparently ocean-type and
are considered part of the Upper Columbia River summer- and fall-run
ESU. These upper Columbia River populations exhibit classical stream-
type life-history strategies: yearling smolt emigration with only rare
CWT recoveries in coastal fisheries. These populations are genetically
and ecologically well separated from the summer- and fall-run
populations that exist in the lower parts of many of the same river
systems.
Rivers in this ESU drain the east slopes of the Cascade Range and
are fed primarily by snowmelt. The waters tend to be cooler and less
turbid than the Snake and Yakima Rivers to the south. Although these
fish appear to be closely related genetically to stream-type chinook
salmon in the Snake River, NMFS recognized substantial ecological
differences between the Snake and Columbia Rivers, particularly in the
upper tributaries favored by stream-type chinook salmon. Allozyme data
demonstrate even larger differences between spring chinook salmon
populations from the mid- and upper-Columbia River.
Artificial propagation programs have had a considerable influence
on this ESU. During the Grand Coulee Fish-Maintenance Project (GCFMP,
1939-1943), all spring chinook salmon reaching Rock Island Dam,
including those destined for areas above Grand Coulee Dam, were
collected and they or their progeny were dispersed into streams in this
ESU (Fish and Hanavan, 1948). Some ocean-type fish were undoubtedly
also incorporated into this program. Spring-run escapements to the
Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers were severely depressed prior to
the GCFMP but increased considerably in subsequent years, suggesting
that the effects of the program may have been substantial.
Subsequently, widespread transplants of Carson stock spring chinook
salmon (derived from a mixture of Columbia River and Snake River
stream-type chinook salmon) have also contributed to erosion of the
genetic integrity of this ESU.
In spite of considerable homogenization, this ESU still represents
an important genetic resource, in part because it presumably contains
the last remnants of the gene pools for populations from the headwaters
of the Columbia River.
[[Page 11490]]
(14) Snake River Fall-Run ESU
This ESU, which includes ocean-type fish, was identified in an
earlier status review (Waples et al., 1991; NMFS, 1992). In that status
review and in a later review of mid-Columbia River summer chinook
salmon (Waknitz et al., 1995), the ESU status of populations from
Marion Drain and the Deschutes River was not resolved, so these issues
were considered in the current review.
Both populations show a greater genetic affinity to Snake River
fall chinook salmon than to other ocean-type Columbia River populations
such as the Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU. After evaluation,
NMFS concluded that chinook salmon spawning in the Marion Drain could
not be assigned to any historic or current ESU with any certainty.
However, after further review, NMFS has concluded that the
Deschutes River chinook salmon population should be considered part of
the Snake River fall-run ESU. The Deschutes River historically
supported a population of fall chinook salmon, as evidenced by counts
of fish at Sherars Falls in the 1940s. Genetic and life history data
for the current population indicate a closer affinity to fall chinook
salmon in the Snake River than to those in the Columbia River.
Similarities were observed in the distribution of CWT ocean recoveries
for Snake River and Deschutes River fall-run chinook salmon; however,
information on Deschutes River fish was based on a limited number of
releases over a relatively short time frame. CWT recovery data indicate
that straying by non-native chinook salmon into the Deschutes River is
very low and does not appear to be disproportionately influenced by
Snake River fall-run chinook salmon (Hymer et al., 1992). Fall-run
chinook populations from the John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers
would also be included in this ESU, but are believed to have been
extirpated.
(15) Snake River Spring- and Summer-Run ESU
This ESU, which includes populations of spring- and summer-run
chinook salmon from the Snake River Basin (excluding the Clearwater
River), was identified in a previous status review (Matthews and
Waples, 1991; NMFS, 1992). These populations show modest genetic
differences, but substantial ecological differences, in comparison with
Mid- and Upper Columbia River spring- and summer-run chinook salmon
populations. Populations from this ESU emigrate to the ocean as
yearlings, mature at ages 4 and 5, and are rarely taken in ocean
fisheries. The majority of the spawning habitat occurs in the Northern
Rockies and Blue Mountains ecoregions.
Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs
The ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as ``any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is defined as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' In previous status reviews (e.g., Weitkamp et al., 1995), NMFS
has identified a number of factors that should be considered in
evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU, including: (1) Absolute
numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal distribution; (2)
current abundance in relation to historical abundance and current
carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in abundance; (4) natural
and human-influenced factors that cause variability in survival and
abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity (e.g., from strays
or outplants from hatchery programs); and (6) recent events (e.g., a
drought or changes in harvest management) that have predictable short-
term consequences for abundance of the ESU.
During the coastwide status review for chinook salmon, NMFS
evaluated both qualitative and quantitative information to determine
whether any proposed ESU is threatened or endangered according to the
ESA. The types of information used in these assessments are described
below, followed by a summary of results for each ESU.
Qualitative Evaluations
Qualitative assessments of the status of chinook salmon stocks have
been published by agencies or conservation groups (Nehlsen et al.,
1991; Higgins et al., 1992; Nickelson et al., 1992; WDF et al., 1993;
Huntington et al., 1996). Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered salmonid
stocks throughout Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California and
enumerated all stocks that they found to be extinct or at risk of
extinction. Nehlsen et al. (1991) classified stocks as extinct,
possibly extinct, at high risk of extinction, at moderate risk of
extinction, or of special concern. They considered it likely that
stocks at high risk of extinction have reached the threshold for
classification as endangered under the ESA. Stocks were placed in this
category if they had declined from historic levels and were continuing
to decline, or had spawning escapements less than 200. Stocks were
classified as at moderate risk of extinction if they had declined from
historic levels but presently appear to be stable at a level above 200
spawners. They felt that stocks in this category had reached the
threshold for threatened under the ESA. They classified stocks as of
special concern if a relatively minor disturbance could threaten them,
insufficient data were available for them, they were influenced by
large releases of hatchery fish, or they possess some unique
characteristic.
Higgins et al. (1992) used the same classification scheme as
Nehlsen et al. (1991) but provided a more detailed review of some
northern California salmonid stocks. In this review, their evaluation
is relevant only to the Southern Oregon and California Coastal and
Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESUs.
Nickelson et al. (1992) rated wild coastal (excluding Columbia
River Basin) Oregon salmon and steelhead stocks on the basis of their
status over the past 20 years, classifying stocks as ``healthy,''
``depressed,'' ``of special concern,'' or ``unknown''.
WDF et al. (1993) categorized all salmon and steelhead stocks in
Washington on the basis of stock origin, production type, and status
(``healthy,'' ``depressed,'' ``critical,'' or ``unknown'').
Huntington et al. (1996) surveyed the condition of healthy native
or wild stocks of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and
California. Stocks were classified as healthy based upon abundance,
self-sustainability, and not having been previously identified as at
substantial risk of extinction. Healthy stocks were described at two
levels: ``adult abundance at least two-thirds as great as would be
found in the absence of human impacts'' (Level I); and ``adult
abundance between one-third and two-thirds as great as expected without
human impacts'' (Level II).
There are problems in applying results of these studies to ESA
evaluations. A major problem is that the definition of ``stock'' or
``population'' varied considerably in scale among studies, and
sometimes among regions within a study. Identified units range in size
from large river basins (e.g., ``Sacramento River'' in Nehlsen et al.,
1991), to minor coastal streams and tributaries. A second problem is
the definition of categories used to classify stock status. Only
Nehlsen et al. (1991) and Higgins et al. (1992) used categories
intended to relate to ESA ``threatened'' or ``endangered'' status, and
they applied their own interpretations of these terms to individual
stocks, not to
[[Page 11491]]
ESUs as defined here. WDF et al. (1993) used general terms describing
status of stocks that cannot be directly related to the considerations
important in ESA evaluations. A third problem is the selection of
stocks or populations to include in the review. Nehlsen et al. (1991)
and Higgins et al. (1992) did not discuss stocks not perceived to be at
risk, so it is difficult to determine the proportion of stocks they
considered to be at risk in any given area. For chinook salmon, WDF et
al. (1993) included only stocks considered to be substantially ``wild''
and included data only for the ``wild'' component for streams that have
both hatchery and natural fish escaping to spawn, giving an incomplete
evaluation of chinook salmon utilizing natural habitat.
Quantitative Evaluations
Quantitative evaluations of data included comparisons of current
and historical abundance of chinook salmon, calculation of recent
trends in escapement, and evaluation of the proportion of natural
spawning attributable to hatchery fish. Historical abundance
information for these ESUs is largely anecdotal. Time series data are
available for many populations, but data extent and quality varied
among ESUs. NMFS compiled and analyzed this information to provide
several summary statistics of natural spawning abundance, including
(where available) recent total spawning escapement, percent annual
change in total escapement (both long-term and most recent ten years),
recent naturally produced spawning escapement, and average percentage
of natural spawners that were of hatchery origin.
Although this evaluation used the best data available, there are a
number of limitations to these data, and not all summary statistics
were available for all populations. For example, spawner abundance was
generally not measured directly; rather, it often had to be estimated
from catch (which itself may not always have been measured accurately)
or from limited survey data.
Sport and commercial harvest impacts were compiled from a variety
of sources. In presenting this information, NMFS has tried to maintain
a clear distinction between harvest rates (usually calculated as catch
divided by catch plus escapement for a cohort or brood year) and
exploitation rates (age-specific rates of exploitation in individual
fisheries).
Stream surveys for chinook salmon spawning abundance have been
conducted by various agencies within most of the ESUs considered here.
The methods and time-spans of the surveys vary considerably among
regions, so it is difficult to assess the general reliability of these
surveys as population indices. For most streams where these surveys are
conducted, they are the best local indication of population trends.
Dam counts provide quantitative estimates of run size, but in most
cases, these counts cannot be resolved to the individual population
level and are subject to errors stemming from fallback, run
classification, and unaccounted mortality. Run reconstructions
providing estimates of both adult spawning abundance and fishery
recruits are being prepared for many stream-type chinook salmon
populations in the Columbia River Basin (Beamsderfer et al., 1997 draft
report), but were not available in final form for this review.
As noted above, NMFS attempted to distinguish natural and hatchery
production in these evaluations. Doing this quantitatively would
require good estimates of the proportion of natural escapement that was
of hatchery origin, and knowledge of the effectiveness of spawning by
hatchery fish in natural environments. Unfortunately, this type of
information is rarely available, and for most ESUs NMFS is limited to
reporting whatever estimates of escapement of hatchery fish to natural
systems that were made available.
Computed Statistics
To represent current run size or escapement where recent data were
available, NMFS computed the geometric mean of the most recent five
years reported, while trying to use only estimates that reflect the
total abundance for an entire river basin or tributary, avoiding index
counts or dam counts that represent only a small portion of available
habitat.
Recent average abundance is reported as the geometric mean of the
most recent 5 years of data. Where time-series data were not available,
NMFS relied on recent estimates from state agency reports; time periods
included in such estimates varied considerably.
Historic run size estimates from cannery pack data were made by
converting the largest number of cases of cans packed in a single
season to numbers of fish in the spawning run.
NMFS calculated recent trends from the most recent 10 years, using
data collected after 1984 for series having at least 7 observations
since 1984. No attempt was made to account for the influence of
hatchery-produced fish on these estimates, so the estimated trends
include the progeny of naturally spawning hatchery fish.
After evaluating patterns of abundance drawn on these quantitative
and qualitative assessments, and evaluating other risk factors for
chinook salmon from these ESUs, NMFS reached the following conclusions
summarized below.
(1) Sacramento River Winter-Run ESU
Presently listed as endangered under the California and Federal
Endangered Species Acts, this ESU has been extensively reviewed by NMFS
(NMFS 1987, 1989, 1990a,b, 1994b). That information is only summarized
and updated here.
Historically the winter run was abundant and comprised populations
in the McCloud, Pit, Little Sacramento, and Calaveras Rivers.
Construction of Shasta Dam in the 1940s eliminated access to all of the
historic spawning habitat for winter-run chinook salmon in the
Sacramento River Basin. Since then, the ESU has been reduced to a
single spawning population confined to the mainstem Sacramento River
below Keswick Dam (Reynolds et al., 1993).
The fact that this ESU is comprised of a single population with
very limited spawning and rearing habitat increases risk of extinction
due to local catastrophe or poor environmental conditions. There are no
other natural populations in the ESU to buffer it from natural
fluctuations.
Because the Sacramento River winter-run ESU is currently listed as
an endangered species, NMFS did not review its previous risk conclusion
here.
(2) Central Valley Spring-Run ESU
Native spring chinook salmon have been extirpated from all
tributaries in the San Joaquin River Basin, which represents a large
portion of the historic range and abundance of the ESU as a whole. The
only streams considered to have wild spring-run chinook salmon are Mill
and Deer Creeks, and possibly Butte Creek (tributaries to the
Sacramento River), and these are relatively small populations with
sharply declining trends. Demographic and genetic risks due to small
population sizes are thus considered to be high.
Habitat problems are the most important source of ongoing risk to
this ESU. Spring-run fish cannot access most of their historical
spawning and rearing habitat in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
Basins (which is now above impassable dams), and current spawning is
restricted to the mainstem and a few river tributaries in the
Sacramento River. The remaining spawning habitat accessible to fish is
severely degraded. Collectively, these
[[Page 11492]]
habitat problems greatly reduce the resiliency of this ESU to respond
to additional stresses in the future. The general degradation of
conditions in the Sacramento River Basin (including elevated water
temperatures, agricultural and municipal diversions and returns,
restricted and regulated flows, entrainment of migrating fish into
unscreened or poorly screened diversions, and the poor quality and
quantity of remaining habitat) has severely impacted important juvenile
rearing habitat and migration corridors.
There appears to be serious concern for threats to genetic
integrity posed by hatchery programs in the Central Valley. Most of the
spring-run chinook salmon production in the Central Valley is of
hatchery origin, and naturally spawning populations may be
interbreeding with both fall/late fall- and spring-run hatchery fish.
This problem is exacerbated by the increasing production of spring
chinook salmon from the Feather River and Butte Creek Hatcheries,
especially in light of reports suggesting a high degree of mixing
between spring- and fall/late fall-run broodstock in the hatcheries. In
addition, hatchery strays are considered to be an increasing problem
due to the management practice of releasing a larger proportion of fish
off station (into the Sacramento River delta and San Francisco Bay).
The only previous assessment of risk to stocks in this ESU is that
of Nehlsen et al. (1991), who identified several stocks as being at
risk or of special concern. Four stocks were identified as extinct
(spring/summer-run chinook salmon in the American, McCloud, Pit, and
San Joaquin (including tributaries) Rivers) and two stocks (spring-run
chinook salmon in the Sacramento and Yuba Rivers) were identified as
being at a moderate risk of extinction.
As discussed above, habitat problems were considered to be the most
important source of ongoing risk to this ESU. However, NMFS is also
quite concerned about threats to genetic integrity posed by hatchery
programs in the Central Valley, as well as related harvest regimes that
may not be allowing recovery of this at-risk population. Based on this
risk, NMFS concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are in danger of
extinction.
(3) Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-Run ESU
Although total population abundance in this ESU is relatively high,
perhaps near historic levels, NMFS identified several concerns
regarding its status. The abundance of natural fall chinook salmon in
the San Joaquin River Basin is low leading NMFS to conclude a large
proportion of the historic range of this ESU is severely degraded.
Habitat blockage is not as severe for fall/late fall-run chinook salmon
as it is for winter- and spring-run chinook salmon in this region
because most of fall/late fall-run spawning habitat was below dams
constructed in the region. However, there has been a severe degradation
of the remaining habitat, especially due to agricultural and municipal
water use activities in the Central Valley (which result in point and
non-point pollution, elevated water temperatures, diminished flows, and
smolt and adult entrainment into poorly screened or unscreened
diversions). Additionally, stray rates are high because many hatchery
fish are released off-station to avoid adverse river conditions,
resulting in a much larger proportion of hatchery chinook salmon
present in the natural spawning population.
A mitigating factor for the overall risk to the ESU is that a few
of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin tributaries are showing
recent, short-term increases in abundance. However, the streams
supporting natural runs considered to be the least influenced by
hatchery fish have the lowest abundance and the most consistently
negative trends of all populations in the ESU. In general, high
hatchery production combined with infrequent monitoring of natural
production make assessing the sustainability of natural production
problematic, resulting in substantial uncertainty in assessing the
status of this ESU.
Other concerns facing chinook salmon in this ESU are the high ocean
and freshwater harvest rates in recent years, which may be higher than
is sustainable by natural populations given the productivity of the ESU
under present habitat conditions. The mixed stock ocean salmon off
California fisheries are managed to achieve spawning escapement goals
for two main indicator stocks: Sacramento River fall chinook and
Klamath River fall chinook. Harvest may be further constrained to meet
NMFS' ESA requirements for listed species, including Sacramento River
winter chinook, Central California Coastal and Southern Oregon/Northern
California coho, and Snake River fall chinook. Since 1993, the need to
address Indian fishing rights in the Klamath River Basin has required
significant reductions in the ocean harvest rate on Klamath River fall
chinook. As a result of the need to constrain ocean harvest rates on
Klamath River fall chinook, commercial fisheries have not been allowed
to harvest Central Valley stocks to the extent that would be permitted
by the management goal for Sacramento River fall chinook alone (122,000
to 180,000 adult hatchery and natural spawners). Spawning escapements
have been well above the goal range in recent years. A record number of
adults (324,000) returned in 1997. The harvest rate on Central Valley
stocks is indicated by the Central Valley Harvest Rate Index, which is
computed as the chinook harvest south of Point Arena divided by the sum
of the chinook harvest south of Point Arena and Central Valley adult
chinook spawning escapement of the same year. This harvest rate index
has averaged 0.73 over the past 10 years and declined somewhat in 1996
and 1997 to 0.64 and 0.66 respectively.
The only previous assessment of risk to stocks in this ESU is that
of Nehlsen et al. (1991), who identified two stocks (San Joaquin and
Cosumnes Rivers) as of special concern.
Even though total population abundance in this ESU is relatively
high, perhaps near historical levels, the abundance of natural fall
chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River Basin is low. Habitat problems
were considered to be the most important source of ongoing risk to this
ESU, although NMFS is extremely concerned about threats to genetic
integrity posed by hatchery and harvest programs related to fall/late
fall-run chinook salmon. Therefore, NMFS concluded that chinook salmon
in this ESU are not presently in danger of extinction but are likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable future.
(4) Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU
This ESU contains chinook salmon from the Elk River, Oregon south
to the northern cape forming San Francisco Bay. Chinook salmon spawning
abundance in this ESU is highly variable among populations, with
populations in California and spring-run chinook salmon throughout the
ESU being of particular concern. There is a general pattern of downward
trends in abundance in most populations for which data are available,
with declines being especially pronounced in spring-run populations.
The extremely depressed status of almost all coastal populations south
of the Klamath River is an important source of risk to the ESU. NMFS
has a general concern that no current information is available for many
river systems in the southern portion of this ESU, which historically
maintained numerous large populations. Although these California
coastal
[[Page 11493]]
populations do not form a separate ESU, they represent a considerable
portion of genetic and ecological diversity within this ESU.
Habitat loss and/or degradation is widespread throughout the range
of the ESU. The California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead
Trout (CACSST) reported habitat blockages and fragmentation, logging
and agricultural activities, urbanization, and water withdrawals as the
most predominant problems for anadromous salmonids in California's
coastal basins (CACSST, 1988). They identified associated habitat
problems for each major river system in California. CDFG (1965, Vol.
III, Part B) reported that the most vital habitat factor for coastal
California streams was ``degradation due to improper logging followed
by massive siltation, log jams, etc.'' They cited road building as
another cause of siltation in some areas. They identified a variety of
specific critical habitat problems in individual basins, including
extremes of natural flows (Redwood Creek and Eel River), logging
practices (Mad, Eel, Mattole, Ten Mile, Noyo, Big, Navarro, Garcia, and
Gualala Rivers), and dams with no passage facilities (Eel, and Russian
Rivers), and water diversions (Eel and Russian Rivers). Such problems
also occur in Oregon streams within the ESU. The Rogue River Basin in
particular has been affected by mining activities and unscreened
irrigation diversions (Rivers, 1963) in addition to the problems
resulting from logging and dam construction. Kostow (1995) estimated
that one-third of spring chinook salmon spawning habitat in the Rogue
River was inaccessible following the construction of Lost Creek Dam
(River Kilometer (RKm) 253) in 1977. Recent major flood events
(February 1996 and January 1997) have probably affected habitat quality
and survival of juveniles within this ESU. Although NMFS has little
information on these floods specific to this ESU, effects are probably
similar to those discussed below for the Oregon and Washington Coastal
Region.
Artificial propagation programs in the Southern Oregon and Coastal
California ESU are less extensive than those in Klamath/Trinity or
Central Valley ESUs. The Rogue, Chetco and Eel River Basins and Redwood
Creek have received considerable releases, derived primarily from local
sources. Current hatchery contribution to overall abundance is
relatively low except for the Rogue River spring run. The hatchery-to-
total run ratio of Rogue River spring chinook salmon, as measured at
Gold Ray Dam (RKm 201), has exceeded 60% in some years (Kostow, 1995).
Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified
several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)
identified seven stocks as at high extinction risk and seven stocks as
at moderate extinction risk. Higgins et al. (1992) provided a more
detailed analysis of some of these stocks, and identified nine chinook
salmon stocks as at risk or of concern. Four of these stocks agreed
with the Nehlsen et al. (1991) designations, while five fall chinook
salmon stocks were either reassessed from a moderate risk of extinction
to stocks of concern (Redwood Creek, Mad River, and Eel River) or were
additions to the Nehlsen et al. (1991) list as stocks of special
concern (Little and Bear Rivers). Fall chinook salmon in the Rogue
River represent the only relatively healthy population(s) NMFS could
identify in this ESU (Huntington et al., 1996).
There is a general pattern of downward trends in abundance in most
populations for which data are available, with declines being
especially pronounced in spring-run populations within this ESU. The
lack of population monitoring, particularly in the California portion
of the range, led to a high degree of uncertainty regarding the status
of these populations. NMFS concluded that the extremely depressed
status of almost all coastal populations south of the Klamath River is
an important source of risk to the ESU. Overall, NMFS concluded that
chinook salmon in this ESU are likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future.
(5) Upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers ESU
The question of overall risk was difficult to evaluate because of
the large disparity in the status of spring- and fall-run populations
within the ESU. Spring-run chinook salmon were once the dominant run
type in the Klamath-Trinity River Basin. Most spring-run spawning and
rearing habitat was blocked by the construction of dams in the late
1800s and early 1900s in the Klamath River Basin, and in the 1960s in
the Trinity River Basin. As a result of these and other factors,
spring-run populations are at less than 10 percent of their historic
levels, and at least 7 spring-run populations that once existed in the
basin are now considered extinct. The remaining spring runs have
relatively small population sizes and are isolated in just a few areas
of the basin, resulting in genetic and demographic risks.
Fall-run chinook populations in this ESU are stable or increasing
slightly. Substantial numbers of fall-run chinook salmon spawn
naturally in many areas of the ESU. However, natural populations have
frequently failed to meet modest spawning escapement goals despite
active harvest management. In addition to habitat blockages, there
continues to be severe degradation of remaining habitat due to mining,
agricultural and forestry activities, and water storage and transfer.
Furthermore, hatchery production in the basin is substantial, with
considerable potential for interbreeding between natural and hatchery
fish. NMFS is concerned that hatchery fish spawning naturally may mask
declines in natural populations.
Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified
several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)
identified seven stocks as extinct, two stocks (Klamath River spring
chinook salmon and Shasta River fall chinook salmon) as at high
extinction risk, and Scott River fall chinook salmon as of special
concern. Higgins et al. (1992) provided a more detailed analysis of
some of the stocks identified by Nehlsen et al. (1991), classifying
three chinook salmon stocks as at risk. Additionally, three chinook
salmon stocks were identified as of special concern. Of these, one
(Scott River fall run) agreed with Nehlsen et al. (1991), while two
were additions (Trinity River spring run and South Fork Trinity River
fall run).
In summary, the question of overall risk was difficult to evaluate
because of the large disparity in the status of spring- and fall-run
populations within the ESU. However, NMFS has concluded that, because
of the relative health of the fall-run populations, chinook salmon in
this ESU are not at significant risk of extinction, nor are they likely
to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
(6) Oregon Coast ESU
Production in this ESU is mostly dependent on naturally-spawning
fish, and spring-run chinook salmon in this ESU are in relatively
better condition than those in adjacent ESUs. Long-term trends in
abundance of chinook salmon within most populations in this ESU are
upward.
In spite of a generally positive outlook for this ESU, several
populations are exhibiting recent and severe (>9 percent per year)
short-term declines in abundance. In addition, there are several
hatchery programs and Salmon and Trout Enhancement Programs (STEP)
releasing chinook salmon throughout the ESU, and many of the fish
released are derived from a single stock (Trask River). Most
importantly, there is a lack of clear information on
[[Page 11494]]
the degree of straying of these hatchery fish into naturally-spawning
populations. There are also many populations within the ESU for which
there are no abundance data; thus NMFS is concerned about the uncertain
risk assessment given these data gaps. Finally, exploitation rates on
chinook salmon from this ESU have been high in the past, and the level
of harvest could be a significant source of risk if it continues at
historically high rates. Also, freshwater habitats are generally in
poor condition, with numerous problems such as low summer flows, high
temperatures, loss of riparian cover, and streambed changes.
Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified
several as being at risk or of concern; however, the preponderance of
stocks have been identified as healthy. Nehlsen et al. (1991)
identified two stocks as at high extinction risk (South Umpqua River
and Coquille River spring-run), one stock as at moderate extinction
risk (Yachats River fall-run) and five stocks as of special concern. Of
the 44 stocks within this ESU considered by Nickelson et al. (1992), 26
were identified as healthy, 2 as depressed (South Umpqua River and
Coquille River spring chinook salmon), 7 as of special concern due to
hatchery strays, and 9 of unknown status (4 of which they suggested may
not be viable). Huntington et al. (1996) identified 18 stocks in their
survey: 6 healthy Level I and 12 healthy Level II stocks.
Abundance of this ESU is relatively high, and fish are well
distributed among numerous, relatively small river basins. Long-term
trends in abundance of chinook salmon within most populations in this
ESU are upward. NMFS has concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are
neither presently in danger of extinction nor are they likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future.
(7) Washington Coast ESU
Long-term trends in population abundance have been predominantly
upward for the medium and larger populations but are sharply downward
for several of the smaller populations. In general, abundance and trend
indicators are more favorable for stocks in the northern portion of the
ESU, and more favorable for fall-run populations than for spring- or
summer-run fish. This disparity was a source of concern regarding the
overall health of the ESU.
All basins are affected by habitat degradation, largely related to
forestry practices. Tributaries inside Olympic National Park are
generally in the best condition regarding habitat quality. Special
concern was expressed regarding the status of spring-run populations
throughout the ESU and fall-run populations in Willapa Bay and parts of
the Grays Harbor drainage.
Hatchery production is substantial in several basins within the
range of the ESU, and several populations are identified as being of
composite production. There is considerable potential for hatchery fish
to stray into natural populations, especially since some hatcheries are
apparently unable to effectively attract returning adults. Hatchery
influence is greatest in the southern part of the ESU region,
especially in Willapa Bay, where there have been numerous introductions
of stocks from outside of the ESU. Furthermore, the use of an exotic
spring-run stock at the Sol Duc Hatchery was cited as a cause of
concern.
Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified
several as being at risk or of concern, but more stocks have been
identified as healthy than at risk. Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified
one stock as extinct (Pysht River fall run), one as possibly extinct
(Ozette River fall run), and one as at high risk of extinction
(Wynoochee River spring run), although there is some question whether
the Wynoochee River spring run ever existed (WDFW, 1997a). WDF et al.
(1993) considered the status of 18 native stocks, and concluded that 11
were healthy, 4 were depressed, and 3 were unknown. Huntington et al.
(1996) identified 12 stocks in their survey: 1 healthy Level I stock
(Quillayute/Bogachiel River fall run) and 11 healthy Level II stocks.
Recent abundance has been relatively high, although it is less than
estimated peak historical abundance in this region. Chinook salmon in
this ESU are distributed among a relatively large number of
populations, most of which are large enough to avoid serious genetic
and demographic risks associated with small populations. NMFS concluded
that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in danger of
extinction nor are they likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
future.
(8) Puget Sound ESU
Overall abundance of chinook salmon in this ESU has declined
substantially from historical levels, and many populations are small
enough that genetic and demographic risks are likely to be relatively
high. Both long- and short-term trends in abundance are predominantly
downward, and several populations are exhibiting severe short-term
declines. Spring chinook salmon populations throughout this ESU are all
depressed.
Habitat throughout the ESU has been blocked or degraded. In
general, upper tributaries have been impacted by forest practices and
lower tributaries and mainstem rivers have been impacted by agriculture
and/or urbanization. Diking for flood control, draining and filling of
freshwater and estuarine wetlands, and sedimentation due to forest
practices and urban development are cited as problems throughout the
ESU (WDF et al., 1993). Blockages by dams, water diversions, and shifts
in flow regime due to hydroelectric development and flood control
projects are major habitat problems in several basins. Bishop and
Morgan (1996) identified a variety of important habitat issues for
streams in the range of this ESU, including changes in flow regime (all
basins), sedimentation (all basins), high temperatures (Dungeness,
Elwha, Green/Duwamish, Skagit, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers),
streambed instability (most basins), estuarine loss (most basins), loss
of large woody debris (Elwha, Snohomish, and White Rivers), loss of
pool habitat (Nooksack, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers), and
blockage or passage problems associated with dams or other structures
(Cedar, Elwha, Green/Duwamish, Snohomish, and White Rivers). The Puget
Sound Salmon Stock Review Group (PFMC) provided an extensive review of
habitat conditions for several of the stocks in this ESU (PFMC, 1997a).
They concluded that reductions in habitat capacity and quality have
contributed to escapement problems for Puget Sound chinook salmon,
citing evidence of curtailment of tributary and mainstem habitat due to
dams, and losses of slough and side-channel habitat due to diking,
dredging, and hydromodification.
Nearly 2 billion fish have been released into Puget Sound
tributaries since the 1950s. The preponderance of hatchery production
throughout the ESU may mask trends in natural populations and makes it
difficult to determine whether they are self-sustaining. This
difficulty is compounded by the dearth of data pertaining to proportion
of naturally-spawning fish that are of hatchery origin. There has also
been widespread use of a limited number of hatchery stocks, resulting
in increased risk of loss of fitness and diversity among populations.
WDF et al. (1993) classified 11 out of 29 stocks in this ESU as being
sustained, in part, through artificial propagation. The vast majority
of these have been derived from local returning fall-run adults.
Returns to hatcheries have accounted for over half of the total
spawning escapement,
[[Page 11495]]
although the hatchery contribution to spawner escapement is probably
much higher than that, due to hatchery-derived strays on the spawning
grounds. In the Stillaguamish River, summer chinook have been
supplemented under a wild broodstock program for the last decade. In
some years, returns from this program have comprised up to 30-50% of
the natural spawners, suggesting that the unaided stock is not able to
maintain itself (NWIFC, 1997). Almost all of the releases into this ESU
have come from stocks within this ESU, with the majority of within ESU
transfers coming from the Green River Hatchery or hatchery broodstocks
that have been derived from Green River stock (Marshall et al., 1995).
The electrophoretic similarity between Green River fall-chinook salmon
and several other fall chinook salmon stocks in Puget Sound (Marshall
et al., 1995) suggests that there may have been a significant effect
from some hatchery transplants. Overall, the pervasive use of Green
River stock throughout much of the extensive hatchery network that
exists in this ESU may reduce the genetic diversity and fitness of
naturally spawning populations.
Harvest impacts on Puget Sound chinook salmon stocks are quite
high. Ocean exploitation rates on natural stocks averaged 56-59%; total
exploitation rates average 68-83% (1982-89 brood years) (Pacific Salmon
Commission (PSC), 1994). Total exploitation rates on some stocks have
exceeded 90% (PSC, 1994).
Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified
several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)
identified four stocks as extinct, four stocks as possibly extinct, six
stocks as at high risk of extinction, one stock as a moderate risk
(White River spring run), and one stock (Puyallup River fall run) as of
special concern. WDF et al. (1993) considered 28 stocks within the ESU,
of which 13 were considered to be of native origin and predominantly
natural production. The status of these 13 stocks was: 2 healthy (Upper
Skagit River summer run and Upper Sauk River spring run), 5 depressed,
2 critical (South-Fork Nooksack River spring/summer run and Dungeness
River spring/summer run), and 4 unknown.
Overall abundance of chinook salmon in this ESU has declined
substantially from historical levels, and both long-and short-term
trends in abundance are predominantly downward. Several populations are
exhibiting severe short-term declines. Spring chinook salmon
populations throughout this ESU are all depressed. NMFS concluded that
chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in danger of extinction,
but they are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
(9) Lower Columbia River ESU
Apart from the relatively large and apparently healthy fall-run
population in the Lewis River, production in this ESU appears to be
predominantly hatchery-driven with few identifiable naturally spawned
populations.
All basins are affected (to varying degrees) by habitat
degradation. Major habitat problems are primarily related to blockages,
forest practices, urbanization in the Portland and Vancouver areas, and
agriculture in floodplains and low-gradient tributaries. Substantial
chinook salmon spawning habitat has been blocked (or passage
substantially impaired) in the Cowlitz (Mayfield Dam 1963, RKm 84),
Lewis (Merwin Dam 1931, RKm 31), Clackamas (North Fork Dam 1958, RKm
50), Hood (Powerdale Dam 1929, RKm 7), and Sandy (Marmot Dam 1912, RKm
48; Bull Run River dams early 1900s) Rivers (WDF et al., 1993; Kostow,
1995).
Hatchery programs to enhance chinook salmon fisheries abundance in
the lower Columbia River began in the 1870s, expanded rapidly, and have
continued throughout this century. Although the majority of the stocks
have come from within this ESU, over 200 million fish from outside the
ESU have been released since 1930. A particular concern at the present
time is the straying by Rogue River fall chinook salmon, which are
released into the lower Columbia River to augment harvest
opportunities. Available evidence indicates a pervasive influence of
hatchery fish on natural populations throughout this ESU, including
both spring-and fall-run populations (Howell et al., 1985; Marshall et
al., 1995). In addition, the exchange of eggs between hatcheries in
this ESU has led to the extensive genetic homogenization of hatchery
stocks (Utter et al., 1989). The large numbers of hatchery fish in this
ESU make it difficult to determine the proportion of naturally produced
fish. In spite of the heavy impact of hatcheries, genetic and life
history characteristics of populations in this ESU still differ from
those in other ESUs. The loss of fitness and diversity within the ESU
as an important concern.
Harvest rates on fall-run stocks are moderately high, with an
average total exploitation rate of 65 percent (1982-89 brood years)
(PSC, 1994). The average ocean exploitation rate for this period was 46
percent, while the freshwater harvest rate on the fall run has averaged
20 percent, ranging from 30 percent in 1991 to 2.4 percent in 1994.
Harvest rates are somewhat lower for spring run stocks, with estimates
for the Lewis River averaging 24 percent ocean and 50 percent total
exploitation rates in 1982-89 (PSC, 1994). In inriver fisheries,
approximately 15 percent of the lower river hatchery stock was
harvested, 29 percent of the lower river wild stock was harvested, and
58 percent of the Spring Creek hatchery stock was harvested, while the
average inriver exploitation rate on the stock as a whole was 29
percent during the 1991-1995 period (PFMC, 1996b).
Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified
several stocks as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)
identified two stocks as extinct (Lewis River spring run and Wind River
fall run), four stocks as possibly extinct, and four stocks as at high
risk of extinction. WDF et al. (1993) considered 20 stocks within the
ESU, of which only 2 (Lewis River and East Fork Lewis River fall runs)
were considered to be of native origin, predominantly natural
production, and healthy. Huntington et al. (1996) identified one
healthy Level I stock in their survey (Lewis River fall run).
There have been at least six documented extinctions of populations
in this ESU, and it is possible that extirpation of other native
populations has occurred but has been masked by the presence of
naturally spawning hatchery fish. Long-and short-term trends in
abundance of individual populations are mostly negative, some severely
so. About half of the populations comprising this ESU are very small,
increasing the likelihood that risks due to genetic and demographic
drift processes in small populations will be important. NMFS concluded
that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in danger of
extinction but are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
future.
(10) Upper Willamette River ESU
While the abundance of Willamette River spring chinook salmon has
been relatively stable over the long term, and there is evidence of
some natural production, it is apparent that at present production and
harvest levels the natural population is not replacing itself. With
natural production accounting for only \1/3\ of the natural spawning
escapement, it is questionable whether natural spawners would be
capable of replacing themselves even in the absence of fisheries. While
hatchery programs in the Willamette River Basin have maintained
broodlines that are
[[Page 11496]]
relatively free of genetic influences from outside the basin, they may
have homogenized the population structure within the ESU. The
introduction of fall-run chinook salmon into the basin and laddering of
Willamette Falls have increased the potential for genetic introgression
between wild spring-and hatchery fall-run chinook salmon, but there is
no direct evidence of hybridization (other than an overlap in spawning
times and spawning location) between these two runs. Prolonged
artificial propagation of the majority of the production from this ESU
may also have had deleterious effects on the ability of Willamette
River spring chinook salmon to reproduce successfully in the wild.
Habitat blockage and degradation are significant problems in this
ESU. Available habitat has been reduced by construction of dams in the
Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette River Basins, and these
dams have probably adversely affected remaining production via thermal
effects. Agricultural development and urbanization are the main
activities that have adversely affected habitat throughout the basin
(Bottom et al., 1985, Kostow, 1995).
Another concern for this ESU is that commercial and recreational
harvests are high relative to the apparent productivity of natural
populations. The average total harvest mortality rate was estimated to
be 72 percent in 1982-89, with a corresponding ocean exploitation rate
of 24 percent (PSC, 1994). This estimate does not fully account for
escapement, and ODFW is in the process of revising harvest rate
estimates for this stock; revised estimates may average 57 percent
total harvest rate, with 16 percent ocean and 48 percent freshwater
components (Kostow,1995). The inriver recreational harvest rate
(Willamette River sport catch/estimated run size) for the period from
1991 through 1995 was 33 percent (data from PFMC, 1996b).
The only previous assessment of risk to stocks in this ESU is that
of Nehlsen et al. (1991), who identified the Willamette River spring-
run chinook salmon as of special concern. They noted vulnerability to
minor disturbances, insufficient information on population trend, and
the special character of this stock as causes for concern.
NMFS concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in
danger of extinction but are likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future. Total abundance has been relatively stable at
approximately 20,000 to 30,000 fish; however, recent natural escapement
is less than 5,000 fish and has been declining sharply. Furthermore, it
is estimated that about two-thirds of the natural spawners are first-
generation hatchery fish, suggesting that the natural population is
falling far short of replacing itself. Another concern for this ESU is
that commercial and recreational harvest are high relative to the
apparent productivity of natural populations.
(11) Middle Columbia River Spring-Run ESU
Total abundance of this ESU is low relative to the total basin
area, and 1994-96 escapements have been very low. Several historical
populations have been extirpated, and the few extant populations in
this ESU are not widely distributed geographically. In addition, there
are only two populations (John Day and Yakima Rivers) with substantial
run sizes. However, these major river basins are predominantly
comprised of naturally produced fish, and both of these exhibit long-
term increasing trends in abundance. Additionally, recent analyses done
as part of the PATH process indicates that productivity of natural
populations in the Deschutes and John Day Rivers has been more robust
than most other stream-type chinook salmon in the Columbia River
(Schaller et al., 1995).
Habitat problems are common in the range of this ESU. The only
large blockage of spawning area for spring chinook salmon is at the
Pelton/Round Butte dam complex on the Deschutes River, which probably
eliminated a natural population utilizing the upper Deschutes River
Basin (Kostow, 1995; Nehlsen, 1995). Spawning and rearing habitat are
affected by agriculture including water withdrawals, grazing, and
riparian vegetation management. Mainstem Columbia River hydroelectric
development has resulted in a major disruption of migration corridors
and affected flow regimes and estuarine habitat.
Hatchery production accounts for a substantial proportion of total
escapement to the region. However, screening procedures at the Warm
Springs River weir apparently minimize the potential for hatchery-wild
introgression in the Deschutes River basin. Although straying is less
of a problem with returning spring-run adults, the use of the
composite, out-of-ESU Carson Hatchery stock to reestablish the Umatilla
River spring run would be a cause for concern if fish from that program
stray out of the basin.
Stocks in this ESU experience very low ocean harvest rates and only
moderate instream harvest. Harvest rates have been declining recently
(PSC, 1996).
Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified
several as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)
identified five stocks as extinct, one as possibly extinct (Klickitat
River spring chinook salmon), and one as of special concern (John Day
River spring chinook salmon). WDF et al. (1993) considered five stocks
within the ESU, of which three, all within the Yakima River Basin, were
considered to be of native origin and predominantly natural production
(Upper Yakima, Naches, and American Rivers). Despite increasing trends
in these three stocks, these stocks and the two remaining (not native/
natural) stocks were considered to be depressed on the basis of
chronically low escapement numbers (WDF et al., 1993).
Despite low abundances relative to estimated historical levels,
long-term trends in abundance have been relatively stable, with an
approximately even mix of upward and downward trends in populations.
NMFS concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are not presently in
danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future.
(12) Upper Columbia River Summer- and Fall-Run ESU
The status of this ESU was recently reviewed by NMFS (Waknitz et
al., 1995). In the earlier review, this ESU was determined to be
neither at risk of extinction nor likely to become so. However, new
data shows the proportion of naturally spawning summer chinook salmon
of hatchery origin has been increasing rapidly in areas above Wells
Dam. There is corresponding concern about the possible genetic and/or
life-history consequences to the sustainability of natural populations
in that area from the shift in hatchery releases from subyearlings to
yearlings.
Nearly 38 million summer-run fish have been released from the Wells
Dam Hatchery since 1967. Efforts to establish the Wells Dam summer-run
broodstock removed a large proportion of the spawners (94 percent of
the run in 1969) destined for the Methow River and other upstream
tributaries (Mullan et al., 1992). Additionally, a number of fall-run
fish have been incorporated into the summer-run program, especially
during the 1980s (Marshall et al., 1995). Large numbers of fall chinook
salmon have been released into the mainstem Columbia River and into the
Yakima River. Although no hatcheries operate on the Yakima River,
releases of upriver bright fall-run chinook salmon into the
[[Page 11497]]
lower Yakima River (below Prosser Dam) are thought to have overwhelmed
local naturally spawning stocks (WDF et al., 1993; Marshall et al.,
1995). Fall chinook salmon also spawn in the mainstem Columbia River;
this occurs primarily in the Hanford Reach portion of the Columbia
River, with additional spawning sites in the tailrace areas of mainstem
dams. Upriver bright fall chinook salmon hatchery stocks represent a
composite of stocks intercepted at various dams. This stock has also
been released in large numbers by hatcheries on the mainstem Columbia
River. Although the upriver bright stocks incorporated representatives
from the mainstem spawning populations in the Hanford Reach and those
displaced by the construction of Grand Coulee Dam and other mainstem
dams, they have also incorporated individuals from the Snake River
fall-run ESU (Howell et al., 1985). The mixed genetic background of
upriver bright stocks may result in less accurate homing (McIssac and
Quinn 1988; Chapman et al., 1994). However, the naturally spawning
Hanford Reach fall-run population appears to stray at very low levels
(Hymer et al., 1992b).
Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified
several as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)
identified six stocks as extinct, one as a moderate extinction risk
(Methow River summer chinook salmon), and one as of special concern
(Okanogan River summer chinook salmon). WDF et al. (1993) considered 10
stocks within the ESU, of which 3 were considered to be of native
origin and predominantly natural production. The status of these three
stocks was two healthy (Marion Drain and Hanford Reach fall-runs) and
one depressed (Okanogan River summer-run). Huntington et al. (1996)
identified one healthy Level I stock in their survey (Hanford Reach
fall run).
In an earlier review, NMFS concluded that this ESU was not in
danger of extinction, nor likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future. None of the information reviewed in this assessment
provides a basis for NMFS to change this earlier conclusion. However,
if negative trends in this ESU continue, NMFS will reevaluate the
status of these chinook salmon.
(13) Upper Columbia River Spring-Run ESU
Access to a substantial portion of historical habitat was blocked
by Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams. There are local habitat problems
related to irrigation diversions and hydroelectric development, as well
as degraded riparian and instream habitat from urbanization and
livestock grazing. Mainstem Columbia River hydroelectric development
has resulted in a major disruption of migration corridors and affected
flow regimes and estuarine habitat. Some populations in this ESU must
migrate through nine mainstem dams.
Artificial propagation efforts have had a significant impact on
spring-run populations in this ESU, either through hatchery-based
enhancement or the extensive trapping and transportation activities
associated with the GCFMP. Prior to the implementation of the GCFMP,
spring-run chinook salmon populations in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and
Methow Rivers were at severely depressed levels (Craig and Suomela,
1941). Therefore, it is probable that the majority of returning spring-
run adults trapped at Rock Island Dam for use in the GCFMP were
probably not native to these three rivers (Chapman et al., 1995). All
returning adults were either directly transported to river spawning
sites or spawned in one of the National Fish Hatcheries (NFHs) built
for the GCFMP.
In the years following the GCFMP, several stocks were transferred
to the NFHs in this area. Naturally spawning populations in tributaries
upstream of hatchery release sites have apparently undergone limited
introgression by hatchery stocks, based on CWT recoveries and genetic
analysis (Chapman et al. 1995). Artificial propagation efforts have
recently focused on supplementing naturally spawning populations in
this ESU (Bugert, 1998), although it should be emphasized that these
naturally spawning populations were founded by the same GCFMP
homogenized stock. Furthermore, the potential for hatchery-derived non-
native stocks to genetically impact naturally spawning populations
exists, especially given the recent low numbers of fish returning to
rivers in this ESU. Risks associated with interactions between wild and
hatchery chinook salmon are a concern, because there continues to be
substantial production of the composite, non-native Carson stock for
fishery enhancement and hydropower mitigation.
Harvest rates are low for this ESU, with very low ocean and
moderate instream harvest. Harvest rates have been declining recently
(ODFW and WDFW, 1995).
Previous assessments of stocks within this ESU have identified
several as being at risk or of concern. Nehlsen et al. (1991)
identified six stocks as extinct. Due to lack of information on chinook
salmon stocks that are presumed to be extinct, the relationship of
these stocks to existing ESUs is uncertain. They are listed here based
on geography and to give a complete presentation of the stocks
identified by Nehlsen et al. (1991). WDF et al. (1993) considered nine
stocks within the ESU, of which eight were considered to be of native
origin and predominantly natural production. The status of all nine
stocks was considered depressed. Populations in this ESU have
experienced record low returns for the last few years.
Recent total abundance of this ESU is quite low, and escapements in
1994-1996 were the lowest in at least 60 years. At least 6 populations
of spring chinook salmon in this ESU have become extinct, and almost
all remaining naturally-spawning populations have fewer than 100
spawners. In addition to extremely small population sizes, both recent
and long-term trends in abundance are downward, some extremely so. NMFS
concluded that chinook salmon in this ESU are in danger of extinction.
(14) Snake River Fall-Run ESU
Snake River fall-run chinook salmon are currently listed as a
threatened species under the ESA (57 FR 14653, April 22, 1992). As
discussed above, NMFS concluded that the Snake River fall-run ESU also
includes fall chinook salmon in the Deschutes River and, historically,
populations from the John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers that
have been extirpated in the twentieth century.
Almost all historical Snake River fall-run chinook salmon spawning
habitat in the Snake River Basin was blocked by the Hells Canyon Dam
complex; other habitat blockages have also occurred in Columbia River
tributaries. Hydroelectric development on the mainstem Columbia and
Snake Rivers continues to affect juvenile and adult migration.
Remaining habitat has been reduced by inundation in the mainstem Snake
and Columbia Rivers, and the ESU's range has also been affected by
agricultural water withdrawals, grazing, and vegetation management.
The continued straying by non-native hatchery fish into natural
production areas is an additional source of risk to the Snake River
chinook salmon.
Assessing extinction risk to the newly-configured ESU is difficult
because of the geographic discontinuity and the disparity in the status
of the two remaining populations. NMFS also notes considerable
uncertainty regarding the origins of fall chinook salmon in the lower
Deschutes River and their relationship to fish in the upper Deschutes
River. Historically, the
[[Page 11498]]
Snake River populations dominated production in this ESU; total
abundance is estimated to have been about 72,000 in the 1930s and
1940s, and it was probably substantially higher before that. Production
from the Deschutes River was presumably only a small fraction of
historic production in the ESU. In contrast, recent (1990-96) returns
of naturally spawning fish to the Deschutes River (about 6,000 adults
per year) have been much higher than in the Snake River (5-year mean
about 500 adults per year, including hatchery strays). The relatively
recent extirpation of fall-run chinook in the John Day, Umatilla and
Walla Walla Rivers is also a factor in assessing the risk to the
overall ESU.
Long term trends in abundance are mixed--slightly upward in the
Deschutes River and downward in the Snake River. Short-term trends in
both remaining populations are upward. After considering the addition
of the Deschutes River fall chinook populations to the listed Snake
River fall-run chinook salmon ESU, NMFS concluded that the ESU as a
whole is likely to become an endangered species within in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, in spite of the relative health of the Deschutes River
population.
(15) Snake River Spring- and Summer-Run ESU
This ESU has been extensively reviewed by NMFS (Matthews and
Waples, 1991; NMFS, 1995b). The Snake River Spring and summer-run ESU
is listed as a threatened species and NMFS did not review its previous
risk conclusion here.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 2(a) of the ESA states that various species of fish,
wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as
a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate
concern for ecosystem conservation. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the
listing regulations (50 CFR Part 424) set forth procedures for listing
species. NMFS must determine, through the regulatory process, if a
species is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a combination
of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education
purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors
affecting its continued existence.
NMFS has prepared two supporting documents which address the
factors that have led to the decline of chinook salmon and other
salmonids. The first is entitled ``Factors for Decline: A Supplement to
the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996).
That report, available upon request (see ADDRESSES), concluded that all
of the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a
role in the decline of steelhead and other salmonids, including chinook
salmon. The report identifies destruction and modification of habitat,
overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes, and natural
and human-made factors as being the primary reasons for the decline of
west coast steelhead, and other salmonids including chinook salmon. The
second document is a supplement to the document referred to above. This
document, entitled ``Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast
Chinook Salmon: An Addendum to the 1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors
for Decline Report'' (NMFS, 1998 In prep.) discusses specific factors
affecting chinook salmon. In this report, NMFS concludes that all of
the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a role
in the decline of chinook salmon, and other salmonids. The report
identifies destruction and modification of habitat, overutilization for
recreational purposes, and natural and human-made factors as being the
primary reasons for the decline of chinook salmon.
The following discussion summarizes findings regarding factors for
decline across the range of chinook salmon. While these factors have
been treated here in general terms, it is important to underscore that
impacts from certain factors are more acute for specific ESUs. For
example, impacts from hydropower development are more pervasive for
ESUs in the Columbia River Basin than for some coastal ESUs.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Chinook salmon on the west coast of the United States have
experienced declines in abundance in the past several decades as a
result of loss, damage or change to their natural environment. Water
diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower
purposes (especially in the Columbia River and Sacramento-San Joaquin
Basins) have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible
habitat, and degraded remaining habitat.
Forestry, agriculture, mining, and urbanization have degraded,
simplified, and fragmented habitat. Studies indicate that in most
western states, about 80 to 90 percent of the historic riparian habitat
has been eliminated (Botkin et al., 1995; Norse, 1990; Kellogg, 1992;
California State Lands Commission, 1993). Washington and Oregon
wetlands are estimated to have diminished by one-third, while
California has experienced a 91 percent loss of its wetland habitat.
Loss of habitat complexity and habitat fragmentation have also
contributed to the decline of chinook salmon. For example, in national
forests within the range of the northern spotted owl in western and
eastern Washington, there has been a 58 percent reduction in large,
deep pools due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures
such as boulders and large wood (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment
Team (FEMAT), 1993). Similarly, in Oregon, the abundance of large, deep
pools on private coastal lands has decreased by as much as 80 percent
(FEMAT, 1993). Sedimentation from extensive and intensive land use
activities (timber harvests, road building, livestock grazing, and
urbanization) is recognized as a primary cause of habitat degradation
in the range of west coast chinook salmon.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or
Educational Purposes
Historically, chinook salmon were abundant in many western coastal
and interior waters of the United States. Chinook salmon have
supported, and still support important tribal, commercial and
recreational fisheries throughout their range, contributing millions of
dollars to numerous local economies, as well as providing important
cultural and subsistence needs for Native Americans. Overfishing in the
early days of European settlement led to the depletion of many stocks
of chinook and other salmonids even before extensive habitat
degradation. However, following the degradation of many west coast
aquatic and riparian ecosystems, exploitation rates were higher than
many chinook populations could sustain. Therefore, harvest may have
contributed to the further decline of some populations.
C. Disease or Predation
Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have
resulted in increased predator populations in numerous rivers.
Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in areas experiencing
dwindling chinook salmon
[[Page 11499]]
runsizes. However, salmonids appear to be a minor component of the diet
of marine mammals (Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Jameson and Kenyon, 1977;
Graybill, 1981; Brown and Mate, 1983; Roffe and Mate, 1984; Hanson,
1993). Principal food sources are small pelagic schooling fish,
juvenile rockfish, lampreys (Jameson and Kenyon, 1977; Roffe and Mate,
1984), benthic and epibenthic species (Brown and Mate, 1983) and
flatfish (Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Graybill, 1981). Predation may
significantly influence salmonid abundance in some local populations
when other prey are absent and physical conditions lead to the
concentration of adults and juveniles (Cooper and Johnson, 1992).
Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult
and juvenile chinook salmon survival. Chinook salmon are exposed to
numerous bacterial, protozoan, viral, and parasitic organisms in
spawning and rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and the
marine environment. Specific diseases such as bacterial kidney disease
(BKD), ceratomyxosis, columnaris, furunculosis, infectious
hematopoietic necrosis virus, redmouth and black spot disease,
erythrocytic inclusion body syndrome, and whirling disease, among
others, are present and are known to affect chinook salmon (Rucker et
al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Foott et al., 1994; Gould and
Wedemeyer, undated). Very little current or historical information
exists to quantify changes in infection levels and mortality rates
attributable to these diseases for chinook salmon. However, studies
have shown that naturally spawned fish tend to be less susceptible to
pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et
al., 1992). Native chinook salmon have evolved with certain of these
organisms, but the widespread use of artificial propagation has
introduced exotic organisms not historically present in particular
watersheds. Scientific studies may indicate that chinook salmon are
more susceptible to disease organisms than other salmonids. Habitat
conditions such as low water flows and high temperatures can exacerbate
susceptibility to disease.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
A variety of Federal, state, tribal, and local laws, regulations,
treaties and measures affect the abundance and survival of west coast
chinook salmon and the quality of their habitat. NMFS prepared a
separate report entitled ``West Coast Steelhead Conservation Measures,
A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead
Under the Endangered Species'' which summarizes many of these existing
measures and their effect on steelhead and other salmonids, including
chinook salmon. This report is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES
section). The following sections briefly discuss other regulatory
measures designed to conserve chinook and other salmonids (see also
Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon and
Conservation Measures sections).
1. Federal Land and Water Management
The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a Federal management policy with
important benefits for chinook salmon. While the NFP covers a very
large area, the overall effectiveness of the NFP in conserving chinook
salmon is limited by the extent of Federal lands and the fact that
Federal land ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds
within the affected ESUs. The extent and distribution of Federal lands
limits the NFP's ability to achieve its aquatic habitat restoration
objectives at watershed and river basin scales and highlights the
importance of complementary salmon habitat conservation measures on
nonfederal lands within the subject ESUs.
On February 25, 1995, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management adopted Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing
Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington,
Idaho, and portions of California (known as PACFISH). The strategy was
developed in response to significant declines in naturally-reproducing
salmonid stocks, including chinook salmon, and widespread degradation
of anadromous fish habitat throughout Federal lands in Idaho,
Washington, Oregon, and California outside the range of the northern
spotted owl. Like the NFP, PACFISH is an attempt to provide a
consistent approach for maintaining and restoring aquatic and riparian
habitat conditions which, in turn, are expected to promote the
sustained natural production of anadromous fish. However, as with the
NFP, PACFISH is limited by the extent of Federal lands and Federal land
ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within all the
affected ESUs.
Within the range of several chinook salmon ESUs (i.e., Southern
Oregon and California Coastal, Lower Columbia River, and Puget Sound),
much of available chinook salmon habitat is covered by the requirements
of the NFP. These existing conservation efforts have resulted in
improvements in aquatic habitat conditions for salmonids within this
region.
Since the adoption of the NFP, NMFS has consulted with the BLM and
USFS on ongoing and proposed activities that may affect anadromous
salmonids, including chinook salmon and their habitats. During this
period of time, NMFS has reviewed thousands of activities throughout
northern California, Oregon, and Washington and helped develop numerous
programmatic biological assessments (BAs) with the BLM and the USFS.
These BAs cover a wide range of management activities, including forest
and/or resource area-wide routine and non-routine road maintenance,
hazard tree removal, range allotment management, watershed and instream
restoration, special use permits (e.g., mining, ingress/egress), timber
sale programs (e.g., green tree, fuel reduction, thinning,
regeneration, and salvage), and BLM's land tenure adjustment program.
Numerous other project-specific BAs were also consulted and conferenced
upon. These National Forest and BLM Resource Area-wide BAs include
region-specific best management practices, all necessary measures to
minimize impacts for all listed or proposed anadromous salmonids,
monitoring, and environmental baseline checklists for each project.
These BA's have resulted in a more consistent approach to management of
Federal lands throughout the NFP and PACFISH areas.
2. Federal/State Land and Water Management in California
California's Central Valley chinook salmon have been the subject of
many conservation efforts aimed at restoring the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers over several decades. Past efforts have generally been
unsuccessful at reducing the risks facing Central Valley chinook
salmon. Despite a long history of unproductive conservation and
protection efforts, Federal, state and private stakeholders joined to
urge Congressional passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act (CVPIA) in 1992, followed by the signing of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Accord (Accord) in December 1994. The Bay-Delta Accord detailed interim
measures for environmental protection and paved the way for the
development of the long-term CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The CALFED Bay-
Delta Program which began in June of 1995 is a planning effort between
state and federal agencies for developing a long-range, comprehensive
solution for the Bay-Delta Estuary and its watershed. Collectively, the
CVPIA and CALFED Bay-Delta conservation programs may
[[Page 11500]]
provide a comprehensive conservation response to the extensive ecologic
problems facing at-risk salmonids. The CVPIA and the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program are described in more detail in the Efforts Being Made to
Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon section.
3. State Land Management
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)
enforces the State of California's forest practice rules (CFPRs) which
are promulgated through the Board of Forestry (BOF). The CFPRs contain
provisions that provide significant protection for chinook salmon if
fully implemented. However, NMFS believes the CFPRs do not secure
properly functioning riparian habitat. Specifically, the CFPRs do not
adequately address large woody debris recruitment, streamside tree
retention to maintain bank stability, and canopy retention standards
that assure stream temperatures are properly functioning for all life
stages of chinook salmon. The current process for approving Timber
Harvest Plans (THPs) under the CFPRs does not include monitoring of
timber harvest operations to determine whether a particular operation
damaged habitat and, if so, how it might be mitigated in future THPs.
The CFPR rule that permits salvage logging is also an area where better
environmental review and monitoring could ensure better protection for
chinook salmon. For these reasons, NMFS is working to improve the
condition of riparian buffers in ongoing habitat conservation plan
negotiations with private landowners.
The Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA), while modified in 1995 and
improved over the previous OFPA, does not have implementing rules that
adequately protect salmonid habitat. In particular, the current OFPA
does not provide adequate protection for the production and
introduction of large woody debris (LWD) to medium, small and non-fish
bearing streams. Small non-fish bearing streams are vitally important
to the quality of downstream habitats. These streams carry water,
sediment, nutrients, and LWD from upper portions of the watershed. The
quality of downstream habitats is determined, in part, by the timing
and amount of organic and inorganic materials provided by these small
streams (Chamberlin et al. in Meehan, 1991). Given the existing
depleted condition of most riparian forests on non-Federal lands, the
time needed to attain mature forest conditions, the lack of adequate
protection for non-riparian LWD sources in landslide-prone areas and
small headwater streams (which account for about half the wood found
naturally in stream channels) (Burnett and Reeves, 1997 citing Van
Sickle and Gregory, 1990; McDade et al., 1990; and McGreary, 1994), and
current rotation schedules (approximately 50 years), there is a low
probability that adequate LWD recruitment could be achieved under the
current requirements of the OFPA. Also, the OFPA does not adequately
consider and manage timber harvest and road construction on sensitive,
unstable slopes subject to mass wasting, nor does it address cumulative
effects. These issues, and other concerns about the OFPA have been
analyzed in detail in a recent document prepared by NMFS. The document,
entitled ``A Draft Proposal Concerning Oregon Forest Practices'' was
submitted to the Oregon Board of Forestry Memorandum of Agreement
Advisory Committee and to the Oregon Governor's Office to advance
potential improvements in Oregon forest practices (OFP) (NMFS OFP
Draft, February 17, 1998).
The Washington Department of Natural Resources implements and
enforces the State of Washington's forest practice rules (WFPRs) which
are promulgated through the Forest Practices Board. These WFPRs contain
provisions that can be protective of chinook salmon if fully
implemented. This is possible given that the WFPRs are based on
adaptive management of forest lands through watershed analysis,
development of site-specific land management prescriptions, and
monitoring. Watershed Analysis prescriptions can exceed WFPR minimums
for stream and riparian protection. However, NMFS believes the WFPRs,
including watershed analysis, do not provide properly functioning
riparian and instream habitats. Specifically, the base WFPRs do not
adequately address LWD recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream
bank integrity and channel networks within floodplains, and chronic and
episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that maintain habitats that
are properly functioning for all chinook salmon life stages.
4. Dredge, Fill, and Inwater Construction Programs
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates removal/fill activities
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which requires that the
COE not permit a discharge that would ``cause or contribute to
significant degradation of the waters of the United States.'' One of
the factors that must be considered in this determination is cumulative
effects. However, the COE guidelines do not specify a methodology for
assessing cumulative impacts or how much weight to assign them in
decision-making. Furthermore, the COE does not have in place any
process to address the additive effects of the continued development of
waterfront, riverine, coastal, and wetland properties.
5. Water Quality Programs
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), enforced in part by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is intended to protect
beneficial uses, including fishery resources. To date, implementation
has not been effective in adequately protecting fishery resources,
particularly with respect to non-point sources of pollution.
Section 303(d)(1)(C) and (D) of the CWA requires states to prepare
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all water bodies that do not meet
State water quality standards. TMDLs are a method for quantitative
assessment of environmental problems in a watershed and identifying
pollution reductions needed to protect drinking water, aquatic life,
recreation, and other use of rivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs may
address all pollution sources including point sources such as sewage or
industrial plant discharges, and non-point discharges such as runoff
from roads, farm fields, and forests.
The CWA gives state governments the primary responsibility for
establishing TMDLs. However, EPA is required to do so if a state does
not meet this responsibility. In California, as a result of recent
litigation, the EPA has made a legal commitment guaranteeing that
either EPA or the State will establish TMDLs that identify pollution
reduction targets for 18 impaired river basins in northern California
by the year 2007. California has made a commitment to establish TMDLs
for approximately half the 18 river basins by 2007. The EPA will
develop TMDLs for the remaining basins and has also agreed to complete
all TMDLS if the State fails to meet its commitment within the agreed
upon time frame.
State agencies in Oregon are committed to completing TMDLs for
coastal drainages within 4 years, and all impaired waters within 10
years. Similarly ambitious schedules are being developed for Washington
and California.
The ability of these TMDLs to protect chinook salmon should be
significant in the long term; however, it will be difficult to develop
them quickly in the short term and their efficacy in protecting chinook
salmon habitat will be unknown for years to come.
[[Page 11501]]
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Natural climatic conditions have exacerbated the problems
associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats.
Persistent drought conditions have reduced already limited spawning,
rearing and migration habitat. Climatic conditions appear to have
resulted in decreased ocean productivity which, during more productive
periods, may offset poor productivity caused by degraded freshwater
habitat conditions.
In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat, extensive hatchery
programs have been implemented throughout the range of west coast
chinook salmon. While some of these programs have succeeded in
providing fishing opportunities, the impacts of these programs on
native, naturally-reproducing stocks are not well understood.
Competition, genetic introgression, and disease transmission resulting
from hatchery introductions may significantly reduce the production and
survival of native, naturally-reproducing chinook salmon (NMFS, 1996a).
Collection of native chinook salmon for hatchery broodstock purposes
often harms small or dwindling natural populations. Artificial
propagation may play an important role in chinook salmon recovery and
some hatchery populations of chinook salmon may be deemed essential for
the recovery of threatened or endangered chinook salmon ESUs (see
Proposed Determination section).
In the past, non-native chinook salmon stocks have been introduced
as broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal
rivers and streams throughout the range of the proposed chinook salmon
ESUs (Bryant, 1994; Myers et al., 1998). Because of problems associated
with this practice, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
developed its Salmon and Steelhead Stock Management Policy. This policy
recognizes that such stock mixing is detrimental and seeks to maintain
the genetic integrity of all identifiable California stocks of chinook
salmon and other salmonids, as well as minimize interactions between
hatchery and natural populations. To protect the genetic integrity of
salmon and steelhead stocks, this policy directs CDFG to evaluate each
salmon and steelhead stream and classify it according to its probable
genetic source and degree of integrity.
Hatchery programs and harvest management have strongly influenced
chinook salmon populations in the Central Valley, California ESU, the
Puget Sound ESU, the Lower Columbia River ESU, the Upper Willamette
ESU, and the Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU. Hatchery programs
intended to compensate for habitat losses have masked declines in
natural stocks and have created unrealistic expectations for fisheries.
The three state agencies (California Department of Fish and Game,
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife) have adopted and are implementing natural
salmonid policies designed to limit hatchery influences on natural,
indigenous chinook salmon. While some limits have been placed on
hatchery production of anadromous salmonids, more careful management of
current programs and scrutiny of proposed programs is necessary in
order to minimize impacts on listed species.
Efforts Being Made To Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to
make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available and after taking into account efforts
being made to protect a species. Therefore, in making its listing
determinations, NMFS first assesses chinook salmon status and
identifies factors that have lead to its decline. NMFS then assesses
existing conservation actions to determine if those measures ameliorate
the risks faced by chinook salmon.
In judging the efficacy of existing conservation efforts, NMFS
considers the following: (1) The substantive, protective, and
conservation elements of such efforts; (2) the degree of certainty such
efforts will be reliably implemented; and (3) the presence of
monitoring provisions that permit adaptive management (NMFS 1996b). In
some cases, conservation efforts may be relatively new and may not have
had time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases,
provisions for adequate monitoring and funding of conservation efforts
are essential to ensure intended conservation benefits are realized
(see NMFS 1996b, see also 62 FR 24602-24607, May 6, 1997).
During a previous status review for west coast steelhead, NMFS
reviewed an array of protective efforts for steelhead and other
salmonids, including chinook salmon, ranging in scope from regional
strategies to local watershed initiatives. NMFS summarized some of the
major efforts in a document entitled ``Steelhead Conservation Efforts:
A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead
Under the Endangered Species Act.'' (NMFS, 1996). This document is
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Several more recently developed protective efforts have been
directed towards the conservation of various salmonids and the
watersheds supporting them. These efforts may affect recovery of
chinook salmon in California, Oregon and Washington.
State of California Protective Measures for Central Valley Chinook
Spring- and fall/late fall-run chinook salmon in California's
Central Valley are beginning to benefit from two major conservation
initiatives that are under development and simultaneously being
implemented to conserve and restore salmonid and other fishery
resources in the rivers and streams of the Central Valley, including
the Bay-Delta region. The first of these initiatives is the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) which Congress passed in 1992.
The CVPIA is intended to remedy habitat and other problems associated
with the construction and operation of the Bureau of Reclamation's
(BOR) Central Valley Project. The CVPIA has two key habitat restoration
features related to the recovery of chinook salmon in the Central
Valley. First, it directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and
implement a program that makes all reasonable efforts to double natural
production of anadromous fish in Central Valley streams (Section
3406(b)(1)) by the year 2002. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
approached implementation of this CVPIA directive through development
of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP). The AFRP contains a
total of 172 actions and 117 evaluations. The Department of the
Interior (DOTI) intends to finalize the AFRP in 1998 upon completion of
the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which is required by
Section 3409 of the CVPIA. Secondly, the CVPIA annually dedicates up to
800,000 acre feet (AF) of water flows for fish, wildlife, and habitat
restoration purposes (Section 3406(b)(2)), and provides for the
acquisition of additional water to supplement the 800,000 AF (Section
3406(b)(3)). The FWS, in consultation with other Federal and State
agencies, directs the use of these dedicated water flows.
On November 20, 1997, DOI released its final administrative
proposal on the management of Section 340(b)(2) water and a set of
flow-related actions for the use of so-called (b)(2) water during the
next five years. These plans will be continuously updated to include
new information, consistent with the
[[Page 11502]]
adaptive management approach described in the AFRP. To make restoration
efforts as efficient as possible, the AFRP has committed to coordinate
restoration efforts with those developed and implemented by other
groups or programs, including the CALFED Bay-Delta program.
Federal funding has been appropriated since 1995 to implement
restoration projects identified through the AFRP planning and
development process, or through complementary programs such as the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. In 1996, a total of $1.9 million was
obligated for 11 restoration projects or evaluations identified through
the AFRP planning process. These projects included restoration
management planning efforts in the lower Tuolumne River, Deer Creek,
and Butte Creek, modification of a fish ladder on the Yuba River,
acquisition of riparian property and easements on Pine Creek and Big
Chico Creek, water exchange pump and riparian restoration projects on
Mill Creek, and several monitoring and evaluation projects. In 1997,
$9.7 million was obligated for over 30 projects located throughout the
Central Valley. The AFRP's projected budget for restoration projects in
the Central Valley in 1998 is $8.2 million. The ARFP's 1998 work plan
identifies 27 high priority projects for funding, and an additional 14
projects which will proceed contingent on additional funding. An
estimated $20 million to $35 million will be spent on AFRP restoration
actions per year for 25 years ($500 million to $875 million estimated
total), most of which will be closely integrated with funding for
habitat restoration activities as part of the CALFED Bay-Delta program.
During 1996 and 1997, the AFRP implemented several fish flow and
habitat restoration actions using the CVPIA provisions. Specific
actions included limiting Delta water exports for fisheries protection,
closing the Delta Cross Channel gates to minimize the diversion of
juvenile chinook salmon from the Sacramento River into the Delta, and
modifying the operation of water project facilities in the Delta to
evaluate the benefits of actions taken to protect juvenile chinook
salmon. NMFS expects that similar fisheries protection measures will be
implemented in 1998 depending on actual hydrological conditions.
The second and very ambitious initiative that benefits Central
Valley spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon is the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. In June 1994, state and Federal agencies signed a framework
agreement that pledged all agencies to work together to formulate water
quality standards to protect the Bay-Delta, coordinate state and
Federal water project operations, and develop a long-term Bay-Delta
restoration program. In December 1994, a diverse group of State and
Federal agencies, water agencies and environmental organizations signed
The Bay-Delta Accord which set out specific interim (3-year) measures
for environmental protection, including protection for Central Valley
chinook stocks. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program, which began in June,
1995, is charged with developing the long-term Bay-Delta solution and
restoration program.
Three types of environmental protection and restoration measures
are detailed in the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord: (1) The control of
freshwater outflow in the Delta to improve estuarine conditions in the
shallow-water habitat of the Bay-Delta estuary (Category I measures),
(2) the regulation of water project operations and flows to minimize
harmful environmental impacts of water exports (Category II measures),
and (3) the funding and implementation of projects to address non-flow
related factors affecting the Bay-Delta ecosystem such as unscreened
diversions, physical habitat degradation, and pollution (Category III
measures). Many of the Category I and II measures identified in the
agreement were implemented by a Water Quality Control Plan that was
adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 1995. Efforts
were also initiated to implement Category III non-flow projects
beginning in 1995 and these have continued to the present.
In 1995 and 1996, the Category III program approved a total of
$21.1 million in funding for a large number of habitat restoration,
fish screening, land acquisition, research and monitoring, watershed
planning, and fish passage projects distributed throughout the
Sacramento/San Joaquin River basins, their tributaries and the Bay-
Delta system. Additional funding was provided for most of these
projects from the CVPIA or other funding sources, and many constitute
specific restoration actions identified in the draft Ecosystem
Restoration Program Plan (ERPP) that is being developed as part of the
comprehensive long-term CALFED Bay-Delta program. The total funding
obligation for these projects exceeded $40 million. A description of
these projects, the project proponent, the funding commitments, and the
project status are described in a March 1997 summary document. In 1997,
the CALFED Bay-Delta program announced its intention to fund a total of
51 additional projects using nearly $61 million in Category III
funding. Additional funding of nearly $40 million was also available as
a cost share for other projects if additional high priority projects
could be identified. The selection of these 51 projects were intended
to address specific stressors or factors for decline that were
identified in the planning process leading to development of the ERPP.
The vast majority of these funds (nearly 77 percent) were allocated to
projects addressing floodplain/marsh plain changes and changes in river
channel form. An additional 10 percent was targeted at entrainment
problems, while 8 percent addressed water quality problems. Of the
total funds committed to new projects, 87 percent will be expended for
implementation projects, with the balance expended for watershed
planning, monitoring, and research.
Central Valley spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon have
benefited from the expenditure of these restoration program funds
through the placement of new fish screens, modifications of barriers to
fish passage, and habitat restoration projects, and additional benefits
are expected to accrue to these populations in the future as new
projects are implemented. In the long-term, NMFS is hopeful that the
CVPIA and CALFED Bay-Delta conservation programs described above can be
focused and implemented to provide a comprehensive conservation
response to the extensive habitat problems facing chinook salmon and
other species in the Central Valley. To date, however, projects funded
by these programs have focused on addressing habitat problems facing
these and other species, and have placed an emphasis on problems
associated with freshwater and ocean harvest or hatchery management
practices. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program's draft ERPP acknowledges that
current hatchery practices and freshwater and ocean harvest management
practices are stressors (or risk factors) that are adversely affecting
natural chinook salmon populations in the Central Valley. It also
identifies general changes that may be needed to reduce the impacts of
these stressors, and incorporates the need for improved harvest and
hatchery management in its programmatic implementation plan. However,
no Category III funding has been targeted at these problems to date,
and a focused plan with both a near- and long-term implementation
strategy to deal with these problems still needs to be developed. Many
habitat restoration projects or activities identified in the ERPP have
been funded and are in the
[[Page 11503]]
process of being implemented as discussed above. Other components of
the restoration plan will be carried out as part of its long-term
implementation. NMFS is encouraged by the ecosystem planning and
restoration strategy developed for chinook salmon in Central Valley and
Bay-Delta ecosystem. However, several risk factors that have been
identified by NMFS as adversely affecting chinook salmon in the Central
Valley have not been adequately addressed, and plans for their
implementation needs to be developed. These risk factors include large
hatchery programs and practices that are adversely affecting natural
populations of spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon, and masking
our ability to confidently assess the status of naturally spawning
populations; and ocean and freshwater harvest rates on natural stocks
of spring and fall/late-fall chinook salmon stocks (hatchery and
natural) that may exceed the basin's ability to naturally sustain these
ESUs.
Because the full scope and implementation strategy for the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program's long-term restoration program have yet to be
finalized and a focused strategy to address impacts from harvest and
hatchery practices has yet to be adequately developed, NMFS believes
that the conservation benefits provided for by the CALFED restoration
program and other complementary programs are not currently sufficient
to reduce the substantial risks facing Central Valley spring-run and
fall/late fall-run chinook salmon. NMFS is committed to working closely
with the State and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to build on the draft
ERPP and its implementation strategy to ensure that all risks to
spring-run and fall/late fall-run chinook salmon, including those
resulting from current hatchery and harvest practices, are properly
addressed in the future.
State of Oregon Conservation Measures
In April 1996, the Governor of Oregon completed and submitted to
NMFS a comprehensive conservation plan directed specifically at coho
salmon stocks on the Coast of Oregon. This plan, termed the Oregon Plan
for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) (formerly known as the Oregon Coastal
Salmon Restoration Initiative) has recently been expanded to include
conservation measures for coastal steelhead stocks (Oregon, 1998). For
a detailed description of the OPSW, refer to the May 6, 1997, listing
determination for Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62
FR 24602-24606). The essential features of the OPSW include the
following:
1. Identifies and addresses all factors for decline of coastal coho
and steelhead, most notably, those factors relating to harvest,
habitat, and hatchery activities.
2. State agencies whose activities affect salmon are held
accountable for coordinating their programs in a manner that conserves
and restores the species and their habitat.
3. Developed a framework for prioritizing conservation and
restoration efforts.
4. Developed a comprehensive monitoring plan that coordinates
Federal, state, and local efforts to improve current knowledge of
freshwater and marine conditions, determine populations trends,
evaluate the effects of artificial propagation, and rate the OPSW's
success or failure in restoring the salmon.
5. Actions to conserve and restore salmon must be worked out by
communities and landowners--those who possess local knowledge of
problems and who have a genuine stake in the outcome.
6. The principle of adaptive management coordinates the
prioritization, monitoring and implementation elements of this
conservation plan. Through this process, there is an explicit mechanism
for learning from experience, evaluating alternative approaches, and
making needed changes in the programs and measures.
7. The Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) provides
an independent audit of the OPSW's strengths and weaknesses. The IMST
assists the adaptive management process by compiling new information
into an annual review of goals, objectives, and strategies, and by
recommending changes.
8. The annual report made to the Governor, the legislature, and the
public will help the agencies make the adjustments described for the
adaptive management process.
While NMFS recognizes that many of the ongoing protective efforts
are likely to promote the conservation of chinook and other salmonids,
in the aggregate, they have not yet achieved chinook salmon
conservation at a scale that is adequate to protect and conserve the
eight ESUs proposed for listing (seven newly defined ESUs and one
redefined ESU). NMFS believes that most existing efforts lack some of
the critical elements needed to provide a high degree of certainty that
the efforts will be successful. These elements include: (1)
identification of specific factors for decline; (2) immediate measures
required to protect the best remaining populations and habitats and
priorities for restoration activities; (3) explicit and quantifiable
objectives and time lines; (4) adequate and reliable funding; and (5)
monitoring programs to determine the effectiveness of actions,
including methods to measure whether recovery objectives are being met
(NMFS Coastal Salmon Conservation: Working Guidance For Comprehensive
Salmon Restoration Initiatives on the Pacific Coast, September 15,
1996).
The best available scientific information on the biological status
of the species supports a proposed listing of eight chinook salmon ESUs
under the ESA (see Proposed Determination). NMFS concludes that
existing protective efforts at this time are inadequate to alter the
proposed determination of threatened or endangered for these eight
chinook salmon ESUs. However, during the period between publication of
this proposed rule and publication of a final rule, NMFS will continue
to solicit information regarding existing protective efforts (see
Public Comments Solicited). NMFS also will work with Federal, state and
tribal fisheries managers to evaluate and enhance the efficacy of the
various salmonid conservation efforts.
Proposed Determination
The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1532(6) and (20)). Section 4(b)(1)
of the ESA requires that the listing determination be based solely on
the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a
review of the status of the species and after taking into account those
efforts, if any, being made to protect such species.
Based on results from its coastwide assessment, NMFS has concluded
that on the west coast of the United States, there are 15 ESUs of
chinook salmon which constitute ``species'' under the ESA, including 12
newly identified ESUs. After evaluating the status of these 12 ESUs,
NMFS has determined that two ESUs (Central Valley spring-run and the
Upper Columbia River spring-run ESUs) are in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. NMFS has also
determined that five ESUs (Central Valley fall/late fall-run, Southern
Oregon and California Coastal, Puget Sound, Lower Columbia River, Upper
Willamette River ESUs) are likely to
[[Page 11504]]
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of their range. NMFS proposes to list
these ESUs as such at this time.
The listed Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU is proposed to
be redefined to include additional fall-run chinook populations from
the Deschutes River. NMFS has determined this redefined ESU is likely
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. This proposed
reclassification of the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU does
not affect the threatened status of the currently defined ESU (see 63
FR 1807, January 12, 1998).
NMFS has also renamed one ESU which was previously reviewed for
listing. The Middle Columbia summer and fall-run ESU is renamed the
Upper Columbia River summer and fall-run ESU to reflect the inclusion
of the fall-run chinook salmon populations from the Columbia River
above The Dalles Dam in the newly configured Snake River fall-run ESU.
The geographic boundaries for these ESUs (i.e., the watersheds within
which the members of the ESU spend their freshwater residence) are
described under ``ESU Determinations.''
NMFS also proposes to designate critical habitat for each of the
proposed chinook salmon ESUs, as described in the following section
entitled Critical Habitat for Pacific Coast Chinook Salmon. Proposed
critical habitat for each chinook salmon ESU proposed for listing has
been characterized in that section, as well as in tables attached to
this notice. Existing critical habitat for Snake River fall-run chinook
salmon is proposed to be revised to include the geographic areas of the
redefined Snake River fall-run ESU.
Only naturally spawned chinook salmon are being proposed for
listing as threatened or endangered species in each of the 8 ESUs.
Prior to the final listing determination, NMFS will examine the
relationship between hatchery and natural chinook salmon populations in
these ESUs, and assess whether any hatchery populations are essential
for their recovery. This may result in the inclusion of specific
hatchery populations as part of a listed ESU in NMFS' final
determination.
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures that may apply to listed species as
endangered or threatened under the ESA include conservation measures by
tribes, states, local governments, and private organizations, Federal,
tribal, and state recovery actions, Federal agency consultation
requirements, prohibitions on taking, and recognition. Recognition
through listing promotes public awareness and conservation actions by
Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and
individuals.
Based on information presented in this proposed rule, general
protective measures that could be implemented to help conserve the
species are listed below. This list does not constitute NMFS'
interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) of the ESA.
1. Measures could be taken to promote land management practices
that protect and restore chinook salmon habitat. Land management
practices affecting chinook salmon habitat include timber harvest, road
building, agriculture, livestock grazing, and urban development.
2. Evaluation of existing harvest regulations could identify any
changes necessary to protect chinook salmon populations.
3. Artificial propagation programs could be required to incorporate
practices that minimize adverse impacts upon native populations of
chinook salmon.
4. Efforts could be made to ensure that existing and proposed dam
facilities are designed and operated in a manner that will not
adversely affect chinook salmon populations. For example, NMFS could
require that fish passage facilities at dams effectively pass migrating
juvenile and adult chinook salmon.
5. Water diversions could have adequate headgate and staff gauge
structures installed to control and monitor water usage accurately.
Water rights could be enforced to prevent irrigators from exceeding the
amount of water to which they are legally entitled.
6. Irrigation diversions affecting downstream migrating chinook
salmon could be screened. A thorough review of the impact of irrigation
diversions on chinook salmon could be conducted.
NMFS recognizes that, to be successful, protective regulations and
recovery programs for chinook salmon will need to be developed in the
context of conserving aquatic ecosystem health. NMFS believes in some
cases, Federal lands and Federal activities may bear a preponderance of
the burden in preserving proposed populations and the ecosystems upon
which they depend. However, throughout the range of the eight ESUs
proposed for listing, chinook salmon habitat occurs and is affected by
activities on state, tribal or private land. Agricultural, timber, and
urban management activities on nonfederal land could and should be
conducted in a manner that avoids adverse effects to chinook salmon
habitat.
NMFS encourages nonfederal landowners to assess the impacts of
their actions on potentially threatened or endangered salmonids. In
particular, NMFS encourages the formulation of watershed partnerships
to promote conservation in accordance with ecosystem principles. These
partnerships will be successful only if state, tribal, and local
governments, landowner representatives, conservationists, and Federal
and nonfederal biologists all participate and share the goal of
restoring chinook salmon to the watersheds.
Several conservation efforts are underway that may reverse the
decline of west coast chinook salmon and other salmonids. These include
the Northwest Forest Plan (on Federal lands within the range of the
northern spotted owl), PACFISH (on all additional Federal lands with
anadromous salmonid populations), Oregon's Plan for Salmon and
Watersheds focussing on coho salmon and steelhead, Washington's Wild
Stock Restoration Initiative, the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (a joint effort by California and
several Federal agencies to restore the Sacramento and San Joaquin
River estuary), Wy-Kam-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (The Spirit of the Salmon):
The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan from the four
Native American treaty tribes that configure the Columbia River Inter-
tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) (CRITFC, 1996), and NMFS'' Proposed
Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon, and a Draft Recovery Plan for
Sacramento winter-run Chinook Salmon.
State of California Conservation Measures
As discussed in the section entitled Efforts Being Made to Protect
West Coast Chinook Salmon above, the CALFED Bay-Delta program is
developing a comprehensive long-term restoration plan and
implementation strategy that is intended to restore the ecosystem
health and improve water management for the beneficial uses of the Bay-
Delta ecosystem. This planning effort is focused on addressing four
critical resource areas: ecosystem quality, water quality, system
integrity, and water supply reliability. In addition, substantial
planning has been directed at developing alternatives for water
conveyance and storage that are consistent with the objectives of the
long-term plan. A draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) is under
[[Page 11505]]
development by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program that will assess the
impacts of the entire CALFED Bay-Delta long-term plan and provide
additional public opportunity for comment. The DEIS/EIR is expected to
be released during the spring of 1998.
A major component of the long-term CALFED Bay-Delta Program is the
Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan (ERPP) which is being developed to
address the ecosystem quality element of the long-term plan. The draft
ERPP is comprised of three components. The first component, Visions for
Ecosystem Elements (CALFED Bay-Delta Program, ERPP Volume I, June
1997), presents the visions for ecological processes and functions,
fish and wildlife habitats, and stressors that impair the health of the
processes, habitats, and species. The second component, Visions for
Ecological Zones (CALFED Bay-Delta Program, ERPP Volume II, July 1997),
presents the visions for the 14 ecological zones and their respective
ecological units throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin River basins and
Delta and contains implementation objectives, targets, and programmatic
actions. The third component, Vision for Adaptive Management (CALFED
Bay-Delta Program, ERPP Volume III, August 1997) provides the ERPP
approach to adaptive management and contains the proposed plans to
address indicators of ecological health, a monitoring program to
acquire and evaluate the data needed regarding indicators, a program of
focused research to acquire additional data needed to evaluate program
alternatives and options, and the approach to phasing the
implementation of the ERPP over its 25 year time span.
The draft ERPP addresses the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers,
their upper watersheds, and the Bay-Delta ecosystem. Within this large
geographic area, the ERPP identifies 14 ecological zones where the
majority of restoration actions will occur. Ecosystem functions that
are important to anadromous salmonids and that are addressed in the
ERPP include: the quantity and quality of Central Valley streamflow and
temperatures, natural sediment supply, stream meander corridor, natural
floodplain, flood and watershed processes, Bay-Delta hydraulics and
aquatic food chain, tidal and nontidal perennial aquatic habitat,
sloughs, quantity and quality of estuarine, wetland, riverine, and
riparian habitats. Environmental stressors, or risk factors, that are
identified and addressed in the ERPP include: water diversions, quality
and quantity of water, habitat blockages due to dams and other manmade
structures, dredging and sediment disposal, gravel mining, encroachment
of nonendemic species, predation and competition, contaminants, legal
and illegal harvest, artificial fish propagation, and land disturbance.
The total cost for implementing the ERPP has been estimated at $1.5
billion, of which about half should be available through state
Proposition 204 bonds and expected federal appropriations. These funds
will be used to provide the initial infusion of funding to move the
implementation of the ERPP forward. The ERPP implementation assumes
that the $390 million identified in Proposition 204 will become
available for expenditure after the CALFED Bay-Delta Program long-term
restoration plan is formally adopted by the CALFED agencies through
filing of a Record of Decision for the Federal EIS and certification of
the EIR by the California Resources Agency by late 1998. The ERPP
assumes that these funds will be encumbered and expended during the 25
year period of implementation which provides for a pro-rated
availability of $15 million per year. Category III funding is assumed
to complete the expenditure of $180 million during the first five years
on actions identified for early implementation. Other sources of
funding are expected to be available through Federal appropriations and
through the CVPIA.
NMFS intends to continue working closely with the State of
California through the CALFED Bay-Delta Program in their efforts to
formulate a long-term restoration plan and an associated implementation
strategy for the Bay-Delta ecosystem restoration. This habitat-focused
conservation effort, if combined with State efforts addressing hatchery
and harvest reform (i.e., reductions in hatchery production, increased
marking of hatchery fish, changes in release practices to reduce
straying, improved monitoring of escapement and stray rates, and
reductions in ocean and freshwater harvest rates) could ameliorate the
risks facing fall/late-fall chinook salmon stocks in the Central
Valley. The degree to which these conservation efforts provide
reliable, measurable and predictable reductions in the identified
factors for decline, may provide NMFS with direct and substantial
information pertinent to making final listing determinations for
Central Valley chinook stocks.
In the San Joaquin River Basin, collaboration between water
interests and State/Federal resources agencies has led to a
scientifically-based adaptive fisheries management plan known as the
Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP). The VAMP proposes to use
current knowledge to provide interim protections for San Joaquin fall-
run chinook salmon smolts; to gather scientific information on the
effects of various San Joaquin River flows and Delta water export rates
on the survival of salmon smolts through the Delta; and to provide
environmental benefits in the San Joaquin River tributaries, lower San
Joaquin River, and Delta. This 12-year plan will be implemented through
experimental flows in the San Joaquin Basin and operational changes at
the Delta pumping plants during the peak salmon smolt outmigration
period, approximately April 15 to May 15. Additional attraction flows
for adult fall-run chinook upstream passage are targeted for October.
In coordination with VAMP, the California Department of Water Resources
will be installing and operating a barrier at the Head of Old River to
improve the survival of juvenile chinook emigrating from the lower San
Joaquin River. Although initial implementation of the VAMP is scheduled
for spring 1998, negotiations regarding some aspects of the program
continue. Although the VAMP does address flow conditions in the lower
San Joaquin River during the spring smolt outmigration period, water
quality concerns in the San Joaquin Basin still remain. NMFS expects
that additional information regarding the long-term commitment of all
participating parties to fully implement the plan will be available to
prior to the final listing determination for Central Valley fall/late-
fall chinook salmon.
State of California Conservation Measures for Coastal Chinook
In 1997, the California State legislature introduced and passed
Senate Bill (SB) 271 which initiated a north coast salmonid habitat
restoration program in California. This program is expected to provide
significant benefits for coastal chinook salmon populations, in
addition to other coastal salmonids beginning this year. SB 271
specifically created the Salmon and Steelhead Trout Restoration
Account, and directed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
to expend these funds on a wide range of watershed planning, on-the-
ground habitat restoration projects, and other restoration-related
efforts for the purpose of restoring anadromous salmonid populations in
California's coastal watersheds, primarily north of San Francisco. SB
271 immediately transferred $3 million to the Account for CDFG to
expend on the program in 1997 and 1998, and directed that $8 million be
transferred to the Account annually for five years (beginning in fiscal
year
[[Page 11506]]
1998-99 and continuing through fiscal year 2002-03) to continue funding
this program. In total, SB 271 will provide $43 million in funding for
north coast restoration projects over this six year period.
SB 271 requires that nearly 90 percent of the $43 million in
funding be spent on project grants issued through CDFG's existing
Fishery Restoration Grants Program, and allows CDFG to use the
remaining funds for project contract administration activities and
biological support staff necessary to achieve the restoration
objectives of the legislation. SB 271 specifies that: (1) funded
projects emphasize the development of coordinated watershed improvement
activities, (2) the highest priority be given to funding projects that
restore habitat for salmon and/or steelhead that are eligible for
protection as listed or candidate species under the State or Federal
ESA, and (3) funded projects treat causes of fish habitat degradation
and be designed to restore the structure and function of fish habitat.
In addition, SB 271 specifically allocates: (1) at least 65 percent of
all Account funding for salmonid habitat protection and restoration
projects, with at least 75 percent of that funding used for upslope
watershed and riparian area protection and restoration activities, and
(2) up to 35 percent of the Account funding for projects such as
watershed evaluation, assessment, and planning, project monitoring and
evaluations, support to watershed organizations, project maintenance
and monitoring, private sector training, and watershed/fishery
education.
In July 1997, California's Governor also signed Executive Order W-
159-97 that created a Watershed Restoration and Protection Council
(WPRC) that was charged with: (1) providing oversight of State
activities aimed at watershed protection and enhancement including the
conservation and restoration of anadromous salmonids in California, and
(2) directing the development of a Watershed Protection Program which
provides for anadromous salmonid conservation. In furtherance of
implementing the Governor's Executive Order and the development of a
Watershed Protection Program for anadromous salmonids, CDFG established
and began implementing its own Watershed Initiative in 1997 and 1998.
As described above, CDFG received $3 million in funding from SB 271 in
1997-98 which was used to fund its Watershed Initiative for coastal
anadromous salmonids. These funds are currently in the process of being
dispersed, together with a relatively limited amount of funds from
other sources (e.g. Proposition 70, Proposition 99, Commercial Salmon
Stamp Account, Steelhead Catch-Restoration Card, and Wildlife
Conservation Board), in the form of grants through CDFG's Fishery
Restoration Grants Program.
CDFG expects to allocate these grant funds as follows: (1) at least
$1.3 million for watershed and riparian habitat restoration, (2) up to
$425,000 for instream habitat restoration, and (3) up to $900,000 for
watershed evaluation, assessment, planning, restoration project
maintenance and monitoring, and a wide range of other activities. Other
State agencies that have responsibilities as a result of the Governor's
Executive Order are modifying existing budgets and preparing budget
proposals for the upcoming fiscal year (1998-99) to assist in
implementing the State's coastal watershed initiative. For fiscal year
1998-99, CDFG has submitted a Budget Change Proposal for its Watershed
Initiative which calls for the expenditure of $8.0 million in SB 271
funds for: (1) eight new positions to assist in watershed planning
efforts and grant proposal development ($1.0 million), and (2) habitat
restoration and watershed planning projects in the form of grants ($7.0
million). CDFG anticipates that SB 271 funding will be expended in a
similar manner and level through fiscal year 2002-03 to support the new
staff resources created in the current year. The funding of these
current and near term watershed planning and habitat restoration
efforts is expected to provide significant benefits to chinook salmon
stocks in California's coastal watersheds and in the Klamath/Trinity
Basin. Over the next year, NMFS expects to work with the State in the
development of its Watershed Protection Program and the implementation
of its Watershed Initiative. NMFS is encouraged by their efforts and
will consider them in its final listing determination for the Southern
Oregon and California Coastal ESU.
State of Washington Conservation Measures
The State of Washington is currently in the process of developing a
statewide strategy to protect and restore wild steelhead and other
salmon and trout species. In May of 1997, Governor Gary Locke and other
State officials signed a Memorandum of Agreement creating the Joint
Natural Resources Cabinet (Joint Cabinet). This body is comprised of
State agency directors or their equivalents from a wide variety of
agencies whose activities and constituents influence Washington's
natural resources. The goal of the Joint Cabinet is to restore healthy
salmon, steelhead and trout populations by improving those habitats on
which the fish rely. The Joint Cabinet's current activities include
development of the Lower Columbia Steelhead Conservation Initiative
(LCSCI), which is intended to comprehensively address protection and
recovery of steelhead in the lower Columbia River area.
The scope of the LCSCI includes Washington's steelhead stocks in
two transboundary ESUs that are shared by both Washington and Oregon.
The initiative area includes all of Washington's stocks in the Lower
Columbia River ESU (Cowlitz to Wind rivers) and the portion of the
Southwest Washington ESU in the Columbia River (Grays River to Germany
Creek). When completed, conservation and restoration efforts in the
LCSCI area will form a comprehensive, coordinated, and timely
protection and rebuilding framework. Benefits to steelhead and other
fish species in the LCSCI area will also accrue due to the growing bi-
state partnership with Oregon.
Advance work on the Initiative was performed by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). That work emphasized harvest
and hatchery issues and related conservation measures. Consistent with
creation of the Joint Cabinet, conservation planning has recently been
expanded to include major involvement by other state agencies and
stakeholders, and to address habitat and tributary dam/hydropower
components.
The utility of the LCSCI is to provide a framework to describe
concepts, strategies, opportunities, and commitments that will be
critically needed to maintain the diversity and long term productivity
of steelhead in the lower Columbia River for future generations. The
initiative does not represent a formal watershed planning process;
rather, it is intended to be complementary to such processes as they
may occur in the future. The LCSCI details a range of concerns
including natural production and genetic conservation, recreational
harvest and opportunity, hatchery strategies, habitat protection and
restoration goals, monitoring of stock status and habitat health,
evaluation of the effectiveness of specific conservation actions, and
an adaptive management structure to implement and modify the plan's
trajectory as time progresses. It also addresses improved enforcement
of habitat and fishery regulations, and strategies for outreach and
education.
The LCSCI is currently a ``work-in-progress'' and will evolve and
change
[[Page 11507]]
over time as new information becomes available. Input will be obtained
through continuing outreach efforts by local governments and
stakeholders. Further refinements to strategies, actions, and
commitments will occur using public and stakeholder review and input,
and continued interaction with the State of Oregon, tribes, and other
government entities, including NMFS. The LCSCI will be subjected to
independent technical review. In sum, these input and coordination
processes will play a key role in determining the extent to which the
eventual conservation package will benefit wild steelhead.
NMFS intends to continue working with the State of Washington and
stakeholders involved in the formulation of the LCSCI. Ultimately, when
completed, this conservation effort may ameliorate risks facing many
salmonid species in this region. In the near term, for steelhead and
other listed species, individual components of the conservation effort
may be utilized in promulgating protective regulations under section
4(d) of the ESA.
State of Oregon Conservation Measures
As discussed in the section entitled Efforts Being Made to Protect
West Coast Chinook Salmon, the Governor of Oregon completed and
submitted to NMFS a comprehensive conservation plan directed
specifically at coho salmon and steelhead stocks on the Coast of
Oregon. The OPSW contains conservation elements that may apply to the
needs of chinook salmon in Oregon streams.
The elements of the OPSW most likely to benefit chinook salmon
conservation include: (1) a framework for prioritizing conservation and
restoration efforts; (2) a comprehensive monitoring plan that
coordinates Federal, state, and local efforts to improve current
knowledge of freshwater and marine conditions, determine populations
trends, evaluate the effects of artificial propagation, and evaluate
the OPSW's success or failure in restoring chinook salmon; (3) a
recognition that actions to conserve and restore salmon must be worked
out by communities and landowners--those who possess local knowledge of
problems and who have a genuine stake in the outcome. Watershed
councils, soil and water conservation districts, and other grassroots
efforts are the vehicles for getting this work done; (4) an explicit
mechanism for learning from experience, evaluating alternative
approaches, and making needed changes in the programs and measures; (5)
the IMST whose purpose is to provide an independent audit of the OPSW's
strengths and weaknesses; and (6) a yearly report be made to the
Governor, the legislature, and the public. This will help the agencies
make the adjustments prescribed for the adaptive management process.
Native American Tribal Conservation Efforts
A comprehensive salmon restoration plan for Columbia Basin salmon
was prepared by the Nez Perce, Warm Springs, Umatilla and Yakama Indian
Nations. This plan, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (The Spirit of the
Salmon)(CRITFC, 1996) is more comprehensive than past draft recovery
plans for Columbia River basin salmon in that it proposes actions to
protect salmon not currently listed under the ESA. The tribal plan sets
goals and objectives to meet the restoration needs of the fish, as well
as some of the multiple needs of these sovereign nations. The plan also
provides some guidance for management of tribal lands within the range
of anadromous salmon. NMFS will work closely with the four tribes as
conservation measures related to at-risk Columbia Basin salmonids are
further developed and implemented.
NMFS is encouraged by these efforts and believes they may
constitute significant strides in regional efforts to develop a
scientifically well grounded conservation plan for these stocks, and
for chinook salmon. NMFS intends to support and work closely with these
efforts. The degree to which these conservation efforts are able to
provide reliable, scientifically well grounded improvements through a
variety of measures to provide for the conservation of these stocks may
have a direct and substantial effect on any final listing determination
of NMFS.
Prohibitions and Protective Measures
Section 4(d) of the ESA requires NMFS to issue regulations it finds
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of a listed
species. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits violations of protective
regulations for threatened species promulgated under section 4(d). The
4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to threatened
species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the ESA
prohibits with respect to endangered species. These 9(a) prohibitions
and 4(d) regulations apply to all individuals, organizations, and
agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. NMFS intends to have final 4(d)
protective regulations in effect at the time of final listing
determinations for eight proposed west coast chinook salmon ESUs. The
process for completing the 4(d) rule will provide the opportunity for
public comment on the proposed protective regulations.
In the case of threatened species, NMFS also has flexibility under
section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations based on the contents of
available conservation measures. Even though, in several ESUs, existing
conservation efforts and plans are not sufficient to preclude the need
for listings at this time, they are nevertheless valuable for improving
watershed health and restoring fishery resources. In those cases where
well-developed, reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS may choose to
incorporate them into the recovery planning process, starting with the
protective regulations. NMFS has already adopted 4(d) rules that exempt
a limited range of activities from take prohibitions. For example, the
interim 4(d) rule for the Southern Oregon/Northern California coho (62
FR 24588, May 7, 1997) exempts habitat restoration activities conducted
in accordance with approved plans and fisheries conducted in accordance
with an approved state management plan. In the future, 4(d) rules may
contain limited take prohibitions applicable to activities such as
forestry, agriculture, and road construction when such activities are
conducted in accordance with approved conservation plans.
These are all examples where NMFS may apply take prohibitions in
light of the protections provided in a strong conservation program.
There may be other circumstances as well in which NMFS would use the
flexibility of section 4(d). For example, in some cases there may be a
healthy population of salmon or steelhead within an overall ESU that is
listed. In such a case, it may not be necessary to apply the full range
of prohibitions available in section 9. NMFS intends to use the
flexibility of the ESA to respond appropriately to the biological
condition of each ESU and to the strength of programs to protect them.
Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies confer
with NMFS on any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a species proposed for listing and on actions likely to result in
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
For listed species, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure
that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal
[[Page 11508]]
agency must enter into consultation with NMFS.
Examples of Federal actions likely to affect chinook salmon include
authorized land management activities of the USFS and BLM, as well as
operation of hydroelectric and storage projects of the BOR and COE.
Such activities include timber sales and harvest, permitting livestock
grazing, hydroelectric power generation, and flood control. Federal
actions, including the COE section 404 permitting activities under the
CWA, COE permitting activities under the River and Harbors Act, FERC
licenses for non-Federal development and operation of hydropower, and
Federal salmon hatcheries, may also require consultation.
Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with
authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions.
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that
involves a directed take of listed species. A directed take refers to
the intentional take of listed species. NMFS has issued section
10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permits for currently listed chinook
salmon (e.g., Snake River chinook salmon and Sacramento River winter-
run chinook salmon) for a number of activities, including trapping and
tagging, electroshocking to determine population presence and
abundance, removal of fish from irrigation ditches, and collection of
adult fish for artificial propagation programs.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-
Federal entities performing activities which may incidentally take
listed species. The types of activities potentially requiring a section
10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the operation and release of
artificially propagated fish by state or privately operated and funded
hatcheries, state or academic research not receiving Federal
authorization or funding, the implementation of state fishing
regulations, logging, road building, grazing, and diverting water into
private lands.
NMFS Policies on Endangered and Threatened Fish and Wildlife
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, published a series of policies regarding listings under the
ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR
34270) and a policy to identify, to the maximum extent possible, those
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9
of the ESA (59 FR 34272).
Role of Peer Review
The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings
are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Prior
to a final listing, NMFS will solicit the expert opinions of at least
three qualified specialists, concurrent with the public comment period.
Independent peer reviewers will be selected from the academic and
scientific community, Native American tribal groups, Federal and state
agencies, and the private sector.
Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of
Section 9 of the ESA
NMFS and the FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34272), a policy that NMFS shall identify, to the maximum extent
practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that
would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of
this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species'
range. At the time of the final rule, NMFS will identify to the extent
known specific activities that will not be considered likely to result
in violation of section 9, as well as activities that will be
considered likely to result in violation. NMFS believes that, based on
the best available information, the following actions will not result
in a violation of section 9:
1. Possession of chinook salmon from any chinook salmon ESU listed
as threatened which are acquired lawfully by permit issued by NMFS
pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the terms of an incidental
take statement pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.
2. Federally funded or approved projects that involve activities
such as silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam
construction and operation, discharge of fill material, stream
channelization or diversion for which section 7 consultation has been
completed, and when activities are conducted in accordance with any
terms and conditions provided by NMFS in an incidental take statement
accompanying a biological opinion.
Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm chinook salmon
in any of the proposed ESUs, and result in a violation of the section 9
take prohibition include, but are not limited to:
1. Land-use activities that adversely affect chinook salmon habitat
in any proposed ESU (e.g., logging, grazing, farming, urban
development, road construction in riparian areas and areas susceptible
to mass wasting and surface erosion).
2. Destruction/alteration of the chinook salmon habitat in any
proposed ESU, such as removal of large woody debris and ``sinker logs''
or riparian shade canopy, dredging, discharge of fill material,
draining, ditching, diverting, blocking, or altering stream channels or
surface or ground water flow.
3. Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants
(e.g., sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting
the chinook salmon in any proposed ESU.
4. Violation of discharge permits.
5. Pesticide applications.
6. Interstate and foreign commerce of chinook salmon from any of
the proposed ESUs and import/export of chinook salmon from any ESU
without a threatened or endangered species permit.
7. Collecting or handling of chinook salmon from any of the
proposed ESUs. Permits to conduct these activities are available for
purposes of scientific research or to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species.
8. Introduction of non-native species likely to prey on chinook
salmon in any proposed ESU or displace them from their habitat.
These lists are not exhaustive. They are intended to provide some
examples of the types of activities that might or might not be
considered by NMFS as constituting a take of chinook salmon in any of
the proposed ESUs under the ESA and its regulations. Questions
regarding whether specific activities will constitute a violation of
the section 9 take prohibition, and general inquiries regarding
prohibitions and permits, should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently
with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. NMFS
has determined that sufficient information exists to propose
designating critical habitat for the seven proposed chinook salmon
ESUs. NMFS will consider all available information and data in
finalizing this proposal.
Use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this Notice refers to
critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be confused with
the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
[[Page 11509]]
Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Definition of Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i)
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species
* * * on which are found those physical or biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon
a determination by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species.'' (see 16
U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). The term ``conservation,'' as defined in section
3(3) of the ESA, means `` * * * to use and the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to this Act are no longer necessary.'' (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
In proposing to designate critical habitat, NMFS considers the
following requirements of the species: (1) Space for individual and
population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air,
light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing
of offspring; and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and
ecological distributions of this species (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)). In
addition to these factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and
biological features (primary constituent elements) within the
designated area that are essential to the conservation of the species
and may require special management considerations or protection. These
essential features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites,
food resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation
(see 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Consideration of Economic and Other Factors
The economic and other impacts of a critical habitat designation
will be considered and evaluated in this proposed rulemaking. NMFS will
identify present and anticipated activities that may adversely modify
the area(s) being considered or be affected by a designation. An area
may be excluded from a critical habitat designation if NMFS determines
that the overall benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
designation, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the
species (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental
impacts specifically resulting from a critical habitat designation,
above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the
species or resulting from other laws and regulations. Since listing a
species under the ESA provides significant protection to a species'
habitat, the economic and other impacts resulting from the critical
habitat designation, over and above the impacts of the listing itself,
are minimal. In general, the designation of critical habitat highlights
geographical areas of concern and reinforces the substantive protection
resulting from the listing itself.
Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the
``take'' prohibitions contained in section 9 of the ESA and associated
regulations. ``Take,'' as defined in the ESA, means to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harm
can occur through destruction or modification of habitat (whether or
not designated as critical) that significantly impairs essential
behaviors, including breeding, feeding, rearing, or migration.
Significance of Designating Critical Habitat
The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself,
restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific
management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation
contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important
areas and by describing the features within those areas that are
essential to the species, thus alerting public and private entities to
the area's importance. Under the ESA, the only regulatory impact of a
critical habitat designation is through the provisions of section 7.
Section 7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement (e.g.,
authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency) and does not
affect exclusively state or private activities.
Under the section 7 provisions, a designation of critical habitat
would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or adversely
modify designated critical habitat. Activities that destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are defined as those actions that
``appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the
survival and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Regardless
of a critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the proposed species. Activities that jeopardize a species are defined
as those actions that ``reasonably would be expected, directly or
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival
and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Using these
definitions, activities that would destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat would also be likely to jeopardize the species. Therefore, the
protection provided by a critical habitat designation generally
duplicates the protection provided under the section 7 jeopardy
provision. Critical habitat may provide additional benefits to a
species in cases where areas outside the species' current range have
been designated. When actions may affect these areas, Federal agencies
are required to consult with NMFS under section 7 (see 50 CFR
402.14(a)), a requirement which may not have been recognized but for
the critical habitat designation.
A designation of critical habitat provides a clear indication to
Federal agencies as to when section 7 consultation is required,
particularly in cases where the action would not result in immediate
mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a listed species (e.g., an
action occurring within the critical area when a migratory species is
not present). The critical habitat designation, describing the
essential features of the habitat, also assists in determining which
activities conducted outside the designated area are subject to section
7 (i.e., activities that may affect essential features of the
designated area).
A critical habitat designation will also assist Federal agencies in
planning future actions, since the designation establishes, in advance,
those habitats that will be given special consideration in section 7
consultations. With a designation of critical habitat, potential
conflicts between Federal actions and endangered or threatened species
can be identified and possibly avoided early in the agency's planning
process.
Another indirect benefit of a critical habitat designation is that
it helps focus Federal, state, and private conservation and management
efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address special
considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation
regulations to restrict private as well as Federal activities. The
economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the
time of those proposed regulations and, therefore, are not considered
in the critical habitat
[[Page 11510]]
designation process. Other Federal, state, tribal and local management
programs, such as zoning or wetlands and riparian lands protection, may
also provide special protection for critical habitat areas.
Process for Designating Critical Habitat
Developing a proposed critical habitat designation involves three
main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species are
evaluated and habitat areas and features that are essential to the
conservation of the species are identified. If alternative areas exist
that would provide for the conservation of the species, such
alternatives are also identified. Second, the need for special
management considerations or protection of the area(s) or features is
evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and other impacts of
designating these essential areas as ``critical habitat'' are
evaluated. After considering the requirements of the species, the need
for special management, and the impacts of the designation, the
proposed critical habitat is published in the Federal Register for
comment. The final critical habitat designation, considering comments
on the proposal and impacts assessment, is typically published within
one year of the proposed rule. Final critical habitat designations may
be revised, using the same process, as new information becomes
available.
A description of the critical habitat, need for special management,
impacts of designating critical habitat, and the proposed action are
described in the following sections.
Critical Habitat of Pacific Coast Chinook Salmon
Biological information for proposed chinook salmon can be found in
NMFS species' 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 Federal Register
notices of proposed and final listing determinations (55 FR 102260,
March 20, 1990; 56 FR 29542 and 29544, June 27, 1991; 57 FR 36626,
August 14, 1992; 57 FR 57051, December 2, 1992; 59 FR 42529, August 18,
1994; 59 FR 48855, September 23, 1994; 59 FR 66784, December 28, 1994;
63 FR 1807, January 12, 1998).
The current geographic range of chinook salmon from California,
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho includes vast areas of the North Pacific
Ocean, nearshore marine zone, and extensive estuarine and riverine
areas. The marine distribution for stream-type chinook salmon includes
extensive areas far from the coast in the central North Pacific. Ocean-
type chinook salmon typically migrate along coastal waters. Coastal
chinook populations originating from south of Cape Blanco tend to
migrate south, while those chinook salmon populations originating in
coastal streams north of Cape Blanco tend to migrate northerly (Bakun
1973, 1975; Nicholas and Hankin, 1988; Healey 1983 and 1991; Myers et
al., 1984).
In California, major estuaries and bays known to support Central
Valley chinook salmon include San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and
Suisun Bay. Within the Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon ESU,
major rivers and estuaries known to support chinook salmon include the
Sacramento River, American River, Feather River, Yuba River, and Deer,
Mill, Butte, Clear and Antelope Creeks. Within California's Central
Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon ESU, major rivers and
estuaries known to support chinook salmon include the Sacramento River;
its tributaries including but not limited to the American River,
Feather River, Yuba River, and Deer, Mill, Battle and Clear Creeks; as
well as the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, including but not
limited to the Mokelumne, Consumnes, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced
Rivers. Within the California portion of the Southern Oregon and
California Coastal chinook salmon ESU, major rivers, estuaries, and
bays known to support chinook salmon include the Smith River, lower
Klamath River, Mad River, Redwood Creek, Humboldt Bay, Eel River,
Mattole River, and the Russian River. Many smaller streams in the
California portion of this ESU also contain chinook salmon.
In Oregon, major rivers, estuaries, and bays known to support
chinook salmon within the Oregon portion of the Southern Oregon and
California Coastal chinook salmon ESU include the Rogue River and
several of its tributaries, and the Pistol, Chetco and Winchuck Rivers.
Within the range of the Oregon portion of the lower Columbia River
chinook salmon ESU, major rivers, estuaries, and bays known to support
chinook salmon include Youngs Bay, Klaskanine River, and the Clackamas,
Sandy and Hood Rivers. Major rivers known to support chinook salmon
within the upper Willamette River ESU include the Mollala River, North
Santiam River and McKenzie River. Major rivers known to support chinook
salmon within the Oregon portion of the Snake River fall-run chinook
salmon ESU include the Deschutes River, the lower Grande Ronde River,
the Imnaha River, and the Oregon portion of the Columbia and Snake
Rivers.
In Washington, major rivers, estuaries, and bays known to support
chinook salmon within the lower Columbia River ESU include the Grays
River, Elochoman River, Kalama River, Lewis River, Washougal River and
White Salmon River. Major rivers, estuaries, and bays known to support
chinook salmon within the Puget Sound ESU include the Nooksack River,
Skagit River and many of its tributaries, the Stilliguamish River,
Snohomish River, Duwamish River, Puyallup River, and the Elwha River.
Major estuarine, bay and marine areas known to support chinook salmon
within the Puget Sound ESU also include the South Sound, Hood Canal,
Elliott Bay, Possession Sound, Admiralty Inlet, Saratoga Passage,
Rosario Strait, Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, and the Strait of Juan
De Fuca. Major rivers known to support chinook salmon within the upper
Columbia River spring-run ESU include the Wenatchee River, Entiat
River, and Methow River.
In parts of Oregon, Washington and Idaho, major rivers known to
support chinook salmon within the Snake River fall-run ESU include the
lower Grande Ronde River, the Columbia River, the Snake River, the
lower Salmon River, and the lower Clearwater River below its confluence
with Lolo Creek.
Many smaller rivers and streams in each ESU also provide essential
spawning, rearing and estuarine habitat for chinook salmon, but use and
access can be constrained by seasonal fluctuations in hydrologic
conditions.
Defining specific river reaches that are critical for chinook
salmon is difficult because of the current low abundance of the species
and of our imperfect understanding of the species' freshwater
distribution, both current and historical. This is due, in large part,
to the lack of comprehensive sampling effort dedicated to monitoring
the species.
In California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho, several recent efforts
have been made to characterize the species' distribution (Healey, 1983
and 1991, Bryant and Olson, in prep.; The Wilderness Society (TWS),
1993; Bryant, 1994; McPhail and Lindsey 1970; Yoshiyama et al., 1996;
Myers et al., 1998) or to identify watersheds important to at-risk
populations of salmonids and resident fishes (FEMAT, 1993). However,
the limited data across the range of all ESUs, as well as
dissimilarities in data types within the ESUs, make it difficult to
define this species' distribution at a fine scale. Chinook salmon,
though considerably reduced in population size, are still
[[Page 11511]]
distributed or have the potential for distribution throughout nearly
all watersheds within the geographic range of each ESU. Notable
exceptions are areas above several impassable dams (see Barriers Within
the Species' Range).
Any attempt to describe the current distribution of chinook salmon
must take into account the fact that existing populations and densities
are a small fraction of historical levels. Many chinook salmon stocks
are extremely depressed relative to past abundance and there are
limited data to assess population numbers or trends. Several of these
stocks are heavily influenced by hatcheries and apparently have little
natural production in mainstem reaches.
Within the range of all chinook salmon ESUs, the species' life
cycle can be separated into five essential habitat types: (1) Juvenile
summer and winter rearing areas; (2) juvenile migration corridors; (3)
areas for growth and development to adulthood; (4) adult migration
corridors; and (5) spawning areas. Areas 1 and 5 are often located in
small headwater streams, while areas 2 and 4 include these tributaries
as well as mainstem reaches and estuarine zones. Growth and development
to adulthood (area 3) occurs primarily in near- and off-shore marine
waters, although final maturation takes place in freshwater tributaries
when the adults return to spawn. Within all of these areas, essential
features of chinook salmon critical habitat include adequate: (1)
substrate, (2) water quality, (3) water quantity, (4) water
temperature, (5) water velocity, (6) cover/shelter, (7) food, (8)
riparian vegetation, (9) space, and (10) safe passage conditions. Given
the vast geographic range occupied by each of these chinook salmon ESUs
and the diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is
not practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of
these essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these
environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed
to the decline of this and other salmonids can be found in reviews by
CDFG, 1965; CACSST, 1988; Brown and Moyle, 1991; Bjornn and Reiser,
1991; Nehlsen et al., 1991; Higgins et al., 1992; California State
Lands Commission (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's current freshwater, estuarine, and certain marine range
encompasses all essential habitat features and is adequate to ensure
the species' conservation. Therefore, designation of habitat areas
outside the species' current range is not indicated. Habitat quality in
this current range is intrinsically related to the quality of upland
areas and of inaccessible headwater or intermittent streams which
provide key habitat elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel, water
quality) crucial for chinook salmon in downstream reaches. NMFS
recognizes that estuarine habitats are important for rearing and
migrating chinook salmon and has included them in this designation.
Marine habitats (i.e., oceanic or nearshore areas seaward of the mouth
of coastal rivers) are also vital to the species, and ocean conditions
are believed to have a major influence on chinook salmon survival (see
review in Pearcy, 1992). In most cases, NMFS believes there is no need
for special management consideration or protection of this habitat. In
the case of the Puget Sound ESU, due to the unique combination of
geographic features, proximity to a large number of rivers and streams
supporting chinook salmon, and wide range of human activities occurring
within Puget Sound's marine area, it appears to be necessary to include
the marine areas described above. NMFS is not proposing to designate
other critical habitat in marine areas at this time. If additional
information becomes available that supports the inclusion of such
areas, NMFS may revise this designation.
Based on consideration of the best available information regarding
the species' current distribution, NMFS believes that the preferred
approach to identifying the freshwater and estuarine portion of
critical habitat is to designate all areas (and their adjacent riparian
zones) accessible to the species within the range of each ESU. NMFS has
taken this approach in previous critical habitat designations for other
species (e.g., Snake River salmon, Umpqua River cutthroat trout, and
proposed for two coho salmon ESUs) which inhabit a wide range of
freshwater habitats, in particular small tributary streams (58 FR
68543, December 28, 1993; 63 FR 1388, January 9, 1998; 62 FR 62741,
November 25, 1997). NMFS believes that adopting a more inclusive,
watershed-based description of critical habitat is appropriate because
it (1) recognizes the species' use of diverse habitats and underscores
the need to account for all of the habitat types supporting the
species' freshwater and estuarine life stages, from small headwater
streams to migration corridors and estuarine rearing areas; (2) takes
into account the natural variability in habitat use (e.g., some streams
may have fish present only in years with plentiful rainfall) that makes
precise mapping difficult; and (3) reinforces the important linkage
between aquatic areas and adjacent riparian/upslope areas.
An array of management issues encompasses these habitats and their
features, and special management considerations will be needed,
especially on lands and streams under Federal ownership (see Activities
that May Affect Critical Habitat and Need for Special Management
Considerations or Protection sections). While marine areas are also a
critical link in this cycle, NMFS does not believe that special
management considerations are needed to conserve the habitat features
in these areas. Hence, except for the Puget Sound ESU, only the
freshwater and estuarine areas are being proposed for critical habitat
at this time.
Barriers Within the Species' Range
Within the range of all threatened and endangered ESUs, chinook
salmon face a multitude of barriers that limit the access of juvenile
and adult fish to essential freshwater habitats. While some of these
are natural barriers (e.g., waterfalls or high-gradient velocity
barriers) that have been in existence for hundreds or thousands of
years, more significant are the manmade barriers that have been created
in the past century (CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995;
National Research Council, 1996). The extent of such barriers as
culverts and road crossing structures that impede or block fish passage
appears to be substantial. For example, of 532 fish presence surveys
conducted in Oregon coastal basins during the 1995 survey season,
nearly 15 percent of the confirmed ``end of fish use'' were due to
human barriers, principally road culverts (OCSRI, 1997). Pushup dams/
diversions and irrigation withdrawals also present significant barriers
or lethal conditions (e.g., high water temperatures) to chinook salmon
in California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho. However, because these
manmade barriers can, under certain flow conditions, be surmounted by
fish or present only a temporary/seasonal barrier, NMFS does not
consider them to delineate the upstream extent of critical habitat.
Since these man-made impassible barriers are widely distributed
throughout the range of each ESU, they can have a major downstream
influence on chinook salmon. Such impacts can include the following:
Depletion and storage of natural flows, which can drastically alter
natural hydrological cycles; increase juvenile and adult mortality due
to migration delays resulting from insufficient flows or
[[Page 11512]]
habitat blockages; stranding of fish resulting from rapid flow
fluctuations; entrainment of juveniles into poorly screened or
unscreened diversions; and increased mortality resulting from increased
water temperatures (CACSST, 1988; Bergren and Filardo, 1991; CDFG,
1991; Reynolds et al., 1993; Chapman et al., 1994; Cramer et al., 1995;
NMFS, 1996). In addition to these factors, reduced flows negatively
affect fish habitats due to increased deposition of fine sediments in
spawning gravels, decreased recruitment of large woody debris and
spawning gravels, and encroachment of riparian and non-endemic
vegetation into spawning and rearing areas, resulting in reduced
available habitat (CACSST, 1988; FEMAT, 1993; Botkin et al., 1995;
NMFS, 1996). These dam-related factors will be effectively addressed
through section 7 consultations and the recovery planning process.
Numerous hydropower and water storage projects have been built
which block access to former spawning and rearing habitats used by
chinook salmon, or alter the timing and quantity of waterflow to
downstream river reaches. NMFS has identified a total of 44 dams within
the range of the ESUs that currently block upstream or downstream
passage for chinook salmon (see Hydrolic Unit Tables 10-17). Blocked
habitat can constitute as much as 90 percent of the historic range of
each ESU. While these blocked areas are proportionally significant in
certain basins (e.g., California's Central Valley and the Snake River),
NMFS concludes at this time that currently available habitat may be
sufficient for the conservation of the affected chinook salmon ESUs.
NMFS solicits comments and scientific information on this issue and
will consider such information prior to issuing any final critical
habitat designation. This may result in the inclusion of areas above
some man-made impassible barriers in a future critical habitat
designation. NMFS may also re-evaluate this conclusion during the
recovery planning process and in section 7 consultations.
Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection
In order to assure that the essential areas and features are
maintained or restored, special management may be needed. Activities
that may require special management considerations for freshwater,
estuarine, and marine life stages of proposed chinook salmon include,
but are not limited to (1) land management; (2) timber harvest; (3)
point and non-point water pollution; (4) livestock grazing; (5) habitat
restoration; (6) irrigation water withdrawals and returns; (7) mining;
(8) road construction; (9) dam operation and maintenance; and (10)
dredge and fill activities. Not all of these activities are necessarily
of current concern within every watershed, estuary, or marine area;
however, they indicate the potential types of activities that will
require consultation in the future. No special management
considerations have been identified for proposed chinook salmon while
they are residing in the ocean environment, except as noted for the
Puget Sound ESU.
Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat
A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat
requirements of proposed chinook salmon (see Summary of Factors for
Decline section above for a more in-depth discussion). These activities
include water and land management actions of Federal agencies,
including the USFS, BLM, COE, BOR, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHA), the EPA, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and
related or similar actions of other federally regulated projects and
lands, including livestock grazing allocations by the USFS and BLM;
hydropower sites licensed by the FERC; dams built or operated by the
COE or BOR; timber sales conducted by the USFS and BLM; road building
activities authorized by the FHA, USFS, and BLM; and mining and road
building activities authorized by the states of California, Oregon,
Washington, and Idaho. Other actions of concern include dredge and
fill, mining, and bank stabilization activities authorized or conducted
by the COE. Additionally, actions of concern could include approval of
water quality standards and pesticide labeling and use restrictions
administered by the EPA.
The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this
critical habitat designation include the USFS, BLM, BOR, COE, FHA, EPA,
and FERC. This designation will provide these agencies, private
entities, and the public with clear notification of critical habitat
designated for proposed chinook salmon and the boundaries of the
habitat and protection provided for that habitat by the section 7
consultation process. This designation will also assist these agencies
and others in evaluating the potential effects of their activities on
proposed chinook salmon and their critical habitat and in determining
when consultation with NMFS is appropriate.
Expected Economic Impacts
The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat
designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation
above the economic impacts attributable to either listing or to laws
and regulations other than the ESA (see Consideration of Economic and
Other Factors section of this notice). Incremental impacts result from
special management activities in areas outside the present distribution
of the proposed species that have been determined to be essential to
the conservation of the species. However, NMFS has determined that the
species' present freshwater, estuarine, as well as certain marine areas
within the species' range, contains sufficient habitat for conservation
of the species. Therefore, the economic impacts associated with this
critical habitat designation are expected to be minimal.
USFS, BLM, BOR, and the COE manage areas of proposed critical
habitat for the proposed chinook salmon ESUs. The COE and other Federal
agencies that may be involved with funding or permits for projects in
critical habitat areas may also be affected by this designation.
Because NMFS believes that virtually all ``adverse modification''
determinations pertaining to critical habitat would also result in
``jeopardy'' conclusions, designation of critical habitat is not
expected to result in significant incremental restrictions on Federal
agency activities. Critical habitat designation will, therefore, result
in few, if any, additional economic effects beyond those that may have
been caused by listing and by other statutes.
Public Comments Solicited
NMFS has exercised its best professional judgement in developing
this proposal to list eight chinook salmon ESUs and designate their
critical habitat under the ESA. To ensure that the final action
resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and effective as
possible, NMFS is soliciting comments and suggestions from the public,
other governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, and
any other interested parties. NMFS will appreciate any additional
information regarding, in particular: (1) the biological or other
relevant data concerning any threat to chinook salmon; (2) the range,
distribution, and population size of chinook salmon in all identified
ESUs; (3) current or planned activities in the subject areas and their
possible impact on this species; (4) chinook salmon escapement,
particularly escapement data partitioned
[[Page 11513]]
into natural and hatchery components; (5) the proportion of naturally-
reproducing fish that were reared as juveniles in a hatchery; (6)
homing and straying of natural and hatchery fish; (7) the reproductive
success of naturally-reproducing hatchery fish (i.e., hatchery-produced
fish that spawn in natural habitat) and their relationship to the
identified ESUs; (8) efforts being made to protect native, naturally-
reproducing populations of chinook salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho
and California; and (9) suggestions for specific regulations under
section 4(d) of the ESA that should apply to threatened chinook salmon
ESUs. Suggested regulations may address activities, plans, or
guidelines that, despite their potential to result in the take of
listed fish, will ultimately promote the conservation and recovery of
threatened chinook salmon.
NMFS is also requesting quantitative evaluations describing the
quality and extent of freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats for
juvenile and adult chinook salmon as well as information on areas that
may qualify as critical habitat in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California for the proposed ESUs. Areas that include the physical and
biological features essential to the recovery of the species should be
identified. NMFS recognizes that there are areas within the proposed
boundaries of some ESUs that historically constituted chinook salmon
habitat, but may not be currently occupied by chinook salmon. NMFS is
requesting information about chinook salmon in these currently
unoccupied areas (in particular) and whether these habitats should be
considered essential to the recovery of the species, or else be
excluded from designation. Essential features include, but are not
limited to: (1) Habitat for individual and population growth, and for
normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4)
sites for reproduction and rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that
are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic
geographical and ecological distributions of the species.
For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is
requesting information describing: (1) The activities that affect the
area or could be affected by the designation, and (2) the economic
costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures
likely to result from the designation.
The economic cost to be considered in the critical habitat
designation under the ESA is the probable economic impact ``of the
[critical habitat] designation upon proposed or ongoing activities''
(50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider the incremental costs specifically
resulting from a critical habitat designation that are above the
economic effects attributable to listing the species. Economic effects
attributable to listing include actions resulting from section 7
consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy to the species and from
the taking prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA. Comments concerning
economic impacts should distinguish the costs of listing from the
incremental costs that can be attributed to the designation of specific
areas as critical habitat.
NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information
regarding the status of the chinook salmon ESUs described herein and,
as required under the ESA, will complete a final rule within 1 year of
this proposed rule. The availability of new information may cause NMFS
to reassess the status of chinook salmon ESUs, or to reassess the
geographic extent of critical habitat.
Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the
Secretary ``shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any
person so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed
regulation to list * * * or to designate or revise critical habitat.''
(see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). Public hearings on the proposed rule will be
scheduled and announced in a forthcoming Federal Register Notice. These
hearings will provide the opportunity for the public to give comments
and to permit an exchange of information and opinion among interested
parties. NMFS encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters.
Written comments on the proposed rule may also be submitted to Garth
Griffin (see ADDRESSES and DATES).
References
A complete list of all cited references is available upon request
(see ADDRESSES).
Classification
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir.
1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from
environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.
NMFS has also determined that an Environmental Assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for
this critical habitat designation. See Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3D 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996).
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has
determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O.
12866.
NMFS is proposing to designating only the current range of this
species as critical habitat. The current range encompasses a wide range
of habitats, including small tributary reaches, as well as mainstem,
off-channel, estuarine and marine areas. Areas excluded from this
proposed designation include historically occupied areas above
impassible dams, and headwater areas above impassable natural barriers
(e.g., long-standing, natural waterfalls). NMFS has concluded that at
the time of this proposal, currently inhabited areas within the range
of west coast chinook salmon are the minimum habitat necessary to
ensure conservation and recovery of the species.
Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed species
as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any additional
requirements or economic effects upon small entities, beyond those
which may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires Federal
agencies to ensure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1536(a)(2)). The consultation
requirements of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the
time of species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with
NMFS and ensure their actions do not jeopardize a species once it is
listed, regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.
In the future, if NMFS determines that designation of habitat areas
outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation and
recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action and
assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis
would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of
the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and
governments.
[[Page 11514]]
Accordingly, the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and
Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the
proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact
of a substantial number of small entities, as described in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement
for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
At this time NMFS is not promulgating protective regulations
pursuant to ESA section 4(d). In the future, prior to finalizing its
4(d) regulations for these threatened ESUs, NMFS will comply with all
relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.
The AA has determined that the proposed listing and designation is
consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the approved
Coastal Zone Management Program of the States of California, Oregon,
and Washington. This determination has been submitted for review by the
responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 222
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened
wildlife, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 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 the preamble, 50 CFR parts 222, 226, and
227 are amended to read as follows:
PART 222--ENDANGERED FISH OR WILDLIFE
1. The authority citation of part 222 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart D, Sec. 222.32 also
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. In Sec. 222.23, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the second
sentence and by adding five sentences in its place to read as follows:
Sec. 222.23 Permits for scientific purposes or to enhance the
propagation or survival of the affected endangered species.
(a) * * * The species listed as endangered under either the
Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 or the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 and currently under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Commerce are: Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum); Totoaba
(Cynoscian macdonaldi), Snake River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus
nerka), Umpqua River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki);
Southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which includes all
naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in
streams from the Santa Maria River, San Luis Obispo County, California
(inclusive) to Malibu Creek, Los Angeles County, California
(inclusive); Upper Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
which includes the Wells Hatchery stock and all naturally spawned
populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in streams in the Columbia
River Basin upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the United
States--Canada Border; Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), which includes all naturally spawned
populations of chinook (and their progeny) in the Sacramento River and
its tributaries in California. Also included are river reaches and
estuarine areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, all waters from
Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including Honker Bay,
Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters of San Pablo
Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco
Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay
to the Golden Gate Bridge. Excluded are areas above specific dams
identified in Table 10 of this part or above longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least
several hundred years); Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), which includes all naturally spawned
populations of chinook (and their progeny) in all river reaches
accessible to chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries upstream of
the Rock Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in Washington,
excluding the Okanogan River. Also included are river reaches and
estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight line connecting
the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the
west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream
to Chief Joseph Dam in Washington. Excluded are areas above specific
dams identified in Table 16 of this part or above longstanding,
naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence
for at least several hundred years); Sacramento River winter-run
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); Western North Pacific
(Korean) gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Blue whale (Balaenoptera
musculus), Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Bowhead whale
(Balaena mysticetus), Right whales (Eubalaena spp.), Fin or finback
whale (Balaenoptera physalus), Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), Sperm
whale (Physeter catodon); Cochito (Phocoena Sinus), Chinese river
dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer); Indus River dolphin (Platanista minor);
Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tropicalis); Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus
schauinslandi); Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus); Saimaa
seal (Phoca hispida saimensis); Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus),
western population, which consists of Steller sea lions from breeding
colonies located west of 144 deg. W. long.; Leatherback sea turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea); Pacific hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricata bissa); Atlantic hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata
imbricata); and Atlantic ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). * * *
* * * * *
PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
3. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
4. Section 226.28 is added to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 226.28 Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Southern Oregon and California coastal
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Lower Columbia River chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Upper Willamette River chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Snake River fall-run chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent
riparian zone of accessible estuarine and riverine reaches, as well as
some marine areas, in hydrologic units and counties identified in
Tables 10 through 17 of this part for all of the chinook salmon ESUs
listed above. Accessible reaches
[[Page 11515]]
are those within the historical range of the ESUs that can still be
occupied by any life stage of chinook salmon. Inaccessible reaches are
those above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural
waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years) and
specific dams within the historical range of each ESU identified in
Tables 10 through 17 of this part. Adjacent riparian zones are defined
as those areas within a slope distance of 300 ft (91.4 m) from the
normal line of high water of a stream channel or adjacent off-channel
habitats (600 ft or 182.8 m, when both sides of the channel are
included). Hydrologic units are those defined by the Department of the
Interior (DOI), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publication, ``Hydrologic
Unit Maps, Water Supply Paper 2294, 1986,'' and the following DOI,
USGS, 1:500,000 scale hydrologic unit maps: State of California (1978),
State of Idaho (1981), State of Oregon (1974), and State of Washington
(1974) which are incorporated by reference. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
of the USGS publication and maps may be obtained from the USGS, Map
Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies may be inspected at NMFS,
Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland,
OR 97232-2737, or NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
(a) Central Valley Spring-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to
include all river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in the
Sacramento River and its tributaries in California. Also included are
river reaches and estuarine areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
all waters from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including
Honker Bay, Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters
of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of
San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from
San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge. Excluded are areas above
specific dams identified in Table 10 of this part or above
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls
in existence for at least several hundred years).
(b) Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to
include all river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries in California.
Also included are river reaches and estuarine areas of the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta, all waters from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez
Bridge, including Honker Bay, Grizzly Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez
Strait, all waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge,
and all waters of San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland
Bay Bridge from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge. Excluded are
areas upstream of the Merced River and areas above specific dams
identified in Table 11 of this part or above longstanding, naturally
impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least
several hundred years).
(c) Southern Oregon and California Coastal chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is
designated to include all river reaches and estuarine areas accessible
to chinook salmon in the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays,
westward to the Golden Gate Bridge, and includes all estuarine and
river reaches accessible to proposed chinook salmon on the California
and southern Oregon coast to Cape Blanco (inclusive). Excluded are the
Klamath and Trinity Rivers upstream of their confluence. Also excluded
are areas above specific dams identified in Table 12 of this part or
above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural
waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
(d) Pudget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all
marine, estuarine and river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in
Puget Sound. Puget Sound marine areas include South Sound, Hood Canal,
and North Sound to the international boundary at the outer extent of
the Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait and the Straits of Juan De Fuca to a
straight line extending north from the west end of Freshway Bay,
inclusive. Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table
13 of this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers
(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred
years).
(e) Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all
river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in Columbia River
tributaries between the Grays and White Salmon Rivers in Washington and
the Willamette and Hood Rivers in Oregon, inclusive. Also included are
river reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia River from a straight
line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon
side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington
side) upstream to The Dalles Dam. Excluded are areas above specific
dams identified in Table 14 of this part or above longstanding,
naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence
for at least several hundred years).
(f) Upper Willamette River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to
include all river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in the
Willamette River and its tributaries above Willamette Falls. Also
included are river reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia River
from a straight line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty
(south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north
jetty, Washington side) upstream to and including the Willamette River
in Oregon. Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table
15 of this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers
(i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred
years).
(g) Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) Geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to
include all river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in Columbia
River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam and downstream of
Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, excluding the Okanogan River. Also
included are river reaches and estuarine areas in the Columbia River
from a straight line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty
(south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north
jetty, Washington side) upstream to Chief Joseph Dam in Washington.
Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table 16 of this
part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,
natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
(h) Snake River Fall-run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all
river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in the Columbia River from
The Dalles Dam upstream to the confluence with the Snake River in
Washington (inclusive). Critical habitat in the Snake River includes
its tributaries in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (exclusive of the
upper Grande Ronde River and the Wallowa
[[Page 11516]]
River in Oregon, the Clearwater River above its confluence with Lolo
Creek in Idaho, and the Salmon River upstream of its confluence with
French Creek in Idaho). Also included are river reaches and estuarine
areas in the Columbia River from a straight line connecting the west
end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of
the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream to The Dalles
Dam. Excluded are areas above specific dams identified in Table 17 of
this part or above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,
natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years).
5. Tables 10 through 17 are added to part 226 to read as follows:
Table 10 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties1 Containing Critical Habitat for Endangered Central Valley,
California Spring-Run Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties contained in
Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and Dams (reservoirs)
unit No. within range of ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Pablo Bay.................... 18050002 San Mateo, CA, Alameda San Pablo Reservoir.
(CA), Contra Costa (CA),
Marin (CA), Somona (CA),
Napa (CA), Solano (CA).
San Francisco Bay................ 18050004 Santa Clara (CA), San .....................................
Mateo (CA), Alameda
(CA), Contra Costa (CA),
Marin (CA).
Coyote........................... 18050003 Santa Clara (CA), San Calavera Reservoir.
Mateo (CA), Alameda (CA).
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 Nimbus Dam.
Dorado (CA), Placer (CA).
Upper Coon-Upper Auburn.......... 18020127 Placer (CA).............. .....................................
Lower Bear....................... 18020108 Placer (CA), Sutter (CA), Camp Far West Dam.
Yuba (CA).
Lower Feather.................... 18020106 Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA), Oroville Dam.
Butte (CA).
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), Black Butte Dam.
Tehama (CA).
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. Consult USGS 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 Central
Valley, California Fall-Run Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical
Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties within
Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and Dams (reservoirs)
unit No. within range of ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Pablo Bay.................... 18050002 San Mateo, CA, Alameda San Pablo Reservoir.
(CA), Contra Costa (CA),
Marin (CA), Somona (CA),
Napa (CA), Solano (CA).
San Francisco Bay................ 18050004 Santa Clara (CA), San .....................................
Mateo (CA), Alameda
(CA), Contra Costa (CA),
Marin (CA).
Coyote........................... 18050003 Santa Clara (CA), San Calavera Reservoir.
Mateo (CA), Alameda (CA).
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- 18040002 Merced (CA), Stanislaus Crocker Diversion La Grange.
Lower Stanislaus. (CA), San Joaquin (CA).
Lower Calaveras-Mormon Slough.... 18040004 Stanislaus (CA), San New Hogan.
Joaquin (CA), Calaveras
(CA).
Lower Consumnes-Lower Mokelumne.. 18040005 San Joaquin (CA), Camanche.
Calaveras (CA), Amador
(CA), Sacramento (CA),
El Dorado (CA).
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 Nimbus.
Dorado (CA), Placer (CA).
Upper Coon-Upper Auburn.......... 18020127 Placer (CA). .....................................
Lower Bear....................... 18020108 Placer (CA), Sutter (CA), Camp Far West.
Yuba (CA).
Lower Feather.................... 18020106 Sutter (CA), Yuba (CA), Oroville.
Butte (CA).
Lower Yuba....................... 18020107 Yuba (CA) Englebright.
Lower Butte...................... 18020105 Sutter (CA), Butte (CA), .....................................
Colusa (CA), Glenn (CA).
[[Page 11517]]
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), Black Butte.
Tehama (CA).
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). .....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
Table 12 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties \1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Southern
Oregon and California Coastal Chinook Salmon; Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical
Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties contained in
Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and Dams (reservoirs)
unit No. within range of ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomales-Drakes Bay............... 18050005 Marin (CA), Somona (CA).. Kent Lake Dam Nicasio Reservoir.
Bodega Bay....................... 18010111 Marin (CA), Sonoma (CA)..
Russian.......................... 18010110 Somona (CA), Mendocino Lake Mendocino.
(CA).
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 Lake Pillsbury.
(CA), Humboldt (CA).
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 Applegate Dam.
(OR) Del Norte (CA).
Middle Rogue..................... 17100308 Jackson (OR), Douglas Savage Rapids Dam.
(OR).
Upper Rogue...................... 17100307 Jackson (OR), Klamath Lost Creek Dam.
(OR).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
Table 13 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties\1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Puget Sound
Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties contained in
Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and Dams (reservoirs)
unit No. within range of ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Cushman Dam.
(WA), Grays Harbor (WA).
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).
[[Page 11518]]
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 Elwha Dam.
(WA).
Crescent-Hoko.................... 17110021 Clallam (WA).............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
Table 14 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties \1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Lower
Columbia River Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties within
Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and Dams (reservoirs)
unit No. within range of ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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), Mayfield Dam.
Skamania (WA).
Lewis............................ 17080002 Cowlitz (WA), Clark (WA), Merwin Dam, Yale Dam Cougar Dam.
Skamania (WA), Klickitat
(WA).
Lower Columbia-Sandy............. 17080001 Clark (WA), Skamania Bull Run Dam.
(WA), Multnomah (OR),
Clackamas (OR).
Lower Willamette................. 17090012 Columbia (OR), Multnomah
(OR), Clackamas (OR).
Clackamas........................ 17090011 Clackamas (OR), Marion Oak Grove Dam.
(OR).
Middle Columbia--Hood............ 17070105 Hood River (OR), Wasco Condit Dam.
(OR), Klickitat (WA),
Skamania (WA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
Table 15 to Part 226.--Hydrologic Units and Counties\1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Upper
Willamette River Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties within
Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and Dams (reservoirs)
unit No. within range of ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia................... 17080006 Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum
(WA), Clatsop (OR).
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie........ 17080003 Wahkiakum (WA), Cowlitz
(WA), Skamania (WA),
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)..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
[[Page 11519]]
Table 16 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties \1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Endangered Upper
Columbia River Spring-Run Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical
Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties contained in
Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and Dams (reservoirs)
unit No. within range of ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia................... 17080006 Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum .....................................
(WA), Clatsop (OR).
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie........ 17080003 Wahkiakum (WA), Cowlitz .....................................
(WA), Skamania (WA),
Clatsop (OR), Columbia
(OR).
Lower Columbia-Sandy............. 17080001 Clark (WA), Skamania Bull Run Dam.
(WA), Multnomah (OR),
Clackamas (OR).
Middle Columbia-Hood............. 17070105 Hood River (OR), Wasco Condit Dam.
(OR), Klickitat (WA),
Skamania (WA).
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 Chief Joseph.
(WA), Okanogan (WA).
Methow........................... 17020008 Okanogan (WA).
Okanogan......................... 17020006 Okanogan (WA).
Similkameen...................... 17020007 Okanogan (WA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine and riparian habitats indentified as
critical habitat for this ESU. Consult USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
Table 17 to Part 226--Hydrologic Units and Counties \1\ Containing Critical Habitat for Threatened Snake River
Fall-Run Chinook Salmon, and Dams/Reservoirs Representing the Upstream Extent of Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counties contained in
Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and Dams (reservoirs)
unit No. within range of ESU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia................... 17080006 Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum
(WA), Clatsop (OR).
Lower Columbia-Clatskanie........ 17080003 Wahkiakum (WA), Cowlitz
(WA), Skamania (WA),
Clatsop (OR), Columbia
(OR).
Lower Columbia-Sandy............. 17080001 Clark (WA), Skamania Bull Run Dam.
(WA), Multnomah (OR),
Clackamas (OR).
Middle Columbia-Hood............. 17070105 Hood River (OR), Wasco Condit Dam.
(OR) Klickitat (WA),
Skamania (WA).
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 Pelton Dam Round Butte.
(OR), Sherman (OR).
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),
Columbia (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 USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific
county and basin boundaries.
[[Page 11520]]
PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE
6. The authority citation for part 227 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 227.12 also
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
7. In Sec. 227.4, paragraph (g) is revised, paragraph (p) is added
and reserved, and paragraphs (q) through (u) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 227.4 Enumeration of threatened species.
* * * * *
(g) Snake River fall-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon (and their
progeny) from the Columbia River and its tributaries upstream from a
transitional point between Washington and Oregon east of the Hood River
and the White Salmon River, to its confluence with the Snake River, and
also includes the Snake River and its tributaries upstream to Hells
Canyon Dam. These tributaries include the lower Grande Ronde, Imnaha,
lower Salmon and lower Clearwater Rivers in parts of Oregon, Washington
and Idaho.
* * * * *
(p) [Reserved]
(q) Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha). Includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook
salmon (and their progeny) in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
Basins and their tributaries, east of Carquinez Strait, California.
(r) Southern Oregon and California coastal chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Includes all naturally spawned populations
of chinook salmon (and their progeny) from rivers and streams between
Cape Blanco, Oregon south to the northern entrance of San Francisco
Bay, California.
(s) Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Includes
all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon (and their progeny)
from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound including the Straits
of Juan De Fuca from the Elwha River, eastward, including rivers and
streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound and the
Strait of Georgia in Washington.
(t) Lower Columbia River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon (and their
progeny) from the Columbia River and its tributaries from its mouth at
the Pacific Ocean upstream to a transitional point between Washington
and Oregon east of the Hood River and the White Salmon River, and
includes the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon.
(u) Upper Willamette River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha). Includes all naturally spawned spring-run populations of
chinook salmon (and their progeny) in the Willamette River, and its
tributaries, above Willamette Falls, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 98-5484 Filed 3-2-98; 2:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
