Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Monday, June 14, 2004

Part II

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Listing Determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast Salmonids; Proposed Rule

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33102 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE mailbox address for providing e-mail (4) Proposed Listing Determinations of comments is [email protected]. ‘‘threatened,’’ ‘‘endangered,’’ or ‘‘not National Oceanic and Atmospheric Include in the subject line of the e-mail warranted,’’ based on the foregoing Administration comment the following document information IV. Take Prohibitions and Protective identifier: 040525161–4161–01. 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 Regulations: Comments may also be submitted via • Overview of the take prohibitions and [Docket No. 040525161–4161–01; I.D. No. facsimile (fax) to 503–230–5435, or via protective regulations that presently 052104F] the Internet at http:// apply to listed ESUs www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ibrm. Comments • Description of a proposed amendment to RIN 0648–AR93 may also be submitted electronically these protective regulations V. Summary of agency efforts in designating Endangered and Threatened Species: through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Critical Habitat for listed salmon and O. Proposed Listing Determinations for mykiss ESUs 27 ESUs of West Coast Salmonids FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For VI. Description of the Public Comments further information regarding this Solicited and other opportunities for AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries proposed rule contact Garth Griffin, public involvement in this rulemaking Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and NMFS, Northwest Region, (503) 231– process Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2005; Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest VII. Description of the Classification, NMFS’ Commerce. Region, (562) 980–4021; or Marta compliance with various laws and ACTION: Proposed rule; request for Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected executive orders with respect to this comments. Resources, (301) 713–1401. proposed rulemaking (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: NMFS has completed Flexibility Act) comprehensive status reviews for 26 Organization of This Proposed Rule VIII. Description of proposed amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations. This West Coast salmon (chum, This Federal Register notice describes section itemizes the specific changes to Oncorhynchus keta; coho, O. kisutch, O. the proposed listing determinations for federal law being proposed based on the nerka; chinook, O. tshawytscha; pink, 27 ESUs of West Coast salmon and O. foregoing information O. gorbuscha) and O. mykiss (inclusive mykiss under the ESA. The pages that • Proposed amendments to the list of of anadromous steelhead and resident follow review the information threatened and endangered species rainbow trout) Evolutionarily considered in formulating the proposed • Proposed amendment to the protective Significant Units (ESUs) previously listing determinations. To assist the regulations for threatened West Coast listed as threatened and endangered reader, this section briefly outlines the salmon and O. mykiss species under the Endangered Species organization and content of this notice. Background Act (ESA), as well as one ESU that was Section headings listed in this outline designated as a candidate species, for a are denoted in bold text, and Listing Species Under the Endangered total of 27 ESUs. Following a September subheadings in italics in the body of the Species Act 2001 U.S. District Court ruling that notice. NMFS is responsible for determining rejected how NMFS treats hatchery I. Review of necessary Background whether species, subspecies, or distinct stocks in its listing determinations, the information population segments (DPSs) of Pacific agency received several petitions • Statutory basis for Listing Species Under salmon and steelhead are threatened or seeking to delist, or to redefine and list, the Endangered Species Act endangered under the Endangered • 17 salmon and steelhead ESUs on the NMFS’ Previous Federal ESA Actions Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et basis of the Court’s ruling. In response Related to West Coast Salmonids • NMFS’ Past Practice in Pacific Salmonid seq). To be considered for listing under to these petitions NMFS initiated status the ESA, a group of organisms must reviews for 16 of these ESUs, and ESA Listing Determinations • Recent court decisions (Alsea Valley constitute a ‘‘species,’’ which is defined elected to conduct status reviews for an Alliance v. Evans) and a Summary of in section 3 of the ESA to include ‘‘any additional 11 ESUs. Based on these Petitions seeking listing/delisting actions subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, reviews, NMFS is now issuing a that precipitated the Initiation of Coast- and any distinct population segment proposed rule to list four ESUs as wide ESA Status Reviews for Pacific [emphasis added] of any species of endangered and 23 ESUs as threatened. Salmonids vertebrate fish or wildlife which • Overview of the Life History of West Collectively, these 27 ESUs include 162 interbreeds when mature.’’ In this artificial propagation programs. NMFS Coast Salmonids II. Consideration of specific issues in notice, NMFS is proposing listing also proposes amending existing Assessing Extinction Risk for Pacific determinations for DPSs of Pacific protective regulations, promulgated Salmonids salmon and O. mykiss. NMFS has under section 4(d) of the ESA, for • Consideration of Artificial Propagation determined that, to qualify as a DPS, a threatened ESUs. in Listing Determinations • Pacific salmon or O. mykiss population DATES: Comments must be received no Consideration of Resident O. mykiss must be substantially reproductively later than 5 p.m. P.S.T. on September Populations in Listing Determinations • Consideration of Recent Ocean isolated from other conspecific ADDRESSES 13, 2004. (See .) NMFS will Conditions in Listing Determinations populations and represent an important announce the dates and locations of III. Treatment of the four listing component in the evolutionary legacy of public hearings in California, Oregon, determination steps for each ESU under the biological species. A population Washington, and Idaho in a separate review meeting these criteria is considered to Federal Register notice. (1) Determination of ‘‘Species’’ under the be an ESU (56 FR 58612; November 20, ADDRESSES: Comments should be ESA 1991). In its listing determinations for submitted to Chief, Protected Resources (2) Review of the best available information Pacific salmonids under the ESA, NMFS for Updated Viability Assessments of Division, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon ESUs has treated an ESU as constituting a Street—Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232– (3) Evaluation of Efforts Being Made to DPS, and hence a ‘‘species,’’ under the 2737. Comments on this proposed rule Protect West Coast Salmon and O. ESA. The terms ‘‘DPS’’ and ‘‘ESU’’ are may be submitted by e-mail. The mykiss used synonymously in this document.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33103

Section 3 of the ESA defines an conducting a review of the status of the determination of whether the species is endangered species as ‘‘any species species and after taking into account threatened or endangered in a which is in danger of extinction efforts being made to protect the species significant portion of its range. throughout all or a significant portion of (in this proposed rule the term ‘‘status’’ Previous Federal ESA Actions Related its range’’ and a threatened species as is used in the statutory context, referring to West Coast Salmonids one ‘‘which is likely to become an to the ESA listing status of endangered species within the ‘‘threatened,’’ ‘‘endangered,’’ or listing Pacific salmon and O. mykiss ESUs in foreseeable future throughout all or a not warranted). Accordingly, NMFS California and the Pacific Northwest significant portion of its range.’’ The follows three steps in making its listing have suffered broad declines over the statute lists factors that may cause a determinations for Pacific salmon and past hundred years. (In this document species to be threatened or endangered O. mykiss: (1) NMFS first determines (ESA section 4(a)(1)): (a) The present or the scientific name ‘‘O. mykiss’’ refers to whether a population or group of threatened destruction, modification, or both anadromous steelhead and resident populations constitutes an ESU, that is, curtailment of its habitat or range; (b) rainbow trout life-history forms). NMFS overutilization for commercial, whether the population(s) are a has conducted several ESA status recreational, scientific, or educational ‘‘species’’ within the meaning of the reviews and status review updates for purposes; (c) disease or predation; (d) ESA; (2) NMFS then determines the six biological species of Pacific salmon the inadequacy of existing regulatory viability of the ESU and the factors that and O. mykiss in California, Oregon, mechanisms; or (e) other natural or have led to its decline; and (3) NMFS Washington, and Idaho, identifying 51 manmade factors affecting its continued assesses efforts being made to protect ESUs and listing 26 of these ESUs to existence. the ESU, determining if these efforts are date. Table 1 summarizes the previous Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires adequate to mitigate threats to the NMFS scientific reviews of the viability NMFS to make listing determinations species. Based on the foregoing of salmon and steelhead and the ESA based solely on the best scientific and information and the statutory listing listing determinations for the 27 ESUs commercial data available after criteria, NMFS then proposes a listing addressed in this proposed rule.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ESA LISTING ACTIONS RELATED TO THE 27 EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNITS OF WEST COAST SALMON AND Oncorhynchus Mykiss UNDER REVIEW

Previous Current endangered scientific Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) species act (ESA) Year Previous ESA listing determinations—Federal viability status listed Register citations reviews and updates

56 FR 58619; 11/20/1991 (Final rule). Snake River sockeye ESU ...... Endangered ...... 1991 56 FR 14055; 04/05/1991 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1991a 64 FR 14528; 03/25/1999 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1998d Ozette Lake sockeye ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1999 63 FR 11750; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1997f 59 FR 440; 01/01/1994 (Final rule). 57 FR 27416; 06/19/1992 (Proposed rule). 55 FR 49623; 11/30/1990 (Final rule). 55 FR 12831, 04/06/1990 (Emergency rule). 55 FR 102260; 03/20/1990 (Proposed rule). 54 FR 10260; 08/04/1989 (Emergency rule). Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESU Endangered ...... 1994 52 FR 6041; 02/27/1987 (Final rule). 64 FR 50394; 09/16/1999 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1998b. Central Valley spring-run chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1999 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1999d. 64 FR 50394; 09/16/1999 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1998b. California Coastal chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1999 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1999d...... NMFS 1998b. 64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1998e. Upper Willamette River chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1999 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1999c...... NMFS 1998b. 64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1998e. Lower Columbia River chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1999 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1999c. Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook Endangered ...... 1999 ESU. NMFS 1998b. 64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1998e. 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1999c.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33104 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ESA LISTING ACTIONS RELATED TO THE 27 EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNITS OF WEST COAST SALMON AND Oncorhynchus Mykiss UNDER REVIEW—Continued

NMFS 1998b. 64 FR 14308; 03/24/99 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1998e. Puget Sound chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1999 63 FR 11482; 03/09/1998 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1999c. 63 FR 1807; 0/12/1998 (Proposed withdrawn). 59 FR 66784; 12/28/1994 (Proposed rule). 59 FR 42529; 08/18/1994 (Emergency rule). 57 FR 23458; 06/03/1992 (Correction). 57 FR 14653; 04/22/1992 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1991c. Snake River fall-run chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1992 56 FR 29547; 06/27/1991 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1999d. 63 FR 1807; 0/12/1998 (Proposed withdrawn). 59 FR 66784; 12/28/1994 (Proposed rule). 59 FR 42529; 08/18/1994 (Emergency rule). 57 FR 23458; 06/03/1992 (Correction). 57 FR 34639; 04/22/1992 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1991b. Snake River spring/summer-run chinook Threatened ...... 1992 56 FR 29542; 06/27/1991 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS ESU. 1998b. 61 FR 56138;- 10/31/1996 (Final rule) ...... Bryant 1994 Central California Coast coho ESU. Threatened ...... 1996 60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1995a. NMFS 1997a. NMFS 1996c. 62 FR 24588; 05/06/1997 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1996e. Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Threatened ...... 1997 60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS coho ESU. 1995a. 69 FR 19975; 04/15/2004 (Candidate list). 63 FR 42587; 08/10/1998 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1997a. 62 FR 24588; 05/06/1997 (Proposed with- NMFS drawn). 1996b. 61 FR 56138; 10/31/1996 (6 mo. extension) .... NMFS 1996d. Oregon Coast coho ESU ...... Threatened* ...... 1998 60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1995a. Lower Columbia River coho ESU ...... Candidate ...... 1995 69 FR 19975; 04/15/2004 (Candidate list) ...... NMFS 1996e. NMFS 1995a. 60 FR 38011; 07/25/1995 (Not warranted) ...... NMFS 1991a. NMFS 1997e. 64 FR 145008; 03/25/1999 (Final rule) 3 ...... NMFS 1999b. Columbia River chum ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1999 63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1999c. NMFS 1996d. NMFS 1997e. 64 FR 14508; 03/25/1999 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1999b. Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1999 63 FR 11774; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1999c. 67 FR 21568; 05/01/2002 (Redefinition of ESU). 62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1996b.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33105

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ESA LISTING ACTIONS RELATED TO THE 27 EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNITS OF WEST COAST SALMON AND Oncorhynchus Mykiss UNDER REVIEW—Continued

Southern California steelhead ESU ...... Endangered ...... 1997 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1997b. 62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1996b. South-Central California Coast steelhead Threatened ...... 1997 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS ESU. 1997b. 62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1996b. Central California Coast steelhead ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1997 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1997b. NMFS 1996b. NMFS 1997b. 63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1997c. 62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension) .... NMFS 1997d. California Central Valley steelhead ESU ..... Threatened ...... 1998 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1998a. 65 FR 36074; 06/07/2000 (Final rule). 65 FR 6960; 02/11/2000 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1996b. 63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998 (Not Warranted) ...... NMFS 1997c. 62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension) .... NMFS 1998a. Northern California steelhead ESU ...... Threatened ...... 2000 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 2000. 64 FR 14517; 03/25/1999 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1996b. 63 FR 11798; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1997d. Upper Willamette River steelhead ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1999 62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension) .... NMFS 1999a. 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1999c. NMFS 1996b. 63 FR 13347; 03/19/1998 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1997c. 62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension) .... NMFS 1997d. Lower Columbia River steelhead ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1998 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1998a. 64 FR 14517; 03/25/1999 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1996b. 63 FR 11798; 03/10/1998 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1997d. 62 FR 43974; 08/18/1997 (6 mo. extension) .... NMFS 1999a. Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1999 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1999c. 62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1996b. Upper Columbia River steelhead ESU ...... Endangered ...... 1997 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1997b. 62 FR 43937; 08/18/1997 (Final rule) ...... NMFS 1996b. Snake River Basin steelhead ESU ...... Threatened ...... 1997 61 FR 41541; 08/09/1996 (Proposed rule) ...... NMFS 1997b. *But see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2004).

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33106 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Past Practice in Pacific Salmonid ESA When NMFS determined that an ESU dismissed the appeal, and dissolved its Listing Determinations should be listed as threatened or stay of the District Court’s ruling in In past ESA listing determinations, endangered, it applied its interim Alsea. Following the District Court’s ruling NMFS followed the four step approach artificial propagation policy for Pacific in the Alsea case, NMFS received described above. In the past, NMFS salmon and steelhead. That policy several petitions (summarized below) focused on whether the naturally provided that hatchery salmon and addressing 17 listed salmonid ESUs, spawned fish are, by themselves, self- steelhead found to be part of the ESU including five steelhead ESUs. These sustaining in their natural ecosystem would not be listed under the ESA petitions cited the Alsea ruling and over the long term. NMFS listed as unless they were found to be essential focused on NMFS’ past practice of ‘‘endangered’’ those ESUs whose for recovery (i.e., if NMFS determined that the hatchery population contained excluding certain ESU hatchery stocks naturally spawned populations were a substantial portion of the genetic from listing protection. Various litigants found to have a present high risk of diversity remaining in the ESU). The have also challenged the failure to list extinction, and listed as ‘‘threatened’’ result of this policy was that a listing resident populations included in those ESUs whose naturally spawned determination for an ESU depended threatened and endangered steelhead populations were found likely to solely upon the relative health of the ESUs. The anadromous form of O. become endangered in the foreseeable naturally spawning component of the mykiss (i.e., steelhead) is presently future (that is, whose present risk of ESU. In most cases, hatchery fish within under NMFS’ jurisdiction, while the extinction was not high, but whose risk the ESUs were not relied upon to resident freshwater forms, usually of extinction was likely to become high contribute to recovery, and therefore called ‘‘rainbow’’ or ‘‘redband’’ trout, within a foreseeable period of time). were not listed. are under FWS jurisdiction. In In its listing determinations, NMFS In addition, resident O. mykiss Environmental Defense Center et al. v. did not explicitly consider the populations (i.e., rainbow trout) Evans et al. (EDC v. Evans, SACV–00– contribution of the hatchery fish to the included in steelhead ESUs were not 1212–AHS (EEA)), the plaintiffs argue overall viability of the ESU, or whether listed when it was determined that the that NMFS failed to include resident the presence of hatchery fish within the steelhead warranted listing because the populations in the endangered listing of ESU might have the potential for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) the Southern California steelhead ESU reducing the risk of extinction of the retains ESA jurisdiction over resident (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). In ESU or the likelihood that the ESU rainbow trout. Modesto Irrigation District et al. v. would become endangered in the Evans et al. (MID v. Evans, CIV–F–02– Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans foreseeable future. (The listing of Snake 6553 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal)), the River fall chinook, however, is an In September 2001, the U.S. District plaintiffs seek to invalidate NMFS’ 1997 exception. See 57 FR 14653; April 22, Court in Eugene, Oregon, in Alsea threatened listing of the Central Valley 1992.) NMFS frequently evaluated Valley Alliance v. Evans (161 F. Supp. California steelhead ESU (63 FR 13347; artificial propagation only as a factor in 2d 1154, D. Oreg. 2001; Alsea decision), March 19, 1998) for failing to list the decline of the naturally spawned set aside NMFS’ 1998 ESA listing of hatchery and resident populations populations within an ESU. Oregon Coast coho salmon (63 FR identified as part of the ESU. This same For each ESU where hatchery fish 42587; 08/10/1998). The Court ruled factual situation is found in all listed were present, NMFS reviewed the that the ESA does not allow NMFS to steelhead ESUs; the listings do not associated hatchery populations to list a subset of an ESU, and that NMFS include hatchery and/or resident determine how closely related the had improperly excluded stocks from populations considered to be part of the hatchery populations were to the the listing once it had decided that ESUs. For the proposed listing naturally spawned populations. This certain hatchery stocks were part of the determinations detailed in this review focused on the origin of the ESU. Although the Court’s ruling proposed rule to be compliant with the hatchery fish and their similarity to affected only one ESU, the interpretive Court’s ruling in the Alsea case, all locally adapted naturally spawned fish. issue raised by the ruling called into populations or stocks (natural, hatchery, Factors included in this consideration question nearly all of NMFS’ Pacific resident, etc.) included in an ESU must were: Genetic, life history, and habitat salmonid listing determinations. The be listed if it is determined that the ESU use characteristics; the degree to which Court struck down the 1998 final rule is threatened or endangered under the the characteristics of the wild listing Oregon coast coho as a ESA. population may have been altered over threatened species, thus removing the time; and other factors that would affect ESU from the protections of the ESA. Summary of Petitions the biological usefulness of hatchery The Court remanded the case to NMFS Following the ruling in the Alsea fish for recovery. for reconsideration consistent with the case, NMFS received several petitions Since 1993, NMFS has applied an Alsea decision. NMFS did not contest seeking to delist, or to redefine and list, interim policy on how it will consider the Court’s ruling and informed the ESUs of Pacific salmon and steelhead. artificial propagation in the listing and Court it would comply. In November The petitioners made reference to the recovery of Pacific salmon and 2001 intervenors appealed the Court’s Alsea decision in arguing for NMFS to steelhead under the ESA (58 FR 17573, ruling to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of reconsider the listing status for certain April 5, 1993). The 1993 policy Appeals. Pending resolution of the ESUs. Between September 2001 and provided guidance on the use of appeal, the Ninth Circuit stayed the April 2002 NMFS received eight artificial propagation to assist in the District Court’s remand order and separate petitions addressing a total of conservation of these listed species and invalidation of the 1998 listing. While 17 listed salmon and steelhead ESUs. to help avoid additional species listings. the stay was in place, the Oregon Coast On September 19, 2001, NMFS The policy also provided guidance for coho ESU was again afforded the received a petition from Interactive evaluating artificial propagation in protections of the ESA (Alsea Valley Citizens United to delist coho salmon in section 7 consultation, section 10 Alliance v. Evans, 9th Circuit appeal, Siskiyou County, California. These fish permitting, and recovery planning No. 01–36071, December 14, 2001). On are part of a larger ESU of Southern pursuant to the ESA. February 24, 2004, the Appeals Court Oregon/Northern California Coast coho

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33107

salmon. NMFS determined that the ESUs. NMFS determined that these two chum ESUs (the Columbia River Interactive Citizens United petition was petitions, in light of the Alsea decision, and Hood Canal summer-run chum not warranted, finding that it failed to presented substantial scientific and salmon ESUs); and five steelhead ESUs present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that (the Upper Willamette River, Lower commercial information to suggest that delisting may be warranted for 14 of the Columbia River, Middle Columbia delisting may be warranted (67 FR 6215; 15 petitioned ESUs (67 FR 6215; River, Upper Columbia River, and Snake February 11, 2002). On March 18, 2002, February 11, 2002). In the case of the River Basin steelhead ESUs). NMFS received a duplicate petition Snake River sockeye ESU, NMFS Initiation of Coast-Wide ESA Status from the California State Grange to determined that the Washington State Reviews delist coho salmon in Siskiyou County, Farm Bureau and Columbia-Snake River California. NMFS made a negative Irrigators’ Association petitions failed to The ESUs addressed in this proposed finding on the California State Grange present substantial scientific and rule include 26 previously listed West petition (67 FR 40679; June 13, 2002), commercial information that delisting Coast salmon and steelhead ESUs, and for the same reasons as for its finding on may be warranted. one ESU designated as a candidate the Interactive Citizens United petition. On March 14, 2002, NMFS received a species (the Lower Columbia coho ESU). During October 2001, NMFS received petition from the Central Coast Forest As part of its response to the ESA 5 additional delisting petitions Association to delist the threatened interpretive issues raised by the ruling addressing 15 ESUs. On October 22, Central California Coast coho salmon in the Alsea case, NMFS elected to ESU. On April 29, 2002, NMFS received 2001, NMFS received a petition from initiate status reviews for a total of 27 two petitions from Trout Unlimited and the Washington State Farm Bureau, on ESUs: 11 ESUs in addition to the 16 several co-petitioners seeking to the behalf of a coalition of agricultural ESUs for which it had accepted redefine and list a total of 15 ESUs organizations in Washington State, to delisting/listing petitions. As including: Six chinook ESUs (the delist 12 Pacific salmon ESUs including: announced in a Federal Register notice threatened Puget Sound, Upper One sockeye ESU (the endangered published on February 11, 2002 (67 FR Willamette River, Snake River spring/ Snake River sockeye ESU); six chinook 6215), these 11 additional ESUs are: summer, Snake River fall, and Lower ESUs (the threatened Puget Sound, One sockeye ESU (the threatened Ozette Columbia River chinook ESUs, as well Snake River spring/summer, Snake Lake sockeye ESU); three chinook ESUs as the endangered Upper Columbia (the endangered Sacramento River River fall, and Lower Columbia River River spring-run chinook ESU); two chinook ESUs, as well as the chum ESUs (the threatened Hood Canal winter-run chinook ESU, as well as the endangered Upper Columbia River summer and Columbia River chum threatened Central Valley spring-run spring-run chinook ESU); two chum ESUs); two coho ESUs (the threatened and California coastal chinook ESUs); ESUs (the threatened Hood Canal Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/ three coho ESUs (the threatened Central summer-run and Columbia River chum Northern California Coast coho ESUs); California Coast and Oregon Coast coho ESUs); and four steelhead ESUs (the and five steelhead ESUs (the threatened ESUs, as well as the candidate Lower threatened Lower Columbia River, Upper Willamette River, Snake River, Columbia River coho ESU); and four Middle Columbia River, and Snake Middle Columbia River, and Lower steelhead ESUs (the threatened South- River steelhead ESUs, as well as the Columbia River steelhead ESUs, as well Central California Coast, Central endangered Upper Columbia River as the endangered Upper Columbia California Coast, California Central steelhead ESU). On October 17, 2001, River steelhead ESU). The two Trout Valley, and Northern California NMFS received a petition on behalf of Unlimited petitions sought to redefine steelhead ESUs) (as noted above, NMFS the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators’ and list these ESUs as including only subsequently accepted petitions Association to delist seven Pacific natural fish. NMFS determined that addressing the Central California and salmon ESUs including: One sockeye these three petitions presented Oregon Coast coho ESUs). On December ESU (the endangered Snake River substantial scientific and commercial 31, 2002, NMFS announced that it sockeye ESU); three chinook ESUs (the information to suggest that the would also elect to review the ESA threatened Snake River fall and Snake petitioned actions may be warranted (67 listing status of Snake River sockeye and River spring/summer chinook ESUs, as FR 48601; July 25, 2002). Southern California steelhead ESUs (67 well as the endangered Upper Columbia The ESA requires that, as a FR 79898). NMFS elected to conduct River spring-run chinook ESU); and consequence of accepting the above these additional status reviews to three steelhead ESUs (the threatened petitions, NMFS promptly commence a address any errors in the listing Middle Columbia River and Snake River review of the species’ status and make determinations brought to light by the steelhead ESUs, as well as the a finding within 12 months after Alsea decision, as well as to consider endangered Upper Columbia River receiving the petition, whether the the most recent information available steelhead ESUs). On October 17, 2001, petitioned action is warranted (ESA for these ESUs. At the time of the Alsea NMFS received a petition on behalf of section 4(b)(3)). There are 16 ESUs decision, NMFS was conducting a status the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners (described above for the various review for the candidate Lower and the Skagit County Cattlemen’s accepted petitions) for which NMFS has Columbia River coho ESU in response to Association to delist the threatened statutory deadlines for the completion a July 24, 2000, petition from Oregon Puget Sound chinook and Hood Canal of ESA status reviews and listing Trout and co-petitioners (see 65 FR summer-run chum ESUs. On October determinations: Seven chinook ESUs 66221, November 3, 2000). Accordingly, 23, 2001, NMFS received a petition on (the Upper Willamette River, Lower NMFS elected to include the Lower behalf of seven individuals to delist the Columbia River, Upper Columbia River Columbia River coho ESU in this status threatened Southern Oregon/Northern spring-run, Puget Sound, Snake River review effort for the other 26 ESUs. California Coast coho ESU. On October fall-run, and Snake River spring/ NMFS did not elect to conduct status 24, 2001, NMFS received a petition on summer-run chinook ESUs); three coho reviews for any other candidate ESUs behalf of the Greenberry Irrigation ESUs (the Central California Coast, (e.g., the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia District to delist the threatened Upper Southern Oregon/Northern California coho, Central Valley fall and late-fall Willamette River chinook and steelhead Coast, and Oregon Coast coho ESUs); chinook, and Oregon Coast steelhead

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33108 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

ESUs) or ESUs that NMFS previously Juveniles and subadults typically genetically distinct and reproductively determined did not warrant ESA listing. spend from 1 to 5 years foraging over isolated (see citations in Gustafson et NMFS solicited information to ensure thousands of miles in the North Pacific al., 1997). Occasionally, a proportion of that the review of the ESA status for the Ocean before returning to freshwater to juveniles in an anadromous sockeye 27 ESUs under review was based on the spawn. Some species, such as coho and population will remain in the rearing best available and most recent scientific chinook salmon, have precocious life- lake environment throughout life and and commercial data. Following an history types (primarily male fish) that will be observed on the spawning initial 60-day public comment period mature and spawn after only several grounds together with their anadromous concerning 25 of the ESUs, which months in the ocean. Spawning siblings. Ricker (1938) first used the commenced on February 11, 2002 (67 migrations known as ‘‘runs’’ occur terms ‘‘residual sockeye’’ and FR 6215), NMFS re-opened the public throughout the year, varying in time by ‘‘residuals’’ to refer to these resident, comment period for an additional 30 species and location. Most adult fish non-migratory progeny of anadromous days on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40679). A return or ‘‘home’’ with great fidelity to sockeye salmon. 60-day public comment period was also spawn in their natal stream, although West Coast Chinook Salmon opened concerning 16 petitioned ESUs some do stray to non-natal streams. with the published findings on the Salmon species die after spawning, Chinook salmon, also commonly Central Coast Forest Association and while anadromous O. mykiss may return referred to as king, spring, quinnat, Trout Unlimited et al. petitions on July to the ocean and make repeat spawning Sacramento, California, or tyee salmon, 25, 2002 (67 FR 48601). Information and migrations. is the largest of the Pacific salmon comment was solicited during an Below we provide brief descriptions (Myers et al., 1998). The species additional 60-day public comment of the life histories of the Pacific historically ranged from the Ventura period when NMFS announced that it salmonid species under review. More River in California to Point Hope, would also be reviewing the status of complete descriptions can be found in Alaska, and in northeastern Asia from the Snake River sockeye and Southern the status review documents listed in Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in California steelhead ESUs (67 FR 79898; Table 1. Russia (Healey, 1991). Additionally, December 31, 2002). In this latter public chinook salmon have been reported in West Coast Sockeye Salmon comment period NMFS specifically the Mackenzie River area of Northern requested information concerning Spawning populations of sockeye Canada (McPhail and Lindsey, 1970). resident O. mykiss populations in the 10 salmon range from the Columbia River Chinook salmon exhibit diverse and steelhead ESUs under review (67 FR at in the south to the Noatak River in the complex life history strategies (Healey, 79900). north in North America, and from 1986). Two generalized freshwater life- Hokkaido, Japan in the south to the history types were initially described by Life History of West Coast Salmonids Anadyr River in the north in Asia Gilbert (1912): ‘‘stream-type’’ chinook Pacific salmon and steelhead are (Atkinson et al., 1967; Burgner, 1991). salmon reside in freshwater for a year or anadromous fish, meaning adults Most sockeye salmon spawn in either more following emergence, whereas migrate from the ocean to spawn in inlet or outlet streams of lakes or in ‘‘ocean-type’’ chinook salmon migrate to freshwater lakes and streams where lakes themselves. The offspring of these the ocean predominately within their their offspring hatch and rear prior to ‘‘lake-type’’ sockeye salmon use lake first year. migrating to the ocean to forage until environments for juvenile rearing for 1 Of the two life history types, ocean- maturity. The migration and spawning to 3 years and then migrate to sea, type chinook salmon exhibit the most times vary considerably among and returning to the natal lake system to varied and flexible life-history within species and populations (Groot spawn after spending 1 to 4 years in the trajectories. Ocean-type chinook salmon and Margolis, 1991). At spawning, ocean. juveniles emigrate to the ocean as fry, adults pair to lay and fertilize thousands Certain self-perpetuating, subyearling juveniles (during their first of eggs in freshwater gravel nests or nonanadromous populations of O. nerka spring or fall), or as yearling juveniles ‘‘redds’’ excavated by females. that become resident in lake (during their second spring), depending Depending on lake/stream temperatures, environments over long periods of time on environmental conditions. Ocean- eggs incubate for several weeks to are called kokanee in North America. type chinook salmon also undertake months before hatching as ‘‘alevins’’ (a Genetic differentiation among sockeye distinct, coastally oriented, ocean larval life stage dependent on food salmon and kokanee populations migrations. The timing of the return to stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac indicates that kokanee have arisen from freshwater and spawning is closely absorption, alevins emerge from the sockeye salmon on multiple related to the ecological characteristics gravel as young juveniles called ‘‘fry’’ independent occasions, and that of a population’s spawning habitat. Five and begin actively feeding. Depending kokanee and sockeye salmon may have different run times are expressed by on the species and location, juveniles either overlapping or distinct different ocean-type chinook salmon may spend from a few hours to several distributions. Numerous studies populations: Spring, summer, fall, late- years in freshwater areas before (reviewed in Gustafson et al., 1997) fall, and winter. In general, early run migrating to the ocean. The indicate that sockeye salmon and times (spring and summer) are exhibited physiological and behavioral changes kokanee exhibit a suite of heritable by populations that use high spring required for the transition to salt water differences in morphology, early flows to access headwater or interior result in a distinct ‘‘smolt’’ stage in most development rate, seawater adaptability, regions. Ocean-type populations within species. Enroute to the ocean the growth and maturation that appear to be a basin that express different run times juveniles may spend from a few days to divergent adaptations that have arisen appear to have evolved from a common several weeks in the estuary, depending from different selective regimes source population. on the species. The highly productive associated with anadromous vs. Stream-type populations appear to be estuarine environment is an important nonanadromous life histories. These nearly obligate yearling outmigrants feeding and acclimation area for studies also provide evidence that (although some 2-year-old smolts have juveniles preparing to enter marine overlapping populations of sockeye been identified), undertake extensive waters. salmon and kokanee can be both off-shore ocean migrations, and

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33109

generally return to freshwater as spring- estimated that chum salmon contributed the names used to identify the seasonal or summer-run fish. Stream-type almost 50 percent of the total biomass runs of steelhead; in Northern populations are found in northern of all salmonids in the Pacific Ocean California, some biologists have retained British Columbia and Alaska, and in the (Neave, 1961). the use of the terms spring and fall headwater regions of the Fraser River Chum salmon spawn primarily in steelhead to describe what others would and Columbia River Basin inland freshwater, and apparently exhibit call summer steelhead. tributaries. obligatory anadromy, as there are no Steelhead can be divided into two recorded landlocked or naturalized basic reproductive ecotypes, based on West Coast Coho Salmon freshwater populations (Randall et al., the state of sexual maturity at the time Coho salmon is a widespread species 1987). Chum salmon generally spend of river entry and duration of spawning of Pacific salmon, occurring in most more of their life history in marine migration (Burgner et al., 1992). The major river basins around the Pacific waters than other Pacific salmonids. ‘‘stream-maturing’’ type (summer Rim from Monterey Bay, California, Chum salmon usually spawn in coastal steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and north to Point Hope, Alaska, through the areas, and juveniles out-migrate to Northern California) enters fresh water Aleutians, and from the Anadyr River seawater almost immediately after in a sexually immature condition south to Korea and northern Hokkaido, emerging from the gravel that covers between May and October and requires Japan (Laufle et al., 1986). From central their redds (Salo, 1991). This ocean-type several months to mature and spawn. British Columbia south, the vast migratory behavior contrasts with the The ‘‘ocean-maturing’’ type (winter majority of coho salmon adults are 3- stream-type behavior of some other steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and year-olds, having spent approximately species in the genus Oncorhynchus (e.g., Northern California) enters fresh water 18 months in fresh water and 18 months coastal cutthroat trout, anadromous O. between November and April with well- in salt water (Gilbert, 1912; Pritchard, mykiss, coho salmon, and most types of developed gonads and spawns shortly 1940; Sandercock, 1991). The primary chinook and sockeye salmon), which thereafter. In basins with both summer exceptions to this pattern are ‘‘jacks,’’ usually migrate to sea at a larger size, and winter steelhead runs, it appears sexually mature males that return to after months or years of freshwater that the summer run occurs where freshwater to spawn after only 5 to 7 rearing. This means survival and growth habitat is not fully utilized by the winter months in the ocean. However, in in juvenile chum salmon depends less run or a seasonal hydrologic barrier, southeast and central Alaska, the on freshwater conditions than on such as a waterfall, separates them. majority of coho salmon adults are 4- favorable estuarine conditions. Summer steelhead usually spawn year-olds, having spent an additional farther upstream than winter steelhead West Coast O. mykiss year in fresh water before going to sea (Withler, 1966; Roelofs, 1983; Behnke, (Godfrey et al., 1975; Crone and Bond, Steelhead is the name commonly 1992). Coastal streams are dominated by 1976). The transition zone between applied to the anadromous form of the winter steelhead, whereas inland predominantly 3-year-old and 4-year- biological species O. mykiss. The steelhead of the Columbia River Basin old adults occurs somewhere between present distribution of steelhead are almost exclusively summer central British Columbia and southeast extends from Kamchatka in Asia, east to steelhead. Winter steelhead may have Alaska. Alaska, and down to the U.S.-Mexico been excluded from inland areas of the West Coast coho smolts typically border (Busby et al., 1996; 67 FR 21586, Columbia River Basin by Celilo Falls or leave freshwater in the spring (April to May 1, 2002). O. mykiss exhibit perhaps by the considerable migration distance June) and re-enter freshwater when the most complex suite of life history from the ocean. The Sacramento-San sexually mature from September to traits of any species of Pacific salmonid. Joaquin River Basin may have November, and spawn from November They can be anadromous, or freshwater historically had multiple runs of to December and occasionally into residents (and under some steelhead that probably included both January (Sandercock, 1991). Stocks from circumstances, apparently yield ocean-maturing and stream-maturing British Columbia, Washington, and the offspring of the opposite form). Those stocks (CDFG, 1995; McEwan and Columbia River often have very early that are anadromous can spend up to 7 Jackson, 1996). These steelhead are (entering rivers in July or August) or late years in fresh water prior to referred to as winter steelhead by the (spawning into March) runs in addition smoltification, and then spend up to 3 California Department of Fish and Game to ‘‘normally’’ timed runs. years in salt water prior to first (CDFG); however, some biologists call spawning. O. mykiss is also iteroparous West Coast Chum Salmon them fall steelhead (Cramer et al., 1995). (meaning individuals may spawn more Inland steelhead of the Columbia Chum salmon has the widest natural than once), whereas the Pacific salmon River Basin, especially the Snake River geographic and spawning distribution of species are principally semelparous Subbasin, are commonly referred to as any Pacific salmonid, primarily because (meaning individuals generally spawn either ‘‘A-run’’ or ‘‘B-run.’’ These its range extends further along the once and die). designations are based on a bimodal shores of the Arctic Ocean than other Within the range of West Coast distribution of migration period of adult salmonids. Chum salmon have been steelhead, spawning migrations occur steelhead at Bonneville Dam (235 km documented to spawn from Korea and throughout the year, with seasonal from the mouth of the Columbia River) the Japanese island of Honshu, east, peaks of activity. In a given river basin and differences in age (1 versus 2 years around the Pacific rim, to Monterey Bay, there may be one or more peaks in in the ocean) and adult size observed California. Presently, major spawning migration activity; since these ‘‘runs’’ among Snake River steelhead. It is populations are found only as far south are usually named for the season in unclear, however, if the life history and as Tillamook Bay on the Northern which the peak occurs, some rivers may body size differences observed upstream Oregon coast. The species’ range in the have runs known as winter, spring, are correlated back to the groups Arctic Ocean extends from the Laptev summer, or fall steelhead. For example, forming the bimodal migration observed Sea in Russia to the Mackenzie River in large rivers, such as the Columbia, at Bonneville Dam. Furthermore, the Canada. Chum salmon may historically Rogue, and Klamath rivers, have relationship between patterns observed have been the most abundant of all migrating adult steelhead at all times of at the dams and the distribution of salmonids; prior to the 1940s, it is the year. There are local variations in adults in spawning areas throughout the

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33110 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Snake River Basin is not well The BRT assessed ESU-level increased extinction risk due to understood. A-run steelhead are extinction risk (as indicated by the catastrophic events. ESUs with believed to occur throughout the viability of the naturally spawning populations that are geographically steelhead-bearing streams of the Snake populations) at two levels: first, at the distant from each other, or are separated River Basin and the inland Columbia simpler population level; then, at the by severely degraded habitat, may lack River. B-run steelhead are thought to be overall ESU level. The BRT used criteria the connectivity to function as produced only in the Clearwater, for ‘‘Viable Salmonid Populations’’ metapopulations and are more likely to Middle Fork Salmon, and South Fork (VSP; McElhany et al., 2000) to guide its become extinct than populations that Salmon Rivers (IDFG, 1994). risk assessments. The VSP criteria were can function as metapopulations. ESUs The ‘‘half-pounder’’ is an immature developed to provide a consistent and with limited life-history diversity are steelhead that returns to fresh water logical reference for making viability more likely to become extinct as the after only 2 to 4 months in the ocean, determinations and are based on a result of correlated environmental generally overwinters in fresh water, review and synthesis of the catastrophes or environmental change and then outmigrates again the conservation biology and salmon that occurs too rapidly for an following spring. Half-pounders are literature. Individual populations were evolutionary response. ESUs comprised generally less than 400 mm and are evaluated according to the four VSP of a small proportion of populations reported only from the Rogue, Klamath, criteria: Abundance, growth rate/ meeting or exceeding these viability Mad, and Eel Rivers of Southern Oregon productivity, spatial structure, and criteria may lack the ‘‘source’’ and Northern California (Snyder, 1925; diversity. These four parameters are populations to sustain the non-viable Kesner and Barnhart, 1972; Everest, universal indicators of species’ viability, ‘‘sink’’ populations during 1973; Barnhart, 1986); however, it has and individually and collectively environmental downturns. ESUs been suggested that as mature steelhead, function as reasonable predictors of consisting of a single population are these fish may only spawn in the Rogue extinction risk. After reviewing all especially vulnerable in this regard. and Klamath River Basins (Cramer et al., relevant biological information for the Assessing an ESU involves evaluating 1995). Various explanations for this populations in a particular ESU, the the current biological viability of the unusual life history have been BRT ascribed an ESU-level risk score for populations that comprise the ESU. The proposed, but there is still no consensus each of the four VSP criteria. fact that the current biological status of as to what, if any, advantage it affords The viability of salmon and steelhead an ESU does not reflect historical ESUs is characterized by the health, abundance, productivity, spatial to the steelhead of these rivers. abundance, productivity, spatial structure or diversity does not mean that Assessing Extinction Risk for Pacific structure, and genetic/behavioral it is currently not viable, but historical Salmonids diversity of the individual populations status serves as an informative within the ESU (McElhany et al., 2001). benchmark against which to weigh Section 4(b) of the ESA requires the An ESU with a greater abundance of viability. Whether, upon assessment, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to productive populations will be more biological status of an ESU meets the make listing determinations after tolerant to environmental variation, ESA’s standard for listing as either conducting a review of the status of the catastrophic events, genetic processes, threatened or endangered—i.e., the ESU species, and after taking into account demographic stochasticity, ecological is in danger of extinction throughout all those efforts, if any, being made to interactions, and other processes than or a significant portion of its range or is protect the species. Such efforts being one with a single or a few populations likely to become so in the foreseeable made to protect the species include (Caughley and Gunn, 1996; Foley, 1997; future—depends on which viability ‘‘conservation’’ practices, defined by the Meffe and Carroll, 1994; Lande, 1993; criteria it fails to meet, what the past ESA to include propagation and Middleton and Nisbet, 1997). Similarly, trend has been, whether that trend is transplantation methods and procedures an ESU that is distributed across a likely to continue, and how far below (section 3(3)). The ESA requires that variety of well-connected habitats can the benchmark it is. listing determinations be made solely on better respond to environmental Factors considered in relating the the basis of the best scientific and perturbations including catastrophic population-level VSP criteria to ESU- commercial data available to the events, than ESUs in which connectivity level risk include: the total number of Secretary. The ESA further requires that between populations has been restricted viable populations; the geographic listing decisions must take into account or lost (Schlosser and Angermeier, 1995; distribution of these populations; the all members of the defined species Hanski and Gilpin, 1997; Tilman and connectivity among populations; and (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Lehman, 1997; Cooper and Mangel, the genetic, behavioral, and ecological Supp. 2d 1154, D. Oreg. 2001). 1999). Genetic and behavioral diversity diversity among populations. ESUs with NMFS’ Pacific Salmonid Biological and the maintenance of local fewer populations are more likely to Review Team (BRT) (an expert panel of adaptations within an ESU allow for the become extinct due to catastrophic scientists from several federal agencies exploitation of a wide array of events, and have a lower likelihood that including NMFS, FWS, and the U.S. environments, protect against short-term the necessary phenotypic and genotypic Geological Survey) reviewed the environmental changes, and provide the diversity will exist to maintain future viability and extinction risk of naturally raw material for surviving long-term viability. ESUs with limited geographic spawning populations in the 27 ESUs environmental change (Groot and range are similarly at increased that are the subject of this proposed rule Margolis, 1991; Wood, 1995). extinction risk due to catastrophic (NMFS, 2003b). The BRT evaluated the ESUs with fewer populations have events. ESUs with populations that are risk of extinction based on the greater risk of becoming extinct due to geographically distant from each other, performance of the naturally spawning catastrophic events, and have a lower or are separated by severely degraded populations in each of the ESUs under likelihood that the necessary habitat, may lack the connectivity to the assumption that present conditions phenotypic and genotypic diversity will function as metapopulations (i.e., a will continue into the future. The BRT exist to maintain future viability than group of interconnected did not explicitly consider artificial ESUs with more populations. ESUs with subpopulations) and are more likely to propagation in its evaluations. limited geographic range are similarly at become extinct. ESUs with limited

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33111

diversity are more likely to go extinct as artificial propagation has been recognition of genetic resources that the result of correlated environmental considered in (1) determining what represent the ecological and genetic catastrophes or environmental change constitutes an ESU, and (2) when diversity of the species. These genetic that occurs too rapidly for an evaluating the extinction risk of an resources can reside in a fish spawned evolutionary response. ESUs comprised entire ESU. NMFS’ previous policy for in a hatchery (hatchery fish) as well as of a small proportion of populations these considerations for Pacific salmon in a fish spawned in the wild (natural meeting or exceeding VSP criteria may and steelhead (58 FR 17573; April 5, fish). lack the source populations to sustain 1993) requires revision due to the In delineating an ESU that is to be the non-viable declining populations District Court’s ruling in the Alsea case. considered for listing, NMFS has during environmental down-turns. ESUs In its February 2002 response to the identified all populations that are part consisting of a single population are Alsea decision and various petitions (67 of the ESU including populations of especially vulnerable in this regard. FR 6215; February 11, 2002), NMFS natural fish (natural populations), These considerations are described in announced its plans to revise this populations of hatchery fish (hatchery the BRT’s report (NMFS 2003b), and policy. NMFS had intended that populations), and populations that further detailed in McElhany et al. rulemaking for the revised policy be include both natural fish and hatchery (2000) (and references therein). In short, completed prior to the formulation of fish (mixed populations). Hatchery fish a viable ESU has a negligible risk (over the proposed listing determinations with a level of genetic divergence a time scale of 100 years) of going described in this notice. However, between the hatchery stocks and the extinct as a result of normal development of the revised policy has local natural populations that is no environmental variation, genetic been delayed as NMFS resolved more than what would be expected change, catastrophic events and human complex scientific and policy issues. between closely related populations activity. Viable ESUs and populations Statutory and litigation deadlines within the ESU (hereafter described as have sufficient growth rates, possess compel NMFS to issue this proposed ‘‘genetically no more than moderately variation in traits, and are spatially rule together with proposed policy divergent from the natural population’’) distributed to survive environmental guidance on the consideration of are considered part of the ESU and are variation and natural and human artificial propagation in its ESA listing considered in determining whether an catastrophes. determinations. A revised policy for the entire ESU warrants listing under the After describing the ESU-level risk for consideration of artificial propagation in ESA. Therefore, these hatchery fish each of the VSP criteria, the BRT ESA listing determinations (hereafter must be included in any listing of the assessed ESU-level extinction risk based referred to as the proposed Hatchery ESU (See proposed Hatchery Listing on the performance of the naturally Listing Policy) is proposed elsewhere in Policy published elsewhere in this issue spawning populations. The BRT’s this issue of the Federal Register. The of the Federal Register). assessment of ESU-level extinction risk consideration of artificial propagation in To assist NMFS in determining the uses categories that correspond to the the subject proposed listing ESU membership of individual hatchery definitions of endangered species and determinations is based on the proposed stocks, a Salmon and Steelhead threatened species, respectively, in the Hatchery Listing Policy. Below, we ESA: in danger of extinction throughout summarize how artificial propagation Hatchery Assessment Group (SSHAG), all or a significant portion of its range, was evaluated in determining ESU composed of NMFS scientists from the likely to become endangered within the membership and evaluating extinction Northwest and Southwest Fisheries foreseeable future throughout all or a risk of an entire ESU. For further Science Centers, evaluated the best significant portion of its range, or discussion of artificial propagation in available information describing the neither. As discussed above, these the context of ESA listing decisions, the relationships between hatchery stocks evaluations do not include reader is directed to the proposed and natural ESA-listed salmon and consideration of hatchery stocks Hatchery Listing Policy. anadromous O. mykiss populations in included in ESUs, and do not evaluate the Pacific Northwest and California. efforts being made to protect the Determining What Constitutes an ESU The SSHAG produced a report, entitled species. Therefore, the BRT’s findings In the Alsea ruling the Court affirmed ‘‘Hatchery Broodstock Summaries and are not to be considered NMFS’ interpretation of what Assessments for Chum, Coho, and recommendations regarding listing. The constitutes a ‘‘distinct population Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Stocks BRT’s ESU-level extinction risk segment’’ (i.e., the ESU Policy; 56 FR within Evolutionarily Significant Units assessment reflects the BRT’s 58612; November 20, 1991), as a Listed under the Endangered Species professional scientific judgment, guided ‘‘permissible agency construction of the Act’’ (NMFS, 2003a), describing the by the analysis of the VSP criteria, as ESA’’ (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, relatedness of each hatchery stock on well as by expectations about the likely 1612 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1161 (D. Oreg. the basis of stock origin and the degree interactions among the individual VSP 2001)). NMFS believes that the ESU of known or inferred genetic divergence criteria. For example, a single VSP policy provides appropriate guidance between the hatchery stock and the criterion with a ‘‘High Risk’’ score might for the consideration of what local natural population(s). NMFS used be sufficient to result in an overall populations (natural as well as hatchery the information presented in the SSHAG extinction risk assessment of ‘‘in danger or resident populations) constitute an Report to determine the ESU of extinction,’’ but a combination of ESU, and hence a ‘‘species’’ under the membership of those hatchery stocks several VSP criteria with more moderate ESA. Under the ESU policy, a DPS of a determined to be within the historical risk scores could also lead to the same Pacific salmonid species is considered geographic range of a given ESU. NMFS’ assessment, or a finding that the ESU is an ESU if it meets two criteria: (a) It assessment of individual hatchery ‘‘likely to become endangered.’’ must be substantially reproductively stocks and its findings regarding the isolated from other conspecific ESU membership are detailed in the Consideration of Artificial Propagation population units; and (b) it must Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and in Listing Determinations represent an important component in Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, In proposed listing determinations the evolutionary legacy of the species. A 2004b). The hatchery stocks included in described in this proposed rule, key feature of the ESU concept is the a given ESU are listed below in the

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33112 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

‘‘Determination of Species Under the Because NMFS must base its listing arguments that the ESUs should be ESA’’ section. determinations for Pacific salmon and redefined to include only natural fish. steelhead on the risk of extinction of the The Trout Unlimited et al. petitions Evaluating ESU Extinction Risk entire ESU, including both natural and argue that hatchery stocks should not be Once ESU membership is determined, hatchery fish, the agency must consider included in ESUs containing natural NMFS must assess the extinction risk the likelihood that the hatchery and fish. The petitioners contend that faced by an entire ESU. As described naturally spawned components will hatchery stocks are functionally distinct above, the BRT evaluated the extinction contribute to the continued existence of and reproductively isolated from risk for the naturally spawned the ESU into the future. naturally spawned populations. The component of an ESU. The proposed NMFS’ assessment of the effects of petitioners present a substantial body of Hatchery Listing Policy published ESU hatchery programs on ESU viability scientific information describing the elsewhere in this issue of the Federal and extinction risk is presented in the potential threats posed by hatchery Register provides that status Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and stocks to natural populations. determinations for Pacific salmonid Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, Additionally, the petitioners present ESUs will be based on the status of an 2004b). The Report evaluates the effects scientific information documenting entire ESU (including both hatchery and of hatchery programs on the likelihood differences between hatchery and natural components). For those ESUs of extinction of an ESU on the basis of natural populations in behavior, genetic with associated hatchery programs, the the four VSP criteria (i.e., abundance, composition, and reproductive fitness. NMFS finds that the petitioners’ BRT’s findings represent a partial productivity, spatial structure, and argument that hatchery stocks are assessment of the ESU’s extinction risk. diversity) and how artificial propagation functionally distinct and reproductively To assess the viability of an entire ESU, efforts within the ESU affect those isolated from naturally spawned NMFS has also assessed the criteria. In April 2004, NMFS convened populations is unsubstantiated. The contributions of within-ESU hatchery an Artificial Propagation Evaluation derivation of hatchery stocks from local programs to the viability of an ESU in- Workshop of federal scientists and natural populations and the established total. managers with expertise in salmonid practice of incorporating natural fish as There are, however, several reasons artificial propagation. The Artificial hatchery broodstock results in hatchery why long-term deleterious Propagation Evaluation Workshop and natural populations that share the consequences of such supplementation reviewed the BRT’s findings (NMFS, same evolutionary genetic and may outweigh the short-term advantage 2003a), evaluated the Salmonid ecological legacy. The SSHAG Report of increased population size (NRC, Hatchery Inventory and Effects (NMFS, 2003a) and the Salmonid 1995). In recent years, various studies Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b), and Hatchery Inventory and Effects and scientific works have identified assessed the overall extinction risk of Evaluation Report (NMFS, 2004b) some potential adverse effects of ESUs with associated hatchery stocks. describe the relationship of hatchery artificial propagation, including Representatives of the BRT and NMFS’ stocks to local natural populations, on behavioral differences that result in Northwest and Southwest Fisheries the basis of stock origin and the degree diminished fitness and survival of Science Centers attended the workshop of known or inferred genetic divergence hatchery fish relative to naturally in an advisory capacity to ensure that between the hatchery stock and the spawned fish; genetic effects resulting the BRT’s findings were appropriately local natural population(s). The shared from poor broodstock and rearing and accurately considered, as well as to evolutionary legacy of certain hatchery practices (e.g., inbreeding, outbreeding, help ensure that the workshop stocks with natural populations does domestication selection); incidence of participants were aware of the best not support the exclusion of these disease; and increased rates of available scientific information. The hatchery stocks from ESUs containing competition with and predation on discussions and conclusions of the natural fish. Such an approach would naturally spawned populations. In Artificial Propagation Evaluation also be inconsistent with NMFS’ assessing the risks to any particular Workshop are detailed in a workshop interpretation of the ESA that is population, however, it is often difficult report (NMFS, 2004c). contained in its ESU policy, a policy to demonstrate conclusively that Finding on Trout Unlimited et al. that was affirmed by the Alsea Court adverse effects are actually occurring, Petitions decision. and, if they are demonstrated, how NMFS recognizes that artificial serious they are (CDFG/NMFS, 2001). Two petitions from Trout Unlimited propagation under certain In response to these concerns, there and co-petitioners, received by the circumstances can pose threats to have been recent changes in hatchery agency on April 29, 2002, sought to natural populations. However, it is not practices seeking to mitigate risks and redefine 15 ESUs as including only appropriate to include a consideration enhance benefits of artificial natural fish (i.e., naturally spawned fish of the threats faced by an ESU (such as propagation. Continued scientific work and their progeny, exclusive of all any risks posed by artificial is necessary to identify and to measure hatchery fish), and to list these propagation) when determining what these risks and benefits more redefined ESUs as threatened or constitutes a species under the ESA. completely, and to assess the operations endangered species under the ESA, as Rather, such an evaluation of threats is of hatcheries that implement modern appropriate. In a Federal Register notice conducted after the ‘‘species’’ has been management practices. In light of the published on July 25, 2002 (67 FR defined, and the likelihood of extinction developing science on the positive and 48601), NMFS found that these petitions for the defined species is being assessed. negative effects of hatchery programs on presented substantial scientific and NMFS also recognizes that hatchery natural populations, the legacy of commercial information to suggest that stocks may exhibit differences in hatchery programs and the existing the petitioned actions may be behavior, genetic composition, requirements to maintain many of them warranted. Although proposed listing morphological traits, and reproductive present a challenge for developing a determinations for the subject ESUs are fitness from natural populations. framework for consideration of hatchery included in this proposed rule, NMFS Indeed, the presence of such differences fish in listing determinations. first addresses the petitioners’ provides a valuable indicator of

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33113

divergence for determining whether a a case-by-case basis as more information this category have been isolated from particular hatchery stock is becomes available on their relationships contact with anadromous populations representative of the evolutionary legacy to below-barrier populations, or on the for thousands of years. Empirical of an ESU. role these above-barrier resident studies show that in these cases the NMFS concludes that the best populations might play in conserving resident fish typically show substantial available scientific and commercial below-barrier populations of O. mykiss. genetic and life-history divergence from information does not support a finding In its previous steelhead ESA listing the nearest downstream anadromous that all hatchery stocks in the 15 determinations, although NMFS populations. In cases where the resident petitioned ESUs should be redefined as considered co-occurring resident and fish were separated from the distinct ESUs separate from the anadromous populations as a single anadromous form by relatively recent naturally spawned populations from ESU, NMFS did not list resident human actions (e.g., impassable dams which they are derived. Accordingly, populations when it was determined and culverts), the BRT was unable to NMFS finds that the action sought by that the ESU in-total warranted listing. justify any particular default the Trout Unlimited et al. petitions is As noted above, the Alsea court has assumption. The two life-history forms not warranted. rejected listing under the ESA only a most likely coexisted without any subset of an ESU or DPS. For the Consideration of Resident O. mykiss barriers to interbreeding prior to the purposes of reviewing the viability of Populations in Listing Determinations establishment of the manmade naturally spawned O. mykiss barrier(s). However, as a result of rapid In addition to an anadromous O. populations in this proposed rule, the divergence in a novel environment, or mykiss life history (i.e., steelhead), O. BRT adopted a framework for displacement by or genetic introgression mykiss exhibits nonanadromous or determining the ESU/DPS membership from non-native hatchery rainbow trout, resident forms (i.e., rainbow trout). of resident O. mykiss geographically these resident populations may no Where the two forms co-occur, the associated with listed steelhead ESUs. longer represent the evolutionary legacy offspring of resident fish may migrate to These evaluations were guided by the of the O. mykiss ESU. Given these the sea, and the offspring of anadromous same biological principles used to uncertainties, the BRT left unresolved fish may remain in streams as resident define ESUs of natural fish and the ESU membership of O. mykiss above fish. The change from the anadromous determine ESU membership of hatchery recent (usually man-made) impassable life form to the resident life form can fish: the extent of reproductive isolation barriers. In the absence of information also result from imposed physical or and biological divergence from other indicating that they are part of a physiological barriers to migration. populations within the ESU. Ideally, common ESU, NMFS does not find such Genetic differences, when studied, have each resident population would be above-barrier populations to be part of indicated greater differences among evaluated individually on a case-by-case the O. mykiss ESUs under review. geographically separated O. mykiss basis, using all available biological The BRT reviewed available populations of the same life-history information. In practice, little or no information about individual resident form, than between anadromous and information is available for most populations of O. mykiss to determine resident life-history forms in the same resident O. mykiss populations. To which of the above scenarios best geographical area. No suite of facilitate determinations of the ESU/ defined the level of reproductive morphological or genetic characteristics DPS membership of resident O. mykiss, isolation between the life-history forms, has been found that consistently the BRT identified three different cases, and whether any information exists to distinguishes between the two life- reflecting the range of geographic override the default assumptions history forms. As is the case with relationships between resident and described above about the ESU hatchery fish, it is important to anadromous forms within different membership of resident populations. determine the relationship of these watersheds: (1) No obvious physical The best available information resident fish to anadromous populations barriers to interbreeding between concerning resident O. mykiss in in the O. mykiss ESUs under resident and anadromous forms; (2) Columbia River Basin ESUs is consideration. long-standing natural barriers (e.g., a summarized in the report ‘‘The In its previous status reviews of waterfall) between resident and Biological Implications of Non- steelhead ESUs (see Table 1), NMFS anadromous forms; and (3) relatively Anadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss in concluded that the available data recent (e.g., within the last 100 years) Columbia Basin Steelhead ESUs’’ suggest that resident rainbow trout and human-imposed barriers (e.g., a dam (Kostow, 2003). steelhead in the same area generally without a fish ladder) between resident As noted above, little or no share a common gene pool (at least over and anadromous forms. population data are available for most evolutionary time periods), and The BRT adopted the following resident O. mykiss populations, greatly included resident and anadromous working assumptions about ESU complicating assessments of ESU-level populations in the same ESU. Resident membership of resident fish falling in extinction risk. Where available, the populations above long-standing natural each of these three cases. Where there BRT incorporated information about barriers, and those populations that was no obvious physical barrier to resident populations into their analyses have resulted from the introduction of interbreeding between the two life- of the four VSP criteria and their non-native rainbow trout, were not history forms, resident fish were assessments of extinction risk for O. considered part of these ESUs. In the considered part of the ESU. Empirical mykiss ESUs. As was often the case, no case of resident populations upstream of studies show that resident and data on the abundance, productivity, impassable human-caused migration anadromous O. mykiss are typically spatial structure, or diversity were barriers (e.g., large mainstem very similar genetically when they co- available for resident populations in an hydroelectric dams), NMFS found occur with no physical barriers to ESU. The BRT noted that the presence insufficient information to merit their migration or interbreeding. Where long- of relatively numerous resident inclusion in steelhead ESUs. The agency standing natural barriers separate populations can significantly reduce generally concluded that resident resident and anadromous forms, risks to ESU abundance. However, there populations upstream of impassable resident populations were not regarded is considerable scientific uncertainty as manmade barriers must be evaluated on as part of the ESU. Many populations in to how the resident form affects

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33114 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

extinction risk through its influence on flow regimes for smolt outmigration). even under the most optimistic ESU productivity, spatial structure, and Increases in many salmon populations scenario, increases in abundance might diversity. The threats to O. mykiss ESUs in recent years may be largely a result be only temporary and could mask a extend beyond low population size and of more favorable ocean conditions. failure to address underlying factors for include declining productivity, reduced PDO values were mostly positive during decline. The real conservation concern resilience of productivity to the two decades preceding 1998, and for West Coast salmon and O. mykiss is environmental variation, curtailed range this regime was generally characterized not how they perform during periods of of distribution, impediments to by less productive ocean conditions and high marine survival, but how population connectivity and declining salmonid abundances. prolonged periods of poor marine reproductive exchange, depleted Between July 1998 and July 2002 the survival affect the VSP parameters of diversity stemming from loss or PDO exhibited mostly negative values, abundance, growth rate, spatial blockage of habitat and associated associated with higher ocean structure, and diversity. It is reasonable erosion of local adaptation, and erosion productivity and increasing returns for to assume that salmon populations have of the diversity of expressed migratory many salmonid populations. It is worth persisted over time, under pristine behaviors. Thus, the BRT concluded noting that from August 2002 to April conditions through many such cycles in that, despite the reduced risk to 2004 the PDO has exhibited positive the past. Less certain is how the abundance for certain O. mykiss ESUs values. It is not clear what impact, if populations will fare in periods of poor due to numerically abundant residents, any, these most recent conditions will ocean survival when their freshwater, the collective contribution of the have on salmonid populations. estuary, and nearshore marine habitats resident life-history form to the viability Although these facts are relatively well are degraded. of an ESU in-total is unknown and may established, much less certainty can be not substantially reduce extinction risks attached to any predictions about what Treatment of the Listing Determination to an ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004). Based this means for the viability of salmon Steps for Each ESU Under Review on present scientific understanding, the and O. mykiss ESUs into the future. Determinations of ‘‘Species’’ Under the BRT could not exclude the possibility The confidence with which we can ESA project ocean-climate regimes into the that complete loss of anadromous forms To qualify for listing as a threatened from within an ESU may be irreversible. future is limited, and consequently so is or endangered species, a population (or our ability to project the future group of populations) of West Coast Consideration of Recent Ocean influence of ocean-climate conditions Conditions in Listing Determinations on salmonid productivity. There exists salmonids must be considered a In the last decade, evidence has about a century of empirical evidence ‘‘species’’ as defined under the ESA. shown: (1) Recurring, decadal-scale for ‘‘cycles’’ in the PDO, marine The ESA defines a species to include patterns of ocean-atmosphere climate productivity, and salmon abundance. ‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or variability in the North Pacific Ocean Such a timeseries represents only about plants, and any distinct population (Zang et al., 1997; Mantua et al., 1997); three PDO periods of 20 to 40 years in segment of any species of vertebrate fish and (2) correlations between these duration. There are four main or wildlife which interbreeds when oceanic productivity ‘‘regimes’’ and difficulties in inferring future behavior mature’’ (ESA section 3(16)). NMFS salmon population abundance in the of a complex system from data records published a policy (56 FR 58612; Pacific Northwest and Alaska (Hare et spanning only a couple cycles. First, the November 20, 1991) describing the al., 1999; Mueter et al., 2002). There is duration and magnitude of past cycles agency’s application of the ESA little doubt that survival rates in the may not be indicative of future definition of ‘‘species’’ to anadromous marine environment are strong dynamics. Second, the past decade has Pacific salmonid species. NMFS’ policy determinants of population abundance seen particularly wide fluctuations not provides that a Pacific salmonid for Pacific salmon and O. mykiss only in climatic indices (e.g., the 1997– population (or group of populations) (NMFS, 2003b). It is also generally 1998 El Nino was in many ways the will be considered a DPS, and hence a accepted that for at least two decades, most extreme ever recorded, and the ‘‘species’’ under the ESA, if it represents beginning about 1977, marine 2001 drought was one of the most severe an ESU of the biological species. An productivity conditions were on record), but also in abundance of ESU must be reproductively isolated unfavorable for the majority of salmon salmon populations. In general, as the from other conspecific population units, and O. mykiss populations in the Pacific magnitude of fluctuations in species’ and it must represent an important Northwest (in contrast, many abundance increases, species extinction component in the evolutionary legacy of populations in Alaska attained record rates increase. Third, if there is the biological species. The first abundances during this period). Finally, anthropogenically caused climate criterion, reproductive isolation, need there is evidence that an important shift change, it could affect future ocean not be absolute, but must be strong in ocean-atmosphere conditions productivity; however, how such enough to permit evolutionarily occurred around July 1998. One change might be manifested cannot be important differences to accrue in indicator of the ocean-atmosphere predicted with any certainty (IPCC different population units. The second variation for the North Pacific is the 2001). Finally, changes in the pattern of criterion is met if the population unit Pacific Decadal Oscillation index (PDO). ocean-atmosphere interactions do not contributes substantially to the Negative PDO values are associated with affect all species (or even all ecological and genetic diversity of the relatively cool ocean temperatures (and populations of a given species) in the species in-total. Guidance on the generally high salmon productivity) off same way (Peterman et al., 1998). application of this policy is contained in the Pacific Northwest, and positive Given all these uncertainties, the BRT 56 FR 58612 (November 20, 1991) and values are associated with warmer, less was reluctant to make any specific Waples (1991). As noted in the ‘‘Alsea productive conditions. These favorable assumptions about the future behavior Valley Alliance v. Evans’’ section above, ocean conditions may also be correlated of the ocean-atmospheric systems or all components included in an ESU with favorable conditions in the their effects on the distribution and (natural populations, hatchery stocks, freshwater environment (e.g., above- abundance of salmon and O. mykiss. resident populations, etc.) must be average rainfalls resulting in improved The BRT was concerned, however, that listed if it is determined that the ESU in-

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33115

total is threatened or endangered under reaffirm the ESU determinations for Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU the ESA. naturally spawning populations detailed The Ozette Lake sockeye ESU NMFS has reviewed the ESU in previous ESA status reviews and includes all naturally spawned relationships of hatchery salmon and listing determinations (see Table 1). The populations of sockeye salmon in Ozette anadromous O. mykiss stocks (NMFS, BRT focused primarily on risk Lake and streams and tributaries 2004b), as well as of resident O. mykiss assessments of the naturally spawned flowing into Ozette Lake, Washington populations. Hatchery stocks and component of ESUs. Apart from the resident populations are included in an (64 FR 14528; March 25, 1999). Two consideration of hatchery stock and artificial propagation programs are ESU if it is determined that they are not resident O. mykiss populations, NMFS reproductively isolated from considered to be part of this ESU (Table did not reconsider the geographic 2): the Umbrella Creek and Big River populations in the ESU, and they are boundaries of the ESUs under review. representative of the evolutionary legacy sockeye hatchery programs. NMFS has There was no significant scientific and determined that these artificially of the ESU (see the ‘‘Consideration of commercial information indicating that Artificial Propagation in Listing propagated stocks are genetically no specific ESUs boundaries warrant more than moderately divergent from Determinations’’ section above). reconsideration. Hatchery stocks are not considered the natural population (NMFS, 2004b). representative of the evolutionary legacy Snake River Sockeye ESU Sacramento Winter-run Chinook ESU of an ESU, and hence not included in The Snake River sockeye ESU the ESU, if it is determined that they are The Sacramento winter-run chinook includes populations of anadromous ESU includes all naturally spawned genetically no more than moderately sockeye salmon from the Snake River divergent from the natural population populations of winter-run chinook Basin, Idaho (extant populations occur salmon in the Sacramento River and its (See proposed Hatchery Listing Policy only in the Stanley Basin) (56 FR 58619; published elsewhere in this issue of the tributaries in California (59 FR 440; November 20, 1991), residual sockeye January 1, 1994), as well as two artificial Federal Register). If a hatchery stock is salmon in Redfish Lake, Idaho, as well more divergent from the local natural propagation programs (Table 2): winter- as one captive propagation hatchery run chinook from the Livingston Stone population, this indicates that the program (Table 2). Artificially hatchery stock is reproductively isolated National Fish Hatchery (NFH), and propagated sockeye salmon from the winter run chinook in a captive from the ESU. Co-occurring anadromous Redfish Lake Captive Propagation and resident O. mykiss populations broodstock program maintained at program are considered part of this ESU. Livingston Stone NFH and the below impassable barriers are likely not NMFS has determined that this reproductively isolated, so that both University of California Bodega Marine artificially propagated stock is Laboratory. NMFS has determined that represent important components of the genetically no more than moderately evolutionary legacy of the species, and these artificially propagated stocks are divergent from the natural population no more than moderately diverged from hence are considered an ESU (see the (NMFS, 2004b). more detailed discussion above in the the local natural population (NMFS ‘‘Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Subsequent to the 1991 listing 2004b). determination for the Snake River Populations in Listing Determinations’’ Central Valley Spring-run Chinook ESU section). sockeye ESU, a ‘‘residual’’ form of The hatchery and resident Snake River sockeye (hereafter The Central Valley spring-run components are detailed below for each ‘‘residuals’’) was identified. The chinook ESU includes all naturally ESU, as applicable. More detailed residuals often occur together with spawned populations of spring-run descriptions of the hatchery stocks anadromous sockeye salmon and exhibit chinook salmon in the Sacramento River included in the ESUs below can be similar behavior in the timing and and its tributaries in California (64 FR found in the Salmonid Hatchery location of spawning. Residuals are 50394; September 16, 1999). This ESU Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report thought to be the progeny of does not include any artificially (NMFS, 2004b). More detailed anadromous sockeye salmon, but are propagated spring-run chinook stocks descriptions of the impassible barriers generally nonanadromous. In 1993 that reside within the historical and resident populations associated NMFS determined that the residual geographic range of the ESU. population of Snake River sockeye that with O. mykiss ESUs are provided in the California Coastal Chinook ESU final BRT Report (NMFS, 2003b) as well exists in Redfish Lake is substantially as in ‘‘The Biological Implications of reproductively isolated from kokanee The California Coastal chinook ESU Non-Anadromous Oncorhynchus (i.e., nonanadromous populations of O. includes all naturally spawned mykiss in Columbia Basin Steelhead nerka that become resident in lake populations of chinook salmon from ESUs’’ (Kostow, 2003). environments over long periods of rivers and streams south of the Klamath A given hatchery stock determined to time), represents an important River to the Russian River, California be part of an ESU may be propagated at component in the evolutionary legacy of (64 FR 50394; September 16, 1999). multiple sites. To more clearly convey the biological species, and thus merits Seven artificial propagation programs the hatchery fish that are included in a inclusion in the Snake River sockeye are considered to be part of the ESU given ESU, the ESU descriptions below ESU. Constituents and co-managers (Table 2): the Humboldt Fish Action list the artificial propagation programs were subsequently advised that residual Council (Freshwater Creek), Yager that propagate hatchery stocks sockeye salmon in Redfish Lake are part Creek, Redwood Creek, Hollow Tree, determined to be part of the ESUs under of the ESU and are listed as an Van Arsdale Fish Station, Mattole review. A list of those specific artificial endangered species ‘‘subject to all the Salmon Group, and Mad River Hatchery propagation programs by ESU is protection, prohibitions, and fall-run chinook hatchery programs. provided for reference in Table 2 at the requirements of the ESA that apply to NMFS has determined that these end of this section. Snake River sockeye salmon’’ (letter artificially propagated stocks are The following descriptions of the 27 from Acting NMFS Director Nancy genetically no more than moderately Pacific salmon and O. mykiss ESUs Foster to Constituents, dated March 19, divergent from the natural populations addressed in this document generally 1993). (NMFS, 2004b).

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33116 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU Upper Columbia River Spring-run Ponds Program, Nez Perce Tribal Chinook ESU Hatchery, and Oxbow Hatchery fall-run The Upper Willamette River chinook The Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook hatchery programs. NMFS has ESU includes all naturally spawned determined that these artificially populations of spring-run chinook chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon propagated stocks are genetically no salmon in the Clackamas River and in more than moderately divergent from in all river reaches accessible to chinook the Willamette River, and its tributaries, the natural population (NMFS, 2004b). above Willamette Falls, Oregon (64 FR salmon in Columbia River tributaries 14208; March 24, 1999). Seven artificial upstream of the Rock Island Dam and Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook propagation programs are considered to downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in ESU be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Washington, excluding the Okanogan The Snake River spring/summer-run McKenzie River Hatchery (Oregon River (64 FR 14208; March 24, 1999). chinook ESU includes all naturally Department of Fish and Wildlife Six artificial propagation programs are spawned populations of spring/summer- (ODFW) stock # 24), Marion Forks/ considered to be part of the ESU (Table run chinook salmon in the mainstem North Fork Santiam River (ODFW stock 2): the Twisp River, Chewuch River, Snake River and the Tucannon River, Methow Composite, Winthrop NFH, # 21), South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW Grande Ronde River, Imnaha River, and Chiwawa River, and White River spring- stock # 23) in the South Fork Santiam Salmon River subbasins (57 FR 23458; run chinook hatchery programs. NMFS River, South Santiam Hatchery in the June 3, 1992). Fifteen artificial has determined that these artificially Calapooia River, South Santiam propagation programs are considered to propagated stocks are genetically no Hatchery in the Mollala River, be part of the ESU (Table 2): the more than moderately divergent from Willamette Hatchery (ODFW stock # Tucannon River conventional Hatchery, the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b). 22), and Clackamas hatchery (ODFW Tucannon River Captive Broodstock stock # 19) spring-run chinook hatchery Puget Sound Chinook ESU Program, Lostine River, Catherine Creek, programs. NMFS has determined that Lookingglass Hatchery Reintroduction The Puget Sound chinook ESU Program (Catherine Creek stock), Upper these artificially propagated stocks are includes all naturally spawned genetically no more than moderately Grande Ronde, Imnaha River, Big Sheep populations of chinook salmon from Creek, McCall Hatchery, Johnson Creek divergent from the natural populations rivers and streams flowing into Puget (NMFS, 2004b). Artificial Propagation Enhancement, Sound including the Straits of Juan De Lemhi River Captive Rearing Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU Fuca from the Elwha River, eastward, Experiment, Pahsimeroi Hatchery, East including rivers and streams flowing Fork Captive Rearing Experiment, West The Lower Columbia River chinook into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Fork Yankee Fork Captive Rearing ESU includes all naturally spawned Sound and the Strait of Georgia in Experiment, and the Sawtooth Hatchery populations of chinook salmon from the Washington (64 FR 14208; March 24, spring/summer-run chinook hatchery Columbia River and its tributaries from 1999). Twenty-two artificial propagation programs. NMFS has determined that its mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream programs are considered to be part of these artificially propagated stocks are to a transitional point between the ESU (Table 2): the Kendal Creek genetically no more than moderately Washington and Oregon east of the Hatchery, Marblemount Hatchery (fall, divergent from the natural populations Hood River and the White Salmon spring yearlings, spring subyearlings, (NMFS, 2004b). River, and includes the Willamette and summer run), Harvey Creek River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, Hatchery, Whitehorse Springs Pond, Central California Coast Coho ESU exclusive of spring-run chinook salmon Wallace River Hatchery (yearlings and The Central California Coast coho in the Clackamas River (64 FR 14208; subyearlings), Tulalip Bay, Soos Creek ESU includes all naturally spawned March 24, 1999). Seventeen artificial Hatchery, Icy Creek Hatchery, Keta populations of coho salmon from Punta propagation programs are considered to Creek Hatchery, White River Hatchery, Gorda in northern California south to be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Sea White Acclimation Pond, Hupp Springs and including the San Lorenzo River in Resources Tule chinook Program, Big Hatchery, Voights Creek Hatchery, Diru central California, as well as Creek Tule chinook Program, Astoria Creek, Clear Creek, Kalama Creek, populations in tributaries to San High School (STEP) Tule chinook Dungeness/Hurd Creek Hatchery, Elwha Francisco Bay, excluding the Program, Warrenton High School (STEP) Channel Hatchery chinook hatchery Sacramento-San Joaquin River system Tule chinook Program, Elochoman River programs. NMFS has determined that (61 FR 56138; October 31, 1996). Four Tule chinook Program, Cowlitz Tule these artificially propagated stocks are artificial propagation programs are Chinook Program, North Fork Toutle genetically no more than moderately considered part of this ESU (Table 2): Tule chinook Program, Kalama Tule divergent from the natural populations the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery Captive chinook Program, Washougal River Tule (NMFS, 2004b). Broodstock Program, Scott Creek/King chinook Program, Spring Creek NFH Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU Fisher Flats Conservation Program, Tule chinook Program, Cowlitz spring Scott Creek Captive Broodstock chinook Program in the Upper Cowlitz The Snake River fall-run chinook ESU Program, and the Noyo River Fish River and the Cispus River, Friends of includes all naturally spawned Station Egg-take Program coho hatchery the Cowlitz spring chinook Program, populations of fall-run chinook salmon programs. NMFS has determined that Kalama River spring chinook Program, in the mainstem Snake River and in the these artificially propagated stocks are Lewis River spring chinook Program, Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, genetically no more than moderately Fish First spring chinook Program, and Imnaha River, Salmon River, and divergent from the natural populations the Sandy River Hatchery (ODFW stock Clearwater River subbasins (57 FR (NMFS, 2004b). #11) chinook hatchery programs. NMFS 14653, April 22, 1992; 57 FR 23458, has determined that these artificially June 3, 1992). Four artificial propagation Southern Oregon/Northern California propagated stocks are genetically no programs are considered to be part of Coast Coho ESU more than moderately divergent from the ESU (Table 2): the Lyons Ferry The Southern Oregon/Northern the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b). Hatchery, Fall Chinook Acclimation California Coast coho ESU includes all

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33117

naturally spawned populations of coho 2001). This conclusion was supported Program, Elochoman Type-N Coho salmon in coastal streams between Cape by new tagging data and analyses Program, Cathlamet High School FFA Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda, indicating that SWW and LCR coho Type-N Coho Program, Cowlitz Type-N California (62 FR 24588; May 6, 1997). populations have differing marine Coho Program in the Upper and Lower Three artificial propagation programs distributions and are genetically distinct Cowlitz Rivers, Cowlitz Game and are considered to be part of the ESU (Shaklee et al., 1999; NMFS, 2001). This Anglers Coho Program, Friends of the (Table 2): the Cole Rivers Hatchery finding is consistent with the stock Cowlitz Coho Program, North Fork (ODFW stock # 52), Trinity River structure exhibited by LCR chinook and Toutle River Hatchery, Lewis River Hatchery, and Iron Gate Hatchery coho O. mykiss populations (Myers et al., Type-N Coho Program, Lewis River hatchery programs. NMFS has 2003). The 2001 BRT also concluded Type-S Coho Program, Fish First Wild determined that these artificially that the historical ESU still exists in the Coho Program, Fish First Type-N Coho propagated stocks are no more than LCR. The primary evidence to support Program, Syverson Project Type-N Coho moderately diverged from the local this conclusion is the consistent genetic Program, Sandy Hatchery, and the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b). and life history differences between LCR Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow complex coho hatchery programs. NMFS has Oregon Coast Coho ESU coho salmon and populations from other areas. The BRT concluded that, determined that these artificially The Oregon Coast coho ESU includes because of presumably very low propagated stocks are genetically no all naturally spawned populations of survival rates, stock transfers from more than moderately divergent from coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams Oregon coastal populations 40 to 80 the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b). south of the Columbia River and north years ago probably had relatively little Columbia River Chum ESU of Cape Blanco (63 FR 42587; August permanent effect on the genetic makeup 10, 1998). Five artificial propagation of LCR coho salmon. Nevertheless, the The Columbia River chum ESU programs are considered part of the ESU BRT recognized that the ESU as it includes all naturally spawned (Table 2): the North Umpqua River presently exists is much altered from populations of chum salmon in the (ODFW stock # 18), Cow Creek (ODFW historical conditions, and evidence of Columbia River and its tributaries in stock # 37), Coos Basin (ODFW stock appreciable natural production is Washington and Oregon (64 FR 14508; #37), Coquille River (ODFW stock # 44), limited to two Oregon populations (in March 25, 1999). Three artificial and North Fork Nehalem River (ODFW the Sandy and Clackamas rivers) that propagation programs are considered to stock # 32) coho hatchery programs. represent the clearest link (through be part of the ESU (Table 2): the NMFS has determined that these more or less continuous natural Chinook River (Sea Resources artificially propagated stocks are production) to historical populations Hatchery), Grays River, and Washougal genetically no more than moderately within the ESU. Based on available River/Duncan Creek chum hatchery divergent from the natural populations information, most of the adult coho programs. NMFS has determined that (NMFS, 2004b). salmon returning to natural or hatchery these artificially propagated stocks are Lower Columbia River Coho ESU areas outside these two streams appear genetically no more than moderately to have themselves been reared as divergent from the natural populations In NMFS’ 1991 status review of Lower (NMFS, 2004b). Columbia River (LCR) coho (NMFS, juveniles in hatcheries, or to have had 1991d), the BRT limited the geographic parents that were reared in hatcheries. Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU scope of its review to the subject of the The 2001 BRT concluded that, The Hood Canal summer-run chum motivating listing petition: the LCR collectively, these hatchery-produced includes all naturally spawned excluding the Willamette River. The fish contain a significant portion of the populations of summer-run chum 1991 BRT concluded that historical LCR historical diversity of LCR coho salmon, salmon in Hood Canal and its tributaries coho populations were probably albeit in somewhat altered form. In as well as populations in Olympic reproductively isolated from other coho determining the upstream boundary of Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal populations, but the BRT was unable to the LCR coho ESU, the 2001 BRT and Dungeness Bay, Washington (64 FR identify whether an historical coho ESU concluded that Upper Columbia River 14508; March 25, 1999). Eight artificial still existed in the LCR. In the 1995 coho (now extinct) were likely not part propagation programs are considered to status review of West Coast coho salmon of the LCR coho ESU, and that the be part of the ESU (Table 2): the (NMFS, 1995a), the BRT considered Cascade Crest represents the most likely Quilcene NFH, Hamma Hamma Fish new information suggesting that LCR eastern terminus of the LCR coho ESU. Hatchery, Lilliwaup Creek Fish coho may be part of a larger ESU, based The 2003 Pacific Salmonid BRT did not Hatchery, Union River/Tahuya, Big Beef on similarities in physical and revisit the 2001 ESU boundaries for the Creek Fish Hatchery, Salmon Creek Fish biogeographical conditions, and LCR coho ESU. Hatchery, Chimacum Creek Fish preliminary genetic data. The 1995 BRT Based on the foregoing, NMFS Hatchery, and the Jimmycomelately included LCR coho as part of a larger concludes that the LCR coho ESU Creek Fish Hatchery summer-run chum Southwestern Washington (SWW)/LCR includes all naturally spawned hatchery programs. NMFS has coho ESU, and NMFS designated the populations of coho salmon in the determined that these artificially SWW/LCR coho ESU as a candidate Columbia River and its tributaries from propagated stocks are genetically no species (60 FR 38011; July 25, 1995). In the mouth of the Columbia up to and more than moderately divergent from 1996, NMFS’ West Coast Coho Salmon including the Big White Salmon and the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b). BRT updated the 1995 status review, Hood Rivers. Twenty-one artificial and concluded that the SWW/LCR ESU propagation programs are considered to Southern California O. mykiss ESU may warrant splitting into separate be part of the ESU (Table 2): the Grays The Southern California O. mykiss SWW and LCR ESUs (NMFS, 1996e). River, Sea Resources Hatchery, Peterson ESU includes all naturally spawned In 2001 the BRT reconvened to update Coho Project, Big Creek Hatchery, populations of steelhead in streams information on the viability of LCR coho Astoria High School (STEP) Coho from the Santa Maria River, San Luis and concluded that LCR coho is a Program, Warrenton High School (STEP) Obispo County, California (inclusive) to separate ESU from SWW coho (NMFS, Coho Program, Elochoman Type-S Coho the U.S.-Mexico Border (62 FR 43937,

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33118 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

August 18, 1997; 67 FR 21586, May 1, River Basin (62 FR 43937; August 18, of the California Central Valley O. 2002). Resident populations of O. 1997). Resident populations of O. mykiss ESU, until such time that mykiss below impassible barriers mykiss below impassible barriers significant scientific information (natural and manmade) that co-occur (natural and manmade) that co-occur becomes available affording a case-by- with anadromous populations are with anadromous populations are case evaluation of their ESU included in the Southern California O. included in the Central California Coast relationships. mykiss ESU. According to the O. mykiss ESU. According to the Two artificial propagation programs framework discussed above (see the framework discussed above (see the are considered to be part of the ESU Consideration of Resident O. mykiss Consideration of Resident O. mykiss (Table 2): the Coleman NFH, and Populations in Listing Determinations Populations in Listing Determinations Feather River Hatchery steelhead section), the ESU membership of native section), the ESU membership of native hatchery programs. NMFS has resident populations above recent resident populations above recent determined that these artificially (usually man-made) impassable barriers, (usually man-made) impassable barriers, propagated stocks are genetically no but below natural barriers, was not but below natural barriers, was not more than moderately divergent from resolved. These resident populations are resolved. These resident populations are the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b). provisionally not considered to be part provisionally not considered to be part Two other artificial propagation of the Southern California O. mykiss of the Central California Coast O. mykiss programs, the Nimbus and Mokelumne ESU, until such time that significant ESU, until such time that significant River stocks, are derived from out-of- scientific information becomes available scientific information becomes available ESU broodstock, are genetically more affording a case-by-case evaluation of affording a case-by-case evaluation of than moderately divergent from the ESU their ESU relationships. their ESU relationships. Recent genetic populations, and are not considered part This ESU does not include any data regarding three subpopulations of of this ESU. artificially propagated O. mykiss stocks native fish above Rubber Dam 1 on Northern California O. mykiss ESU that reside within the historical Alameda Creek strongly suggest that geographic range of the ESU. they are part of the ESU. Nielson (2003) The Northern California O. mykiss found that these subpopulations were ESU includes steelhead in California South-Central California Coast O. coastal river basins from Redwood mykiss ESU most similar to each other and other populations within the ESU than they Creek south to the Gualala River The South-Central California Coast O. were to populations outside the ESU. (inclusive) (65 FR 36074; June 7, 2000). mykiss ESU includes all naturally NMFS, therefore, considers native Resident populations of O. mykiss spawned populations of steelhead in resident O. mykiss populations above below impassible barriers (natural and streams from the Pajaro River (inclusive) Dam 1 on Alameda Creek to be part of manmade) that co-occur with to, but not including the Santa Maria the Central California Coast O. mykiss anadromous populations are included River, California (62 FR 43937; August ESU. in the Northern California O. mykiss 18, 1997). Resident populations of O. Two artificial propagation programs ESU. According to the framework mykiss below impassible barriers are considered to be part of the ESU discussed above (see the Consideration (natural and manmade) that co-occur (Table 2): the Don Clausen Fish of Resident O. mykiss Populations in with anadromous populations are Hatchery, and Kingfisher Flat Hatchery/ Listing Determinations section), the ESU included in the South-Central California Scott Creek (Monterey Bay Salmon and membership of native resident Coast O. mykiss ESU. According to the Trout Project) steelhead hatchery populations above recent (usually man- framework discussed above (See the programs. NMFS has determined that made) impassable barriers, but below Consideration of Resident O. mykiss these artificially propagated stocks are natural barriers, was not resolved. These Populations in Listing Determinations genetically no more than moderately resident populations are provisionally section), the ESU membership of native divergent from the natural populations not considered to be part of the resident populations above recent (NMFS, 2004b). Northern California O. mykiss ESU, (usually man-made) impassable barriers, until such time that significant scientific California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU but below natural barriers, was not information becomes available affording resolved. These resident populations are The California Central Valley O. a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU provisionally not considered to be part mykiss ESU includes all naturally relationships. of the South-Central California Coast O. spawned populations of steelhead in the Two artificial propagation programs mykiss ESU, until such time that Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and are considered part of the ESU (Table 2): significant scientific information their tributaries, excluding steelhead the Yager Creek Hatchery, and North becomes available affording a case-by- from San Francisco and San Pablo Bays Fork Gualala River Hatchery (Gualala case evaluation of their ESU and their tributaries (63 FR13347; River Steelhead Project) steelhead relationships. March 19, 1998). Resident populations hatchery programs. NMFS has This ESU does not include any of O. mykiss below impassible barriers determined that these artificially artificially propagated O. mykiss stocks (natural and manmade) that co-occur propagated stocks are genetically no that reside within the historical with anadromous populations are more than moderately divergent from geographic range of the ESU. included in the California Central the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b). Valley O. mykiss ESU. According to the Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU framework discussed above (see the Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU The Central California Coast O. Consideration of Resident O. mykiss The Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU includes all naturally Populations in Listing Determinations mykiss ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in section), the ESU membership of native spawned populations of winter-run California streams from the Russian resident populations above recent steelhead in the Willamette River, River to Aptos Creek, and the drainages (usually man-made) impassable barriers, Oregon, and its tributaries upstream of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays but below natural barriers, was not from Willamette Falls to the Calapooia eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), resolved. These resident populations are River (inclusive) (64 FR 14517; March excluding the Sacramento-San Joaquin provisionally not considered to be part 25, 1999). Resident populations of O.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33119

mykiss below impassible barriers Ten artificial propagation programs included in the Upper Columbia River (natural and manmade) that co-occur are considered to be part of the ESU O. mykiss ESU. According to the with anadromous populations are (Table 2): the Cowlitz Trout Hatchery framework discussed above (see the included in the Upper Willamette River (in the Cispus, Upper Cowlitz, Lower Consideration of Resident O. mykiss O. mykiss ESU. Although there are no Cowlitz, and Tilton Rivers), Kalama Populations in Listing Determinations obvious physical barriers separating River Wild (winter- and summer-run), section), the ESU membership of native populations upstream of the Calapooia Clackamas Hatchery, Sandy Hatchery, resident populations above recent from those lower in the basin, resident and Hood River (winter- and summer- (usually man-made) impassable barriers, O. mykiss in these upper basins are run) steelhead hatchery programs. but below natural barriers, was not quite distinctive both phenotypically NMFS has determined that these resolved. These resident populations are and genetically and are not considered artificially propagated stocks are provisionally not considered to be part part of the ESU. According to the genetically no more than moderately of the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss framework discussed above (see the divergent from the natural populations ESU, until such time that significant Consideration of Resident O. mykiss (NMFS, 2004b). scientific information becomes available affording a case-by-case evaluation of Populations in Listing Determinations Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU section), the ESU membership of native their ESU relationships. resident populations above recent The Middle Columbia River O. mykiss Six artificial propagation programs are (usually man-made) impassable barriers, ESU includes all naturally spawned considered part of the ESU (Table 2): the but below natural barriers, was not populations of steelhead in streams Wenatchee River, Wells Hatchery (in the resolved. These resident populations are from above the Wind River, Methow and Okanogan Rivers), provisionally not considered to be part Washington, and the Hood River, Winthrop NFH, Omak Creek, and the of the Upper Willamette River O. mykiss Oregon (exclusive), upstream to, and Ringold steelhead hatchery programs. ESU, until such time that significant including, the Yakima River, NMFS has determined that these scientific information becomes available Washington, excluding steelhead from artificially propagated stocks are affording a case-by-case evaluation of the Snake River Basin (64 FR 14517; genetically no more than moderately their ESU relationships. March 25, 1999). Resident populations divergent from the natural populations of O. mykiss below impassible barriers (NMFS, 2004b). This ESU does not include any (natural and manmade) that co-occur artificially propagated O. mykiss stocks with anadromous populations are Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU that reside within the historical included in the Middle Columbia River The Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU geographic range of the ESU. Hatchery O. mykiss ESU. According to the includes all naturally spawned summer steelhead occur in the framework discussed above (see the populations of steelhead in streams in Willamette Basin but are an out-of-basin Consideration of Resident O. mykiss the Snake River Basin of southeast stock that is not included as part of the Populations in Listing Determinations Washington, northeast Oregon, and ESU. section), the ESU membership of native Idaho (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997). Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU resident populations above recent Resident populations of O. mykiss (usually man-made) impassable barriers, below impassible barriers (natural and The Lower Columbia River O. mykiss but below natural barriers, was not manmade) that co-occur with ESU includes all naturally spawned resolved. These resident populations are anadromous populations are included populations of steelhead in streams and provisionally not considered to be part in the Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU. tributaries to the Columbia River of the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss According to the framework discussed between the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers, ESU, until such time that significant above (see the Consideration of Resident Washington (inclusive), and the scientific information becomes available O. mykiss Populations in Listing Willamette and Hood Rivers, Oregon affording a case-by-case evaluation of Determinations section), the ESU (inclusive). Excluded are steelhead in their ESU relationships. membership of native resident the upper Willamette River Basin above Seven artificial propagation programs populations above recent (usually man- Willamette Falls and steelhead from the are considered part of the ESU (Table 2): made) impassable barriers, but below Little and Big White Salmon Rivers in the Touchet River Endemic, Yakima natural barriers, was not resolved. These Washington (62 FR43937; August 18, River Kelt Reconditioning Program (in resident populations are provisionally 1997). Resident populations of O. Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Naches not considered to be part of the Snake mykiss below impassible barriers River, and Upper Yakima River), River Basin O. mykiss ESU, until such (natural and manmade) that co-occur Umatilla River, and the Deschutes River time that significant scientific with anadromous populations are steelhead hatchery programs. NMFS has information becomes available affording included in the Lower Columbia River determined that these artificially a case-by-case evaluation of their ESU O. mykiss ESU. According to the propagated stocks are genetically no relationships. Recent genetic data framework discussed above (see the more than moderately divergent from suggest that native resident O. mykiss Consideration of Resident O. mykiss the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b). above Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Populations in Listing Determinations Clearwater River are part of this ESU. section), the ESU membership of native Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU NMFS, therefore, considers native resident populations above recent The Upper Columbia River O. mykiss resident O. mykiss populations above (usually man-made) impassable barriers, ESU includes all naturally spawned Dworshak Dam on the North Fork but below natural barriers, was not populations of steelhead in streams in Clearwater River to be part of the Snake resolved. These resident populations are the Columbia River Basin upstream River Basin O. mykiss ESU. Hatchery provisionally not considered to be part from the Yakima River, Washington, to rainbow trout that have been introduced of the Lower Columbia River O. mykiss the U.S.-Canada border (62 FR 43937; to the Clearwater River and other areas ESU, until such time that significant August 18, 1997). Resident populations within the ESU are not considered part scientific information becomes available of O. mykiss below impassible barriers of the ESU. affording a case-by-case evaluation of (natural and manmade) that co-occur Six artificial propagation programs are their ESU relationships. with anadromous populations are considered part of the ESU (Table 2): the

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33120 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Tucannon River, Dworshak NFH, Lolo Creek/Imnaha River Hatchery steelhead propagated stocks are genetically no Creek, North Fork Clearwater, East Fork hatchery programs. NMFS has more than moderately divergent from Salmon River, and the Little Sheep determined that these artificially the natural populations (NMFS, 2004b).

TABLE 2.—LIST OF ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNITS (ESUS) OF WEST COAST SALMON AND Oncorhynchus mykiss

Evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) Artificial propagation program Run Location (State)

Snake River sockeye ESU ...... Redfish Lake Captive Propagation Pro- n/a ...... Stanley Basin (Idaho). gram. Ozette Lake sockeye ESU ...... Umbrella Creek Hatchery—Makah Tribe n/a ...... Ozette Lake (Washington). Big River Hatchery—Makah Tribe ...... n/a ...... Ozette Lake (Washington). Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery Winter ...... Sacramento River (California), Living- (NFH) Conservation Program ston Stone NFH & Univ. of Calif. Sacramento River winter-run chinook Captive Broodstock Program ...... Winter ...... Bodega Marine Laboratory (California). ESU. Central Valley spring-run chinook ESU .. n/a. California Coastal chinook ESU ...... Freshwater Creek/Humboldt Fish Action Fall ...... Freshwater Creek, Humboldt Bay (Cali- Council. fornia). Yager Creek Hatchery ...... Fall ...... Yager Creek, Van Duzen River (Cali- fornia). Redwood Creek, South Fork Eel River. Redwood Creek Hatchery ...... Fall ...... (California). Hollow Tree Creek Hatchery ...... Fall ...... Eel River (California). Mattole Salmon Group Hatchery...... Fall ...... Squaw Creek, Mattole River (Cali- fornia). Van Arsdale Fish Station ...... Fall ...... Eel River (California). Mad River Hatchery ...... Fall ...... Mad River (California). Upper Willamette River chinook ESU ..... McKenzie River Hatchery (Oregon De- Spring ...... McKenzie River (Oregon). partment of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) stock #24). Marion Forks Hatchery (ODFW stock Spring ...... North Fork Santiam River (Oregon). #21). South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW stock Spring ...... South Fork Santiam River (Oregon). #23). Spring ...... Calapooia River (Oregon). Spring ...... Mollala River (Oregon). Willamette Hatchery (ODFW stock #22) Spring ...... Middle Fork Willamette River (Oregon). Clackamas Hatchery (ODFW stock #19) Spring ...... Clackamas River (Oregon). Lower Columbia River chinook ESU ...... Sea Resources Tule Chinook Program Fall ...... Chinook River (Washington). Big Creek Tule Chinook Program ...... Fall ...... Big Creek (Oregon). Astoria High School (STEP) Tule Chi- Fall ...... Big Creek (Oregon). nook Program. Warrenton High School (STEP) Tule Fall ...... Big Creek (Oregon). Chinook Program. Elochoman River Tule Chinook Pro- Fall ...... Elochoman River (Washington). gram. Cowlitz Tule Chinook Program ...... Fall ...... Lower Cowlitz River (Washington). North Folk Toutle Tule Chinook Pro- Fall ...... Cowlitz River (Washington). gram. Kalama Tule Chinook Program ...... Fall ...... Kalama River (Washington). Washougal River Chinook Program ...... Fall ...... Washougal River (Washington). Spring Creek NFH Tule Chinook Pro- Fall ...... Upper Cowlitz River (Washington). gram. Spring ...... Cispus River (Washington). Friends of Cowlitz spring chinook Pro- Spring ...... Upper Cowlitz River (Washington). gram. Kalama River spring chinook Program .. Spring ...... Kalama River (Washington). Lewis River spring chinook Program ..... Spring ...... Lewis River (Washington). Fish First spring chinook Program ...... Spring ...... Lewis River (Washington). Sandy River Hatchery (ODFW stock Spring ...... Sandy River (Washington). #11). Upper Columbia River spring chinook Twisp River ...... Spring ...... Methow Spring (Washington). ESU. Chewuch River ...... Spring ...... Methow River (Washington). Methow Composite ...... Spring ...... Methow River (Washington). Winthrop NFH (Methow Composite Spring ...... Methow River (Washington). stock). Chiwawa River ...... Spring ...... Wenatchee River (Washington). White River ...... Spring ...... Wenatchee River (Washington). Puget Sound chinook ESU ...... Kendall Creek Hatchery ...... Spring ...... North Fork Nooksack River (Wash- ington). Marblemount Hatchery ...... Fall ...... Lower Skagit River (Washington). Spring (Year- Upper Skagit River (Washington). lings).

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33121

TABLE 2.—LIST OF ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNITS (ESUS) OF WEST COAST SALMON AND Oncorhynchus mykiss—Continued

Evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) Artificial propagation program Run Location (State)

Spring (sub- Upper Skagit River (Washington). yearlings). Summer ...... Upper Skagit River (Washington). Harvey Creek Hatchery ...... Summer ...... North Fork Stillaguamish River (Wash- ington). Whitehorse Springs Pond ...... Summer ...... North Fork Stillaguamish River (Wash- ington). Wallace River Hatchery ...... Summer (year- Skykomish River (Washington). lings). Summer (sub Skykomish River (Washington). yearlings). Tulalip Bay (Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin Summer ...... Skykomish River/Tulalip Bay (Wash- Hatchery/Tulalip Hatchery). ington). Soos Creek Hatchery ...... Fall ...... Green River (Washington). Icy Creek Hatchery ...... Fall ...... Green River (Washington). Keta Creek—Muckleshoot Tribe ...... Fall ...... Green River (Washington). White River Hatchery ...... Spring ...... White River (Washington). White Acclimation Pond ...... Spring ...... White River (Washington). Hupps Springs Hatchery ...... Spring ...... White River (Washington). Voights Creek Hatchery ...... Fall ...... Puyallup River (Washington). Diru Creek ...... Fall ...... Puyallup River (Washington). Clear Creek ...... Fall ...... Nisqually River (Washington). Kalama Creek ...... Fall ...... Nisqually River (Washington). Dungeness/Hurd Creek Hatchery ...... Spring ...... Dungeness River (Washington). Elwha Channel Hatchery ...... Fall ...... Elwha River (Washington). Snake River fall-run chinook ESU ...... Lyons Ferry Hatchery ...... Fall ...... Snake River (Idaho). Fall Chinook Acclimation Ponds Pro- Fall ...... Snake River (Idaho). gram—Pittsburg, Captain John, and Big Canyon ponds. Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery—including Fall ...... Snake and Clearwater Rivers (Idaho). North Lapwai Valley, Lakes Gulch, and Cedar Flat Satellite facilities. Oxbow Hatchery ...... Fall ...... Snake River (Oregon, Idaho). Snake River spring/summer-run chinook Tucannon River Hatchery (conventional) Spring ...... Tucannon River (Idaho). ESU. Tucannon River Captive Broodstock Spring ...... Tucannon River (Idaho). Program. Lostine River (captive/conventional) ...... Summer ...... Grande Ronde (Oregon). Catherine Creek (captive/conventional) Summer ...... Grande Ronde (Oregon). Lookingglass Hatchery (reintroduction) Summer ...... Grande Ronde (Oregon). Upper Grande Ronde (captive/conven- Summer ...... Grande Ronde (Oregon). tional). Imnaha River ...... Spring/Summer Imnaha River (Oregon). Big Sheep Creek ...... Spring/Summer Imnaha River (Oregon). McCall Hatchery ...... Spring ...... South Fork Salmon River (Idaho). Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Spring ...... East Fork South Fork Salmon River Enhancement. (Idaho). Lemhi River Captive Rearing Experi- Spring ...... Lemhi River (Idaho). ment. Pahsimeroi Hatchery ...... Summer ...... Salmon River (Idaho). East Fork Captive Rearing Experiment. Spring ...... East Fork Salmon River (Idaho). West Fork Yankee Fork Captive Spring ...... Salmon River (Idaho). Rearing Experiment. Sawtooth Hatchery ...... Spring ...... Upper Mainstem Salmon River (Idaho). Central California Coast coho ESU ...... Don Clausen Fish Hatchery Captive n/a ...... Dry Creek, Russian River (California). Broodstock Program. Scott Creek/Kingfisher Flat Hatchery n/a ...... Big Creek, Scott Creek (California). Conservation Program (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project). Scott Creek Captive Broodstock Pro- n/a ...... NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science gram. Center, Santa Cruz (California). Noyo River Fish Station egg-take pro- n/a ...... Noyo River (California). gram. Southern Oregon/Northern California Cole Rivers Hatchery (ODFW stock n/a ...... Rogue River (Oregon). Coast coho ESU. #52). Trinity River Hatchery ...... n/a ...... Trinity River (California). Iron Gate Hatchery ...... n/a ...... Klamath River (California). Oregon Coast coho ESU ...... North Umpqua River (ODFW stock #55) n/a ...... Umpqua River (Oregon). Cow Creek (ODFW stock #18) ...... n/a ...... Umpqua River (Oregon). Coos Basin (ODFW stock #37) ...... n/a ...... Coos Basin (Oregon).

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33122 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2.—LIST OF ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNITS (ESUS) OF WEST COAST SALMON AND Oncorhynchus mykiss—Continued

Evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) Artificial propagation program Run Location (State)

Coquille River/Bandon Hatchery (ODFW n/a ...... Coquille River (Oregon). stock #44). North Fork Nehalem River (ODFW n/a ...... Nehalem River (Oregon). stock #32). Lower Columbia River coho ESU ...... Grays River ...... Type-S ...... Grays River (Washington). Sea Resources Hatchery ...... Type-S ...... Grays River (Washington). Peterson Coho Project ...... Type-S ...... Grays River (Washington). Big Creek Hatchery (ODFW stock #13) n/a ...... Big Creek (Oregon). Astoria High School (STEP) Coho Pro- n/a ...... Youngs Bay (Oregon). gram. Warrention High School (STEP) Coho n/a ...... Youngs Bay (Oregon). Program. Elochoman Type-S Coho Program ...... Type-S ...... Elochoman River (Washington). Elochoman Type-N Coho Program ...... Type-N ...... Elochoman River (Washington). Cathlamet High School FFA Type-N Type-N ...... Elochoman River (Washington). Coho Program. Cowlitz Type-N Coho Program ...... Type-N ...... Upper Cowlitz River (Washington). Cowlitz Type-N Coho Program ...... Type-N ...... Lower Cowlitz River (Washington). Cowlitz Game and Anglers Coho Pro- n/a ...... Lower Cowlitz River (Washington). gram. Friends of the Cowlitz Coho Program ... n/a ...... Lower Cowlitz River (Washington). North Fork Toutle River Hatchery ...... Type-S ...... Cowlitz River (Washington). Lewis River Type-N Coho Program ...... Type-N ...... North Fork Lewis River (Washington). Lewis River Type-S Coho Program ...... Type-S ...... North Fork Lewis River (Washington). Fish First Wild Coho Program ...... n/a ...... North Fork Lewis River (Washington). Fish First Type-N Coho Program ...... Type-N ...... North Fork Lewis River (Washington). Syverson Project Type-N Coho program Type-N ...... Salmon River (Washington). Sandy Hatchery (ODFW stock #11) ...... Late ...... Sandy River (Oregon). Bonneville/Cascade/Oxbow Complex n/a ...... Lower Columbia River Gorge (Oregon) (ODFW stock #14). Columbia River chum ESU ...... Chinook River/Sea Resources Hatchery Fall ...... Chinook River (Washington). Grays River ...... Fall ...... Grays River (Washington). Washougal Hatchery/Duncan Creek ..... Fall ...... Washougal River (Washington). Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU ...... Quilcene/Quilcene NFH ...... Summer ...... Big Quilcene River (Washington). Hamma Hamma Fish Hatchery ...... Summer ...... Western Hood Canal (Washington). Lilliwaup Creek Fish Hatchery ...... Summer ...... Southwestern Hood Canal (Wash- ington). Union River/Tahuya ...... Summer ...... Union River (Washington). Big Beef Creek Fish Hatchery ...... Summer ...... North Hood Canal (Washington). Salmon Creek Fish Hatchery ...... Summer ...... Discovery Bay (Washington). Chimacum Creek Fish Hatchery ...... Summer ...... Port Townsend Bay (Washington). Jimmycomelately Creek Fish Hatchery Summer ...... Sequim Bay (Washington). Southern California O. mykiss ESU ...... n/a. South-Central California Coast O. n/a. mykiss ESU. Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU Scott Creek/Monterey Bay Salmon and Winter ...... Big Creek, Scott Creek (California). Trout Project, Kingfisher Flat Hatch- ery. Don Clausen Fish Hatchery ...... Winter ...... Russian River (California). California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU Coleman NFH ...... Winter ...... Battle Creek, Sacramento River (Cali- fornia). Feather River Hatchery ...... Winter ...... Feather River (California). Northern California O. mykiss ESU ...... Yager Creek Hatchery ...... Winter ...... Yager Creek, Van Duzen River (Cali- fornia). North Fork Gualala River Hatchery/ Winter ...... North Fork Gualala River (California). Gualala River Steelhead Project. Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU n/a. Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU ... Cowlitz Trout Hatchery ...... Late Winter ...... Cispus River (Washington). Cowlitz Trout Hatchery ...... Late Winter ...... Upper Cowlitz River (Washington). Cowlitz Trout Hatchery ...... Late Winter ...... Tilton River (Washington). Cowlitz Trout Hatchery ...... Late Winter ...... Lower Cowlitz River (Washington). Kalama River Wild ...... Winter ...... Kalama River (Washington)...... Summer ...... Kalama River (Washington). Clackamas Hatchery (ODFW stock Late Winter ...... Clackamas River (Oregon). #122). Sandy Hatchery (ODFW stock #11) ...... Late Winter ...... Sandy River (Oregon). Hood River (ODFW stock #50) ...... Winter ...... Hood River (Oregon)...... Summer ...... Hood River (Oregon). Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU .. Touchet River Endemic ...... Summer ...... Touchet River (Washington). Yakima River Kelt Reconditioning Pro- Summer ...... Satus Creek (Washington). gram.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33123

TABLE 2.—LIST OF ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNITS (ESUS) OF WEST COAST SALMON AND Oncorhynchus mykiss—Continued

Evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) Artificial propagation program Run Location (State)

...... Summer ...... Toppenish Creek (Washington)...... Summer ...... Naches River (Washington)...... Summer ...... Upper Yakima River (Washington). Umatilla River (ODFW stock #91) ...... Summer ...... Umatilla River (Oregon). Deschutes River (ODFW stock #66) ..... Summer ...... Deschutes River (Oregon). Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU ... Wenatchee River Steelhead ...... Summer ...... Wenatchee River (Washington). Wells Hatchery Steelhead ...... Summer ...... Methow River (Washington)...... Summer ...... Okanogan River (Washington). Winthrop NFH Steelhead (Wells Summer ...... Methow River (Washington). Steelhead). Omak Creek Steelhead ...... Summer ...... Okanogan River (Washington). Ringold Hatchery (Wells Steelhead) ...... Summer ...... Middle Columbia River (Washington). Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU ...... Tucannon River ...... Summer ...... Tucannon River (Washington). Dworshak NFH ...... Summer ...... South Fork Clearwater River (Idaho). Lolo Creek ...... Summer ...... Salmon River (Idaho). North Fork Clearwater ...... Summer ...... North Fork Clearwater River (Idaho). East Fork Salmon River ...... Summer ...... East Fork Salmon River (Idaho). Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha River Hatch- Summer ...... Imnaha River (Oregon). ery (ODFW stock #29).

Updated Viability Assessments of ESUs ‘‘in danger of extinction;’’ ‘‘likely to in 2000 was encouraging; however, become endangered within the subsequent returns from the captive NMFS’ Pacific Salmonid BRT foreseeable future;’’ or ‘‘not in danger of program in 2001 and 2002 have been evaluated the risk of extinction faced by extinction or likely to become fewer than 30 fish. naturally spawning populations in each endangered within the foreseeable The BRT found extremely high risks of the ESUs addressed in this proposed future.’’ Although these overall risk for each of the four VSP categories. rule (NMFS, 2003b). As noted above, the categories resemble the definitions of Informed by this assessment, the BRT BRT did not explicitly consider ‘‘endangered’’ and ‘‘threatened’’ as unanimously concluded that the Snake hatchery stocks or protective efforts in defined in the ESA, the BRT and the River sockeye ESU is ‘‘in danger of their evaluations. For each ESU the BRT Workshop did not evaluate protective extinction.’’ evaluated overall extinction risk after efforts in assessing ESU extinction risk There is a single artificial propagation assessing ESU-level risk for the four (efforts being made to protect the program producing Snake River sockeye VSP criteria: abundance, productivity, species are evaluated in the ‘‘Evaluation salmon in the Snake River basin. The spatial structure, and diversity. NMFS of Protective Efforts’’ section, below). Redfish Lake sockeye salmon stock was then assessed the effects of ESU Thus, the extinction risk assessments originally founded by collecting the hatchery programs on ESU viability and described in this section are not entire anadromous adult return of 16 extinction risk relative to the BRT’s necessarily indicative of whether an fish between 1990 and 1997, the assessment for the naturally spawning ESU warrants listing as a threatened or collection of a small number of residual component of the ESU (Salmonid endangered species. The reader is sockeye salmon, and the collection of a Hatchery Inventory and Effects referred to the BRT’s report (NMFS, few hundred smolts migrating from Evaluation Report; NMFS, 2004b). The 2003b), the Salmonid Hatchery Redfish Lake. These fish were put into effects of hatchery programs on the Inventory and Effects Evaluation Report a Captive Broodstock program as an extinction risk of an ESU in-total was (NMFS, 2004b), and the Workshop emergency measure to prevent evaluated on the basis of the factors that Report (NMFS, 2004c) for more detailed extinction of this ESU. Since 1997, the BRT determined are currently descriptions of the viability of nearly 400 hatchery-origin anadromous limiting the ESU (e.g., abundance, individual natural populations and sockeye adults have returned to the productivity, spatial structure, and hatchery stocks within these ESUs. Stanley Basin from juveniles released by diversity), and how artificial the program. Redfish Lake sockeye propagation efforts within the ESU Snake River Sockeye ESU salmon have also been reintroduced into affect those factors. The Artificial The residual form of Redfish Lake Alturas and Pettit Lakes using progeny Propagation Evaluation Workshop sockeye, determined to be part of the from the captive broodstock program. (NMFS, 2004c) reviewed the BRT’s ESU in 1993, is represented by a few The captive broodstock program findings (NMFS, 2003a), evaluated the hundred fish. Snake River sockeye presently consists of several hundred Salmonid Hatchery Inventory and historically was distributed in four lakes fish of different year classes maintained Effects Evaluation Report (NMFS, within the Stanley Basin, but the only at facilities in Eagle (Idaho) and 2004b), and assessed the overall remaining population resides in Redfish Manchester (Washington). extinction risk of ESUs with associated Lake. Only 16 naturally produced adults NMFS’ assessment of the effects of hatchery stocks. The BRT and the have returned to Redfish Lake since the artificial propagation on ESU extinction Artificial Propagation Evaluation Snake River sockeye ESU was listed as risk concluded that the Redfish Lake Workshop expressed the extinction risk an endangered species in 1991. All 16 Captive Broodstock Program does not for the naturally spawning populations fish were taken into the Redfish Lake substantially reduce the extinction risk in an ESU, and for the ESU in-total, Captive Propagation Program, which of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). The respectively. The level of extinction risk was initiated as an emergency measure Artificial Propagation Evaluation was categorized into three categories: in 1991. The return of over 250 adults Workshop noted that the Captive

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33124 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Broodstock Program has prevented There are two artificially propagated endangered in the foreseeable future’’ likely extinction of the ESU. This stocks considered to be part of the (NMFS, 2004c). program has increased the total number Ozette Lake sockeye salmon ESU (Table Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook of anadromous adults, attempted to 2). The program, operated by the Makah ESU increase the number of lakes in which Tribe, is derived from native broodstock sockeye salmon are present in the upper and has the primary objective of The Sacramento River winter-run ESU Salmon River (Stanley Basin), and establishing viable sockeye salmon is represented by a single extant preserved what genetic diversity spawning aggregations in two Ozette naturally spawning population that has remains in the ESU. Although the Lake tributaries where spawning has not been completely displaced from its program has increased the number of been observed for many decades, if ever. historical spawning habitat by the construction of Shasta and Keswick anadromous adults in some years, it has The program includes research, Dams. The remaining spawning habitat yet to produce consistent returns. The monitoring, and evaluation activities is artificially maintained by cold-water majority of the ESU now resides in the designed to determine success in releases from the reservoir behind captive program composed of only a few recovering the propagated populations hundred fish. The long-term effects of Shasta Dam. The naturally spawning to viable levels, and to determine the component of the ESU has exhibited captive rearing are unknown. The demographic, ecological, and genetic consideration of artificial propagation marked improvements in abundance effects on target and non-target (i.e., does not substantially mitigate the and productivity in recent years. The Ozette Lake beach) spawning BRT’s assessment of extreme risks to recent increases in abundance are aggregations. The Makah Program will ESU abundance, productivity, spatial encouraging, relative to the years of structure, and diversity. Informed by the sunset after 12 years of operation. critically low abundance of the 1980s BRT’s findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS’ assessment of the effects of and early 1990s; however, the recent 5- NMFS’ assessment of the effects of artificial propagation on ESU extinction year geometric mean is only 3 percent artificial propagation on the viability of risk concluded that the Makah of the peak post-1967 5-year geometric the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial supplementation program at Umbrella mean. The BRT was particularly Propagation Evaluation Workshop Creek and Big River does not concerned about risks to the ESU’s concluded that the Snake River sockeye substantially reduce the extinction risk diversity and spatial structure. ESU in-total is ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). The Construction of Shasta Dam merged at (NMFS, 2004c). program has increased the abundance of least four independent winter-run chinook populations into a single Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU natural spawners and natural-origin sockeye in the Ozette Lake tributaries. population, representing a substantial Evaluating extinction risk for the However, it is unknown whether these loss of genetic diversity, life-history Ozette Lake sockeye ESU is complicated tributaries were historically spawning variability, and local adaptation. by incomplete data with uncertain habitat. The program (by design) has not Episodes of critically low abundance, errors and biases. The Makah Tribe’s increased the abundance of natural particularly in the early 1990’s, for the fisheries program, however, is engaged spawners or natural origin beach single remaining population imposed in significant efforts to improve spawners in Ozette Lake. Despite the ‘‘bottlenecks’’ that further reduced sampling techniques and to adjust for relative increases in abundance due to genetic diversity. The BRT found biases in historical data. The number of extremely high risk for each of the four the supplementation program, the total returning adults has increased in recent VSP risk categories. Informed by this ESU abundance remains small for a years, but is believed to be well below risk assessment, the majority opinion of single sockeye population. The historical levels. An uncertain fraction the BRT was that the naturally spawned contribution of artificial propagation to of the returns is of hatchery origin, component of the Sacramento winter- ESU productivity is uncertain. Only generating uncertainty in evaluating the run ESU is ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ productivity of the naturally spawning since 2000 have the hatchery returns The minority opinion of the BRT was component of the ESU. Accurately been sufficient to meet the program’s that the ESU is ‘‘likely to become assessing trends in natural spawners is broodstock goals. The Makah program at endangered within the foreseeable further complicated by the poor present serves as an important genetic future.’’ visibility in the lake. Habitat reserve with the continuing loss of Two artificial propagation programs degradation, siltation, and a declining beach spawning habitat. The are considered to be part of the lake level have resulted in the loss of reintroduction of spawners to Ozette Sacramento River winter-run chinook numerous beach spawning sites. The Lake tributaries reduces risks to ESU ESU (Table 2; NMFS, 2004b). The BRT expressed concern that the spatial structure. However, the isolation artificial propagation of winter-run reduction in the number of spawning of the hatchery program and adaptation chinook is carried out at the Livingston aggregations poses risks for ESU spatial to tributary habitats may cause the Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH) on structure and diversity. tributary spawning aggregations to the mainstem Sacramento River above The BRT expressed moderately high diverge from founding beach spawning Keswick Dam. The captive broodstock concern for each of the VSP risk aggregations. Although the program has program is maintained at two locations: categories. Informed by this risk a beneficial effect on ESU abundance the Livingston Stone NFH and at the assessment, the majority opinion of the and spatial structure, it has neutral or University of California’s Bodega BRT was that the naturally spawned uncertain effects on ESU productivity Marine Laboratory. These programs component of the Ozette Lake sockeye and diversity. Informed by the BRT’s have been operated for conservation ESU is ‘‘likely to become endangered findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS’ purposes since the early 1990’s and both within the foreseeable future,’’ with the assessment of the effects of artificial were identified as high priority recovery minority being split between ‘‘in danger propagation programs on the viability of actions in NMFS’ 1997 Draft Recovery of extinction’’ and ‘‘not in danger of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Plan for this ESU. The artificial extinction or likely to become Propagation Evaluation Workshop propagation program was established to endangered within the foreseeable concluded that the Ozette Lake sockeye supplement the abundance of the future.’’ ESU in-total is ‘‘likely to become naturally spawning winter-run chinook

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33125

population and thereby assist in its spawning populations. In addition, the assessment, the strong majority opinion population growth and recovery. The artificial propagation and captive of the BRT was that the Central Valley captive broodstock program was broodstock programs collectively serve spring-run chinook ESU is ‘‘likely to established in the early 1990s when the as a genetic repository which serves to become endangered within the naturally spawning population was at preserve the genome of the ESU. foreseeable future.’’ The minority critically low levels (less than 200 Informed by the BRT’s findings opinion of the BRT was that the ESU is spawners) in order to preserve the ESU’s (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS’ assessment ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ There are no remaining genetic resources and to of the effects of artificial propagation artificially propagated populations of establish a reserve for potential use in programs on the viability of the ESU spring chinook in this ESU that mitigate the artificial propagation program. (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial the BRT’s assessment that the ESU is Because of increased natural Propagation Evaluation Workshop ‘‘likely to become endangered within escapement over the last several years, concluded that this ESU in-total is ‘‘in the foreseeable future.’’ danger of extinction’’ (NMFS, 2004c). consideration is being given to California Coastal Chinook ESU terminating the captive broodstock Central Valley Spring-run Chinook ESU program. Evaluation of the viability of the Extensive construction of dams naturally spawning component of the An assessment of the effects of these throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin California Coastal chinook ESU is artificial propagation programs on the basin has reduced the California Central hindered by the limited availability of viability of the ESU in-total concluded Valley spring chinook ESU to only a data, particularly regarding the that they decrease risk to some degree small portion of its historical abundance and spatial distribution of by contributing to increased ESU distribution, generating concerns about natural populations within the ESU. abundance and diversity, but have a risks to the spatial structure and Additionally, the data that are available neutral or uncertain effect on diversity of the ESU. The ESU has been are of varying type, quality and productivity and spatial structure of the reduced to only three extant natural temporal coverage, and are generally not ESU (NMFS, 2004b). Spawning populations from an estimated 17 amenable to rigorous estimation of escapement of winter-run has increased historical populations. The remaining abundance or robust statistical analyses since the inception of the program and naturally spawning spring-run chinook of trends. The little historical and may account for up to 10 percent of the populations (Mill, Deer, and Butte creek current abundance information that is total number of fish spawning naturally tributaries to the Sacramento River) are available indicates that (putative) in a given year. Improvements in in close geographic proximity, natural ESU population abundance freshwater habitat conditions, harvest increasing the ESU’s vulnerability to levels remain depressed relative to management, as well as improved ocean disease or catastrophic events. The BRT historical levels. Evidence suggests that conditions, however, are thought to be was also concerned that the Feather populations have been extirpated or the major factors responsible for the River spring-run chinook hatchery nearly extirpated in the southern part of increased abundance of the ESU since population, which is not considered the ESU, or are extremely low in the early 1990s. Effects on productivity part of the ESU (see Table 2; NMFS, abundance. This observation, in are uncertain, but studies are underway 2004b), represents a risk factor for the combination with the apparent loss of to assess the effect of artificial extant ESU natural populations. The the spring-run chinook life history in propagation on fitness and productivity Feather River Hatchery produces spring the Eel River Basin and elsewhere in the of artificially propagated fish. Although chinook fish that are genetically more ESU, indicates risks to the diversity of abundance of spawners has increased, similar to fall chinook, probably due to the ESU. Recently available natural in part due to artificial propagation, the hybridization at the hatchery. The off- abundance estimates in the Russian spatial distribution of spawners has not site release location for fish produced at River are in excess of 1,300 fish for expanded. The primary reason is that the hatchery is believed to contribute to 2000–2002. These data suggest either the naturally spawning population is a high straying rate of hatchery fish the presence of a naturally producing artificially maintained by cool water which increases the likelihood of non- population in the Russian River, or releases from Shasta/Keswick dams, and ESU hatchery fish interacting negatively represent straying from other basins or the spatial distribution of spawners is with the extant natural populations in ESUs. No data are available to assess the largely governed by water year type and the ESU. Furthermore, few of the genetic relationship of the Russian River the ability of the Central Valley Project Feather River Hatchery fish are marked fish to populations in this or other to manage water temperatures in the (approximately 10 percent), making ESUs. The BRT found moderately high upper Sacramento River. A second their impact on ESU spring-run chinook risks for all VSP risk categories, and naturally spawning population is populations difficult to resolve. underscored a strong concern due to the considered critical to the long-term Although the recent 5-year mean paucity of information and the resultant viability of this ESU, and plans are abundance for the three naturally uncertainty generated in evaluating ESU underway to eventually establish a spawning populations in the ESU viability. Informed by this risk second population in the upper Battle remains small (ranging from nearly 500 assessment and the related uncertainty, Creek watershed using the artificial to over 4,500 spawners), short- and the majority opinion of the BRT was propagation program as a source of fish. long-term productivity trends are that the naturally spawned component However, the program has yet to be positive, and population sizes have of the California Coastal chinook ESU is implemented because of the need to shown continued increases over the ‘‘likely to become endangered within complete habitat restoration efforts in abundance levels of the 1980s (with 5- the foreseeable future.’’ The minority that watershed. The artificial year mean population sizes of 67 to 243 opinion of the BRT was that the propagation program has contributed to spawners). The BRT noted moderately naturally spawned component of the maintaining diversity of the ESU high risk for the abundance, spatial ESU is ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ through careful use of spawning structure, and diversity VSP criteria, Seven artificial propagation programs protocols and other tools that maximize and a lower risk for the productivity that produce chinook salmon are genetic diversity of propagated fish and criterion reflecting recent positive considered to be part of the California minimize impacts on naturally trends. Informed by this risk Coastal chinook ESU (Table 2; NMFS,

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33126 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

2004b). Six of these programs (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Seven artificial propagation programs (Freshwater Creek, Yager Creek, Propagation Evaluation Workshop in the Willamette River produce fish Redwood Creek, Hollow Tree Creek, concluded that this ESU in-total is that are considered to be part of the Mattole River Salmon Group, and Mad ‘‘likely to become endangered within Upper Willamette River chinook ESU. River Hatchery) are relatively small the foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). All of these programs are funded to programs with production goals of less mitigate for lost or degraded habitat and Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU than 80,000 fish that have been operated produce fish for harvest purposes. for restoration purposes for more than There are no direct estimates of NMFS’ assessment of the effects of 20 years. Because of state funding natural-origin spawner abundance for artificial propagation on ESU extinction limitations, it is likely that these the Upper Willamette River chinook risk concluded that these hatchery programs will be terminated after 2004. ESU. The abundance of adult spring programs collectively do not These programs are small-scale chinook salmon (hatchery and natural substantially reduce the extinction risk supplementation facilities operated by fish) passing Willamette Falls has of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). An local groups or companies in remained relatively steady over the past increasing proportion of hatchery-origin cooperation with the CDFG under its 50 years (ranging from approximately returns has contributed to increases in cooperative hatchery program. The Van 20,000 to 70,000 fish), but is only a total ESU abundance. However, it is Arsdale Fish Station has been operated fraction of peak abundance levels unclear whether these returning for over 30 years by CDFG for observed in the 1920s (approximately hatchery and natural fish actually supplementation purposes in the upper 300,000 adults). Interpretation of survive overwintering to spawn. Eel River. Because of State funding abundance levels is confounded by a Estimates of pre-spawning mortality limitations, the operations at the Station high but uncertain fraction of hatchery indicate that a high proportion (>70 were terminated in 2003. The seven produced fish. The McKenzie River percent) of spring chinook die before hatchery programs are primarily located population has shown substantial spawning in most ESU populations. In in the northern portion of the ESU’s increases in total abundance (hatchery recent years, hatchery fish have been range and most are in the Eel River. origin and natural origin fish) in the last used to reintroduce spring chinook back An assessment of the effects of these 2 years, while trends in other natural into historical habitats above impassible small artificial propagation programs on populations in the ESU are generally dams (e.g., in the South Santiam, North the viability of the ESU in-total mixed. With the relatively large Santiam, and McKenzie Rivers), slightly concluded that they collectively incidence of naturally spawning decreasing risks to ESU spatial decrease risk to some degree by hatchery fish in the ESU, it is difficult structure. Within-ESU hatchery fish contributing to local increases in to determine trends in productivity for exhibit differing life-history abundance, but have a neutral or natural-origin fish. The BRT estimated characteristics from natural ESU fish. uncertain effect on productivity, spatial that despite improving trends in total High proportions of hatchery-origin structure or diversity of the ESU (NMFS, productivity (including hatchery origin natural spawners in remaining natural 2004b). There have been no and natural origin fish) since 1995, production areas (i.e., in the Clackamas demonstrable increases in natural productivity would be below and McKenzie Rivers) may thereby have abundance from the five cooperative replacement in the absence of artificial negative impacts on within and among hatchery programs, with the possible propagation. The BRT was particularly population genetic and life-history exception of increased abundance in the concerned that approximately 30 to 40 diversity. Collectively, artificial Freshwater Creek natural population percent of total historical habitat is now propagation programs in the ESU have and as a result of the rescue and rearing inaccessible behind dams. These a slight beneficial effect on ESU activities by the Mattole Salmon Group. inaccessible areas, however, represent a abundance and spatial structure, but In part, this is because there is limited majority of the historical spawning neutral or uncertain effects on ESU natural population monitoring in the habitat. The restriction of natural productivity and diversity. Informed by watersheds where the hatchery production to just a few areas increases the BRT’s findings (NMFS, 2003b) and programs are located. No efforts have the ESU’s vulnerability to NMFS’ assessment of the effects of been undertaken to assess the environmental variability and artificial propagation programs on the productivity of hatchery produced fish catastrophic events. Losses of local viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the or to assess the effects of hatchery adaptation and genetic diversity through Artificial Propagation Evaluation produced fish on natural origin fish the mixing of hatchery stocks within the Workshop concluded that the Upper productivity. The seven hatchery ESU, and the introgression of out-of- Willamette River chinook ESU in-total populations in this ESU are primarily ESU hatchery fall-run chinook, have is ‘‘likely to become endangered in the located in the northern portion of the represented threats to ESU diversity. foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). ESU’s range and overlap with natural However, the BRT was encouraged by Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU origin fish populations. With the the recent cessation of the fall-run exception of Freshwater Creek where hatchery, as well as by improved Many populations within the Lower local distribution may have expanded in marking rates of hatchery fish to assist Columbia River chinook ESU have association with the natural population in monitoring and in the management of exhibited pronounced increases in increase, there are no demonstrable a marked-fish selective fishery. abundance and productivity in recent beneficial effects on spatial structure. The BRT found moderately high risks years, possibly due to improved ocean The six cooperative programs use only for all VSP categories. Informed by this conditions. Abundance estimates of natural-origin fish as broodstock and risk assessment, the strong majority naturally spawned populations in this mark all production with an adipose fin opinion of the BRT was that the ESU, however, are uncertain due to a clip to ensure there is limited hatchery naturally spawned component of the high (approximately 70 percent) fraction selection on fish that are released. Upper Willamette River chinook ESU is of naturally spawning hatchery fish and Informed by the BRT’s findings ‘‘likely to become endangered within a low marking rate (only 1 to 2 percent) (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS’ assessment the foreseeable future.’’ The minority of hatchery produced fish. Abundance of the effects of artificial propagation opinion was that this ESU is ‘‘in danger estimates of naturally produced spring programs on the viability of the ESU of extinction.’’ chinook have improved since 2001 due

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33127

to the marking of all hatchery spring NMFS’ assessment of the effects of populations considered to be part of this chinook releases, allowing for the artificial propagation on ESU extinction ESU (Table 2) are programs aimed at enumeration of hatchery spring chinook risk concluded that these hatchery supplementing natural production at weirs, traps and on spawning programs collectively do not areas. These programs have contributed grounds. Despite recent improvements, substantially reduce the extinction risk substantially to the abundance of fish long term trends in productivity are of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). spawning naturally in recent years. below replacement for the majority of Hatchery programs have increased total However, little information is available populations in the ESU. It is estimated returns and numbers of fish spawning to assess the impact of these high levels that 8 to 10 historical populations in the naturally, thus reducing risks to ESU of supplementation on the long-term ESU have been extirpated or nearly abundance. Although these hatchery productivity of natural populations. extirpated. Although approximately 35 programs have been successful at Spatial structure in this ESU was of percent of historical habitat has been producing substantial numbers of fish, little concern as there is passage and lost in this ESU due to the construction their effect on the productivity of the connectivity among almost all ESU of dams and other impassable barriers, ESU in-total is uncertain. Additionally, populations. The current geographical this ESU exhibits a broad spatial the high level of hatchery production in range of the ESU is approximately the distribution in a variety of watersheds this ESU poses potential genetic and same as its historical range. During and habitat types. Natural production ecological risks to the ESU, and years of critically low escapement (1996 currently occurs in approximately 20 confounds the monitoring and and 1998) extreme management populations, although only one evaluation of abundance trends and measures were taken in one of the three population has a mean spawner productivity. The Cowlitz River spring major spring chinook producing basins abundance exceeding 1,000 fish. The chinook salmon program produces parr by collecting all returning adults into BRT expressed concern that the spring- for release into the upper Cowlitz River hatchery supplementation programs. run populations comprise most of the basin in an attempt to re-establish a Such actions reflect the ongoing extirpated populations. The naturally spawning population above vulnerability of certain segments of this disproportionate loss of the spring-run Cowlitz Falls Dam. Such reintroduction ESU. The BRT expressed concern that life history represents a risk for ESU efforts increase the ESU’s spatial these actions, while appropriately diversity. Additionally, of the four distribution into historical habitats, and guarding against the catastrophic loss of hatchery spring-run chinook slightly reduce risks to ESU spatial populations, may have compromised populations considered to be part of this structure. The few programs that ESU population structure and diversity. ESU, two are propagated in rivers that regularly integrate natural fish into the The BRT’s assessment of risk for the are within the historical geographic broodstock may help preserve genetic four VSP categories reflects strong range of the ESU but that likely did not diversity within the ESU. However, the concerns regarding abundance and support spring-run populations. High majority of hatchery programs in the productivity, and comparatively less hatchery production in the Lower ESU have not converted to the regular concern for ESU spatial structure and Columbia River poses genetic and incorporation of natural broodstock, diversity. The BRT’s assessment of ecological risks to the natural thus limiting this risk-reducing feature overall extinction risk faced by the populations in the ESU, and at the ESU scale. Past and ongoing naturally spawned component of the complicates assessments of their transfers of broodstock among hatchery Upper Columbia River spring-run performance. The BRT also expressed programs in different basins represent a chinook ESU was divided between ‘‘in concern over the introgression of out-of- risk to within and among population danger of extinction’’ and ‘‘likely to ESU hatchery stocks. diversity. Collectively, artificial become endangered within the The BRT found moderately high risk propagation programs in the ESU foreseeable future,’’ with a slight for all VSP categories. Informed by this provide slight benefits to ESU majority opinion that the ESU is ‘‘in risk assessment, the majority opinion of abundance, spatial structure, and danger of extinction.’’ the BRT was that the naturally spawned diversity, but have neutral or uncertain Six artificial propagation programs in component of the Lower Columbia River effects on ESU productivity. Informed the Upper Columbia River basin chinook ESU is ‘‘likely to become by the BRT’s findings (NMFS, 2003b) produce spring-run chinook in the endangered within the foreseeable and NMFS’ assessment of the effects of Methow and Wenatchee Rivers that are future,’’ with the minority being split artificial propagation programs on the considered to be part of the Upper between ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ and viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU ‘‘not in danger of extinction or likely to Artificial Propagation Evaluation (Table 2). The Entiat NFH operating in become endangered within the Workshop concluded that the Lower the Entiat River is not included in the foreseeable future.’’ Columbia River chinook ESU in-total is ESU, and is intended to remain isolated There are seventeen artificial ‘‘likely to become endangered in the from the local natural population. The propagation programs releasing foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). within-ESU hatchery programs are hatchery chinook salmon that are conservation programs intended to considered to be part of the Lower Upper Columbia River Spring-run contribute to the recovery of the ESU by Columbia River chinook ESU (Table 2). Chinook ESU increasing the abundance and spatial All of these programs are designed to All populations in the Upper distribution of naturally spawned fish, produce fish for harvest, with three of Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU while maintaining the genetic integrity these programs also being implemented exhibited pronounced increases in of populations within the ESU. Three of to augment the naturally spawning abundance in 2001. These increases are the conservation programs incorporate populations in the basins where the fish particularly encouraging following the local natural broodstock to minimize are released. These three programs last decade of steep declines to record, adverse genetic effects, and follow integrate naturally produced spring critically low escapements. Despite broodstock protocols guarding against chinook salmon into the broodstock in strong returns in 2001, both recent 5- the overcollection of the natural run. an attempt to minimize the genetic year and long term productivity trends The remaining within-ESU hatchery effects of returning hatchery adults that remain below replacement. The five programs are captive broodstock spawn naturally. hatchery spring-run chinook programs. These programs also adhere

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33128 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

to strict protocols for the collection, concentrate spawners near the hatchery concerned that the concentration of the rearing, maintenance, and mating of the facilities, altering population spatial majority of natural production in just a captive brood populations. All of the six structure and increasing vulnerability to few sub-basins represents a significant artificial propagation programs catastrophic events. Overall, within- risk. Natural production areas, due to considered to be part of the ESU include ESU hatchery programs do not moderate their concentrated spatial distribution, extensive monitoring and evaluation risks to ESU diversity. The Wenatchee are vulnerable to extirpation due to efforts to continually evaluate the extent Basin programs do help preserve catastrophic events. The BRT was and implications of any genetic and population diversity though the concerned by the disproportionate loss behavioral differences that might incorporation of natural-origin fish into of early run populations and its impact emerge between the hatchery and broodstock. The Methow Basin on the diversity of the Puget Sound natural stocks. programs, however, incorporate few chinook ESU. The Puget Sound Genetic evidence suggests that the natural fish with hatchery-origin fish Technical Recovery Team has identified within-ESU programs remain closely predominating on the spawning 31 historical populations (Ruckelshaus related to the naturally spawned grounds. Additionally, the presence of et al., 2002), nine of which are believed populations and maintain local genetic out-of-ESU Carson stock chinook in the to be extinct, most of which were ‘‘early distinctiveness of populations within Methow Basin remains a concern, run’’ or ‘‘spring’’ populations. Past the ESU. The captive broodstock although the stock is in the process of hatchery practices that transplanted programs may exhibit lower fecundity being terminated. The out-of-ESU Entiat stocks among basins within the ESU and and younger average age-at-maturity hatchery program is a source of present programs using transplanted compared to the natural populations significant concern to the ESU. The stocks that incorporate little local from which they were derived. Entiat stock may have introgressed natural broodstock represent additional However, the extensive monitoring and significantly with or replaced the native risk to ESU diversity. In particular, the evaluation efforts employed afford the population. Although the artificial BRT noted that the pervasive use of adaptive management of any propagation programs in the ESU have Green River stock, and stocks unintended adverse effects. Habitat a slight beneficial effect on ESU subsequently derived from the Green Conservation Plans (HCPs) with the abundance, they do not mitigate other River stock, throughout the ESU may Chelan and Douglas Public Utility key risk factors identified by the BRT. reduce the genetic diversity and fitness Districts and binding mitigation Informed by the BRT’s findings (NMFS, of naturally spawning populations. agreements ensure that these programs 2003b) and NMFS’ assessment of the The BRT found moderately high risks will have secure funding and will effects of artificial propagation programs for all VSP categories. Informed by this continue into the future. These hatchery on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, risk assessment, the strong majority programs have undergone ESA section 7 2004b), the Artificial Propagation opinion of the BRT was that the consultation to ensure that they do not Evaluation Workshop concluded that naturally spawned component of the jeopardize the continued existence of the Upper Columbia River spring-run Puget Sound chinook ESU is ‘‘likely to the ESU, and they have received ESA chinook ESU in-total is ‘‘in danger of become endangered within the section 10 permits for production extinction’’ (NMFS, 2004c). foreseeable future.’’ The minority through 2007. Annual reports and other opinion was in the ‘‘not in danger of specific information reporting Puget Sound Chinook ESU extinction or likely to become requirements ensure that the terms and Assessing extinction risk for the Puget endangered within the foreseeable conditions as specified by NMFS are Sound chinook ESU is complicated by future’’ category. followed. These programs, through high levels of hatchery production and There are currently 22 programs adherence to best professional practices, a limited availability of information on artificially propagating Puget Sound have not experienced disease outbreaks the fraction of natural spawners that are chinook salmon that are considered to or other catastrophic losses. of hatchery-origin. Although be part of the ESU (Table 2). Eight of the NMFS’ assessment of the effects of populations in the ESU have not programs are directed at conservation, artificial propagation on ESU extinction experienced the dramatic increases in and are specifically implemented to risk concluded that these hatchery abundance in the last 2 to 3 years that preserve and increase the abundance of programs collectively do not have been evident in many other ESUs, native populations in their natal substantially reduce the extinction risk more populations have shown modest watersheds where habitat needed to of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). increases in escapement in recent years sustain the populations naturally at Overall, the hatchery programs in the than have declined (13 populations viable levels has been lost or degraded. ESU have increased the total abundance versus 9). Most populations have a Each of these conservation hatchery of fish considered to be part of the ESU. recent 5-year mean abundance of fewer programs includes research, monitoring, Specifically, the two hatchery programs than 1,500 natural spawners, with the and evaluation activities designed to in the Wenatchee Basin have Upper Skagit population being a notable determine success in recovering the contributed to reducing abundance risk. exception (the recent 5-year mean propagated populations to viable levels, However, it is uncertain whether the abundance for the Upper Skagit and to determine the demographic, four programs in the Methow Basin population approaches 10,000 natural ecological, and genetic effects of each have provided a net benefit to spawners). Currently observed program on target and non-target abundance. The contribution of ESU abundances of natural spawners in the salmonid populations. The remaining hatchery programs to the productivity of ESU are several orders of magnitude programs considered to be part of the the ESU in-total is uncertain. The lower than estimated historical spawner ESU are operated primarily for fisheries overall impact of the hatchery programs capacity, and well below peak historical harvest augmentation purposes (some of on ESU spatial structure is neutral. The abundance (approximately 690,000 which also function as research Wenatchee Basin programs are managed spawners in the early 1900s). Recent 5- programs) using transplanted within- to promote appropriate spatial structure, year and long-term productivity trends ESU-origin chinook salmon as and they likely reduce spatial structure remain below replacement for the broodstock. risk in that basin. The Methow Basin majority of the 22 extant populations of NMFS’ assessment of the effects of hatchery programs, however, Puget Sound chinook. The BRT was artificial propagation on ESU extinction

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33129

risk concluded that these hatchery spawners, however, generated concern chinook ESU is ‘‘likely to become programs collectively do not that despite recent improvements, the endangered within the foreseeable substantially reduce the extinction risk abundance level is very low for an future.’’ The minority opinion assessed of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). The entire ESU. With the exception of the ESU extinction risk as ‘‘in danger of conservation and hatchery marked increase in 2001, the ESU has extinction,’’ although a slight minority augmentation programs collectively fluctuated between approximately 500 fell in the ‘‘not in danger of extinction have increased the total abundance of to 1,000 natural spawners since 1975, or likely to become endangered within the ESU. The conservation programs suggesting a higher degree of stability in the foreseeable future’’ category. have increased the abundance of growth rate at low population levels There are four artificial propagation naturally spawning chinook, and likely than is seen in other salmonid programs producing Snake River fall have reduced abundance risks for these populations. Increasing returns reflect chinook salmon in the Snake River populations. The large numbers of improved ocean conditions, improved basin, all based on the Lyons Ferry chinook produced by the harvest management of the mainstem Hatchery stock and considered to be augmentation programs, however, have hydrosystem flow regime, decreased part of the Snake River fall-run chinook resulted in considerable numbers of harvest, and an increasing contribution ESU (Table 2). When naturally strays. Any potential benefits from these from the Lyons Ferry Hatchery spawning fall chinook declined to fewer programs to abundance likely are offset supplementation program. However, than 100 fish in 1991, most of the by increased ecological and genetic due to the large fraction of naturally genetic legacy of this ESU was risks. There is no evidence that any of spawning hatchery fish, it is difficult to preserved in the Lyons Ferry Hatchery the twenty-two ESU hatchery programs assess the productivity of the natural broodstock (NMFS, 1991c). These four have contributed to increased population. Depending upon the hatchery programs are managed to abundances of natural-origin chinook, assumption made regarding the enhance listed Snake River fall chinook despite decades of infusing natural reproductive contribution of hatchery salmon and presently include the Lyons spawning areas with hatchery fish. The fish, long-term and short-term trends in Ferry Hatchery, Fall Chinook contribution of ESU hatchery programs productivity are at or above Acclimation Ponds Program, Nez Perce to the productivity of the ESU in-total replacement. It is estimated that Tribal Hatchery, and Oxbow Hatchery is uncertain. Four programs are planting approximately 80 percent of historical (an Idaho Power Company mitigation hatchery fish above impassible dams, spawning habitat was lost with the hatchery). These existing programs providing some benefit to ESU spatial construction of a series of Snake River release fish into the mainstem Snake structure. However, the ongoing practice mainstem dams. The loss of spawning River and Clearwater River which of transplanting stocks within the ESU habitats and the restriction of the ESU represent the majority of the remaining and incorporating little natural local- to a single extant naturally spawning habitat available to this ESU. NMFS’ assessment of the effects of origin broodstock continues to pose population increase the ESU’s artificial propagation on ESU extinction significant risks to ESU spatial structure vulnerability to environmental risk concluded that these hatchery and diversity. The conservation variability and catastrophic events. The programs collectively do not hatchery programs function to preserve diversity associated with populations substantially reduce the extinction risk remaining genetic diversity, and likely that once resided above the Snake River of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). have prevented the loss of several dams has been lost, and the impact of These hatchery programs have populations. Among the harvest straying out-of-ESU fish has the contributed to the recent substantial augmentation programs are yearling potential to further compromise ESU chinook release programs. Yearling increases in total ESU abundance, diversity. Recent improvements in the including both natural-origin and chinook programs may be harmful to marking of out-of-ESU hatchery fish and local natural-origin populations due to hatchery-origin ESU components. their removal at Lower Granite Dam Spawning escapement has increased to increased risks of predation and the have reduced the impact of these strays. reduction of within-population several thousand adults (from a few However, introgression below Lower hundred in the early 1990’s) due in diversity. Collectively, artificial Granite Dam remains a concern. The propagation programs in the ESU large part to increased releases from BRT voiced concern that the practice of provide a slight beneficial effect to ESU these hatchery programs. These collecting fish below Lower Granite abundance and spatial structure, but programs collectively have had a Dam for broodstock incorporates non- neutral or uncertain effects to ESU beneficial effect on ESU abundance in ESU strays into the Lyons Ferry productivity and diversity. Informed by recent years. The BRT noted, however, Hatchery program, and poses additional the BRT’s findings (NMFS, 2003b) and that the large but uncertain fraction of risks to ESU diversity. Straying of out- NMFS’ assessment of the effects of naturally spawning hatchery fish of-ESU hatchery fall chinook salmon artificial propagation programs on the complicates assessments of ESU from outside the Snake River basin was viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the productivity. The contribution of ESU identified as a major risk factor in the Artificial Propagation Evaluation hatchery programs to the productivity of Workshop concluded that the Puget late 1980’s to mid 1990’s. Out-of-ESU the ESU in-total is uncertain. As ESU Sound chinook ESU in-total is ‘‘likely to hatchery strays have been much abundance has increased in recent become endangered in the foreseeable reduced due to the removal of hatchery years, ESU spatial distribution has future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). strays at downstream dams, and a increased. The Snake River fall-run reduction in the number of fish released chinook hatchery programs contributed Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU into the Umatilla River (where the to this reduction in risk to ESU spatial The abundance of natural-origin majority of out-of-ESU strays distribution. The Lyons Ferry stock has spawners in the Snake River fall-run originated). preserved genetic diversity during chinook ESU for 2001 (2,652 adults) was The BRT found moderately high risk critically low years of abundance. in excess of 1,000 fish for the first time for all VSP categories. Informed by this However, the ESU-wide use of a single since counts began at the Lower Granite risk assessment, the majority opinion of hatchery broodstock may pose long-term Dam in 1975. The recent 5-year mean the BRT was that the naturally spawned genetic risks, and may limit adaptation abundance of 871 naturally produced component of the Snake River fall-run to different habitat areas. Although the

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33130 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

ESU likely historically consisted of a The BRT found moderately high risk propagation programs in the ESU single independent population, it was for the abundance and productivity VSP provide benefits to ESU abundance, most likely composed of diverse criteria, and comparatively lower risk spatial structure, and diversity, but have production centers. Additionally, the for spatial structure and diversity. neutral or uncertain effects on ESU broodstock collection practices Informed by this risk assessment, the productivity. Informed by the BRT’s employed pose risks to ESU spatial majority opinion of the BRT was that findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS’ structure and diversity. Release the naturally spawned component of the assessment of the effects of artificial strategies practiced by the ESU hatchery Snake River spring/summer-run propagation programs on the viability of programs (e.g., extended captivity for chinook ESU is ‘‘likely to become the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial about 15 percent of the fish before endangered within the foreseeable Propagation Evaluation Workshop release) is in conflict with the Snake future.’’ The minority opinion assessed concluded that the Snake River spring/ River fall-run chinook life history, and ESU extinction risk as ‘‘in danger of summer-run chinook ESU in-total is may compromise ESU diversity. extinction,’’ although a slight minority ‘‘likely to become endangered in the Collectively, artificial propagation concluded that the ESU is ‘‘not in foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). programs in the ESU provide slight danger of extinction or likely to become Central California Coast Coho ESU benefits to ESU abundance, spatial endangered within the foreseeable structure, and diversity, but have future’’ category. Information on the abundance and neutral or uncertain effects on ESU There are fifteen artificial propagation productivity trends for the naturally productivity. Informed by the BRT’s programs producing spring/summer-run spawning component of the Central findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS’ chinook salmon that are considered to California Coast coho ESU is extremely assessment of the effects of artificial be part of the Snake River spring/ limited. There are no long-term time propagation programs on the viability of summer-run chinook ESU (Table 2). A series of spawner abundance for the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial portion of these programs are managed individual river systems. Analyses of Propagation Evaluation Workshop to enhance listed natural populations, juvenile coho presence-absence concluded that the Snake River fall-run including the use of captive broodstock information, juvenile density surveys, chinook ESU in-total is ‘‘likely to hatcheries in the upper Salmon River, and irregular adult counts for the South become endangered in the foreseeable Lemhi River, East Fork Salmon River, Fork Noyo River indicate low future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). and Yankee Fork populations. These abundance and long-term downward enhancement programs all use trends for the naturally spawning Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook broodstocks founded from the local populations throughout the ESU. ESU native populations. Currently, the use of Improved ocean conditions coupled The aggregate return (including non-ESU broodstock sources is with favorable stream flows and harvest hatchery and natural-origin fish) of restricted to Little Salmon/Rapid River restrictions have contributed to Snake River spring/summer-run (lower Salmon River tributary), increased returns in 2001 in streams in chinook in 2001 exhibited a large mainstem Snake River at Hells Canyon, the northern portion of the ESU, as increase over recent abundances. Many, and the Clearwater River. These non- indicated by an increase in the observed but not all, of the 29 natural production ESU programs appear to be isolated presence of fish in historically occupied areas within the ESU experienced large from natural production areas and are streams. Data are particularly lacking for abundance increases in 2001 as well, thought to have little negative impact on many river basins in the southern two- with two populations nearing the this ESU. thirds of the ESU where naturally abundance levels specified in NMFS’ NMFS’ assessment of the effects of spawning populations are considered to 1995 Proposed Snake River Recovery artificial propagation on ESU extinction be at the greatest risk. The extirpation or Plan (NMFS, 1995b). However, risk concluded that these hatchery near extirpation of natural coho salmon approximately 79 percent of the 2001 programs collectively do not populations in several major river return of spring-run chinook, was of substantially reduce the extinction risk basins, and across most of the southern hatchery origin. Short-term productivity of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). historical range of the ESU, represents a trends were at or above replacement for Overall, these hatchery programs have significant risk to ESU spatial structure the majority of natural production areas contributed to the increases in total ESU and diversity. Artificial propagation of in the ESU, although long-term abundance and in the number of natural coho salmon within the Central productivity trends remain below spawners observed in recent years. The California Coast ESU has declined since replacement for all natural production contribution of ESU hatchery programs the ESU was listed in 1996 though it areas, reflecting the severe declines to the productivity of the ESU in-total continues at the Noyo River and Scott since the 1960s. Although the number of is uncertain. Some reintroduction and Creek facilities, and two captive spawning aggregations lost in this ESU outplanting of hatchery fish above broodstock populations have recently due to the establishment of the Snake barriers and into vacant habitat has been established. Genetic diversity risk River mainstem dams is unknown, this occurred, providing a slight benefit to associated with out-of-basin transfers ESU has a wide spatial distribution in ESU spatial structure. All of the within- appears to be minimal, but diversity risk a variety of locations and habitat types. ESU hatchery stocks are derived from from domestication selection and low The BRT considered it a positive sign local natural populations and employ effective population sizes in the that the out-of-ESU Rapid River management practices designed to remaining hatchery programs remains a broodstock has been phased out of the preserve genetic diversity. The Grande concern. An out-of-ESU artificial Grande Ronde system. There is no Ronde Captive Broodstock programs propagation program for coho was evidence of wide-scale straying by likely have prevented the extirpation of operated at the Don Clausen hatchery on hatchery stocks, thereby alleviating the local natural populations. the Russian River through the mid diversity concerns somewhat. Additionally, hatchery releases are 1990’s, but was terminated in 1996. Nonetheless, the high level of hatchery managed to maintain wild fish reserves Termination of this program was production in this ESU complicates the in the ESU in an effort to preserve considered by the BRT a positive assessments of trends in natural natural local adaptation and genetic development for naturally produced abundance and productivity. variability. Collectively, artificial coho in this ESU. For the naturally

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33131

spawning component of the ESU, the productivity or spatial structure of the population reflect the effects of reduced BRT found very high risk for the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). The three harvest rather than improved freshwater abundance, productivity, and spatial conservation programs are considered conditions and population productivity. structure VSP parameters and crucial to the recovery of this ESU, but Less reliable indices of spawner comparatively moderate risk with it is unclear if they have had any abundance in several California respect to the diversity VSP parameter. beneficial effect on natural spawner populations suggest flat or declining The lack of direct estimates of the abundance. The Noyo River program trends. Relatively low levels of observed performance of the naturally spawned which had been operated for over 50 presence in historically occupied coho populations in this ESU, and the years is being terminated because it has streams (32–56 percent from 1986 to associated uncertainty this generates, not met CDFG’s goal of increasing coho 2000) indicate continued low was of specific concern to the BRT. salmon abundance. Productivity of coho abundance in the California portion of Informed by the VSP risk assessment salmon in the Noyo River is thought to this ESU. Indications of stronger 2001 and the associated uncertainty, the be reduced or unaffected by long term returns in several California strong majority opinion of the BRT was artificial propagation in that watershed. populations, presumably due to that the naturally spawned component It is uncertain how effective the captive favorable freshwater and ocean of the Central California Coast coho ESU broodstock and rearing programs in the conditions, is encouraging but must be was ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ The Russian River and Scott Creek will be in evaluated in the context of more than a minority opinion was that this ESU is increasing productivity, but efforts in decade of generally poor performance. ‘‘likely to become endangered within the Russian River are coupled with a Nonetheless, the high occupancy rate of the foreseeable future.’’ major habitat restoration effort which historical streams in 2001 suggests that Four artificial propagation programs may improve natural population much habitat remains accessible to coho are considered to be part of the Central productivity. The two captive salmon. Although extant populations California Coast coho ESU (Table 2; broodstock programs will hopefully reside in all major river basins within NMFS, 2004b). The Noyo River program contribute to future abundance and the ESU, the BRT was concerned about is an augmentation program located in improved spatial structure of the ESU, the loss of local populations in the the northern portion of the ESU which but outplanting has yet to be Trinity, Klamath, and Rogue river regularly incorporates local natural- implemented so long term benefits are systems. The high hatchery production origin fish into the broodstock and uncertain. The Monterey Bay Salmon in these systems may mask trends in releases fish into the Noyo River and Trout Program is thought to be ESU population structure and pose risks watershed. The program has been in responsible for sustaining the presence to ESU diversity. The recent termination operation for over 50 years, but the of natural origin coho salmon in Scott of several out-of-ESU hatcheries in program has recently been Creek, which is at the southern extent California is expected to result in discontinued. The Monterey Bay of the ESU’s range. Both of the captive decreased risks to ESU diversity. The Salmon and Trout Project is an artificial broodstock programs, particularly the BRT found moderately high risks for propagation program that is operated as Scott Creek program, are genetic abundance and productivity VSP a conservation program designed to repositories which serve to preserve the categories, with comparatively lower supplement the local natural genome of the ESU thereby reducing risk for spatial structure and diversity. population, located in the southern genetic diversity risks. Informed by the Informed by this risk assessment, the portion of the ESU (south of San BRT’s findings (NMFS, 2003b) and strong majority opinion of the BRT was Francisco) where natural populations NMFS’ assessment of the effects of that the naturally spawned component are at the highest risk of extinction. artificial propagation programs on the of the Southern Oregon/Northern Relatively small numbers of fish are viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the California Coast coho ESU is ‘‘likely to spawned and released from this Artificial Propagation Evaluation become endangered within the program on Scott Creek, but natural- Workshop concluded that the Central foreseeable future.’’ The minority origin fish are routinely incorporated California Coast coho ESU in-total is ‘‘in opinion assessed ESU extinction risk as into the broodstock. Recently, captive danger of extinction’’ (NMFS, 2004c). ‘‘in danger of extinction,’’ although a broodstock programs have been slight minority concluded that the ESU established for the Russian River and Southern Oregon/Northern California is ‘‘not in danger of extinction or likely Scott Creek populations in order to Coast Coho ESU preserve the genetic resources of these The only reliable time series of adult to become endangered within the two naturally spawning populations and abundance for the naturally spawning foreseeable future’’ category. for use in artificial programs. Artificially component of the Southern Oregon/ There are three artificial propagation propagated fish from these two captive Northern California Coast coho ESU is programs releasing hatchery coho broodstock programs will be outplanted for the Rogue River population in salmon that are considered to be part of in the Russian River and Scott Creek southern Oregon. The California portion the Southern Oregon/Northern watersheds to supplement local natural of the ESU is characterized by a paucity California Coast Coho ESU. The Rogue populations. The Russian River program of data, with only a few available River hatchery in Oregon and the is integrated with a habitat restoration spawner indices and presence-absence Trinity River and Iron Gate hatcheries program designed to improve habitat surveys. The recent 5-year mean (Klamath River) in California are all conditions and subsequent survival for abundance for the Rogue River is mitigation programs designed to outplanted coho juveniles. approximately 5,000 natural spawners produce fish for harvest, but they An assessment of the effects of these and is the highest such abundance for integrate naturally produced coho four artificial propagation programs on the Rogue River data series (since 1980). salmon into the broodstock in an the viability of the ESU in-total Both long- and short-term productivity attempt to minimize the genetic effects concluded that they decrease risk of trends for Rogue River natural spawners of returning hatchery adults that spawn extinction to some degree by are above replacement. The BRT naturally. All three programs have been contributing to increased ESU concluded, based on an analysis of pre- in operation for several decades with abundance and diversity, but have a harvest abundance, however, that these smolt production goals ranging from neutral or uncertain effect on the positive trends for the Rogue River 75,000 to 500,000 fish.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33132 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

An assessment of the effects of these recruitment failure are the only such become endangered within the three artificial propagation programs on instances that have been observed in the foreseeable future.’’ Furthermore, the the viability of the ESU in-total entire time series of data collected for minority felt that recent strong returns concluded that they decrease risk of Oregon Coast coho salmon. Although following 3 years of recruitment failure extinction by contributing to increased the recent dramatic increases in demonstrate that populations in this ESU abundance, but have a neutral or spawner abundance are encouraging, ESU exhibit considerable resilience. uncertain effect on the productivity, the long-term trends in ESU At present, there are five coastal coho spatial structure and diversity of the productivity are still negative due to the artificial propagation programs that are ESU (NMFS, 2004b). Abundance of the poor performance of the 1994–1996 considered to be part of the Oregon ESU in-total has been increased as a brood years. The majority of the BRT Coast coho ESU (Table 2). All of these result of these artificial propagation felt that the recent increases in coho programs are operated by the State of programs, particularly in the Rogue and returns were most likely attributable to Oregon to provide harvest Trinity Rivers. In the Rogue River, favorable ocean conditions and reduced opportunities. Substantial changes in hatchery origin fish have averaged harvest rates. The BRT was uncertain as coho salmon propagation have occurred approximately half of the returning to whether such favorable marine over the previous 10 years to achieve a spawners over the past 20 years. In the conditions would continue into the balance between obligations to help Trinity River, most naturally spawning future. Despite the likely benefits to conserve coastal coho and to mitigate fish are thought to be of hatchery origin spawner abundance levels gained by the for habitat degradation, and maintain based on weir counts at Willow Creek. dramatic reduction of direct harvest of fishing opportunities. These changes The effects of these artificial Oregon Coast coho populations (PFMC, include a dependence on local origin propagation programs on ESU 1998), harvest management can no fish for broodstock, management actions productivity and spatial structure are longer compensate for declining to reduce straying (10 percent is the limited. Only three rivers have hatchery productivity due to other factors. The objective), and the cessation of stocking populations and natural populations are BRT was concerned that if the long-term coho in five coastal rivers. Coastal coho depressed throughout the range of the decline in productivity reflects stocking has decreased by 84 percent ESU. The effects of these hatchery deteriorating conditions in freshwater since 1993. These programs are not programs on ESU diversity are likely habitat, this ESU could face very serious managed to contribute to ESU limited. Natural origin fish have been risks of local extirpations if ocean abundance, productivity, spatial incorporated into the broodstock but the conditions reverted back to poor structure, or diversity. magnitude of natural fish use is productivity conditions. Approximately NMFS’ assessment of the effects of unknown. Informed by the BRT’s 30 percent of the ESU has suffered artificial propagation on ESU extinction risk concluded that these hatchery findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS’’ habitat fragmentation by culverts and programs collectively do not assessment of the effects of artificial thermal barriers, generating concerns substantially reduce the extinction risk propagation programs on the viability of about ESU spatial structure. of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Additionally, the lack of response to Although these hatchery programs Propagation Evaluation Workshop favorable ocean conditions for some contribute to the increased total concluded that the Southern Oregon/ populations in smaller streams, and the abundance for 4 of the 19 ESU Northern California Coast coho ESU in- distinct patterns between north and populations, the effect on the total is ‘‘likely to become endangered in south coast populations may indicate abundance of the ESU in-total is slight. the foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). compromised connectivity among In an attempt to avoid potentially Oregon Coast Coho ESU populations. The degradation of many adverse effects of naturally spawning The abundance of natural spawners in lake habitats, and the resultant impacts hatchery fish on ESU natural the Oregon Coast coho ESU for 2001 and on several lake populations in the populations, the State of Oregon 2002 (163,000 and 264,000 spawners, Oregon Coast coho ESU, also poses risks manages these hatchery populations to respectively) far exceeded the to ESU diversity. The BRT noted that limit the numbers of hatchery fish on abundance observed for the past several hatchery closures, reductions in the the spawning grounds. The contribution decades, and preliminary projections for number of hatchery smolt releases, and of ESU hatchery programs to the 2003 (approximately 118,000 spawners) improved marking rates of hatchery fish productivity of the ESU in-total is suggest that these substantial increases have reduced risks to diversity uncertain, however, given the low may be sustained. Furthermore, associated with artificial propagation. proportion of naturally spawning increases in natural spawner abundance The BRT found high risk in the hatchery fish in the ESU, any have occurred in many populations in productivity VSP category, and contribution is likely negligible. There the northern portion of the ESU, comparatively lower risk for the other is little to no effect of the ESU hatchery populations that were the most VSP categories. Informed by this risk programs on the spatial structure of the depressed at the time of the last review assessment, the majority opinion of the ESU in-total, as most populations are (NMFS, 1997a). However, when the BRT was that the naturally spawned not affected by artificial propagation. abundance data are evaluated by coho component of the Oregon Coast coho The spatial distribution of some natural brood year, it is apparent the strong ESU is ‘‘likely to become endangered populations, however, is negatively year-classes of the last three years were within the foreseeable future.’’ affected by the operation of hatchery preceded by three years of recruitment However, a substantial minority of the facilities and weirs. There is little to no failure. Recruitment failure (meaning BRT concluded that the ESU is ‘‘not in benefit of the Oregon Coast coho that a given year class of natural danger of extinction or likely to become hatchery programs to ESU diversity. spawners failed to replace itself when endangered within the foreseeable Those programs that incorporate natural its offspring returned to the spawning future.’’ The minority felt that the large fish into the broodstock are contributing grounds 3 years later) occurred for the number of spawners in 2001–2002, and to reducing past risks to ESU diversity 1994, 1995, and 1996 brood years the high projected abundance for 2003, posed by artificial propagation. Two returning in 1997, 1998, and 1999, demonstrate that this ESU is not ‘‘in out-of-ESU hatchery programs (the respectively. These three years of danger of extinction’’ or ‘‘likely to Salmon River (ODFW stock # 33) and

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33133

Trask River (ODFW stock # 34) hatchery genetic and ecological threats to the NMFS’ assessment of the effects of programs), however, do not incorporate extant natural populations in the ESU. artificial propagation on ESU extinction natural fish into the broodstock and However, these hatchery stocks at risk concluded that hatchery programs remain a threat to ESU diversity. present collectively represent a collectively mitigate the immediacy of Collectively, artificial propagation significant portion of the ESU’s extinction risk for the Lower Columbia programs in the ESU provide a slight remaining genetic resources. The River coho ESU in-total in the short beneficial effect to ESU abundance, but twenty-one hatchery stocks considered term, but that these programs do not have neutral or uncertain effects on ESU to be part of the ESU (Table 2), if substantially reduce the extinction risk productivity, spatial structure, and appropriately managed, may prove of the ESU in the foreseeable future diversity. Informed by the BRT’s essential to the restoration of more (NMFS, 2004c). At present, within ESU findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS’ widespread naturally spawning hatchery programs significantly increase assessment of the effects of artificial populations. the abundance of the ESU in-total. propagation programs on the viability of The BRT found extremely high risks Without adequate long-term monitoring, the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial for each of the VSP categories. Informed the contribution of ESU hatchery Propagation Evaluation Workshop by this risk assessment, the strong programs to the productivity of the ESU concluded that the Oregon Coast coho majority opinion of the BRT was that in-total is uncertain. The hatchery ESU in-total is ‘‘likely to become the naturally spawned component of the programs are widely distributed endangered in the foreseeable future’’ Lower Columbia River coho ESU is ‘‘in throughout the Lower Columbia River, (NMFS, 2004c). danger of extinction.’’ The minority reducing the spatial distribution of risk Lower Columbia River Coho ESU opinion was that the ESU is ‘‘likely to to catastrophic events. Additionally, become endangered within the reintroduction programs in the Upper There are only two extant populations foreseeable future.’’ Cowlitz River may provide additional in the Lower Columbia River coho ESU reduction of ESU spatial structure risks. with appreciable natural production All of the 21 hatchery programs included in the Lower Columbia River As mentioned above, the majority of the (the Clackamas and Sandy River ESU’s genetic diversity exists in the populations), from an estimated 23 coho ESU are designed to produce fish for harvest, with two small programs hatchery programs. Although these historical populations in the ESU. programs have the potential of Although adult returns in 2000 and designed to also augment the natural spawning populations in the Lewis preserving historical local adaptation 2001 for the Clackamas and Sandy River and behavioral and ecological diversity, populations exhibited moderate River Basin. Artificial propagation in the manner in which these potential increases, the recent 5-year mean of this ESU continues to represent a threat genetic resources are presently being natural-origin spawners for both to the genetic, ecological, and managed poses significant risks to the populations represents less than 1,500 behavioral diversity of the ESU. Past diversity of the ESU in-total. At present, adults. The Sandy River population has artificial propagation efforts imported the Lower Columbia River coho exhibited recruitment failure in 5 of the out-of-ESU fish for broodstock, hatchery programs reduce risks to ESU last 10 years, and has exhibited a poor generally did not mark hatchery fish, abundance and spatial structure, response to reductions in harvest. mixed broodstocks derived from provide uncertain benefits to ESU During the 1980s and 1990s natural different local populations, and productivity, and pose risks to ESU spawners were not observed in the transplanted stocks among basins lower tributaries in the ESU. Coincident throughout the ESU. The result is that diversity. Overall, artificial propagation with the 2000–2001 abundance the hatchery stocks considered to be mitigates the immediacy of ESU increases in the Sandy and Clackamas part of the ESU represent a extinction risk in the short-term, but is populations, a small number of coho homogenization of populations. Several of uncertain contribution in the long spawners of unknown origin have been of these risks have recently begun to be term. surveyed in some lower tributaries. addressed by improvements in hatchery Over the long term, reliance on the Short- and long-term trends in practices. Out-of-ESU broodstock is no continued operation of these hatchery productivity are below replacement. longer used, and near 100-percent programs is risky (NMFS, 2004b). Approximately 40 percent of historical marking of hatchery fish is employed to Several Lower Columbia River coho habitat is currently inaccessible, which afford improved monitoring and hatchery programs have been restricts the number of areas that might evaluation of broodstock and (hatchery- terminated, and there is the prospect of support natural production, and further and natural-origin) returns. However, additional closures in the future. With increases the ESU’s vulnerability to many of the within-ESU hatchery each hatchery closure, any potential environmental variability and programs do not adhere to best hatchery benefits to ESU abundance and spatial catastrophic events. The extreme loss of practices. Eggs are often transferred structure are reduced. Risks of naturally spawning populations, the low among basins in an effort to meet operational failure, disease, and abundance of extant populations, individual program goals, further environmental catastrophes further diminished diversity, and fragmentation compromising ESU spatial structure and complicate assessments of hatchery and isolation of the remaining naturally diversity. Programs may use broodstock contributions over the long term. produced fish confer considerable risks that does not reflect what was Additionally, the two extant naturally to the ESU. The paucity of naturally historically present in a given basin, spawning populations in the ESU were produced spawners in this ESU is limiting the potential for artificial described by the BRT as being ‘‘in contrasted by the very large number of propagation to establish locally adapted danger of extinction.’’ Accordingly, it is hatchery produced adults. The naturally spawning populations. Many likely that the Lower Columbia River abundance of hatchery coho returning to programs lack Hatchery and Genetic coho ESU may exist in hatcheries only the Lower Columbia River in 2001 and Management Plans that establish within the foreseeable future. It is 2002 exceeded one million and 600,000 escapement goals appropriate for the uncertain whether these isolated fish, respectively. The BRT expressed natural capacity of each basin, and that hatchery programs can persist without concern that the magnitude of hatchery identify goals for the incorporation of the incorporation of natural-origin fish production continues to pose significant natural-origin fish into the broodstock. into the broodstock. Although there are

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33134 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

examples of salmonid hatchery The BRT found high risks for each of endangered in the foreseeable future’’ programs having been in operation for the VSP categories, particularly for ESU (NMFS, 2004c). relatively long periods of time, these spatial structure and diversity. Informed Hood Canal Summer Chum ESU programs have not existed in complete by this risk assessment, the majority isolation. Long-lived hatchery programs opinion of the BRT was that the Adult returns for some populations in historically required infusions of wild naturally spawned component of the the Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU fish in order to meet broodstock goals. Columbia River chum ESU is ‘‘likely to showed modest improvements in 2000, The long-term sustainability of such become endangered within the with upward trends continuing in 2001 isolated hatchery programs is unknown. foreseeable future,’’ with a minority and 2002. The recent 5-year mean It is uncertain whether the Lower opinion that it is ‘‘in danger of abundance is variable among Columbia River coho isolated hatchery extinction.’’ populations in the ESU, ranging from programs are capable of mitigating risks There are three artificial propagation one fish to nearly 4,500 fish. Hood to ESU abundance and productivity into programs producing chum salmon Canal summer-run chum are the focus the foreseeable future. In isolation, these considered to be part of the Columbia of an extensive rebuilding program programs may also become more than River chum ESU. These are developed and implemented since 1992 moderately diverged from the conservation programs designed to by the state and tribal co-managers. Two evolutionary legacy of the ESU, and support natural production. The populations (the combined Quilcene hence no longer merit inclusion in the Washougal Hatchery artificial and Union River populations) are above ESU. Under either circumstance, the propagation program provides the conservation thresholds established ability of artificial propagation to buffer artificially propagated chum salmon for by the rebuilding plan. However, most the immediacy of extinction risk over re-introduction into recently restored populations remain depressed. the long-term is uncertain. Informed by habitat in Duncan Creek, Washington. Estimates of the fraction of naturally the BRT’s findings (NMFS, 2003b) and This program also provides a safety-net spawning hatchery fish exceed 60 NMFS’ assessment of the short- and for the naturally spawning population percent for some populations, indicating long-term effects of artificial in the mainstem Columbia River below that reintroduction programs are propagation programs on the viability of Bonneville Dam, which can access only supplementing the numbers of total fish the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial a portion of spawning habitat during spawning naturally in streams. Long- Propagation Evaluation Workshop low flow conditions. The other two term trends in productivity are above concluded that the Lower Columbia programs are designed to augment replacement for only the Quilcene and coho ESU in-total is ‘‘likely to become natural production in the Grays River Union River populations. Buoyed by endangered in the foreseeable future’’ and the Chinook River in Washington. recent increases, seven populations are (NMFS, 2004c). All these programs use naturally exhibiting short-term productivity produced adults for broodstock. These trends above replacement. Of an Columbia River Chum ESU programs were only recently established estimated 16 historical populations in Approximately 90 percent of the (1998–2002), with the first hatchery the ESU, seven populations are believed historical populations in the Columbia chum returning in 2002. to have been extirpated or nearly River chum ESU are extirpated or nearly NMFS’ assessment of the effects of extirpated. Most of these extirpations so. During the 1980s and 1990s, the artificial propagation on ESU extinction have occurred in populations on the combined abundance of natural risk concluded that these hatchery eastern side of Hood Canal, generating spawners for the Lower and Upper programs collectively do not additional concern for ESU spatial Columbia River Gorge, Washougal, and substantially reduce the extinction risk structure. The widespread loss of Grays River populations was below of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). The estuary and lower floodplain habitat 4,000 adults. In 2002, however, the Columbia River chum hatchery was noted by the BRT as a continuing abundance of natural spawners programs have only recently been threat to ESU spatial structure and exhibited a substantial increase evident initiated, and are beginning to provide connectivity. There is some concern that at several locations in the ESU. The benefits to ESU abundance. The the Quilcene hatchery stock is preliminary estimate of natural contribution of ESU hatchery programs exhibiting high rates of straying, and spawners is approximately 20,000 to the productivity of the ESU in-total may represent a risk to historical adults. The cause of this dramatic is uncertain. The Sea Resources and population structure and diversity. increase in abundance is unknown. Washougal Hatchery programs have However, with the extirpation of many Improved ocean conditions, the begun to provide benefits to ESU spatial local populations, much of this initiation of a supplementation program structure through reintroductions of historical structure has been lost, and in the Grays River, improved flow chum salmon into restored habitats in the use of Quilcene hatchery fish may management at Bonneville Dam, the Chinook River and Duncan Creek, represent one of a few remaining favorable freshwater conditions, and respectively. These three programs have options for Hood Canal summer-run increased survey sampling effort may all a neutral effect on ESU diversity. chum conservation. have contributed to the elevated 2002 Collectively, artificial propagation The BRT found high risks for each of abundance. However, long- and short- programs in the ESU provide a slight the VSP categories. Informed by this risk term productivity trends for ESU beneficial effect to ESU abundance and assessment, the majority opinion of the populations are at or below spatial structure, but have neutral or BRT was that the naturally spawned replacement. The loss of off-channel uncertain effects on ESU productivity component of the Hood Canal summer- habitats and the extirpation of and diversity. Informed by the BRT’s run chum ESU is ‘‘likely to become approximately 17 historical populations findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS’ endangered within the foreseeable increase the ESU’s vulnerability to assessment of the effects of artificial future,’’ with a minority opinion that environmental variability and propagation programs on the viability of the ESU is ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ catastrophic events. The populations the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial There are currently eight programs that remain are low in abundance, and Propagation Evaluation Workshop releasing summer chum salmon that are have limited distribution and poor concluded that the Columbia River considered to be part of the Hood Canal connectivity. chum ESU in-total is ‘‘likely to become summer chum ESU (Table 2). Six of the

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33135

programs are supplementation programs comprehensive hatchery conservation used by steelhead, although the current implemented to preserve and increase efforts for Hood Canal summer-run distribution is more restricted. Little or the abundance of native populations in chum, the ESU remains at low overall no information is available regarding their natal watersheds. These abundance with nearly half of historical resident populations considered to be supplementation programs propagate populations extirpated. Informed by the part of this ESU. Due to the extremely and release fish into the Salmon Creek, BRT’s findings (NMFS, 2003b) and low numbers of anadromous fish in this Jimmycomelately Creek, Big Quilcene NMFS’’ assessment of the effects of ESU, resident populations may River, Hamma Hamma River, Lilliwaup artificial propagation programs on the comprise a substantial proportion of fish Creek, and Union River watersheds. The viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the in the ESU. For some BRT members, the remaining two programs use Artificial Propagation Evaluation presence of relatively numerous transplanted summer-run chum salmon Workshop concluded that the Hood resident fish reduces risks to ESU from adjacent watersheds to reintroduce Canal summer-run chum ESU in-total is abundance, but provides an uncertain populations into Big Beef Creek and ‘‘likely to become endangered in the contribution to ESU productivity, Chimacum Creek, where the native foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). spatial structure, and diversity (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a). populations have been extirpated. Each Southern California O. mykiss ESU of the hatchery programs includes The BRT found extremely high risks research, monitoring, and evaluation Assessing the extinction risk for the for each of the four VSP categories. activities designed to determine success Southern California O. mykiss ESU is Informed by this assessment, the strong in recovering the propagated made difficult by the general lack of majority opinion of the BRT was that populations to viable levels, and to historical or recent data for this ESU, the Southern California O. mykiss ESU determine the demographic, ecological, and the uncertainty generated by this is ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ The and genetic effects of each program on paucity of information. The historical minority opinion was that the ESU is target and non-target salmonid steelhead run for four of the major river ‘‘likely to become endangered within populations. All the Hood Canal systems in the ESU is estimated to have the foreseeable future.’’ There are no summer-run chum hatchery programs been between 32,000 and 46,000 adults. artificially propagated populations of O. will be terminated after 12 years of Recent run size for the same four mykiss in this ESU that mitigate the operation. systems, however, has been estimated to BRT’s assessment that the ESU is ‘‘in be fewer than 500 total adults. Run sizes danger of extinction.’’ NMFS’’ assessment of the effects of in river systems within the ESU are artificial propagation on ESU extinction believed to range between less than five South-Central California Coast O. risk concluded that these hatchery anadromous adults per year, to less than mykiss ESU programs collectively do not 100 anadromous adults per year. There is a paucity of abundance substantially reduce the extinction risk However, the available data are information for the South-Central of the ESU in-total (NMFS 2004c). The insufficient to estimate abundance California Coast O. mykiss ESU. Data are hatchery programs are benefiting ESU levels or trends in productivity. Of 65 not available for the two largest river abundance by increasing total ESU river drainages where O. mykiss is systems in the ESU, the Pajaro and abundance as well as the number of known to have occurred historically, Salinas basins. These systems are much naturally spawning summer-run chum between 26 and 52 percent are still degraded and are expected to have salmon. Several of the programs have occupied (uncertainty in this estimate is steelhead runs reduced in size from likely prevented further population the result of the inaccessibility of 17 historical levels. Data available for the extirpations in the ESU. The basins to population surveys). Carmel River underscore the contribution of ESU hatchery programs Colonization events of O. mykiss were population’s vulnerability to drought to the productivity of the ESU in-total documented during 1996–2002 in conditions, as well as its dependence on is uncertain. The hatchery programs are Topanga and San Mateo Creeks. These the intensive management of the river benefiting ESU spatial structure by colonization events were represented by system. The most recent 5-year mean increasing the spawning area utilized in few spawning adults or the observation abundance of fish in the Carmel River several watersheds and by increasing of a single individual. Twenty-two is approximately 600 adults. Despite the geographic range of the ESU through basins are considered vacant, extirpated, observed and inferred declines in reintroductions. These programs also or nearly extirpated due to dewatering abundance, the current spatial provide benefits to ESU diversity. By or the establishment of impassable distribution of the anadromous life form bolstering total population sizes, the barriers below all spawning habitats. in the ESU does not appear to be much hatchery programs have likely stemmed Except for the colonization of a small reduced from what occurred adverse genetic effects for populations population in San Mateo Creek in historically. O. mykiss are present in at critically low levels. Additionally, northern San Diego County, the approximately 86 to 95 percent of measures have been implemented to anadromous form of the Southern historically occupied streams (the maintain current genetic diversity, California O. mykiss ESU appears to uncertainty in the estimated occupancy including the use of native broodstock have been completely extirpated from is due to three streams that could not be and the termination of the programs nearly all systems in the southern accessed for population surveys). The after 12 years of operation to guard portion of the ESU from Malibu Creek BRT was concerned, however, that the against long-term domestication effects. to the Mexican border. Recently, the larger Pajaro and Salinas basins are Collectively, artificial propagation presence and spawning of anadromous spatially and ecologically distinct from programs in the ESU presently provide O. mykiss has been observed in two other ESU populations, such that further a slight beneficial effect to ESU streams south of Malibu Creek (in degradation of these areas will abundance, spatial structure, and Topanga and San Mateo Creeks), negatively impact ESU spatial structure diversity, but uncertain effects to ESU prompting the extension of the ESU’s and diversity. Historically, resident fish productivity. The long-term boundaries to the U.S.-Mexico border in are believed to have occurred in all contribution of these programs after 2000 (67 FR 21586; May 1, 2002). areas in the ESU used by steelhead, they are terminated is uncertain. Despite Historically, resident fish are believed although current distribution is more the current benefits provided by the to have occurred in all areas in the ESU restricted. For some BRT members,

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33136 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

presence of relatively numerous the foreseeable future.’’ The minority assess the effects of productivity on the resident fish reduces risks to ESU opinion was that the ESU is ‘‘in danger naturally spawning component of the abundance, but provides an uncertain of extinction.’’ ESU. The Don Clausen hatchery contribution to ESU productivity, Two artificial propagation programs population has been increasing in spatial structure, and diversity (NMFS, are considered to be part of the Central abundance and has a relatively high 2003b; 2004a). The BRT found high California Coast O. mykiss ESU (Table 2; level of productivity, but it is managed risks for each of the four VSP categories, NMFS, 2004b). One program is located to support a fishery rather than to particularly for spatial structure. in the northernmost river in the ESU augment naturally spawning local Informed by this assessment, the strong (Don Clausen hatchery on the Russian populations. Hatchery origin steelhead majority opinion of the BRT was that River), while the other is located in the from both programs generally occur in the South-Central Coast O. mykiss ESU southern portion of the ESU (Monterey the same areas as natural origin fish, is ‘‘likely to become endangered within Bay Salmon and Trout Project on the and there is no information indicating the foreseeable future.’’ The minority Scott River) where the extinction risk that either program has resulted in an opinion was that the ESU is ‘‘in danger for local populations is thought to be expanded distribution of the ESU in- of extinction.’’ There are no artificially higher. The hatchery on the Russian total, thus effects to ESU spatial propagated populations of O. mykiss in River is a relatively large-scale structure are likely neutral. The Don this ESU that mitigate the BRT’s mitigation program which is primarily Clausen program uses only hatchery- assessment that the ESU is ‘‘likely to intended to support recreational origin fish for broodstock, and this is become endangered within the fisheries for steelhead in this watershed. likely to lead to divergence of the foreseeable future.’’ This program was established primarily hatchery stock from the local natural with local broodstock, but has not population and pose a risk to local Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU integrated natural-origin fish into the populations. The Monterey Bay Salmon There are no time series of population broodstock since 2000, and is, therefore, and Trout Program uses wild broodstock abundance data for the naturally isolated from the natural spawning to minimize domestication effects and is spawning component of the Central component of the ESU. Escapement to operated to assist in the restoration of California Coast O. mykiss ESU. The the hatchery is substantial, but there are local stocks. However, it is uncertain to naturally spawning population in the no estimates of overall Russian River O. what extent the program serves to largest river system in the ESU, the mykiss abundance, nor are there any preserve genetic diversity in the ESU. Russian River, is believed to have estimates of the contribution of Informed by the BRT’s findings (NMFS, declined seven-fold since the mid- hatchery-origin fish to overall 2003b) and NMFS’ assessment of the 1960s. Juvenile density information is abundance. The artificial propagation effects of artificial propagation programs available for five ‘‘representative’’ program on Scott Creek is much smaller on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, populations, and each exhibits a than the Russian River program. It 2004b), the Artificial Propagation downward decline over the last 8 years incorporates natural-origin fish from Evaluation Workshop concluded that of available data. Predation by Scott Creek and nearby San Lorenzo the Central California Coast O. mykiss increasing numbers of California sea Creek for broodstock and is currently ESU in-total is ‘‘likely to become lions at river mouths and during the operated for the purpose of restoring the endangered in the foreseeable future’’ ocean phase was noted as a recent local natural population. (NMFS, 2004c). development also posing significant NMFS’ assessment of the effects of risk. Juvenile O. mykiss have been these two artificial propagation California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU observed in approximately 82 percent of programs on the viability of the ESU in- Little information is available historically occupied streams, total concluded that they decrease risk regarding the viability of the naturally indicating that the ESU continues to be to some degree by contributing to spawning component of the California spatially well distributed. However, increased ESU fish abundance, but have Central Valley O. mykiss ESU. impassible dams have cut off substantial neutral or uncertain effects on Anadromous O. mykiss spawning above portions of spawning habitat in some productivity, spatial structure or the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) basins, generating concern about the diversity of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). have a small population size (the most spatial structure of the naturally Hatchery origin steelhead from the Don recent 5-year mean is less than 2,000 spawning component of the ESU. Clausen hatchery program on the adults) and exhibit strongly negative Historically, resident fish are believed to Russian River have been increasing in trends in abundance and population have occurred in all areas in the ESU abundance for the past several years, but growth rate. However, there have not used by steelhead, although current many fish return to the hatchery or are been any escapement estimates made for distribution is more restricted. For some harvested and there is no information the area above RBDD since the mid BRT members, the presence of resident documenting the extent to which 1990’s. The only recent ESU-level fish reduces risks to ESU natural hatchery origin fish spawn naturally. estimate of abundance is a crude abundance, but provides an uncertain Though there is natural spawning of extrapolation from the incidental catch contribution to ESU productivity, steelhead in the Russian River system, of out-migrating juvenile steelhead spatial structure, and diversity (NMFS, the abundance of spawners has not been captured in a midwater-trawl sampling 2003b; 2004a). The BRT found documented. There is no information program for juvenile chinook salmon moderately high risk for the abundance documenting whether the Monterey Bay below the confluence of the Sacramento and productivity VSP risk categories for Salmon and Trout Project program is and San Joaquin Rivers. The naturally spawning fish, and increasing local abundance of natural extrapolated abundance of naturally comparatively less risk for the spatial steelhead, but the program was recently spawning female steelhead involves structure and diversity categories. converted from one that supported a broad assumptions about female Informed by this risk assessment, the fishery to one that is attempting to fecundity (number of eggs produced per majority opinion of the BRT was that restore the local natural population. female) and egg-to-smolt survival rates. the naturally spawned component of the Effects of these artificial propagation Based on this extrapolation, it is Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU programs on productivity are uncertain, estimated that on average during 1998– is ‘‘likely to become endangered within and no efforts are currently underway to 2000, approximately 181,000 juvenile

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33137

steelhead were produced naturally each Sacramento River basin. The program and NMFS’ assessment of the effects of year in the Central Valley by has also been operated for several artificial propagation programs on the approximately 3,600 spawning female decades and has a production goal of viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the steelhead. It is estimated that there were 400,000 smolts per year. Broodstock was Artificial Propagation Evaluation 1 to 2 million spawners in the Central originally derived from local or nearby Workshop concluded that the California Valley prior to 1850, and approximately stocks, and all hatchery production is Central Valley O. mykiss ESU in-total is 40,000 spawners in the 1960s. Although marked to allow harvest and also ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ (NMFS, it appears that O. mykiss remain widely minimize impacts on natural origin fish. 2004c). distributed in Sacramento River The natural population in the Feather Northern California O. mykiss ESU tributaries, the vast majority of River is integrated with the hatchery historical spawning areas are currently population. There is little historical abundance above impassable dams. The BRT also NMFS’ assessment of the effects of information for the naturally spawning expressed concern about the effects of these two artificial propagation portion of the Northern California O. significant production of out-of-ESU programs on the viability of the ESU in- mykiss ESU. However, the available hatchery steelhead in the American total concluded that they decrease risk data (dam counts on the Eel and Mad (Nimbus Hatchery) and Mokelumne to some degree by contributing to Rivers) indicate a substantial decline (Mokelumne River Hatchery) Rivers. increased abundance of the ESU, but from the abundance levels of the 1930s. Historically, resident fish are believed to have a neutral or uncertain effect on The three available summer steelhead have occurred in all areas in the ESU productivity, spatial structure and data sets exhibit recent 5-year mean used by steelhead, although current diversity of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). abundance levels from three to 418 distribution is more restricted. For some Both the Coleman NFH and Feather adults, and exhibit downward short- BRT members, the presence of resident River hatchery programs have increased and long-term trends. The short- and fish reduces risks to ESU abundance abundance of fish in the ESU in-total; long-term abundance trends for the one somewhat, but provides an uncertain however, both programs are operated to current winter steelhead data series contribution to ESU productivity, support recreational harvest rather than show a slightly positive trend. However, spatial structure, and diversity (NMFS, to supplement natural spawning the recent 5-year mean abundance level 2003b; 2004a). The BRT found high risk populations. Thus, much of the is extremely low (32 adults). The for the abundance, productivity, and production is targeted for harvest and juvenile density data for six of ten spatial structure VSP categories, and for use as broodstock, and the (putative) independent populations moderately high risk for the diversity contribution to naturally spawning exhibit declining trends. Despite low category. Informed by this risk populations is uncertain. In the future, abundance and downward trends, O. assessment, the majority opinion of the Coleman NFH may use some hatchery mykiss appears to be still widely BRT was that the naturally spawned fish as part of an effort to supplement distributed throughout this ESU. The component of the California Central steelhead production in Upper Battle BRT expressed concern about ESU Valley O. mykiss ESU is ‘‘in danger of Creek above the hatchery. Effects of diversity due to the low effective extinction.’’ The minority opinion was these programs on ESU diversity are population sizes in the ESU, and that the naturally spawned component uncertain, but both programs concern over interactions with the Mad of the ESU is ‘‘likely to become incorporate natural origin fish into the River Hatchery stock that is not endangered within the foreseeable broodstock to minimize divergence from considered to be part of the ESU. This future.’’ naturally spawning local populations. hatchery program is being terminated in There are two artificial propagation The available genetic information 2004. Thus potential genetic risks programs considered to be part of the suggests that both hatchery populations associated with propagation of this non- Central Valley O. mykiss ESU (Table 2; are genetically similar to natural origin ESU stock will decline in the future. NMFS, 2004b). Both programs are fish in the upper Sacramento River Historically, resident fish are believed to located in the Sacramento River Basin basin. Effects on productivity are have occurred in all areas in the ESU and are large-scale mitigation facilities uncertain, but the Coleman NFH used by steelhead, although current intended to support recreational program is conducting a study to distribution is more restricted. In this fisheries for steelhead rather than to evaluate hatchery origin steelhead ESU, resident fish do not substantially supplement naturally spawning productivity relative to natural origin increase the total ESU abundance. The populations. The Coleman NFH is fish in Battle Creek. There is limited BRT did not consider resident fish to located on Battle Creek, a tributary in spawning habitat in both the Feather reduce risks to ESU abundance, and the upper Sacramento River. The River and lower Battle Creek, so it is their contribution to ESU productivity, program has been in operation for possible that high returns of hatchery spatial structure, and diversity is several decades and has a production fish to these watersheds will compete uncertain (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a). The goal of 600,000 smolts per year. with local natural origin spawners for BRT found high risk for the abundance Broodstock was originally derived from habitat, thereby reducing overall VSP category, and moderately high risk local or nearby Sacramento River stocks, productivity. The Feather River for productivity. The ESU spatial and all hatchery production is marked hatchery program does not affect ESU structure and diversity categories were to facilitate harvest management and spatial structure, however, the Coleman of comparatively lower concern. minimize impacts on natural origin fish. NFH program may have some limited Informed by this assessment, the The natural population of O. mykiss in beneficial effects in the future. The majority opinion of the BRT was that Battle Creek is integrated with the hatchery currently passes all natural the naturally spawned component of the hatchery population, though the origin fish into the upper Battle Creek Northern California O. mykiss ESU is hatchery bypasses natural origin fish watershed, but may supplement this ‘‘likely to become endangered within into the upper portion of the watershed with hatchery origin fish in the foreseeable future.’’ The minority above the hatchery. The Feather River coordination with ongoing restoration BRT opinion was split between the ‘‘in Hatchery is located on the Feather efforts in upper Battle Creek. Informed danger of extinction’’ and ‘‘not in River, a major tributary in the upper by the BRT’s findings (NMFS, 2003b) danger of extinction or likely to become

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33138 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

endangered within the foreseeable Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU abundance greater than 750 spawners). future.’’ The BRT was encouraged by The BRT could not conclusively There are two small artificial significant increases in adult returns identify a single population that is propagation programs producing (exceeding 10,000 total fish) in 2001 and naturally viable. A number of steelhead considered to be part of the 2002 for the Upper Willamette River O. populations have a substantial fraction Northern California O. mykiss ESU mykiss ESU. The recent 5-year mean of hatchery-origin spawners, and are (Table 2; NMFS, 2004b). These abundance, however, remains low for an hypothesized to be sustained largely by hatchery production. Long-term trends propagation programs (Yager Creek and entire ESU (5,819 adults), and in spawner abundance are negative for N.F. Gualala River hatchery) are very individual populations remain at low seven of nine populations for which small ventures aimed at augmenting abundance. Long-term trends in there are sufficient data, and short-term local steelhead abundance, and both abundance are negative for all trends are negative for five of seven were in operation for over two decades. populations in the ESU, reflecting a populations. It is estimated that four decade of consistently low returns The Yager Creek hatchery has not been historical populations have been during the 1990s. Short-term trends, in operation for the past few years, and extirpated or nearly extirpated, and only buoyed by recent strong returns, are there are currently no plans to reopen it. one-half of 23 historical populations positive. Approximately one-third of the The Gualala River Project has currently exhibit appreciable natural ESU’s historically accessible spawning terminated the hatchbox portion of its production. Although approximately 35 habitat is now blocked. Notwithstanding operation but is continuing with a percent of historical habitat has been juvenile rescue and rearing program. the lost spawning habitat, the ESU lost in this ESU due to the construction continues to be spatially well NMFS’ assessment of the effects of of dams or other impassible barriers, the distributed in the ESU, occupying each these two artificial propagation ESU exhibits a broad spatial distribution of the four major subbasins (the Mollala, programs on the viability of the ESU in- in a variety of watersheds and habitat North Santiam, South Santiam, and total concluded that they may decrease types. The BRT was particularly Calapooia Rivers). There is some risk to some degree by contributing to concerned about the impact on ESU uncertainty about the historical increased abundance of the ESU, but diversity of the high proportion of occurrence of O. mykiss in the Oregon have a neutral or uncertain effect on hatchery-origin spawners in the ESU, Coastal Range drainages. Coastal productivity, spatial structure and the disproportionate declines in the cutthroat trout is a dominant species in diversity of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b). summer steelhead life history, and the the Willamette Basin, and thus O. Both programs may have increased local release of non-native hatchery summer mykiss is not expected to have been as steelhead in the Cowlitz, Toutle, Sandy, natural population abundance to a widespread in this ESU as they are east limited degree in the past, but with the Lewis, Elochoman, Kalama, Wind, and of the Cascade Mountains. The BRT Clackamas Rivers. Resident fish are not termination of the artificial propagation considered the cessation of the ‘‘early’’ activities in both programs’ future, as abundant in this ESU as they are in winter-run hatchery program a positive the inland O. mykiss ESUs. The BRT did benefits to ESU abundance are unlikely sign for ESU diversity risk, but to continue. Effects on ESU productivity not consider resident fish to reduce remained concerned that releases of risks to ESU abundance, and their are uncertain, but continuation of the non-native summer steelhead continue. rescue and rearing program by the contribution to ESU productivity, Because coastal cutthroat trout is spatial structure, and diversity is Gualala River project may provide some dominant in the basin, resident O. limited benefits locally through the uncertain (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a). mykiss are not as abundant or The BRT found moderate risks in each salvage of fish that would otherwise be widespread here as in the inland O. of the VSP categories. Informed by this lost from the population. There is no mykiss ESUs. The BRT did not consider assessment the majority opinion of the information to assess whether either resident fish to reduce risks to ESU BRT was that the naturally spawned program had any effect on ESU spatial abundance, and their contribution to component of the Lower Columbia River structure, but because of their relatively ESU productivity, spatial structure, and O. mykiss ESU is ‘‘likely to become small size it is unlikely to have had diversity is uncertain (NMFS, 2003b; endangered within the foreseeable much effect. Past operations at both 2004a). future.’’ The minority opinion was that hatchery facilities used local stock and The BRT found moderate risks for the ESU is ‘‘not in danger of extinction incorporated only local natural origin each of the VSP categories. Based on or likely to become endangered within fish in the broodstock. Thus adverse this risk assessment, the majority the foreseeable future.’’ effects on local population diversity opinion of the BRT was that the Upper There are 10 artificial propagation were minimized. The juvenile rescue Willamette River O. mykiss ESU is programs releasing hatchery steelhead and rearing program operated by the ‘‘likely to become endangered within that are considered to be part of the Gualala River project rescues up to the foreseeable future.’’ The minority Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU 15,000 fish of all year classes in some BRT opinion was that the ESU is ‘‘not (Table 2). All of these programs are years. Thus it can serve to preserve local in danger of extinction or likely to designed to produce fish for harvest, but genetic diversity that would otherwise become endangered within the several are also implemented to be lost due to adverse habitat foreseeable future.’’ augment the natural spawning conditions. Informed by the BRT’s populations in the basins where the fish findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS’ Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU are released. Four of these programs are assessment of the effects of artificial Some anadromous populations in the part of research activities to determine propagation programs on the viability of Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU, the effects of artificial propagation the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial particularly summer-run steelhead programs that use naturally produced Propagation Evaluation Workshop populations, have shown encouraging steelhead for broodstock in an attempt concluded that the Northern California increases in abundance in the last 2 to to minimize the genetic effects of O. mykiss ESU in-total is ‘‘likely to 3 years. However, population returning hatchery adults that spawn become endangered in the foreseeable abundance levels remain small (no naturally. One of these programs, the future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). population has a recent 5-year mean Cowlitz River late-run winter steelhead

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33139

program, is also producing fish for these interim recovery targets articulate of extinction or likely to become release into the upper Cowlitz River the geometric mean of natural-origin endangered within the foreseeable Basin in an attempt to re-establish a spawners to be sustained over a period future’’ extinction risk categories. natural spawning population above of 8 years or approximately two There are seven hatchery steelhead Cowlitz Falls Dam. salmonid generations, as well as a programs considered to be part of the NMFS’ assessment of the effects of geometric mean natural replacement Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. artificial propagation on ESU extinction rate greater than one). The Umatilla These programs propagate steelhead in risk concluded that these hatchery River recent 5-year mean natural three of 16 ESU populations, and programs collectively do not population abundance is approximately improve kelt (post-spawned steelhead) substantially reduce the extinction risk 72 percent of its interim recovery target survival in one population. There are no of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). The abundance level. The natural artificial programs producing the hatchery programs have reduced risks to populations in the Yakima River, winter-run life history in the Klickitat ESU abundance by increasing total ESU Klickitat River, Touchet River, Walla River and Fifteenmile Creek abundance and the abundance of fish Walla River, and Fifteenmile Creek, populations. All of the ESU hatchery spawning naturally in the ESU. The however, remain well below their programs are designed to produce fish contribution of ESU hatchery programs interim recovery target abundance for harvest, although two are also to the productivity of the ESU in-total levels. Long-term trends for 11 of the 12 implemented to augment the natural is uncertain. It is also uncertain if production areas in the ESU were spawning populations in the basins reintroduced steelhead into the Upper negative, although it was observed that where the fish are released. The Cowlitz River will be viable in the these downward trends are driven, at artificial propagation programs that foreseeable future, as outmigrant least in part, by a peak in returns in the produce these latter two hatchery stocks survival appears to be quite low. As middle to late 1980s, followed by in the Umatilla River (Oregon) and the noted by the BRT, out-of-ESU hatchery relatively low escapement levels in the Touchet River (Washington) use programs have negatively impacted ESU early 1990s. Short-term trends in the 12 naturally produced adults for productivity. The within-ESU hatchery production areas were mostly positive broodstock. The remaining programs do programs provide a slight decrease in from 1990 to 2001. The continued low not incorporate natural adults into the risks to ESU spatial structure, number of natural returns to the Yakima broodstock. principally through the re-introduction River (10 percent of the interim recovery NMFS’ assessment of the effects of of steelhead into the Upper Cowlitz target abundance level, historically a artificial propagation on ESU extinction River Basin. The eventual success of major production center for the ESU) risk concluded that these hatchery these reintroduction efforts, however, is generated concern among the BRT. programs collectively do not substantially reduce the extinction risk uncertain. Harvest augmentation However, anadromous and resident O. of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). ESU programs that have instituted locally- mykiss remain well distributed in the hatchery programs may provide a slight adapted natural broodstock protocols majority of subbasins in the Middle benefit to ESU abundance. Artificial (e.g., the Sandy, Clackamas, Kalama, Columbia River ESU. The presence of propagation increases total ESU and Hood River programs) have reduced substantial numbers of out-of-basin (and abundance, principally in the Umatilla adverse genetic effects and benefited largely out-of-ESU) natural spawners in and Deschutes Rivers. The kelt ESU diversity. Non-ESU hatchery the Deschutes River, raised substantial reconditioning efforts in the Yakima programs in the Lower Columbia River concern regarding the genetic integrity remain a threat to ESU diversity. River do not augment natural and productivity of the native Deschutes Collectively, artificial propagation abundance, but do benefit the survival population. The extent to which this programs in the ESU provide a slight of the natural populations. The Touchet straying is an historical natural beneficial effect to ESU abundance, River hatchery program has only phenomenon is unknown. The cool spatial structure, and diversity, but recently been established, and its Deschutes River temperatures may uncertain effects to ESU productivity. contribution to ESU viability is attract fish migrating in the Informed by the BRT’s findings (NMFS, uncertain. The contribution of ESU comparatively warmer Columbia River 2003b) and NMFS’ assessment of the hatchery programs to the productivity of waters, thus inducing high stray rates. effects of artificial propagation programs the three target populations, and the The BRT noted the particular difficulty on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, ESU in-total, is uncertain. The hatchery 2004b), the Artificial Propagation in evaluating the contribution of programs affect a small proportion of Evaluation Workshop concluded that resident fish to ESU-level extinction the ESU, providing a negligible the Lower Columbia River O. mykiss risk. Several sources indicate that contribution to ESU spatial structure. ESU in-total is ‘‘likely to become resident fish are very common in the Overall the impacts to ESU diversity are endangered in the foreseeable future’’ ESU and may greatly outnumber neutral. The Umatilla River program, (NMFS, 2004c). anadromous fish. The BRT concluded through the incorporation of natural that the relatively abundant and widely broodstock, likely limits adverse effects Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU distributed resident fish in the ESU to population diversity. The Deschutes The abundance of natural populations reduce risks to overall ESU abundance, River hatchery program may be in the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss but provide an uncertain contribution to decreasing population diversity. The ESU has increased substantially over the ESU productivity, spatial structure, and recently initiated Touchet River past 5 years. The Deschutes and Upper diversity (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a). endemic program is attempting to John Day Rivers have recent 5-year The BRT found moderate risk in each reduce adverse effects to diversity mean abundance levels in excess of of the VSP categories, with the greatest through the elimination of out-of-ESU their respective interim recovery target relative risk being attributed to the ESU Lyons Ferry Hatchery steelhead stock. abundance levels (NMFS, 2002). Due to abundance category. Informed by this Collectively, artificial propagation an uncertain proportion of out-of-ESU assessment, the opinion of the BRT was programs in the ESU provide a slight strays in the Deschutes River, the recent closely divided between the ‘‘likely to beneficial effect to ESU abundance, but increases in this population are difficult become endangered within the have neutral or uncertain effects on ESU to interpret. (It is worth noting that foreseeable future’’ and ‘‘not in danger productivity, spatial structure, and

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33140 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

diversity. Informed by the BRT’s ESU is ‘‘likely to become endangered percent of all returns. The contribution findings (NMFS, 2003b) and NMFS’ within the foreseeable future.’’ of hatchery programs to the abundance assessment of the effects of artificial Six artificial propagation programs of naturally spawning fish is uncertain. propagation programs on the viability of that produce hatchery steelhead in the The contribution of ESU hatchery the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Upper Columbia River basin are programs to the productivity of the ESU Propagation Evaluation Workshop considered to be part of the Upper in-total is uncertain. However, large concluded that the Middle Columbia Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. These numbers of hatchery-origin steelhead in River O. mykiss ESU in-total is ‘‘likely programs are intended to contribute to excess of broodstock needs and what the to become endangered in the foreseeable the recovery of the ESU by increasing available spawning habitat can support future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). the abundance of natural spawners, may decrease ESU productivity in-total. increasing spatial distribution, and With increasing ESU abundance in Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU improving local adaptation and recent years, naturally spawning The last 2–3 years have seen an diversity (particularly with respect to hatchery-origin fish have expanded the encouraging increase in the number of the Wenatchee River steelhead). spawning areas being utilized. Since naturally produced fish in the Upper Research projects to investigate the 1996 efforts are being undertaken to Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. The spawner productivity of hatchery-reared establish the Wenatchee Basin programs 1996–2001 average return through the fish are being developed. Some of the separately from the Wells steelhead Priest Rapids Dam fish ladder (just hatchery-reared steelhead adults that hatchery program. These efforts are below the upper Columbia steelhead return to the basin may be in excess of expected to increase ESU diversity over production areas) was approximately spawning population needs in years of time. There is concern that the high 12,900 total adults (including both high survival conditions, potentially proportion of Wells hatchery steelhead hatchery and natural origin fish), posing a risk to the naturally spawned spawning naturally in the Methow and compared to 7,800 adults for 1992– populations in the ESU. The artificial Okanogan Basins may pose risks to ESU 1996. However, the recent 5-year mean propagation programs included in this diversity by decreasing local adaptation. abundances for naturally spawned ESU adhere to strict protocols for the The Omak Creek program, although populations in this ESU are 14 to 30 collection, rearing, maintenance, and small in size, likely will increase percent of their interim recovery target mating of the captive brood populations. population diversity over time. There abundance levels. Despite increases in The programs include extensive has been concern that the early total abundance in the last few years, monitoring and evaluation efforts to spawning components of the Methow the BRT was frustrated by the general continually evaluate the extent and and Wenatchee hatchery programs may lack of detailed information regarding implications of any genetic and represent a risk to ESU diversity. The the productivity of natural populations. behavioral differences that might recent transfer of these early-run The BRT did not find data to suggest emerge between the hatchery and components to the Ringold Hatchery on that the extremely low replacement rate natural stocks. Genetic evidence the mainstem Columbia River will of naturally spawning fish (0.25–0.30 at suggests that these programs remain benefit the diversity of the tributary the time of the last status review in closely related to the naturally-spawned populations, while establishing a 1998) has appreciably improved. The populations and maintain local genetic genetic reserve on the mainstem predominance of hatchery-origin natural distinctiveness of populations within Columbia River. Collectively, artificial spawners (approximately 70 to 90 the ESU. HCPs (with the Chelan and propagation programs in the ESU percent of adult returns) is a significant Douglas Public Utility Districts) and benefit ESU abundance and spatial source of concern for ESU diversity, and binding mitigation agreements ensure structure, but have neutral or uncertain generates uncertainty in evaluating that these programs will have secure effects on ESU productivity and trends in natural abundance and funding and will continue into the diversity. Benefits of artificial productivity. However, the natural future. These hatchery programs have propagation are more substantial in the component of the anadromous run over undergone ESA section 7 consultation Wenatchee Basin for abundance, spatial Priest Rapids Dam has increased from to ensure that they do not jeopardize the structure, and diversity. Informed by the an average of 1,040 (1992–1996) to 2,200 recovery of the ESU, and they have BRT’s findings (NMFS, 2003b) and (1997–2001). This pattern however is received ESA section 10 permits for NMFS’ assessment of the effects of not consistent for other production areas production though 2007. Annual reports artificial propagation programs on the within the ESU. The mean proportion of and other specific information reporting viability of the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the natural-origin spawners declined by 10 requirements are used to ensure that the Artificial Propagation Evaluation percent from 1992–1996 to 1997–2001. terms and conditions as specified by Workshop concluded that the Upper For many BRT members, the presence of NMFS are followed. These programs, Columbia River O. mykiss ESU in-total relatively numerous resident fish through adherence to best professional is ‘‘likely to become endangered in the reduces risks to ESU abundance, but practices, have not experienced disease foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). provides an uncertain contribution to outbreaks or other catastrophic losses. ESU productivity, spatial structure, and NMFS’ assessment of the effects of Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU diversity (NMFS, 2003b; 2004a). artificial propagation on ESU extinction The paucity of information on adult The BRT found high risk for the risk concluded that hatchery programs spawning escapement for specific productivity VSP category, with collectively mitigate the immediacy of tributary production areas in the Snake comparatively lower risk for the extinction risk for the Upper Columbia River Basin O. mykiss ESU makes a abundance, diversity, and spatial River O. mykiss ESU in-total in the short quantitative assessment of viability structure categories. Informed by this term, but that the contribution of these difficult. Annual return estimates are risk assessment, the slight majority BRT programs in the foreseeable future is limited to counts of the aggregate return opinion concerning the naturally uncertain (NMFS, 2004c). The ESU over Lower Granite Dam, and spawner spawned component of the Upper hatchery programs substantially estimates for the Tucannon, Grande Columbia River O. mykiss ESU was in increase total ESU returns, particularly Ronde, and Imnaha Rivers. The 2001 the ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ category, in the Methow Basin where hatchery- Snake River steelhead return over Lower and the minority opinion was that the origin fish comprise on average 92 Granite Dam was substantially higher

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33141

relative to the low levels seen in the endangered within the foreseeable 2003b) and NMFS’ assessment of the 1990s; the recent 5-year mean future’’ extinction risk categories. effects of artificial propagation programs abundance (14,768 natural returns) is There are six artificial propagation on the viability of the ESU (NMFS, approximately 28 percent of the interim programs producing steelhead in the 2004b), the Artificial Propagation recovery target level. The abundance Snake River Basin that are considered to Evaluation Workshop concluded that surveyed in sections of the Grande be part of the Snake River Basin O. the Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU in- Ronde Imnaha and Tucannon Rivers mykiss ESU (Table 2). Artificial total is ‘‘likely to become endangered in was generally improved in 2001. propagation enhancement efforts occur the foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). However, the recent 5-year abundance in the Imnaha River (Oregon), Tucannon River (Washington), East Fork Salmon Summary of Factors Affecting the and productivity trends were mixed. Species Five of the nine available data series River (Idaho, in the initial stages of exhibit positive long- and short-term broodstock development), and South Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS’ trends in abundance. The majority of Fork Clearwater River (Idaho). In implementing regulations (50 CFR part long-term population growth rate addition, Dworshak Hatchery acts as a 424) set forth procedures for listing estimates for the nine available series gene bank to preserve the North Fork species. The Secretary of Commerce were below replacement. The majority Clearwater River ‘‘B’’-run steelhead (Secretary) must determine, through the of short-term population growth rates population, which no longer has access regulatory process, if a species is were marginally above replacement, or to historical habitat due to construction endangered or threatened because of well below replacement, depending of Dworshak Dam. any one or a combination of the upon the assumption made regarding NMFS’ assessment of the effects of following factors: (1) The present or the effectiveness of hatchery fish in artificial propagation on ESU extinction threatened destruction, modification, or contributing to natural production. The risk concluded that these hatchery curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) BRT noted that the ESU remains programs collectively do not overutilization for commercial, spatially well distributed in each of the substantially reduce the extinction risk recreational, scientific, or educational 6 major geographic areas in the Snake of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) River Basin. The BRT was concerned Snake River Basin hatchery programs inadequacy of existing regulatory that the Snake River Basin steelhead ‘‘B- may be providing some benefit to the mechanisms; or (5) other natural or run’’ (steelhead with a 2-year ocean local target, but only the Dworshak- human-made factors affecting its continued existence. NMFS has residence and larger body size that are based programs have appreciably previously detailed the impacts of believed to be produced only in the benefited the number of total adult various factors contributing to the Clearwater, Middle Fork Salmon, and spawners. The Little Sheep hatchery program is contributing to total decline of Pacific salmon and O. mykiss South Fork Salmon Rivers) was abundance in the Imnaha River, but has (e.g., citations for ESU listing particularly depressed. The BRT was not contributed to increased natural determinations in Table 1; NMFS 1997c, also concerned about the predominance production. The Tucannon and East ‘‘Factors Contributing to the Decline of of hatchery produced fish in this ESU, Fork Salmon River programs have only Chinook Salmon—An Addendum to the the inferred displacement of naturally recently been initiated, and have yet to 1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors for produced fish by hatchery-origin fish, produce appreciable adult returns. The Decline Report;’’ NMFS 1996a, ‘‘Factors and the potential impacts on ESU overall contribution of the hatchery for Decline—A Supplement to the diversity. High straying rates exhibited programs in reducing risks to ESU Notice of Determination for West Coast by some hatchery programs generated abundance is small. The contribution of Steelhead Under the Endangered concern about the possible ESU hatchery programs to the Species Act’’). These Federal Register homogenization of population structure productivity of the ESU in-total is notices and technical reports conclude and diversity within the Snake River uncertain. Most returning Snake River that all of the factors identified in Basin ESU. Recent efforts to improve the Basin hatchery steelhead are collected at section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played use of local broodstock and release hatchery weirs or have access to a role in the decline of West Coast hatchery fish away from natural unproductive mainstem habitats, salmon and O. mykiss ESUs. The reader production areas, however, are limiting potential contributions to the is referred to the above Federal Register encouraging. For many BRT members, productivity of the entire ESU. The notices and technical reports for a more the presence of relatively numerous artificial propagation programs affect detailed treatment of the relevant factors resident fish reduces risks to ESU only a small portion of the ESU’s spatial for decline for specific ESUs. The abundance, but provides an uncertain distribution and confer only slight following discussion briefly summarizes contribution to ESU productivity, benefits to ESU spatial structure. Large findings regarding the principal factors spatial structure, and diversity (NMFS, steelhead programs, not considered to for decline across the range of West 2003b; 2004a). be part of the ESU, occur in the Coast salmon and O. mykiss. While The BRT found moderate risk for the mainstem Snake, Grande Ronde, and these factors are treated in general abundance, productivity, and diversity Salmon Rivers and may adversely affect terms, it is important to underscore that VSP categories, and comparatively ESU diversity. These out-of-ESU impacts from certain factors are more lower risk in the spatial structure programs are currently undergoing acute for specific ESUs. category. Informed by this risk review to determine the level of assessment, the majority opinion of the isolation between the natural and A. The Present or Threatened BRT was that the naturally spawned hatchery stocks and to define what Destruction, Modification, or component of the Snake River Basin O. reforms may be needed. Collectively, Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range mykiss ESU is ‘‘likely to become artificial propagation programs in the West Coast salmon and O. mykiss endangered within the foreseeable ESU provide a slight beneficial effect to have experienced declines in abundance future.’’ The minority BRT opinion was ESU abundance and spatial structure, over the past several decades as a result split between the ‘‘in danger of but have neutral or uncertain effects on of loss, damage or change to their extinction’’ and ‘‘not in danger of ESU productivity and diversity. natural environment. Water diversions extinction or likely to become Informed by the BRT’s findings (NMFS, for agriculture, flood control, domestic,

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33142 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

and hydropower purposes (especially in C. Disease or Predation D. The Inadequacy of Existing the Columbia River and Sacramento-San Introductions of non-native species Regulatory Mechanisms Joaquin Basins) have greatly reduced or and habitat modifications have resulted A variety of Federal, state, tribal, and eliminated historically accessible in increased predator populations in local laws, regulations, treaties and habitat and degraded remaining habitat. numerous rivers and lakes. Predation by measures affect the abundance and Forestry, agriculture, mining, and marine mammals (principally seals and survival of West Coast salmon and O. urbanization have degraded, simplified, sea lions) is also of concern in areas mykiss, and the quality of their habitats. and fragmented habitat. Studies indicate experiencing dwindling run sizes of The adequacy of existing regulatory that in most western states, about 80 to salmon and O. mykiss. However, mechanisms is treated below in the 90 percent of the historical riparian although fishes form the principal food context of evaluating the likelihood of habitat has been eliminated (Botkin et sources of many marine mammals, implementation and effectiveness of al., 1995; Norse, 1990; Kellogg, 1992; salmonids appear to be a minor efforts being made to protect West Coast California State Lands Commission, component of their diet (Scheffer and salmon and O. mykiss, including 1993). The destruction or modification Sperry, 1931; Jameson and Kenyon, specific regulatory measures (see the of estuarine areas has resulted in the 1977; Graybill, 1981; Brown and Mate, ‘‘Efforts Being Made to Protect West loss of important rearing and migration 1983; Roffe and Mate, 1984; Hanson, Coast Salmon and O. mykiss’’ section). habitats. Washington and Oregon 1993). Predation by marine mammals wetlands are estimated to have may significantly influence salmonid E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence diminished by one-third, while abundance in some local populations California has experienced a 91 percent when other prey species are absent and Variability in ocean and freshwater loss of its wetland habitat. Losses of physical conditions lead to the conditions can have profound impacts habitat complexity and habitat concentration of salmonid adults and on the productivity of salmon and O. fragmentation have also contributed to juveniles (Cooper and Johnson, 1992). mykiss populations. Natural climatic the decline of West Coast salmonids. Predation by seabirds can also influence conditions have at different times For example, in national forests in the survival of juvenile salmon and O. exacerbated or mitigated the problems western and eastern Washington, there mykiss in some locations. For example, associated with degraded and altered has been a 58 percent reduction in large, it has been estimated that Caspian terns riverine and estuarine habitats (see the deep pools due to sedimentation and (Sterna caspia) in the lower Columbia ‘‘Consideration of Recent Ocean loss of pool forming structures such as River and estuary consume Conditions in Listing Determinations’’ boulders and large wood (FEMAT, approximately 13 percent of the out- section). 1993). Similarly, in Oregon, the migrating smolts reaching the estuary in Extensive hatchery programs have abundance of large, deep pools on some years (Collis et al., 2001). been implemented throughout the range private coastal lands has decreased by Infectious disease is one of many of West Coast salmon and O. mykiss. as much as 80 percent (FEMAT, 1993). factors that can influence adult and While some of these programs have Sedimentation from extensive and juvenile salmon and O. mykiss survival. succeeded in providing fishing intensive land use activities (e.g., timber Salmonids are exposed to numerous opportunities and increasing the total harvests, road building, livestock bacterial, protozoan, viral, and parasitic number of fish on spawning grounds, grazing, and urbanization) is recognized organisms in spawning and rearing the long-term impacts of these programs areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and as a primary cause of habitat on native, naturally reproducing stocks the marine environment. Specific degradation throughout the range of are not well understood. Artificial diseases such as bacterial kidney West Coast salmon and O. mykiss. propagation may play an important role disease, ceratomyxosis, columnaris, in salmon and O. mykiss recovery. The B. Overutilization for Commercial, furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic state natural resource agencies (CDFG, Recreational, Scientific or Educational necrosis virus, redmouth and black spot Oregon Department of Fish and Purposes disease, erythrocytic inclusion body Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and syndrome, and whirling disease, among Game, and the Washington Department Historically, salmon and O. mykiss others, are present and are known to of Fish and Wildlife) have adopted or were abundant in many western coastal affect West Coast salmonids (Rucker et are implementing natural salmonid and interior waters of the United States. al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Foott policies designed to ensure that the use These species have supported, and et al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer, of artificial propagation is conducted in continue to support, important tribal, undated). In general, very little current a manner consistent with the commercial and recreational fisheries or historical information exists to conservation and recovery of natural, throughout their range, contributing quantify changes in infection levels and indigenous salmon and O. mykiss millions of dollars to numerous local mortality rates attributable to these stocks. While these efforts are economies, as well as providing diseases. However, studies have shown encouraging, the careful monitoring and important cultural and subsistence that naturally spawned fish tend to be management of current programs, and needs for Native Americans. Overfishing less susceptible to pathogens than the scrutiny of proposed programs is in the early days of European settlement hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al., necessary to minimize impacts on listed led to the depletion of many stocks of 1983; Sanders et al., 1992). Native species. salmonids, prior to extensive salmon and O. mykiss populations have modifications and degradation of co-evolved with specific communities of Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast natural habitats. However, following the these organisms, but the widespread use Salmon and O. mykiss degradation of many west coast aquatic of artificial propagation has introduced Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires and riparian ecosystems, exploitation exotic organisms not historically present the Secretary to make listing rates were higher than many in a particular watershed. Habitat determinations solely on the basis of the populations could sustain. Therefore, conditions such as low water flows and best scientific and commercial data harvest may have contributed to the high temperatures can exacerbate available after taking into account further decline of some populations. susceptibility to infectious diseases. efforts being made to protect a species.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33143

Therefore, in making its listing how protective efforts affecting only a such as building boat ramps and docks, determinations, NMFS first assesses portion of a species’ range may affect a water withdrawals, and dredging ESU extinction risk and identifies listing determination, other than to say activities. NMFS’ involvement in these factors that have led to its decline. that such efforts will be evaluated in the consultations, and the resultant NMFS then assesses existing efforts context of other efforts being made and biological opinions, have resulted in a being made to protect the species to the species’ overall viability. There are more consistent approach to determine if those measures ameliorate circumstances where threats are so management of public lands throughout the risks faced by the ESU. imminent, widespread, and/or complex the range of West Coast salmon and O. In judging the efficacy of existing that it may be impossible for any mykiss ESUs. protective efforts, NMFS relies on the agreement or plan to include sufficient The 2000 Federal Columbia River joint NMFS–FWS ‘‘Policy for Evaluation efforts to result in a determination that Power System (FCRPS) biological of Conservation Efforts When Making listing is not warranted. opinion incorporates 199 alternative Listing Decisions’’ (‘‘PECE;’’ 68 FR Evaluation of Protective Efforts actions addressing operation of the 15100; March 28, 2003). PECE provides FCRPS and 19 Bureau of Reclamation As discussed above, NMFS assesses direction for the consideration of (BOR) projects. The alternative actions ESU viability on the basis of the four protective efforts identified in are aimed at protecting or improving the VSP criteria: abundance, productivity, conservation agreements, conservation survival of listed salmon and O. mykiss spatial structure and diversity plans, management plans, or similar stocks. The actions span a wide range of (McElhany et al., 2000). These four documents (developed by federal activities, including updating annual agencies, State and local governments, parameters are universal indicators of operations of the FCRPS, short- and Tribal governments, businesses, species viability and individually and long-term construction at FCRPS organizations, and individuals) that collectively function as reasonable projects, early action offsite mitigation have not yet been implemented, or have predictors of extinction risk. NMFS proposals, and research efforts aimed at been implemented but have not yet evaluated protective efforts on the basis gaining future improvements. The demonstrated effectiveness. The policy of these four VSP criteria. The efforts biological opinion outlines articulates several criteria for evaluating addressing habitat, harvest and fish comprehensive monitoring and the certainty of implementation and passage issues are organized by regional evaluation programs, as well as specific effectiveness of protective efforts to aid protective efforts, followed by federal research actions. Additionally, in determination of whether a species and non-federal protective efforts in the warrants listing as threatened or individual states. The collective discretionary conservation measures are endangered. Evaluations of the certainty contribution of all protective efforts in suggested to minimize or avoid the an effort will be implemented include mitigating ESU-level extinction risk for potential adverse effects of a proposed whether: the necessary resources (e.g., each ESU is described in the ‘‘Proposed action on listed species, to minimize or funding and staffing) are available; the Listing Determinations’’ section that avoid adverse modification of critical requisite agreements have been follows. habitat, to develop additional information, or to assist the Federal formalized such that the necessary Regional Protective Efforts authority and regulatory mechanisms agencies in complying with the are in place; there is a schedule for Federal Efforts—NMFS conducts obligations under section 7(a)(1) of the completion and evaluation of the stated hundreds of ESA section 7 consultations ESA. These recommendations include: objectives; and (for voluntary efforts) the concerning ongoing and proposed conduct research to identify and address necessary incentives are in place to activities that may affect salmonid factors for decline; conduct research on ensure adequate participation. The habitats within the range of listed West requirements for spill operation, intake evaluation of the certainty of an effort’s Coast salmon and O. mykiss ESUs. screen, bypass system, and turbine effectiveness is made on the basis of Biological assessments (BAs) and operation to improve the survival of whether the effort or plan: establishes biological opinions cover a wide range migrating salmonids through the Snake specific conservation objectives; of management activities, including River/Lower Columbia hydropower identifies the necessary steps to reduce forest and/or resource area-wide routine system; improve water quality threats or factors for decline; includes and non-routine road maintenance, management of Columbia River total quantifiable performance measures for hazardous tree removal, range allotment dissolved gas and temperature; improve the monitoring of compliance and management, watershed and instream management of mainstem Columbia effectiveness; incorporates the restoration, special use permits (e.g., River instream flows; institute predator principles of adaptive management; and mining, ingress/egress), flood control, controls; improve spawning and rearing is likely to improve the species’ viability water supply/irrigation, and timber sale habitats in the mainstem Columbia at the time of the listing determination. programs (e.g., green tree, fuel River and its tributaries; reduce habitat The PECE also notes several reduction, thinning, regeneration, and blockages in Columbia River tributaries; important caveats. Satisfaction of the salvage). These BAs and biological reduce the negative effects of hatchery above mentioned criteria for opinions include region-specific best practices on wild salmonid stocks; implementation and effectiveness management practices, necessary reduce the negative impacts of harvest establishes a given protective effort as a measures to minimize impacts for listed on wild stocks; and improve estuary candidate for consideration, but does anadromous salmonids, monitoring, and habitat and reduce deleterious Columbia not mean that an effort will ultimately environmental baseline checklists for River plume effects. These objectives, if change the risk assessment. The policy each project. In addition to the achieved, would significantly increase stresses that just as listing numerous consultations involving downstream/upstream and migrant determinations must be based on the Federal land management actions, survival, increase spawning and rearing viability of the species at the time of NMFS has also consulted on a variety of survival, provide access to currently review, so they must be based on the activities involving private actions blocked or degraded habitat, and allow state of protective efforts at the time of requiring Federal authorization or for the expression of a wider range of the listing determination. The PECE approval. Examples of these actions life-history strategies and run timing. does not provide explicit guidance on include significant instream projects Recently in National Wildlife Federation

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33144 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

et al. v. NMFS, the U.S. District Court beside streams, implemented habitat lowering of harvest rates in years of for the District of Oregon remanded the restoration actions (e.g., large wood reduced abundance. The new approach 2000 FCRPS biological opinion to placement, channel restoration, culvert also includes additional measures that NMFS. While NMFS reconsiders the replacements and removals), revised will further reduce fishery impacts if biological opinion, it remains in place. road construction guidelines, and identified natural stocks fail to achieve It is worth noting that the conservation adopted other best management escapement objectives. The 1999 program under the FCRPS biological practices. These efforts have been Agreement prescribes a complementary opinion has significant overlap with the undertaken to reduce adverse effects to regime for the ocean chinook fisheries Northwest Power and Conservation aquatic and riparian dependent species, off Washington and Oregon and in Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program including salmon and O. mykiss, and to terminal areas. There, specific (NPCC–FWP, discussed further below) mitigate for past adverse effects reductions in harvest rates must be and should not be considered as an resulting from Federal land management implemented in chinook fisheries as entirely independent effort. activities (e.g., timber harvest, roads, necessary to meet established The NPCC–FWP works to protect, recreation). NMFS has consulted on the escapement goals for key indicator mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife standards of the Northwest Forest Plan (natural) stocks. The 1999 Agreement of the Columbia River Basin. Locally and concluded that where the standards also resulted in a major change in the developed subbasin plans, scheduled to are implemented, the resulting management of coho fisheries, primarily be completed by May 2004, are being conditions will be consistent with the those affecting Washington and British written in 62 subbasins in the Columbia recovery of salmon and O. mykiss ESUs. Columbia stocks, by prescribing an River system. Once adopted by the PACFISH is a cooperative effort abundance-based approach driven by Council, the plans are intended to guide between USFS and BLM to develop the annual abundance of natural coho Bonneville Power Administration coordinated Management and Land Use salmon. funding of projects for the NPCC–FWP. Plans for the Federal lands they manage The completed subbasin plans are in eastern Oregon and Washington, Protective Efforts in California intended to provide a resource for use Idaho, and portions of Northern Federal Efforts—Since 2000 NMFS by NMFS and FWS as part of threatened California. PACFISH is intended to has conducted approximately 2,300 ESA and endangered species recovery provide protection of anadromous fish section 7 consultations with over 20 planning. The success of the subbasin aquatic and riparian habitat conditions Federal action agencies that fund, planning process depends on adequate while a longer term, basin scale aquatic conduct, or authorize projects in funding and on high quality plans in conservation strategy is developed. California. Of this total, approximately compliance with the Council’s PACFISH provides objective standards 1,500 consultations involved projects in ‘‘Technical Guide for Subbasin and guidelines that are applied to all coastal watersheds occupied by listed Planning.’’ Implementation of these Federal land management activities coho, chinook, and O. mykiss ESUs. The plans may contribute to improvements such as timber harvest, road remaining section 7 consultations in fish passage at road crossing and construction, mining, grazing, and addressed projects in California’s irrigation diversion dams, and the recreation. Central Valley within the range of listed further screening of irrigation Ocean fisheries are managed by the chinook and O. mykiss ESUs. NMFS has withdrawals—two significant limiting Pacific Fishery Management Council also provided technical assistance to factors for Columbia Basin ESUs. It is (PFMC). Since the listings of Pacific Federal agencies on hundreds of less clear if the plans, and the salmon and O. mykiss under the ESA, additional projects throughout the State supporting Fish and Wildlife Program, substantial harvest reform has been of California. The vast majority of will help resolve other limiting factors, instituted to reduce impacts to listed consultations have been with the BOR, particularly low stream flow and stocks from ocean fisheries. Each year U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), riparian habitat protection. the PFMC develops fishing regulations Federal Highway Administration, FWS, NMFS (and FWS) are also engaged in that are within the guidelines USFS, BLM, and Bureau of Indian an ongoing effort to assist in the established by NMFS in section 7 Affairs. These consultations have development of multiple species Habitat consultations for listed ESUs in evaluated impacts to ESA-listed Conservation Plans (HCPs) for state and California, Oregon, Washington, and salmonid ESUs from a wide variety of privately owned lands. While section 7 Idaho. The ocean fisheries have been Federal projects including: irrigation of the ESA addresses species protection implemented consistent with NMFS’ and water diversion, timber harvest, associated with Federal actions and requirements and have been effective at watershed restoration, fish passage, lands, Habitat Conservation Planning reducing harvest impacts to listed gravel mining, grazing, and under section 10 of the ESA addresses salmon and O. mykiss ESUs. transportation projects. In addition to species protection on non-Federal lands. The 1999 Agreement between Canada consulting with other Federal agencies, HCPs are particularly important since and the United States under the Pacific NMFS has also consulted with itself much of the habitat in the range of West Salmon Treaty resulted in a major regarding the effects of recreational and Coast salmon and O. mykiss ESUs is in restructuring of the fishery management commercial ocean salmon fishing on non-Federal ownership. Within the approach for ocean chinook fisheries off listed salmonid ESUs. These range of currently-listed salmonids there the west coast of Canada and in consultations have improved, or are approximately 11 completed HCPs, Southeast Alaska. Most notably, the minimized adverse impacts to, listed and approximately 50 HCPs under ‘‘fixed ceiling’’ approach, which salmonid and their habitats throughout development. Where HCPs are in place, formerly resulted in higher harvest rates coastal and central valley watersheds in NMFS expects that the activities they in years of lower overall abundance, California. cover will be consistent with the was replaced with an abundance-driven Several significant consultations have recovery of salmon and O. mykiss ESUs. approach. Harvest rates in major been conducted on water projects in Under the Northwest Forest Plan, the chinook fisheries in the ocean off coastal watersheds and in the central U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau Canada and Southeast Alaska now vary valley. Among the most important have of Land Management (BLM) have in response to annual fluctuations in been consultations on the Klamath established protective riparian reserves abundance, resulting in a general Project, Potter Valley Project (Eel and

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33145

Russian Rivers), Cachuma Project (Santa anadromous fish is its Aquatic 2000 plan includes flow allocations, Ynez River), Robles Diversion Dam Conservation Strategy, a regional-scale direct in-channel actions, as well as (Ventura River) and the Central Valley aquatic ecosystem conservation strategy continued watershed restoration Project (Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin). that includes: (1) Special land activities, replacement of bridges and Other important water projects related allocations, such as key watersheds, structures in the flood plain, monitoring consultations are ongoing in the Russian riparian reserves, and late-successional and adaptive management. River (USACE and Sonoma County reserves, to provide aquatic habitat Implementation of the plan has been Water Agency) and on the Santa Clara refugia; (2) special requirements for delayed pending further analysis of River (United Water Conservation project planning and design in the form effects of alternatives on California’s District). of standards and guidelines; and (3) new energy supply and Central Valley water The Central Valley Project watershed analysis, watershed users. consultation, in particular, likely has restoration, and monitoring processes. The Klamath River Basin Fisheries contributed to recent improvements in These Strategy components collectively Task Force was established by the the Sacramento River winter-run are designed to support Federal land Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources chinook ESU. In 1992 NMFS issued a management actions in achieving a set Restoration Act of 1986 to provide jeopardy biological opinion to the BOR of nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy recommendations to the Secretary of that addressed long-term operation of objectives, including salmon habitat Interior on the formulation, the Central Valley Project and its conservation. The Aquatic Conservation establishment, and implementation of a impacts on winter-run chinook salmon. Strategy strives to maintain and restore 20-year program to restore anadromous Since that time, implementation of the ecosystem health at watershed and fish populations in Klamath Basin to reasonable and prudent alternative landscape scales to protect habitat for optimal levels. NMFS participates as a contained in the 1992 opinion has fish and other riparian-dependent member of the Task Force as well as of provided substantial benefits to winter- species and resources and to restore the Technical Work Group which run chinook by improving habitat and currently degraded habitats. The provides technical and scientific input fish passage conditions in the approach seeks to prevent further to the Task Force. In 1991, the Task Sacramento River and Delta. The degradation and to restore habitat on Force developed the Long Range Plan improved habitat conditions provided Federal lands over broad landscapes. for the Klamath River Basin by the reasonable and prudent The Northwest Forest Plan region-wide Conservation Area Fishery Restoration alternative have likely been a major management direction was either Program to help direct fishery factor contributing to substantial amended or was incorporated into the restoration programs and projects increases in population abundance and land and resource management plans throughout the Klamath River. Several productivity over the past decade. Key (LRMPs) for the National Forests and sub-basin watershed restoration plans elements of the reasonable and prudent BLM Resources Areas in northern have been developed since the alternative which have benefited winter California within the range of listed inception of the Klamath Act, including run chinook include: (1) Allocation of coho, chinook and O. mykiss ESUs. the Lower Klamath River Sub-Basin water to contractors using a more Through programmatic and site-specific Watershed Restoration Plan developed conservative water supply forecast ESA section 7 consultation efforts, by the Yurok Tribe in 2000 and the Mid- approach; (2) maintenance of higher NMFS has worked with the USFS and Klamath Sub-Basin Fisheries Resource Recovery Plan in 2001. end-of-year reservoir storage levels in the BLM over the last several years to Lake Shasta; (3) maintenance of The Redwood National and State ensure the Northwest Forest Plan and its minimum flows in the Sacramento Parks have developed several plans that Aquatic Conservation Strategy is during the fall and winter months; (4) will help to protect and enhance implemented in California. NMFS implementation of specified ramp-down anadromous salmonid habitats, believes that continued implementation criteria when flows from Keswick Dam including the Redwood National and of the Northwest Forest Plan will result are reduced; (5) establishment of water State Park General Management Plan in substantially improved habitat temperature criteria to support (1999) and the Redwood National Park conditions for listed coho, chinook and spawning and rearing in the mainstem Final Management Plan (1999). These O. mykiss ESUs over the next few Sacramento River upstream of the Red plans identify actions that the National decades and into the future. Improved Bluff Diversion Dam and water releases and State Parks will undertake to restore from Shasta Dam designed to meet the habitat conditions will result in aquatic and terrestrial ecological specified temperature criteria; (6) re- increased survival of the freshwater life functions within Park(s) boundaries. operation of the Red Bluff Diversion stages of these fish. The components of Recently, the state parks, in conjunction Dam gates to provide improved adult the Aquatic Conservation Strategy with several environmental and juvenile passage; (7) closures of the include watershed analysis, watershed organizations, raised funds to purchase Delta Cross Channel gates to divert restoration, reserve and refugia land Mill Creek, a lower tributary to the juveniles from the Delta; and (8) allocations, and development of Smith River, from Rellim Redwood constraints on Delta water exports to associated standards and guidelines. Company. A management plan has also reduce impacts on juvenile outmigrants. Implementation of actions consistent been developed for the Mill Creek The Northwest Forest Plan was with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Watershed, which is the largest tributary implemented in 1994 and represents a objectives will provide high levels of producing coho salmon in the Smith coordinated ecosystem management aquatic ecosystem understanding, River Basin. Humboldt Redwoods State strategy for Federal lands administered protection, and restoration for aquatic- Park has also developed a State Park by the USFS and the BLM within the habitat dependent species. General Plan (2001) which will provide range of the Northern spotted owl which Under the authority of the 1984 the vision and management direction for overlaps considerably with the Trinity River Fish and Wildlife the next 20 or more years. One of the freshwater range of listed coho, chinook Management Act, the Trinity River Task many goals for the state park plan is to and O. mykiss ESUs in northern Force was convened to develop a plan restore and protect terrestrial and California. The most significant element to restore fish and wildlife populations aquatic habitats and species in of the Northwest Forest Plan for on the Trinity River. The December accordance with Federal and state laws.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33146 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Two dam removal projects in Delta water supplies and current and have focused on riparian and shaded southern California will provide projected beneficial uses dependent on riverine aquatic habitat restoration, benefits to the Southern California O. the Bay-Delta system; and (3) reduce the improved access to available upstream mykiss ESU (the Matilija Dam and risk to land use and associated habitat, improvement of instream flows, Rindge Dam projects). The Matilija Dam economic activities, water supply, and reductions in loss of juveniles at Ecosystem Restoration project is being infrastructure to protect the ecosystem diversions, particularly for spring undertaken by a consortium of Federal, from catastrophic breaching of Delta chinook and O. mykiss. In the mainstem state and local agencies with the goal of levees. The ecosystem restoration Sacramento River, actions have focused removing the dam, restoring instream element of CALFED is being achieved on flow and temperature control, habitat above and below the dam site, through the Ecosystem Restoration restoration of spawning habitat, and restoring natural sediment transport Program. The Program has funded reduction of juvenile losses at to the mainstem Ventura River below projects involving: habitat restoration; diversions, and acquisition of riparian the dam. The Rindge Dam Ecosystem flood plain restoration and/or lands to improve spawning and rearing Restoration project is being undertaken protection; instream habitat restoration; habitat, especially for winter-run by the USACE and the California riparian habitat restoration/protection; chinook salmon. In the San Joaquin Department of Parks and Recreation. fish screening and passage projects; River and its tributaries, actions have There are no current projections for research on and eradication of non- focused on improvement in instream completing a Feasibility Study or native species; research on and flows, restoration of river channels, commencement of the project, though management of contaminants; research spawning gravels, and riparian cover, there remains strong support for the on and monitoring of fishery resources; and elimination of predator habitat. project by the local/non-federal sponsor. and watershed stewardship and Most of these actions have been on the If implemented, the project would education outreach efforts. In addition tributaries to the San Joaquin River. include removal of Rindge Dam, to implementation of restoration actions Habitat restoration efforts under the restoration of the instream habitats as part of the Ecosystem Restoration Central Valley PIA are generally divided above and below the dam, and Program, the CALFED program into two categories: anadromous fish restoration of steelhead access to established the Environmental Water habitat restoration measures, and approximately 12 miles (19.3 km) of Account that is used to offset losses of anadromous fish structural measures. suitable spawning and rearing habitat in juvenile fish at the Delta pumps, and to Habitat restoration efforts that have been Malibu Creek. provide higher instream flows for implemented include the acquisition of In the Central Valley of California, salmon and steelhead in the Yuba River, water for instream flows, channel there are two large, comprehensive Stanislaus River, American River, and restoration and enhancement, removal conservation programs that provide a Merced River. of dams and blockages that interfere wide range of ecosystem and species- The Central Valley PIA attempts to with migration, gravel replenishment, specific protective efforts that provide balance the priorities of fish and acquisition and restoration of riparian benefits to listed chinook (winter run wildlife protection, restoration, and habitat, and erosion control to protect and spring run) and O. mykiss ESUs. mitigation with irrigation, domestic spawning gravels. Anadromous fish These include the California Bay-Delta water use, fish and wildlife structural measures include Authority Program (or CALFED) and the enhancement, and power generation. construction or modification of devices Central Valley Project Improvement Act Since passage of the Central Valley PIA, to: improve instream habitat (such as (Central Valley PIA). the BOR and the FWS, with the the Shasta Dam temperature control CALFED is a cooperative effort of assistance of many partners, have device); improve access or reduce more than 20 state and Federal agencies conducted numerous studies and mortality during fish migrations (such that work with local communities to investigations, implemented hundreds as fish ladders on dams and screening improve water quality and reliability of of actions representing significant of diversions); and to supplement fish California’s water supplies, while progress towards achieving the Central populations (such as the improvements reviving the San Francisco Bay-Delta Valley PIA’s goals and objectives. These to Coleman National Fish Hatchery and ecosystem. This partnership was formed actions include: modification of Central construction of the Livingston Stone in 1994 and provides policy direction Valley Project operations; management National Fish Hatchery for winter-run and process oversight for: water quality and acquisition of water for fish and chinook salmon). A large number of standards formulation; coordination of wildlife needs; mitigation for water structural projects have been completed the State Water Project and the Central export pumping plant operations; and others are in progress. Valley Project operations; and long-term resolution of fish passage problems; Another protective effort in the solutions to Bay-Delta estuary problems. improvement in flow management for central valley is the Delta Pumping Full implementation of the CALFED fish migration and passage (e.g., pulse Plant Fish Protection Agreement program is anticipated to take 30 years, flows, increased flows, and seasonal fish (known as the Four Pump Agreement) but much progress has already been barriers); replenishment of spawning which was adopted as part of the made through close collaboration with gravels; restoration of riparian habitats; mitigation package for the State Water local agencies, stakeholders, and special and diversion screening. Project in 1986. Projects that have been interest groups. There are four key The Central Valley PIA is the completed or that will be implemented program objectives: water quality, cornerstone of many actions aimed at include: screening of unscreened ecosystem quality, water supply and restoring natural production of diversions in Suisun Marsh, Butte levee system integrity. The main anadromous fish in the Central Valley. Creek, and tributaries to the San Joaquin components that make up the four Emphasis in the Delta has been on River; enhanced law enforcement efforts objectives are: (1) Improve and increase offsetting effects of Central Valley to reduce illegal fish harvest; aquatic and terrestrial habitats and Project and State Water Project installation of seasonal barriers to guide improve ecological functions in support operations (entrainment, impingement, fish away from undesirable spawning of sustainable populations of diverse diversion, and increased predation) on habitat or migration corridors; water and valuable plant and animal species; all anadromous species. In the exchange projects on Mill and Deer (2) reduce the mismatch between Bay- Sacramento River tributaries, actions Creek to provide passage flows for adult

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33147

and juvenile chinook and steelhead; the have the required minimum instream State and local salmon recovery funding design and construction of fish ladders flows increased to levels substantially sources, and have precipitated a for improved passage on Butte Creek; above current legal minimums yielding substantial increase in overall funding spawning gravel replacement and habitat increases of 500 to 800 percent. state wide. maintenance on the Sacramento River The structures on the remaining dams Non-Federal Efforts—Several and tributaries to the San Joaquin River; will be modified to include optimally management efforts are currently being and a wide range of other salmonid designed fish ladders and fish screens. implemented to protect listed salmonid habitat restoration projects to improve Other activities include a project to ESUs in California. These include: spawning and rearing habitat, eliminate restore the meander belt and riparian Restrictions on the Klamath River fall predator habitat, and improve riparian forest on the lowest 5 miles of the creek chinook harvest rate to protect coastal habitat. About a third of the approved and a re-evaluation of Coleman National chinook; restricted exploitation rates on funding for salmonid projects Fish Hatchery to ensure its operation is Rogue River/Klamath River hatchery specifically target spring run chinook in integrated with the Battle Creek stocks to protect SONCC and central the upper Sacramento River tributaries; restoration program. California coho; no retention take however, many of these projects also NMFS is responsible for management prohibitions for coho off California; and provide benefits to O. mykiss and other of ocean salmon fisheries under the seasonal constraints on sport and chinook runs. Pacific Coast Ocean Salmon Fishery commercial fisheries south of Point The Tracy Fish Collection Mitigation Management Plan (FMP) and the Arena, California, for Central Valley Agreement is also a source of funding Magnuson-Stevens Act. As a result of winter run chinook salmon. The fishery for habitat restoration and other projects the many salmon and O. mykiss ESU constraints designed to protect winter which provide benefits to salmon and listings on the west coast, NMFS has run chinook are thought to also provide O. mykiss in the central valley. In 2000, initiated formal ESA section 7 protection to central valley spring the BOR and the State of California consultations and issued numerous chinook. NMFS believes that these revised this agreement to reduce and biological opinions which consider the harvest protective measures being offset direct losses of chinook salmon impacts of ocean fishing. In some cases, implemented to protect listed salmonid associated with operation of the Tracy consultation has determined that ESUs in California will contribute to Pumping Plant and fish collection existing protections in the FMP will not achieving long-term recovery of these facility (part of the Central Valley jeopardize listed ESUs, whereas in other populations. Project). The agreement provides for instances reasonable and prudent The State of California has also listed improving operations at the fish alternatives have been developed which the Sacramento River winter-run and collection facility, making necessary avoid jeopardizing the listed ESUs. The Central Valley spring-run chinook under structural modifications, and annual conservation objectives that NMFS the State’s California Endangered funding to the State for various implements for each listed salmon ESU Species Act, and, therefore, has mitigation projects. Among the projects is either contained in the FMP or established specific in-river fishing funded from this program were the specified in a biological opinion. regulations and no retention design and permitting phases of the Under the Pacific Coastal Salmon prohibitions which are designed to Western Canal Siphon Project on Butte Recovery Program, NMFS provides protect these stocks, and also to allow Creek which resulted in the removal of annual grants to the State of California harvest of unlisted fall run chinook. In four dams and improved fish passage for to assist salmon recovery efforts in the case of Sacramento River winter-run chinook and steelhead. The agreement coastal watersheds from the Oregon chinook, the management measures also funded several other engineering border to southern California. The State consist of time and area closures, gear and design efforts on tributaries that integrates these funds with its state restrictions, and zero bag limits in the support spring chinook including Battle salmon restoration funds and issues Sacramento River. These measures have Creek, Clear Creek, Butte Creek, and the grants for habitat restoration, watershed been in place since 1990 when the Yuba River. Additional funding has planning, salmon enhancement, winter run chinook ESU was listed by been recommended to implement research and monitoring, and outreach NMFS. For Central Valley spring run further habitat restoration that would and education in coastal watersheds chinook, the state has also implemented benefit spring chinook and/or O. mykiss that support listed salmonids. Funded protective measures, including fishing in Butte Creek, the Yuba River, Suisun projects include fish passage barrier method and gear restrictions, bait Marsh, and tributaries on the San removals, stream bank stabilization, fish limitations, seasonal closures, and zero Joaquin River. habitat improvements that increase the bag limits, particularly in several The Battle Creek Restoration project is frequency of pools, removal of and/or primary tributaries such as Deer Creek, a cooperative approach to solving storm-proofing of roads that contribute Big Chico Creek, Mill Creek, and Butte environmental problems through the sediment to streams, stabilizing eroding Creek which support spring chinook. In CALFED ecosystem restoration process. hill slope area adjacent to stream addition, CDFG has implemented Stream reaches being restored are channels, revegetation of upslope areas enhanced enforcement efforts in spring- located in upper Battle Creek where and riparian areas, monitoring programs run chinook tributaries and adult Pacific Gas and Electric operates a series to provide baseline and/or population holding areas which have significantly of nine hydroelectric dams and canals trend data, and support of local reduced illegal harvest. affecting 42 miles (67.6 km) of habitat watershed organizations and education Measures to protect listed O. mykiss suitable for chinook salmon (winter, projects. The Federal funds provided to throughout the State of California have spring and fall) and O. mykiss. This 42- the state and California Tribes (e.g., the been in place since 1998. A wide range mile (67.6 km) reach of upper Battle Yurok, Karuk, and Hoopa Valley Tribes) of measures have been implemented Creek will be fully restored under an have been instrumental in furthering including 100 percent marking of all agreement between the power company conservation efforts in coastal hatchery steelhead, zero bag limits for and resource agencies. Of the nine watersheds, especially north of San unmarked steelhead, gear restrictions, diversion dams, five will be removed Francisco and in the Klamath River closures, and size limits designed to and their water rights dedicated to the Basin. These funds have been protect smolts. NMFS has worked environment. The remaining dams will successfully used to leverage additional continuously with the State to review

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33148 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

and improve inland fishing regulations temperatures, recruitment of large primarily for sediment and temperature. through its biennial planning cycle to woody debris, riparian vegetation, It is anticipated that by 2008, all TMDL- better protect both anadromous and watershed planning, and gravel mining. listed streams in northern California resident O. mykiss populations In addition, specific watershed will have TMDL plans, which likely throughout the State. recommendations were identified for all will help to reduce human impacts to A major concern in risk assessments watershed units supporting coho the aquatic environments and thus for salmonid ESUs in California has throughout the state from the Smith protect ESA listed salmonids. been the lack of comprehensive River south to the San Lorenzo River. The Rangeland Management Advisory abundance and trend data for coastal Because of special water use issues in Committee has developed a salmonids and for steelhead in the the Shasta and Scott River watershed management plan for inclusion in the Central Valley. In the past year, the and the importance of these watersheds state’s Non-point Source Management state’s habitat restoration grant program in the Klamath River system, the plan Plan. Its purpose is to maintain and funded a major coastal salmonid includes a pilot program that has improve the quality and associated monitoring program development effort specific recommendations for water beneficial uses of surface water as it that is being carried out by the CDFG management, water augmentation, water passes through and out of rangeland and NMFS. The development of a use efficiency, and habitat management resources in the state. The programmatic statewide, coastal monitoring program (e.g. fish passage barriers, spawning emphasis is on a voluntary, cooperative plan is critical to assessing the viability gravel, riparian vegetation, water approach to water quality management. of listed ESUs and their response to temperature, etc.). The final recovery This includes appropriate technical extensive habitat restoration efforts and plan was formally approved and assistance, planning mechanisms, other conservation efforts. The program adopted by the California Fish and program incentives, and regulatory is expected to be developed within the Game Commission on February 5, 2004, authorities. This Plan has been next year; however, long-term funding and a decision was made to formally list favorably received by the State Water for implementation is uncertain. coho salmon under the California ESA. Resources Control Board, the Recently, the CALFED program funded A final decision to move forward with Environmental Protection Agency, and a similar effort for steelhead in the the administrative process leading to a the California State Board of Forestry. Central Valley. As with coastal listing of coho under the California ESA Long-term sustained gravel mining salmonids, the development and is expected in June 2004. The state is in plans have been, or are being, developed implementation of a monitoring and the process of developing an by three northern California counties assessment program for Central Valley implementation plan that will prioritize (Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino), steelhead is critically important in order recovery actions contained in the plan which comprise a substantial portion of the range of several listed ESUs. The to assess population viability and and estimate implementation costs. The intent is for the impacts of all gravel responses to extensive habitat implementation plan will be presented extraction projects to be evaluated at the restoration efforts being funded by to the Commission at its meeting in June watershed scale. Approved projects (by CALFED and the Central Valley PIA. 2004. In the short term, the state is using An extensive network of Resource the USACE) will require annual existing staff and financial resources to Conservation Districts exists within the monitoring reports on gravel implement the plan, but is expected to range of ESA-listed salmonid ESUs recruitment, river geomorphology, and pursue additional financial resources along the northern California coast. fisheries impacts. Humboldt County after the implementation plan is These Districts represent an important currently has an approved plan in place, completed. To facilitate vehicle through which the agricultural and Del Norte and Mendocino Counties implementation, the CDFG has community can voluntarily address and are in the process of obtaining plan correct management practices that integrated the coho recovery plan with approval. NMFS will be working with impact ESA-listed salmonids and their its coastal salmonid habitat restoration the counties and the USACE to ensure habitats. Working with individual grant program by ensuring that high that any approved plans for gravel landowners or through organizations priority recovery plan actions in high mining are sufficiently protective of such as the California Farm Bureau, priority watersheds receive a greater coho salmon. these Resource Conservation Districts likelihood of funding. If it is NMFS has developed a Memorandum can assist landowners in developing and successfully implemented, the State of Understanding with five northern implementing best management recovery plan will provide substantial California counties (Siskiyou, Trinity, practices that are protective of benefits to both the Central California Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino) salmonids. Such active participation of Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern to develop a standardized county the agriculture community is critical to California Coast coho ESUs. However, routine road maintenance manual to the conservation and recovery of ESA- the long-term prospects for plan funding assist in the protection of ESA listed listed ESUs in California. and implementation are uncertain. species and their habitat. This manual In response to a proposed state listing The North Coast Regional Water includes best management practices for of coho in January 2003 under the Quality Control Board is in the process reducing impacts to listed species and California ESA, the State of California of updating its north coast basin plan the aquatic environment, a five-county convened two recovery teams and which will establish water quality inventorying and prioritization of all tasked them with developing a recovery standards for all of the northern fish passage barriers associated with plan that would identify and address California rivers and streams. These county roads, annual training of road the recovery needs of coho salmon and plans will also incorporate newly crews and county planners, and a habitats throughout the State. A draft developed Total Maximum Daily Load monitoring framework for adaptive recovery plan was prepared and (TMDL) standards that are being management. NOAA has also provided released for public review in August developed for those water bodies that nearly $750,000 in grants to support this 2003. The comprehensive plan includes are listed as 303d impaired under program over the past 3 years and has a broad range of coho range-wide section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. worked with the counties in developing recommendations addressing stream Most of the major rivers in northern a prioritization process for inventorying flow, water rights, fish passage, water California are listed as TMDL impaired, and ranking all fish barriers in

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33149

anadromous waters associated with Local watershed councils and other salmonids. These efforts include, but are county roads. NMFS is working with the groups throughout the state have not limited to, Trout Unlimited, counties to make their routine road successfully developed restoration plans landowners such as Mendocino maintenance manuals approvable under and have worked to implement habitat Redwood Company and Hawthorne the limits described in NMFS’ ESA 4(d) restoration projects that are expected to Campbell Timberlands, Ten Mile Forest protective regulations (67 FR 1116, contribute to the conservation of listed Landowners Association, Noyo January 9, 2002; 50 CFR 223.203(b)(14) salmonid ESUs. In northern California, Watershed Alliance, Garcia Watershed through (b)(22)). these groups include: The Scott River Council, Redwood Creek Landowners A voluntary certification program has Watershed Committee and French Creek Association, Sonoma Ecology Center, been developed by the Sotoyome Watershed Advisory Group in the Scott Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Resource Conservation District for grape River watershed; the Shasta River CRMP West Sonoma County Watershed Group, growers in Sonoma and Mendocino Project (Shasta River watershed); the Salmon River Restoration Council, Mill counties who implement land South Fork Trinity River Restoration Valley Streamkeepers, Friends of Corte management practices that decrease soil council (South Fork Trinity River); Madera Creek, Coastal Watershed erosion and sediment delivery to Salmon River Learning and Council in Gazos Creek, Pescadero streams. The development of the Fish Understanding Group; the Humboldt Conservation Alliance, Peninsula Open Friendly Farming Program was a 2-year Bay Watershed Advisory Committee for Space District, Committee for Green effort which involved grape growers, Humboldt Bay watersheds; the Eel River Foothills in San Mateo County, and the representatives from government Watershed Improvement Group that Coastal Watershed Council. Several agencies, and environmental groups. focuses on the lower Eel River; the Van watershed groups are actively working The result of this effort was the creation Duzen River and South Fork Eel River; to improve habitat conditions for of a workbook of Beneficial the Mainstem Eel River Group; the chinook and O. mykiss in tributary Management Practices with a farm plan Yager/Van Duzen Environmental streams to the Sacramento River, template. The workbook is designed to Stewards; the Eel River Salmon including the Deer Creek Watershed assist grape growers to inventory and Restoration Project; and the Mattole Conservancy, Big Chico Creek assess the natural features of their farms, Restoration Council and Group (Mattole Watershed Alliance, Butte Creek as well as their current management River). In the central coast area there are Watershed Conservancy, and Mill Creek practices and implement improved additional watershed groups addressing Watershed Conservancy. Activities practices. The growers participate in a Tomales Bay, Lagunitas Creek and the conducted by the various watershed series of workshops to develop and Russian River. groups include development and finalize a farm plan that is presented to In 2003, the Santa Clara Valley Water implementation of watershed District initiated the Fisheries Aquatic a certification team comprised of NMFS, assessments and management plans, Habitat Collaborative Effort for Coyote CDFG, and the Regional Water Quality support for and implementation of fish Creek, Stevens Creek, and the Control Board. passage projects and water diversion Guadalupe River in Santa Clara County. screening projects, acquisition of habitat FishNet 4C is a regional, multi-county The program will provide for improved work to improve fish passage, various group comprised of representatives from stream flows and temperatures below types of outreach efforts, and Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, San Mateo District reservoirs, remediation of fish coordination with state and Federal and Santa Cruz counties, in addition to passage barriers, and habitat restoration. resource agencies. individuals from planning and public The program is among the most The Pacific Lumber Company HCP works staff, local, state and federal comprehensive, well funded, long-term contributes to the conservation of listed agencies, and other key entities such as protective efforts in California. salmonid ESUs, including Northern water agencies, Resource Conservation In cooperation with the CDFG and the California O. mykiss, Southern Oregon/ Districts, and watershed groups. The Alameda Creek Fisheries Restoration Northern California Coast coho, and program has been active for 5 years, Workgroup, NMFS is working towards California Coastal chinook. This multi- coordinating county efforts such as road re-establishing steelhead in Alameda species HCP covers approximately maintenance, fish barrier assessment Creek on the eastern side of south San 210,000 acres of industrial timberlands and removal, riparian and grading Francisco Bay. Alameda Creek is the in northern California and includes ordinances, erosion control, largest drainage in south San Francisco activities related to timber management, implementation of bioengineering Bay and provides water supplies to forest road development and projects and the development of several municipalities. San Francisco maintenance and commercial rock guidelines that enhance or protect has also begun discussions with NMFS quarrying. The Pacific Lumber HCP is salmonid habitat for public works regarding the development of an HCP habitat-based with a defined goal of departments. FishNet 4C is developing that will address water operations at achieving or trending towards properly Road Maintenance Guidelines similar to their two reservoirs in the watershed. functioning aquatic habitat conditions, that of the Five County Roads Program High quality spawning and rearing relying heavily on watershed-scale (above). habitat for steelhead exists in upper analysis, monitoring, and adaptive The Sonoma County Water Agency is Alameda Creek, Niles Canyon and its management. currently constructing vortex weirs on tributaries, and the Arroyo Mocho. NMFS and FWS have held technical the West Branch Russian River. This Genetic testing strongly suggests that and policy discussions with Green passage project provides passage at a viable resident trout populations in Diamond Resource Company (formerly flashboard dam site that has been down- these creeks are descended from native the Simpson Resource Company) cut over the last 40 years, creating a steelhead. regarding the development of an HCP barrier to anadromous salmonids. This Many other sub-watershed groups, for much of its industrial timber project will provide passage for chinook landowners, environmental groups and operations in northern California. salmon and steelhead to an additional non-profit organizations are conducting Currently, NMFS and FWS are 15 to 20 miles (24.1–32.2 km) of habitat restoration and planning efforts considering approval of an ESA section spawning and rearing habitat in the in several watersheds that may also 10(a)(1)(B) permit to authorize upper Russian River watershed. contribute to the conservation of listed incidental take pursuant to the plan.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33150 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

The Services expect issuance of the Wildlife Program, over the last two riparian areas on a parcel of public Permits by summer 2004. years has funded eight restoration property adjacent to Boeckman Creek, a The Humboldt Bay Municipal Water projects that have restored many acres tributary to the Willamette River. District (which supplies water to both of stream habitats, adjacent wetlands, Clackamas County Water Environment domestic and industrial users in the and riparian habitats in the Upper Services and ODFW will use these greater Humboldt Bay area) HCP Willamette and Lower Columbia River funds to: (1) Evaluate the abundance provides for maintenance of river flows chinook and O. mykiss ESUs. and distribution of fish species in urban that exceed historical summer low- The FWS, through their Greenspaces streams within two Clackamas County flows. In no case will the District allow Program, is funding various habitat special districts; (2) conduct surveys to the river to dry up due to their enhancement programs. The City of evaluate the effects of several previous operations. Portland’s Watershed Revegetation habitat restoration projects; and (3) Protective Efforts in Oregon Program, the City of Gresham, and the conduct aquatic habitat surveys within community are using these funds to Clackamas County tributaries of the Federal Efforts—In the last 2 years, Tualatin River. Clackamas County Water NMFS has completed hundreds of ESA enhance at least 20 contiguous riparian and upland acres of the site by removing Environment Services is conducting a section 7 consultations with Federal macroinvertebrate survey and analysis agencies on proposed projects within and reducing invasive non-native species including Himalayan blackberry to supplement water chemistry data that the range of listed ESUs in the state of have been collected since 1993. The Oregon. These consultations have (Rubus discolor), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), and non-native biological data will provide more improved or successfully minimized insight about the biological conditions impacts to salmonids and their habitats. pasture grasses. The Three Rivers Land Conservancy is using these funds to of the streams under their jurisdiction. Specifically, NMFS’ interim biological The Tualatin Riverkeepers is opinion and Federal Energy Regulatory create a strategy to identify how, why and where they should protect land, coordinating a salmon carcass Commission (FERC) relicensing placement project to restore marine- biological opinion for several Clackamas with a focus on fish and wildlife habitat priorities that will supplement and derived nutrients to 3 to 6 miles (4.8– River hydroelectric projects under the 9.6 km) of salmonid spawning reaches complement regional and local authority of FERC and Portland General on the main stem of the Tualatin River acquisition and natural resource Electric will provide protective benefits and two of its tributaries, Dairy Creek protection efforts. The City of Sherwood to the Lower Columbia River chinook and Gales Creek. Nutrient enrichment is and local partners are using these funds and coho, and Upper Willamette River also expected to enhance the overall to continue the Raindrops to Refuge chinook and O. mykiss ESUs. The ecology of the upper Tualatin by Program to ensure the preservation of biological opinion establishes increasing fish and wildlife natural areas within the City of improvements for upstream passage of productivity. Funds will be used by Sherwood and surrounding areas for the adults, downstream passage of aquatic science students of Portland’s benefit of fish, wildlife and the juveniles, temperature management, Central Catholic High School to support spawning habitats, and the maintenance community by developing an overall habitat restoration work along Johnson of in-stream flows. NMFS will continue strategy to guide and coordinate natural Creek near Powell Butte in southeast to work with these and other agencies resource conservation, habitat Portland, collecting water, vegetation to facilitate projects that promote the restoration, environmental education and soil condition data to monitor the conservation of listed ESUs. and community outreach efforts. The effects of habitat enhancement Although not existing protective John Inskeep Environmental Learning activities. Gresham’s Alpha High School efforts, the removal of the Marmot and Center is using these funds to students will use funds to engage in a Little Sandy dams, scheduled for 2007, coordinate activities of students and comprehensive habitat restoration effort will restore free fish passage in the professors from three universities in on a 3-acre (1.2 ha) section along Sandy River and open currently their efforts to conduct a watershed Johnson Creek known as Gresham inaccessible spawning and rearing assessment, and develop a management Woods. habitats for the Lower Columbia River and restoration strategy for the Newell Within the range of the Lower chinook, O. mykiss, and coho ESUs. The Creek watershed. The Nature Columbia and Upper Willamette River removal of the Powerdale dam on the Conservancy with these funds is ESUs, FWS funded 8 projects during FY Hood River by 2010, including interim continuing a multi-year project 2001–2002 through the Jobs in the measures to improve passage and in- involving the removal of invasive, non- Woods Program. These projects will stream flows, will provide survival native species in Multnomah and accomplish the following: 48 fish benefits to the Lower Columbia River Clackamas counties in the Sandy River passage barriers will be removed to chinook and O. mykiss ESUs in the Gorge and its tributaries, and in the allow fish access to over 70 miles (112.6 short term, and will allow improved Willamette Narrows (including Little km) on habitat; 2.5 miles (4.0 km) of access to spawning and rearing habitats Rock Island in the Willamette River and instream habitat will be restored; 23 in the longer term. Camassia preserve). Portland Metro will acres (9.3 ha) of riparian habitat will be The USACE has undertaken feasibility use these funds to conduct upland and restored; and 33 miles (53.1 km) of studies and constructed over 25 projects riparian habitat assessments along 50 forest roads will be decommissioned within the Willamette Basin and lower stream sites and aquatic and improved to reduce erosion and Columbia River to improve habitat for macroinvertebrate sampling on sedimentation. During FY 2003, projects salmonids. Over the last 2 years the properties primarily owned and were funded through the program that USFS has completed eight aquatic managed by local park providers in will remove six fish passage barriers to habitat restoration projects to improve Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington allow fish access to over 30 miles of salmonid habitat within the range of the Counties in Oregon to establish a habitat. Upper Willamette River ESUs and 17 Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (B- FWS manages three estuarine national projects within the range of the Lower IBI). The City of Wilsonville is using wildlife refuges (Siletz Bay, Nestucca Columbia River ESUs. The FWS, these funds to implement a project to Bay, Bandon Marsh) within the range of through their Partners for Fish and enhance 4.5 acres (1.8 ha) of upland and the Oregon Coast coho ESU. With

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33151

coastal wetland loss in the U.S. eligible riparian lands into a 10–15-year implemented and improved. The RMP exceeding 20,000 acres (8,093 ha) per CREP contract and receive annual provides a small contribution toward year, these refuges preserve estuarine conservation payments for the contract salmon conservation; the activities are habitat important to a variety of species, period, for up to 75 percent of the limited to the City of Portland including Oregon Coast coho salmon. eligible costs of restoration practices, in transportation and Marion County Though largely limited to stocks addition to other financial incentives. jurisdiction. The program will inhabiting the local watersheds, benefits Initiated in 1998, the Oregon CREP contribute to overall conservation but, to coho salmon include preservation of program continues to encourage greater as with many protective efforts under important migratory and rearing habitat. participation. consideration, it cannot be evaluated The EPA has funded a restoration The City of Portland has undertaken how much the program will contribute project in Portland to restore vegetation an effort to delineate fish habitat within to salmon abundance, productivity, to the Smith and Bybee Lakes complex, the lower Willamette River to determine spatial structure or diversity. that will provide flood refugia to usage by salmonids, in an effort to better South Slough National Estuarine anadromous salmonids. The EPA has assess potential impacts to salmonids Research Reserve in Charleston, OR is also funded three habitat projects in the from City activities and to identify the only designated marine protected Lower Columbia River (Scappoose Bay important areas to protect and restore. area (MPA) within the range of the watershed, Roster Rock State Park The City has also been working to Oregon Coast coho ESU. Managed by a wetlands and Deep River in develop an HCP for the City’s water commission appointed by the governor, Washington) to improve salmonid supply in the Bull Run River. The with the administrative support of the habitat. emphasis of the HCP is on adequate Division of State Lands (DSL), activities The USACE has undertaken the flows in the Bull Run River and in the reserve are regulated, including Tillamook Bay & Estuary Feasibility restoring salmonid habitat in the Sandy the prohibition of commercial bait Study to identify and evaluate the River Basin, to mitigate for lost habitat gathering, discharge of chemicals or problems and opportunities associated resulting from installation in the early other pollutants, road-building, with flood damage reduction and 1900’s of the two dams that currently dredging or filling, and commercial ecosystem restoration in Tillamook Bay. supply the City of Portland with potable timber harvest. Commercial oystering is Implementation of ecosystem water. the only commercial activity permitted restoration based on this study is not The Oregon Department of within the reserve. The reserve provides assured and is highly reliant on the Transportation over the last 2 years has protection of valuable estuarine habitat allocation of adequate funding and the undertaken several projects to restore to coho salmon during migration, as cooperation of private land owners. fish passage above barriers. The projects well as rearing. Research in South The USACE’s regulatory program have opened over 11 miles (17.7 km) of Slough has documented juvenile salmon strives to provide protection of the salmonid habitat, and improved passage presence during periods commonly aquatic environment, including for over 25 miles (40.2 km) within the considered outside the migration wetlands. This program issues permits range of the Upper Willamette and period. under the Clean Water Act and the Lower Columbia River chinook and O. The City of Cannon Beach (City) has Rivers and Harbors Act for projects mykiss ESUs. been working for more than a year to within its jurisdiction, including many The City of Portland Office of develop a plan under Limit 12 of the beneficial restoration actions. The Transportation submitted its Routine ESA 4(d) protective regulations USACE’s jurisdiction has recently been Road Maintenance Program (RMP) to (municipal, residential, commercial, redefined to exclude isolated wetlands. NMFS for approval under 4(d) Limit 10 industrial). So far, they have described This change may have deleterious on March 21, 2003. A 30-day public their environmental baseline and effects on water quality and quantity in notice of availability of the program for examined the ways that City practices area streams and rivers with hyporheic comments was published on May 5, and City land use have affected and/or flow. 2003 (68 FR 23696). Marion County, continue to affect fish and aquatic Since 1997, the PFMC has developed Department of Public Works, submitted habitat. Protection of riparian habitat, and implemented a management plan its RMP to NMFS for approval under water quality (water treatment issues) for listed Oregon Coast coho salmon, Limit 10 of the 4(d) protective and water supply issues have been and the plan has been approved by regulations (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000; identified as areas that need the most NMFS through a section 7 consultation 50 CFR 223.203(b)(1) through (b)(13)) on work. The City is currently working with itself. Under this management plan November 6, 2003. A 30-day public with a consultant and its residents to harvest rates have decreased from 60 to notice of availability of the program for develop and implement solutions to 80 percent during the 1970s and 1980s comments was published on March 28, these problems. to less than 15 percent at present. 2003 (68 FR 15153). Prior to final The Oregon Plan—The Oregon Plan Fisheries are reviewed annually to approval or disapproval of the program, for Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon ensure that harvest impacts are within NMFS must complete the NEPA review Plan or Plan, below) is a ‘‘framework of the specified limits. A comprehensive of the program and the ESA section 7 state laws, rules, and executive orders review of the harvest management plan consultation. The RMP guides routine designed to enhance and protect occurred in 2000, which included some road activities that might affect ESUs of watershed health, at-risk species, and important refinements to the plan based threatened salmon and O. mykiss. The water quality by governing forest and on new information and analyses. RMP is designed to be protective of agricultural practices, water diversions, Non-Federal Efforts—The salmonids and their habitat through the wetlands, water quality, and fish and Conservation Reserve Enhancement implementation of Best Management wildlife protections’’ (Oregon Program (CREP) is an effort, jointly Practices (BMPs) developed to protect Watershed Enhancement Board, OWEB, funded by the U.S. Department of water quality and habitat. For example, 2002). The mission of the Plan is ‘‘to Agriculture and the State of Oregon, BMPs minimize the movement of soil restore the watersheds of Oregon and designed to improve riparian conditions into streams and restrict other activities recover the fish and wildlife on agricultural lands. Under the CREP, based on their proximity to streams and populations of those watersheds to agricultural landowners can enroll wetlands. The program is already being productive and sustainable levels in a

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33152 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

manner that provides substantial natural resource agencies and several withdrawals, dock construction, road environmental, cultural, and economic Federal partners, the State of Oregon has construction, the full suite of forest benefits’’ (IMST, 2002). The Oregon undertaken a comprehensive analysis of management activities, and stream Plan seeks to address factors for decline the adequacy of actions under the Plan, channel restoration. Federal agencies related to habitat loss and degradation specifically in the context of conserving were able to effectively minimize the by focusing on human infrastructure and recovering the Oregon Coast coho potential adverse impacts of activities and activities that can adversely affect ESU. As this substantial effort is through the consultation process. For watersheds and salmonid fishes, e.g., currently underway and not scheduled example, consultations have led to fisheries management, hatchery to be completed until later in 2004, the substantial improvements to stream practices, fish passage barriers, forestry, proposed listing determination for the flows in three streams occupied by the agriculture, livestock grazing, water Oregon Coast coho ESU described in Upper Columbia River ESUs, and to diversions and effectiveness of fish this notice has not been informed by improved design standards for new screens, urbanization, permitted this ESU-scale analysis. If information is docks in the Columbia River. Another pollutant discharges, removal and fill made available to NMFS suggesting that significant outcome of the consultation permits. the Oregon Plan and/or other process has been the marked The Oregon Plan encourages efforts to conservation efforts substantially improvement in the quality of the improve habitat conditions for salmon mitigate ESU extinction risk, NMFS will proposals submitted for consultation. through non-regulatory means, take such opportunity to re-initiate a Federal agencies are including more including significant efforts by local status review for the Oregon Coast coho effective minimization measures in their watershed councils and private ESU to consider the best and most proposed actions before requesting landowners. Since the Oregon Coast recent scientific and commercial consultation. The installation of spill coho ESU was listed in 1998, OWEB has information available. deflectors as part of the Chief Joseph implemented over 1000 habitat The ODFW has developed several Dam gas abatement project will likely improvement projects to increase and fishery management plans that have increase juvenile survival for the Upper improve habitat for anadromous fish in been approved by NMFS for listed Columbia River chinook and O. mykiss Oregon rivers and tributaries. State salmon and O. mykiss ESUs in Oregon. ESUs, and to a lesser extent the Middle regulatory agencies also actively ODFW has developed a comprehensive Columbia River O. mykiss ESU. A contribute to the Oregon Plan and its harvest plan for the Oregon Coast coho settlement agreement with the FERC implementation. For example, ODFW ESU that was included in the Oregon will restore fish passage above has revised fisheries management and Plan. This fishery management plan was Pacificorp’s Cowlitz Dam and improve hatchery practices, and implemented a subsequently adopted by the PFMC in-stream flows. Pacificorp has also comprehensive monitoring program for (described above). A Fisheries committed to the removal of Condit salmon and O. mykiss populations in Management Evaluation Plan (FMEP) Dam on the White Salmon River, or to Oregon. was developed by ODFW for a coho otherwise establish fish passage to The Oregon Plan includes several pre- salmon fishery in Siltcoos and currently blocked spawning and rearing existing activities and programs, as well Tahkenitch Lakes on the Oregon Coast. habitat for Lower Columbia River as additional coordination, compliance, This FMEP was approved by NMFS in chinook and Middle Columbia O. investment, monitoring, and voluntary 2001 under Limit 4 of the ESA 4(d) rule mykiss ESUs. involvement that are provided under the (65 FR 42422; July 10, 2000) and 1 umbrella of the Plan. Included under remains in effect. ODFW has developed Over the past 2 ⁄2 years, the majority this umbrella is the Oregon Agricultural two FMEPs under limit 4 of the 4(d) rule of NMFS’ ESA section 7 consultations Water Quality Management Act, passed for listed spring chinook and winter have concerned ongoing and proposed as Senate Bill 1010 in 1993 by the steelhead in the Willamette River Basin, activities in Puget Sound. Completed Oregon State Legislature. Under this Act as well as an additional 4 FMEPs for section 7(a)(2) consultations cover a the Oregon Department of Agriculture listed chinook, O. mykiss, coho and wide range of management activities provides landowners technical chum in the Lower Columbia River. with 26 Federal action agencies, assistance to develop watershed-based Under these FMEPs, only adipose-fin including Federal land management, plans to prevent and control water clipped fish can be harvested, and all USACE permits for shoreline pollution resulting from agricultural wild fish must be released unharmed. modifications, and habitat restoration activities. The Agricultural Water This management change has resulted projects. Each action that NMFS found Quality Management Act promotes in a 75-percent decrease in harvest would not jeopardize Puget Sound coordinated watershed planning, while impacts to spring chinook returning to chinook included sufficient maintaining needed flexibility for the Willamette Basin. For listed conservation measures to avoid or landowners to address site-specific Willamette River winter O. mykiss, minimize substantial adverse effects, water quality issues. harvest rates have been reduced to 1–2 and many actions included restorative The IMST, the entity that provides percent. Although these six FMEPs have elements. For example, as integral parts scientific oversight for the Oregon Plan, yet to be approved by NMFS, they have of several major infrastructure projects, has reviewed the adequacy of various resulted in a reduction of overall over the past decade or so and with elements of the Plan in conserving fisheries impacts in the Lower Columbia greater emphasis since chinook were salmon and O. mykiss populations at River of over 50 percent. ESA-listed in Puget Sound, the Port of the state-wide scale (e.g., IMST 1998; Seattle has constructed 3.7 acres of 1999; 2002a; 2002b). A comprehensive Protective Efforts in Washington State aquatic habitat restoration and ESU-scale analysis of the effectiveness Federal Efforts—Since 2000, NMFS enhancement areas and made other of actions and measures under the has consulted on over 1,000 Federal environmental improvements. The Port Oregon Plan, specifically in conserving actions, and private actions requiring also improved light penetration in the Oregon Coast Coho ESU, is being Federal authorization, that potentially shallow water areas, removed barriers to conducted, but is not yet complete. In affected listed ESUs in Washington migrating juvenile fish, reshaped a coordinated effort through the Oregon State. These consultations covered a shoreline to improve aquatic habitat, Governor’s Office, including all state broad range of activities including water replaced several thousand creosote-

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33153

treated wooden pilings that had disproportionate share of the habitats Non-Federal Efforts—NMFS has contaminated fish habitats with fewer occupied by the Upper Columbia River recently approved a Routine Road concrete and steel pilings, restored and O. mykiss and spring chinook ESUs. In Maintenance under Limit 10 of the ESA enhanced habitat, and cleaned up the Okanogan Basin, nearly all of the 4(d) rule for approximately thirty cities contaminated sediments. habitat currently available to O. mykiss and counties across the State. This Over the past 21⁄2 years, NMFS has is in private or Tribal ownership. approval will ensure that routine road consulted on hundreds of ongoing and Several lesser independent Columbia maintenance activities, done according proposed activities that may affect River tributaries drain lands managed to specified conditions, will avoid and salmonid habitats within the by the Department of the Army or the minimize possible ‘‘take’’ of threatened Washington area of the Lower Columbia BOR. salmon and O. mykiss. River domain. Completed ESA section The Department of the Army has The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery 7(a)(2) consultations cover a wide range significantly improved range Board has identified over 260 salmonid of management activities with at least management conditions on its lands, to habitat improvement projects in the last 11 Federal action agencies, including the betterment of fish habitat. Serious 12 years that were completed by various Federal land management, USACE water quality problems persist in private and local government entities permits for shoreline modifications, and streams receiving agricultural return within the range of the Lower Columbia habitat restoration projects. Each action flows from BOR facilities. National River ESUs. that NMFS found would not jeopardize Forest lands within the range of the HCPs with the Chelan and Douglas the listed Lower Columbia ESUs Upper Columbia ESUs are managed County public utility districts for the included sufficient conservation according to Northwest Forest Plan or Wells, Rocky Reach, and Rock Island measures to avoid or minimize PACFISH standards. Continued dams will: increase the survival of substantial adverse effects, and many adherence to these standards is juveniles migrating through the projects; actions included restorative elements. expected to result in conditions on improve spawning and rearing habitat For example, separate, state-wide Federal land consistent with salmon in the Okanogan, Methow, and Entiat Programmatic Consultations with the and O. mykiss recovery. An ongoing basins; and ensure that related hatchery USACE and FWS provide technical concern is that most of the National programs are operated in a manner guidance for restoring fish passage and Forest lands outside of designated consistent with the overall objective of other habitat restoration projects that wilderness areas contain very high road rebuilding natural populations. NMFS is receive a variety of Federal funds. densities. These roads are a major working with two agricultural irrigation As previously mentioned, the NPCC– source of sediment to chinook and O. districts in the Methow Basin to develop FWP has invested BPA funds in passage mykiss spawning streams, and many HCPs. The HCPs are likely to be and flow improvements within road crossings impede fish passage. The narrowly focused on water use and the Columbia River Basin. More recently, USFS improves roads and stream maintenance of minimum instream the BOR, as part of its responsibilities crossings as it can, but present budgets flows. Another large irrigation district under the FCRPS Biological Opinion, are inadequate to remedy these has also expressed interest in has deployed staff within the Basin to problems in the near term. developing an HCP to cover the full begin addressing passage and flow The upper reaches of several major suite of its management activities. A problems. Presently, the BOR lacks streams lie in wilderness, but county government within the range of authority to fund projects, and has wilderness areas are generally upstream the Upper Columbia River ESUs has instead been providing technical of Upper Columbia O. mykiss and also expressed an interest in an HCP assistance and engineering support to spring chinook production areas. that would enable any county resident irrigators. The BOR anticipates soon Wilderness areas and the non- willing to comply with the terms of the having authority to fund construction wilderness portions of the National HCP to thereby achieve compliance and purchase water. In spite of present Forest attract substantial recreational with the ESA under a section 10 permit limitations, the BOR is involved in activity. Most of the Forest Lands within held by the county. An Upper Columbia designing two projects that could the ranges of the Upper Columbia River River watershed group has expressed a meaningfully resolve instream flow ESUs are within a few hours’ drive of similar interest, but has not been able to problems in two significant tributaries. the major population centers of western identify a suitable permit holder. At BPA, Mitchell Act, and Pacific Coastal Washington. Throughout the summer, present, it is uncertain whether any of Salmon Recovery Funds have also been thousands of recreational users crowd these efforts will lead to the issuance of used to screen irrigation withdrawals the banks of major O. mykiss and a section 10 permit. throughout the Columbia Basin. The chinook production areas, destroying Approximately 1.1 million acres vast majority (in terms of the volume of riparian vegetation and harassing listed (445,146 ha) of forest lands and two water diverted) of water withdrawals in fish during summer low flows. Again, municipal watersheds are covered by the Basin are screened. However, a the USFS has endeavored to minimize HCPs within the Puget Sound domain number of these screens do not meet these impacts by relocating and closing (ESUs include Puget Sound chinook, current criteria. All screens require some camping areas, but budgets have Hood Canal summer-run chum, and periodic inspection and maintenance. been inadequate to control the problem. Ozette Lake sockeye); NMFS has ESA-compliant screens of gravity water The recently enacted program of determined that these HCPs comply diversions are in place on two of the six charging fees for using many sites in the with ESA section 10(a)(2)(B). The HCPs sites routinely inspected by the WDFW. Forest and using those receipts to are West Fork Timber, Plum Creek There are an unknown number of other improve recreational facilities will Timber (Central Cascades), Port Blakely screens on gravity diversions that are likely help to lessen recreational Tree Farms, WA Department of Natural not inspected by WDFW. impacts. Many of the National Forest Resources (WA DNR, discussed in more Over 80 percent of the land within the lands within the ranges of the Upper detail below), Green Diamond Resource Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee Columbia River ESUs are grazed. Company (formerly, Simpson Timber)— Subbasins is publicly owned, but Although NMFS consults on grazing Shelton Timberlands, City of Seattle private ownership is concentrated along leases, there is ongoing concern about Cedar River Watershed, and City of the valley bottoms and represents a compliance with lease requirements. Tacoma Green River Water Supply. All

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33154 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

of the forestry HCPs address long-term It has been demonstrated that errors in sediment introductions to streams will salmonid survival on industrial forest stream classifications are quite common, be minimized by placing harvest lands and are designed to provide and that incorrectly classifying streams restrictions near those streams flowing properly functioning habitat as non-fish-bearing waters could have on unstable slopes and in areas with a conditions—thereby ensuring healthy significant adverse effects on salmonid high risk of mass wasting. Also, a watersheds and riparian areas. They habitat. In order to avoid such effects, a comprehensive landscape-based road also give landowners long-term 100-ft (30.5 m) wide riparian buffer was network will be developed to identify management clarity and certainty. applied on both sides of perennial fish blockages caused by stream Specific HCP conservation measures streams believed to be non-fish-bearing. crossings and prioritize their retrofitting focus on attaining mature forest Additionally, stream typing will be or removal. Adverse effects on salmonid conditions in riparian areas, minimizing examined or verified in the field before habitat caused by rain-on-snow floods sediment input to streams, protecting harvest. will be minimized by maintaining two- and recovering floodplain functions, The WA DNR’s Road Management thirds of DNR-managed forest lands and protecting water quality during Strategy will be implemented to: (1) within each sub-basin in a forest timber management and associated road Minimize further road-related condition that is hydrologically mature operations. Of the seven HCPs in degradation of riparian, aquatic, and with respect to rain-on-snow events. In Western Washington State, two include identified species habitat; (2) plan, addition, improved road management protection of instream flows for design, construct, use, and maintain a will decrease adverse effects on natural anadromous salmonids (Cedar and road system that serves the DNR’s hydrologic function. Green rivers). Instream flows are also management needs; and (3) remove The DNR will monitor the WA DNR provided, through agreements unnecessary road segments from the HCP to determine whether its negotiated with the FERC, on the Skagit, road network. Comprehensive road conservation strategies are implemented Sultan, Snoqualmie (ramping rates only) maintenance plans will include annual as written and whether that and Nisqually rivers. Recently installed inventories of road conditions; implementation results in anticipated screens on gravity water diversions at aggressive maintenance, stabilization, habitat conditions. Implementation five sites on the Dungeness River are and access control to minimize monitoring will document the types, consistent with current standards for management and environmental amounts, and locations of forest fish passage. The number of additional problems; and limits on road network management activities carried out on gravity water diversions in other sub- expansion. The standards for new road DNR-managed lands in the five westside basins, and whether any are compliant construction and appropriate placement and Olympic area planning units. with fish passage, are unknown. Two will be consistently applied and Research monitoring in riparian habitats long-standing hydroelectric dams on the updated. The DNR will initially focus will focus on determining how to design Elwha River are slated for removal on improving roads in the more wind buffers, evaluating forest practices starting in 2007. Congress has sensitive areas of a landscape giving along seasonal non-fish-bearing waters authorized funds for current phases of priority to locations on steep slopes not associated with unstable slopes, the complex effort that requires with unstable soils and high designing timber harvest in riparian construction of several new water precipitation, and locations within 100 buffers and mass wasting areas, and supplies. Dam removal will restore feet of fish-bearing streams and developing basic information on the wetlands. In order to keep new roads to relationship among forest practices, about 70 miles (112.6 km) of mainstem a minimum, log yarding will be allowed riparian ecosystems, and basin and tributary habitat. Fish passage is through the harvest zone in the RMZ. hydrology. Implementation of these also being restored to 17 miles (27.4 km) Specific measures for this yarding (and measures will likely lead to properly of mainstem and tributary habitats on any other management in the RMZs) functioning conditions on commercial the Cedar River as part of the City of will be developed by DNR and reviewed state-owned timberlands. Seattle’s HCP, 7 miles (11.2 km) on by NMFS/FWS. Such management The CREP is an effort, jointly funded Goldsborough Creek, as well as many would be based on detailed, site-specific by the U.S. Department of Agriculture other small streams. conservation objectives, and sufficient and Washington State, designed to The WA DNR HCP is the largest of the monitoring would be included to ensure improve riparian conditions on HCPs, providing conservation benefits that the RMZs will continue to agricultural lands. Under the program, to multiple species including ESA-listed adequately provide the desired riparian farmers are paid to plant and maintain, and currently unlisted anadromous functions. for a period of up to 15 years, salmonids. The WA DNR will use Protections of seasonal non-fish- streamside buffers. In spite of the riparian management zone (RMZ) bearing streams include: (1) Those availability of more than $200 million, buffers on both sides of fish bearing streams crossing unstable slopes will be participation in CREP within streams to address riparian functions protected (no timber harvest) to Washington State has been very low. that influence the quality of salmonid minimize potential for landslides and The State and the Department of freshwater habitat. The RMZ consists of other mass-wasting activities; (2) those Agriculture are in the process of an inner riparian buffer (minimum 100 streams crossing stable ground will be modifying the Washington State ft (30.5 m), or on-site tree height, protected where necessary to maintain program to allow smaller buffers, to whichever is greater), and an outer wind important elements of the aquatic encourage greater participation. The buffer (between 50–100 ft (15.2–30.5 m), ecosystem; and (3) an aggressive, 10- current program requires that buffer depending on stream size) where year research program will study the widths vary according to local needed to protect the inner buffer. No effects on aquatic resources of forest geomorphic features, while the harvest will be allowed in the first 25 ft management along such streams. At the proposed changes would allow the (7.6 m) of buffer, ‘‘minimal harvest’’ will end of 10 years, a long-term application of fairly narrow static-width be allowed in the next 75 ft (22.9 m), conservation strategy for forest buffers, independent of a site’s and ‘‘low harvest’’ will be allowed in management along seasonal non-fish- geomorphic context. It is unclear the remaining buffer more than 100 ft bearing streams will be developed and whether lowering the minimum (30.5 m) from the active channel margin. incorporated into the HCP. Potential standards will encourage greater

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33155

participation, and in turn lead to and non-profit organization. That effort listed Puget Sound chinook by 2005. improved riparian conditions. put flows in lower Salmon Creek in This effort is focused on the The Washington State Salmon early 2003, allowing anadromous O. development of local watershed Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) is mykiss to spawn there for the first time recovery plans, each of which will intended to fund efforts to protect and in nearly a century. describe specific actions within a given restore salmonid habitat. The SRFB is WDFW’s Yakima Screen shop has watershed necessary to recover the local supported by a combination of state installed and maintained numerous listed salmon populations. In addition general fund and Federal Coastal screens within the ranges of salmon and to the individual watershed recovery Salmon Recovery dollars. The scope of O. mykiss ESUs, using a combination of plans, an inter-disciplinary group of SRFB projects is essentially the same as BPA, Mitchell Act, and state funds. planners, scientists, and government NPCC habitat projects, and often, funds Their progress in fabricating and agency staffs are preparing a plan for the from both sources are pooled on installing screens has been impeded by recovery of nearshore and estuarine individual projects. In the Columbia insufficient funding and staff. The status habitats in Puget Sound. Drafts of these Basin, the state is attempting to of the state’s budget is such that it is plans will be completed by June 2004. harmonize SRFB efforts with the NPCC uncertain if the State will continue to The plans will be included, to the program and has granted funding to fund screen construction in the future. maximum extent practicable, as part of local groups in support of subbasin The Washington State Department of the Puget Sound chinook ESU recovery planning. Working in concert, these two Ecology (DOE) is responsible for plan to be completed by the summer of programs will form a powerful vehicle ensuring that water quality meets the 2005. for habitat protection and restoration standards required by the Clean Water In the Lower Columbia River, WDFW within the range of the ESU. Act (CWA). However, every subbasin has developed an FMEP for listed State and private forest practices are within the ranges of the Upper chinook salmon, listed O. mykiss, and subject to new Washington State Forest Columbia River ESUs contains streams listed chum salmon under Limit 4 of the and Fish Report regulations, which will or stream reaches that do not meet CWA 4(d) rule. The FMEP was approved by reduce forest practices impacts relative standards, and water quality remains a NMFS in December 2003. Under the to those rules in effect when the species significant limiting factor. There are 109 FMEP only adipose fin-clipped chinook, in Washington were listed. These streams or stream segments listed under O. mykiss, chum and coho salmon may regulations are among the most CWA 303(d) as impaired with respect to be harvested. All unmarked wild fish restrictive in the country and require the water quality. Nineteen of these are must be released unharmed. Changes in retention of substantial riparian zones listed as impaired for lack of instream trout fishing regulations reduce harvest and the remediation of forest road flows, and a number of others are listed rates on juvenile steelhead to less than problems. for temperature problems that occur as 2 percent. Although forest practices on private indirect effect of water withdrawals. lands are not now compliant with ESA Water withdrawals for irrigated Protective Efforts in Idaho regulations, the Washington State Forest agriculture are the most significant Federal Efforts—The USFS is Practice Rules were changed in 2000. sources of water quality degradation currently in the process of revising its Those rules are now being developed within the Upper Columbia River. Land and Resource Management Plans into an HCP (68 FR 12676; March 17, TMDLs are the most effective tools for (LRMPs) across the Snake River Basin. 2003). Effective July 2001, these new addressing these non-point source This LRMP revision will be used by the rules covered a wide variety of forest pollution problems. Presently, the only USFS to replace the existing protective practices and include: a new, more TMDL effort underway in the Upper efforts of PACFISH, INFISH, and the functional classification of rivers and Columbia River is in the Wenatchee related LRMP biological opinions, streams on non-Federal forest land; Subbasin, although there are a number providing comparable protection for improved plans for properly designing, of TMDL efforts underway across the ESA-listed fish species but at a site- maintaining, and upgrading existing and state outside of the Columbia Basin. specific scale. LRMPs have recently new forest roads; additional protections Lack of staff resources at DOE is a major been revised for the Boise, Payette, and for unstable slopes; greater protections impediment to the development of Sawtooth National Forests (Southwest for riparian areas intended to maintain additional TMDLs. During its 2003 Idaho Ecogroup), and will soon be properly functioning conditions; and a session, the Washington State revised on the Clearwater, Wallowa- process for adaptive management. Legislature acted to limit DOE’s Whitman, and Salmon-Challis National The State of Washington has authority to regulate water withdrawals Forests. Direction provided by these established a water rights acquisition for the protection of in-stream flows. LRMPs will guide all management program intended to secure water rights While DOE had not exercised this activities across applicable National for the purpose of improving stream authority until 2002, its first attempt to Forest lands for the next 10 to 15 years. flows for fish. The program is endowed do so resulted in the subject legislation. As in the revision for the Southwest with $5.5 million in State and Federal It is now doubtful that the CWA, Idaho Ecogroup, each of these LRMPs funds, which are to be used only in 16 implemented by DOE, will be used to will likely include some form of an priority subbasins. Two of these resolve in-stream flow problems in Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS), a subbasins are within the range of the Washington State. strategy designed to ensure that future Upper Columbia River ESUs. Unlike the Recovery planning for listed management activities work to maintain BOR program under FCRPS Biological salmonids in Puget Sound is being and restore proper functioning fish Opinion’s Action 149, the state’s effort conducted through a voluntary, habitat conditions. has established guidelines for collaborative process called the Puget To accomplish this goal, LRMPs will prioritizing how the funds are spent. Sound Shared Strategy. Federal provide guidelines for timber harvest, Portions of the program’s funds have agencies, tribal governments, state and road maintenance, and other activities. been used to lease water in the local governments, private businesses, They will include but not be limited to: Okanogan River Basin as part of a and environmental organizations are (1) Placing restrictions on the types and cooperative effort between a local working together through the Shared magnitude of management activities irrigation district, the Colville Tribes, Strategy to complete a recovery plan for across the forest or within individual

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33156 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

watersheds; (2) placing restrictions on Salmon River, and as a result completed continue during 2001, a severe drought the location and extent of ground- two projects on Upper and Lower occurred in 2001 and very little water disturbing activities in a watershed Beaver Creek. Additionally, BOR has was available for rental. In 2001–2003 (including road network development); contacted landowners in other water was rented in the Lemhi River. (3) allocating important watersheds to subbasins to locate and remove fish The Idaho Department of listed fish species for restoration passage barriers. BOR is currently Environmental Quality continues to emphasis versus commodity designing several projects to remove fish establish court-required TMDLs in the production; (4) identifying watershed passage barriers in the upper Salmon Snake River Basin, a program regarded restoration needs and priorities; (5) River subbasin. The objective of BOR’s as having positive water quality effects. establishing a process for riparian action is to restore flows needed to TMDLs were completed in 2001 in the reserve network delineation; and (6) avoid jeopardy to listed species, screen following subbasins: South Fork incorporating an adaptive management all diversions, and resolve all passage Clearwater River, Mid-Salmon Panther process to ensure that restoration obstructions within each of 16 priority (completed and approved), Mid-Salmon priorities remain current. subbasins. Water acquisition will occur Chamberlain (approval pending), and Success of habitat restoration efforts through water purchase or lease. This South Fork Salmon (approval pending). on Federal lands will depend upon program may be highly successful in TMDLs were completed in 2002 in the adequate funding. NMFS believes that opening additional spawning and following subbasins: Pahsimeroi (1 implementation of the LRMPs for rearing habitat and increasing flows for sediment, 1 temperature), Mid-Salmon National Forest lands in the Snake River out-migrating anadromous fish. Success Chamberlain [(Crooked Creek) (1 Basin will continue to provide depends upon sufficient funding, segment temperature) (EPA requested substantial benefits to Snake River O. identification of problem areas and changes; resubmitted September 2002)], mykiss and chinook salmon. While the adequate design and implementation. and South Fork Salmon (assessment LRMP covers a very large area, the BOR has in the past and will continue complete; no new TMDLs; existing 1991 overall effectiveness of efforts on to consult with NMFS and the FWS TMDL on mainstem remains in effect). Federal lands in conserving Snake River when designing projects to eliminate Additionally the following work is O. mykiss and chinook salmon is fish passage barriers. underway: South Fork Clearwater somewhat limited by the extent of Non-Federal Efforts—Demands for (Subbasin assessment/TMDL loading Federal lands and the fact that Federal Idaho’s groundwater resources have analysis underway), Snake River-Hells land ownership is not uniformly caused groundwater levels to drop and Canyon (submittal pending; TMDLs for distributed in watersheds within the reduced flow in springs for which there temperature, sediment loads at mouths ranges of affected ESUs. Therefore, long- are senior water rights. The Idaho of tributaries, nutrients, dissolved term habitat protection within the range Department of Water Resources is oxygen, total dissolved gas), Potlatch of this ESU continues to depend on continuing studies and has promulgated (starting assessment) and small improvement in non-Federal land rules that address water right conflicts management, particularly those lands and demands on a limited resource. The tributaries of the Clearwater on Nez used for timber harvest and agriculture. studies have identified aquifer recharge Perce Reservation (developing work To date, three HCPs are under as a mitigation measure with the plans). An agreement establishing a development within the range of Snake potential to affect the quantity of water schedule for completion of TMDLs in River O. mykiss, fall and spring/summer in certain streams, particularly those Idaho was reached in 2002. Corrective chinook and sockeye, one by Plum essential to listed species. Idaho actions to meet TMDL targets will need Creek Timber Company and the other continues to address the potential to to be identified, funded, and two by the Upper Salmon River and improve flows for fish passage through implemented. Lemhi River Irrigators. However, only state programs. Idaho water law has Summary of Protective Efforts the Plum Creek HCP has been formally been changed to allow water rentals and Addressing Habitat, Harvest, and submitted to NMFS. The success of the retention of instream flows for fish Passage Issues HCPs depends on funding and in the Lemhi River. Idaho and local implementation of restoration activities irrigators have negotiated short-term In summary, the ESA listings of basinwide. agreements to ensure minimum in- salmon and O. mykiss ESUs have The Idaho Screen Shop in Salmon, stream flows through 2003 and have provided the incentive for numerous Idaho, is very active in screening committed to developing a long-term protective efforts. While many causes of diversions throughout the Salmon River HCP with NMFS for the Lemhi River. decline in salmon and O. mykiss ESUs basin. The screen shop is run by Idaho However, Idaho has not yet augmented are being addressed (e.g., providing fish Department of Fish and Game, with flows to any significant extent in passage above artificial barriers), habitat funding from BPA and NMFS under the subbasins other than the Lemhi. Efforts degradation and destruction has been Mitchell Act. The BOR provides to recover listed salmon are likely to be slowed but not prevented. The technical assistance in design. This impeded until Idaho begins to explore protective efforts described above are program has been effective in reducing opportunities to address the limitations directed toward addressing the fish losses to irrigation systems. of state water law to increase flows in numerous factors that limit recovery of The BOR is responsible for addressing other subbasins. threatened and endangered ESUs— flow, passage and screening problems In 2001, the Idaho state legislature water quality and quantity, safe on non-public land pursuant to the 2000 extended for one year BOR’s authority migration, riparian vegetation, food, FCRPS Biological Opinion. In 2002, to rent water from Idaho’s water rental predation dynamics and complex BOR facilitated the completion of ten pools, for delivery to BOR’s flow stream channels, and floodplain projects in the Lemhi River, and two augmentation program. In recent years, connectivity. These actions all will aid projects in the East Fork Salmon River BOR rented up to about 250,000 acre- in improving these factors within the to replace headgates, consolidate feet from these rental pools of the total area of each project. Cumulative effects diversions, and install screens in an 427,000 acre-feet delivered for salmon of these and other protective efforts, and effort to eliminate fish passage barriers. flow augmentation. While this any additional measures necessary to In 2003, BOR began work in the upper legislation allowed such rentals to address the ESUs’ factors for decline

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33157

and extinction risk, are being evaluated be primarily due to unusually favorable ESU’s extinction risk concluded that the through recovery planning. conditions in the marine environment within-ESU hatchery programs do not rather than more permanent reductions substantially reduce the extinction risk Proposed Listing Determinations in the factors that have led to the of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). The ESA defines a species as widespread declines in salmonid Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant including any subspecies, or any abundance over the past century (See to the PECE, do not provide sufficient distinct population segment of a NMFS, 2003b for further discussion). certainty of implementation and vertebrate species, which interbreeds For ESUs limited by factors affecting effectiveness to alter the BRT’s and the when mature. The ESA further defines their spatial structure, improvements in Artificial Propagation Evaluation an endangered species as any species in fish passage and other issues are Workshop’s assessments that the ESU is danger of extinction throughout all or a difficult to obtain and are slow to show ‘‘likely to become endangered within significant portion of its range, and a a biological response. Reform of harmful the foreseeable future.’’ Although the threatened species as any species likely hatchery practices has alleviated threats WA DNR HCP, Washington State Forest to become an endangered species within to the diversity of many ESUs, but it is Practice Rules, and other protective the foreseeable future throughout all or uncertain the degree to which past efforts are encouraging signs, these a significant portion of its range. Section harmful effects are reversible. efforts have yet to demonstrate 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the substantive improvements to Ozette Snake River Sockeye ESU listing determination be based solely on Lake habitat conditions. NMFS the best scientific and commercial data The BRT unanimously concluded that concludes that the ESU in-total is likely available, after conducting a review of the Snake River sockeye ESU is ‘‘in to become endangered within the the status of the species and taking into danger of extinction.’’ Although the foreseeable future throughout all or a account those efforts, if any, being made Redfish Lake captive broodstock significant portion of its range, and to protect such species. program was instrumental in rescuing proposes that the Ozette Lake sockeye The proposed listing determinations the ESU from extinction, it does not ESU remain listed under the ESA as a are described below for each of the 27 substantially mitigate the BRT’s threatened species. ESUs of West Coast salmon and O. assessment of risk. Actions under the mykiss under review, as defined in the 2000 FCRPS Biological opinion, as well Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook section ‘‘Determinations of ‘‘Species’’ as other protective efforts in the region ESU Under the ESA.’’ Informed by the BRT’s and the State of Idaho, have improved The BRT concluded that the naturally findings (NMFS, 2003b), NMFS’ habitat conditions for the ESU. spawned component of the Sacramento assessment of the effects of artificial Nonetheless, risks to the ESU’s winter-run chinook ESU is ‘‘in danger of propagation programs on ESU viability abundance, productivity, spatial extinction.’’ Informed by the BRT’s (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial structure, and diversity remain findings (NMFS, 2003b) and the Propagation Evaluation Workshop extremely high. NMFS’ assessment of assessment of artificial propagation conclusions regarding the extinction the effects of artificial propagation on programs on the viability of the ESU risk of ESUs in-total (NMFS, 2004c), and the ESU’s extinction risk concluded that (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial after considering the efforts being made the Redfish Lake captive broodstock Propagation Evaluation Workshop to protect these ESUs, NMFS has program does not substantially reduce concluded that the Sacramento River determined that four ESUs warrant the extinction risk of the ESU in-total winter-run chinook ESU in-total is listing as endangered species, and 23 (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as presently ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ ESUs warrant listing as threatened evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not (NMFS 2004c). Major efforts have been species. Collectively, these ESUs provide sufficient certainty of undertaken by NMFS and others over include 162 artificial propagation implementation and effectiveness to the past decade to: Assess the viability programs. Informed by the Alsea ruling alter the BRT’s and the Artificial of, and conduct research on, the winter and consistent with the proposed Propagation Evaluation Workshop’s run chinook population; implement Hatchery Listing Policy published assessments that the ESU is ‘‘in danger freshwater and ocean harvest elsewhere in this issue of the Federal of extinction.’’ NMFS concludes that the management conservation efforts; and Register, any artificial propagation ESU in-total is in danger of extinction implement a wide range of habitat programs considered to be part of an throughout all or a significant portion of conservation measures. The State of ESU will be included in the listing if it its range, and proposes that the Snake California has listed winter-run chinook is determined that the ESU in-total is River sockeye ESU remain listed under under the California Endangered threatened or endangered. Table 3 at the the ESA as an endangered species. Species Act, implemented freshwater end of this section provides a summary harvest management conservation of the proposed listing determinations. Ozette Lake Sockeye ESU measures, and increased monitoring and In many of these ESUs, adult returns The BRT concluded that the naturally evaluation efforts in support of have been significantly higher in the last spawned component of the Ozette Lake conserving this ESU. Harvest and 1 to 3 years than has been observed in sockeye ESU is ‘‘likely to become habitat conservation efforts have the past decade or more. These recent endangered within the foreseeable substantially benefited the ESU’s improvements, principally in ESU future.’’ The Makah Tribe’s artificial abundance and productivity over the abundance and productivity, are propagation program has improved the past decade. These efforts include: encouraging and represent a relative ESU’s overall abundance and spatial Changes in Central Valley Project and reduction in extinction risk. However, structure, but these efforts likely have State Water Project operations and other the favorable responses observed in not mitigated the risks faced by the actions undertaken pursuant to recent years are often uneven across beach spawning sockeye aggregations. implementation of the Central Valley populations within these ESUs. Uncertainties and biases in the available Project biological opinion that have Additionally, the causes for the recent data continue to confound evaluations increased freshwater survival; changes increases in abundance and of abundance and productivity trends in in salmon ocean harvest pursuant to the productivity are not well understood, the ESU. NMFS’ assessment of the ocean harvest biological opinion that and in many (perhaps most) cases may effects of artificial propagation on the have increased ocean survival and adult

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33158 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

escapement; implementation of habitat efforts in the Central Valley have completion of the Russian River restoration efforts throughout the central contributed substantially to improving consultation addressing water project valley as a result of the CALFED the viability of the remaining spring operations in the Russian River are program and other central valley habitat chinook populations. Current efforts in expected to benefit this ESU in the restoration projects. A key concern of Battle Creek and elsewhere are likely to future. Similarly, ongoing efforts by the BRT was the lack of diversity within provide additional habitat for spring NMFS and CDFG to develop a coastal this ESU and the fact that it is chinook. In addition, the State of salmon and steelhead monitoring represented by a single extant California has listed spring run chinook program are expected to substantially population at present. However, under the California Endangered improve the amount and quality of significant efforts are underway through Species Act and has implemented available information on the abundance the CALFED ecosystem restoration freshwater harvest management and spatial distribution of naturally program to restore habitat and measures, as well as increased its spawning populations in the future, anadromous fish access to Battle Creek monitoring and evaluation of naturally thereby allowing improved long-term which would provide an opportunity for spawning populations. However, the assessment of population viability and this ESU to establish a second blockage of historical spawning habitat, trends. Protective efforts, as evaluated population. The two artificial the limited distribution of natural pursuant to the PECE, do not provide propagation programs that are part of production areas, and the risks posed by sufficient certainty of implementation this ESU also provide benefits to the the non-ESU Feather River hatchery and effectiveness to alter the BRT’s and ESU’s viability by contributing to program remain to be addressed. the Artificial Propagation Evaluation abundance and by preserving the Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant genetic diversity of the ESU through to the PECE, do not provide sufficient Workshop’s assessments that the ESU is careful use of spawning protocols and certainty of implementation and ‘‘likely to become endangered within other tools that maximize genetic effectiveness to alter the BRT’s the foreseeable future.’’ NMFS diversity of propagated fish and assessment that the ESU is ‘‘likely to concludes that the ESU in-total is likely minimize impacts on naturally become endangered within the to become endangered within the spawning fish. The Livingston Stone foreseeable future.’’ NMFS concludes foreseeable future throughout all or a NFH program also safeguarded the that the ESU in-total is likely to become significant portion of its range. NMFS natural population during a period of endangered within the foreseeable proposes that the California Coastal critically low abundance in the early future throughout all or a significant chinook ESU remain listed as a 1990s, and preserved the genetic and portion of its range, and therefore, threatened species under the ESA. behavioral characteristics of the extant proposes that the Central Valley spring- Upper Willamette River Chinook ESU natural population. NMFS believes that run chinook ESU remain listed as the protective efforts being implemented threatened under the ESA. The BRT concluded that the naturally for this ESU, as evaluated pursuant to California Coastal Chinook ESU spawned component of the Upper the PECE, provide sufficient certainty of Willamette River chinook ESU is ‘‘likely implementation and effectiveness to The BRT concluded that the naturally to become endangered within the alter the BRT’s and Artificial spawned component of the California foreseeable future.’’ NMFS’ assessment Propagation Workshop’s assessments Coastal chinook ESU is ‘‘likely to of the effects of artificial propagation on become endangered within the that the ESU is ‘‘in danger of the ESU’s extinction risk concluded that foreseeable future.’’ Informed by the extinction.’’ NMFS concludes that the the within-ESU hatchery programs do BRT’s findings (NMFS, 2003b) and the ESU in-total is not in danger of not substantially reduce the extinction assessment of artificial propagation extinction, but is likely to become risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). programs on the viability of the ESU endangered within the foreseeable Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant future throughout all or a significant (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Propagation Evaluation Workshop to the PECE, do not provide sufficient portion of its range. Accordingly, NMFS certainty of implementation and proposes that the Sacramento River concluded that the California Coastal Chinook ESU in-total is ‘‘likely to effectiveness to alter the BRT’s and the winter-run chinook ESU, presently Artificial Propagation Evaluation listed as an endangered species, be become endangered within the Workshop’s assessments that the ESU is listed as a threatened species under the foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). ‘‘likely to become endangered within ESA. Some coastal habitat protective efforts have provided benefits to the ESU, most the foreseeable future.’’ Efforts under Central Valley Spring-run Chinook ESU notably: the State’s habitat restoration FWS’ Greenspaces Program, the Oregon The BRT concluded that the Central grant program, which is funded in large Plan, hatchery reform efforts, and other Valley Spring-run chinook ESU is part by the Pacific Coast Salmon protective efforts are encouraging signs. ‘‘likely to become endangered within Restoration Fund; the multi-county However, restoration efforts in the ESU the foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2003b). conservation planning and are very local in scale, and have yet to There are no artificial propagation implementation efforts which have provide benefits at the scale of programs producing spring chinook that focused on fixing migration barriers and watersheds or at the larger spatial scale are considered to be part of the ESU, improving road maintenance programs; of the ESU. The blockage of historical and therefore, the Artificial Propagation and implementation of the Pacific spawning habitat and the restriction of Evaluation Workshop did not consider Lumber Company HCP, which is natural production areas remain to be this ESU. The BRT was particularly expected to contribute to achieving addressed. NMFS concludes that the concerned about the loss of the ESU’s properly functioning habitat conditions ESU in-total is likely to become diversity caused by extirpation of in some watersheds occupied by this endangered within the foreseeable populations in most portions of the ESU. Collectively, however, these future throughout all or a significant Central Valley, as well as the geographic programs do not substantially reduce portion of its range, and proposes that proximity of the relatively small risks to the ESU. Implementation of the the Upper Willamette River chinook populations that remain. NMFS believes Potter Valley hydroelectric project ESU remain listed under the ESA as a that the various habitat restoration biological opinion by FERC and threatened species.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33159

Lower Columbia River Chinook ESU geographic range of the ESU are not time frames to evaluate the certainty of The BRT concluded that the naturally fully supporting the conservation and implementation. Without the necessary spawned component of the Lower recovery of Upper Columbia River commitments to address the ESU’s Columbia River chinook ESU is ‘‘likely spring-run chinook. In particular, NMFS limiting factors, NMFS concludes that to become endangered within the is concerned that the non-ESU Entiat the ESU in-total is likely to become foreseeable future.’’ NMFS’ assessment NFH has compromised the genetic endangered within the foreseeable of the effects of artificial propagation on integrity of the native natural future throughout all or a significant the ESU’s extinction risk concluded that population of spring-run chinook in the portion of its range. NMFS proposes that the within-ESU hatchery programs do Entiat basin. NMFS concludes that the the Puget Sound chinook ESU remain Upper Columbia River spring-run listed under the ESA as a threatened not substantially reduce the extinction chinook ESU in-total is in danger of species. risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). extinction throughout all or a significant Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant Snake River Fall-run Chinook ESU portion of its range. NMFS proposes that to the PECE, do not provide sufficient the Upper Columbia River spring-run The BRT concluded that the Snake certainty of implementation and chinook ESU remain listed under the River fall-run chinook ESU is ‘‘likely to effectiveness to alter the BRT’s and the ESA as an endangered species. become endangered within the Artificial Propagation Evaluation foreseeable future.’’ The within-ESU Workshop’s assessments that the ESU is Puget Sound Chinook ESU propagated stocks derived from the ‘‘likely to become endangered within The BRT concluded that the naturally Lyons Ferry Hatchery stock have the foreseeable future.’’ Planned dam spawned component of the Puget Sound contributed to some encouraging removals on the Sandy River, federally chinook ESU is ‘‘likely to become increases in total ESU abundance in funded habitat restoration efforts, the endangered within the foreseeable recent years; however, NMFS’ WA DNR HCP, and other protective future.’’ NMFS’ assessment of the effects assessment of the effects of artificial efforts are encouraging signs in of artificial propagation on the ESU’s propagation on the ESU’s extinction risk addressing the ESU’s factors for decline, extinction risk concluded that the concluded that the within-ESU hatchery but they do not as yet substantially within-ESU hatchery programs do not programs do not substantially reduce reduce threats to the ESU. NMFS substantially reduce the extinction risk the extinction risk of the ESU in-total concludes that the ESU in-total is likely of the ESU in-total (NMFS 2004c). In (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as to become endangered within the particular, NMFS is concerned that the evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not foreseeable future throughout all or a pervasive use of the Green River derived provide sufficient certainty of significant portion of its range, and hatchery stocks throughout the range of implementation and effectiveness to proposes that the Lower Columbia River the ESU in proximity to locally adapted alter the BRT’s and the Artificial chinook ESU remain listed under the naturally spawning populations Propagation Evaluation Workshop’s ESA as a threatened species. continues to erode the ESU’s spatial assessments that the ESU is ‘‘likely to Upper Columbia River Spring-run structure and diversity. Protective become endangered within the Chinook ESU efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the foreseeable future.’’ Nonetheless, PECE, do not provide sufficient actions under the 2000 FCRPS The BRT was divided on the certainty of implementation and biological opinion and improvements in extinction risk faced by the naturally effectiveness to alter the BRT’s and the hatchery practices have provided some spawned component of the Upper Artificial Propagation Evaluation encouraging signs in addressing the Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU Workshop’s assessments that the ESU is ESU’s factors for decline. Other between ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ and ‘‘likely to become endangered within protective efforts, such as measures ‘‘likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.’’ There have been associated with the FERC relicensing of the foreseeable future,’’ with a slight significant and positive actions to the Idaho Power Company’s Hells majority finding that the ESU is ‘‘in address factors limiting the viability of Canyon Complex, are under danger of extinction.’’ NMFS’ Puget Sound chinook including: development or ongoing. NMFS assessment of the effects of artificial implementation of the Forest and Fish concludes that the ESU in-total is likely propagation on the ESU’s extinction risk agreement for timber practices; DOT’s to become endangered within the concluded that the within-ESU hatchery Routine Road Maintenance 4(d) limit foreseeable future throughout all or a programs do not substantially reduce and its implementation by local significant portion of its range. NMFS the extinction risk of the ESU in-total governments; changes to harvest proposes that the Snake River fall-run (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as management; hatchery reform; and chinook ESU remain listed under the evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not habitat restoration and conservation ESA as a threatened species. provide sufficient certainty of actions by local governments and implementation and effectiveness to voluntary organizations. However, the Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook alter the BRT’s and the Artificial degradation and loss of estuarine, ESU Propagation Evaluation Workshop’s riparian, and freshwater habitats The BRT concluded that the Snake assessments that the ESU is in danger of through past and present urbanization, River spring/summer-run chinook ESU extinction or likely to become so in the agricultural activities, man-made is ‘‘likely to become endangered within foreseeable future. Actions under the impassible barriers, and forest practices the foreseeable future.’’ NMFS’ 2000 FCRPS biological opinion, remain significant limiting factors in assessment of the effects of artificial federally funded habitat restoration this ESU. NMFS is encouraged by the propagation on the ESU’s extinction risk efforts, and other protective efforts are parties working in the Shared Strategy concluded that the within-ESU hatchery encouraging signs in addressing the process and will consider the results of programs do not substantially reduce ESU’s factors for decline, but they do this process provided they: address the the extinction risk of the ESU in-total not as yet substantially reduce the ESU’s limiting factors caused by past actions; (NMFS, 2004c). Protective efforts, as extinction risk. address future losses from human evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not NMFS is concerned that artificial population growth; and contain provide sufficient certainty of propagation practices within the sufficient commitments over necessary implementation and effectiveness to

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33160 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

alter the BRT’s and the Artificial are uncertain. Both freshwater and within the foreseeable future.’’ Informed Propagation Evaluation Workshop’s ocean harvest impacts to coho salmon by the BRT findings (NMFS, 2003b) and assessments that the ESU is ‘‘likely to have also been reduced, which has the assessment of artificial propagation become endangered within the contributed to reducing extinction risk programs on the viability of the ESU foreseeable future.’’ Nonetheless, for the ESU. Other protective efforts that (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial actions under the 2000 FCRPS have provided benefits to this ESU Propagation Evaluation Workshop biological opinion, and improvements include: Implementation of numerous concluded that the Southern Oregon/ in hatchery practices have provided freshwater habitat restoration projects Northern California Coast coho ESU is some encouraging signs in addressing funded through the State’s habitat ‘‘likely to become endangered within the ESU’s factors for decline. NMFS restoration grant program; efforts by the foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). concludes that the ESU in-total is likely multi-county conservation planning The State of California has initiated the to become endangered within the groups to inventory, prioritize, and fix process for listing coho salmon within foreseeable future throughout all or a salmonid migration barriers and to this ESU under the California ESA and significant portion of its range. NMFS modify road maintenance activities is expected to make a final listing proposes that the Snake River spring/ throughout the range of the ESU; and decision in June 2004. The State also summer-run chinook ESU remain listed the completion of numerous ESA developed a comprehensive, state-wide under the ESA as a threatened species. section 7 consultations for gravel coho salmon recovery strategy and plan mining and other habitat impacting Central California Coast Coho ESU that was approved by the California Fish actions. Several future projects are and Game Commission in February The BRT concluded that the naturally expected to provide benefits to this 2004. NMFS believes the plan will spawned component of the Central ESU, including completion and provide substantial benefits to the California Coast coho ESU is ‘‘in danger implementation of the Russian River California portion of this ESU over the of extinction.’’ Informed by the BRT consultation addressing water project long-term if it is successfully findings (NMFS, 2003b) and the operations in the Russian River, and implemented, but the long term assessment of artificial propagation completion and approval of the Green prospects for plan funding and programs on the viability of the ESU Diamond Resource Company and implementation are uncertain. In both (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial Mendocino Redwoods timber harvest Oregon and California, changes to Propagation Evaluation Workshop HCPs. Ongoing efforts by NMFS and freshwater and ocean harvest concluded that the Central California CDFG to develop a coastal salmon and management have reduced impacts to Coast coho ESU in-total is ‘‘in danger of steelhead monitoring program are also coho salmon, which have contributed to extinction.’’ The State of California has expected to substantially improve the reducing extinction risk for the ESU. initiated the process for listing coho amount and quality of available Other protective efforts that have salmon under the California ESA and is information on the abundance and provided benefits to this ESU include: expected to make a final listing decision spatial distribution of naturally implementation of numerous freshwater in June 2004. In conjunction with this spawning populations in the future, habitat restoration projects in California California ESA listing process the State thereby allowing much improved long- through the state’s habitat restoration has also developed a comprehensive, term assessment of population viability grant program; efforts by the Five state-wide coho salmon recovery and trends. Although the artificial County conservation planning group to strategy and plan. This recovery strategy propagation programs that are part of and plan was developed by the CDFG in inventory, prioritize, and fix salmonid this ESU were not found to substantially migration barriers and to modify road 2003 and approved by the California affect the viability of the ESU in-total, Fish and Game Commission in February maintenance activities throughout the implementation of these programs in California portion of the ESU; 2004. The plan is comprehensive in conjunction with the other protective scope, addresses a wide range of factors implementation of the Oregon Plan in efforts that are addressing habitat the Oregon portion of the ESU; responsible for the decline of coho related factors for decline are expected throughout the State, and was implementation of the long-term to provide benefits to the ESU in the Klamath Project biological opinion; and developed by a broad range of long term. Nonetheless, NMFS believes implementation of the Pacific Lumber stakeholders who will be responsible for that protective efforts, as evaluated Company HCP. the plan’s implementation. The CDFG is pursuant to the PECE, do not provide in the process of developing an sufficient certainty of implementation NMFS and the State of California are implementation plan that will prioritize and effectiveness to alter the BRT’s and developing a coastal salmon and recovery actions and estimate the Artificial Propagation Evaluation steelhead monitoring program, which if implementation costs. In the short-term, Workshop’s assessments that the ESU is implemented is expected to CDFG is using existing staff and ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ NMFS substantially improve the amount and financial resources to implement the concludes, therefore, that the ESU in- quality of available information on the plan, but is expected to pursue total is in danger of extinction abundance and spatial distribution of additional financial resources after the throughout all or a significant portion of naturally spawning populations in implementation plan is completed. In its range. Accordingly, NMFS proposes California, which would enhance the addition, CDFG has integrated the coho that the Central California Coast coho long-term assessment of population recovery plan with its coastal habitat salmon ESU, presently listed as a viability and trends. Although a wide restoration grant program by ensuring threatened species, be listed as an range of important protective efforts that high priority recovery plan actions endangered species under the ESA. have been implemented in both Oregon in high priority watersheds receive a and California, these protective efforts, greater likelihood of funding. Southern Oregon/Northern California as yet, do not reduce threats sufficiently Although NMFS believes the plan Coast Coho ESU to the ESU. Protective efforts, as will provide substantial benefits to this The BRT concluded that the naturally evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not ESU over the long-term if it is spawned component of the Southern provide sufficient certainty of implemented, the long-term prospects Oregon/Northern California Coast coho implementation and effectiveness to for plan funding and implementation ESU is ‘‘likely to become endangered alter the BRT’s and the Artificial

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33161

Propagation Evaluation Workshop’s analysis of the effectiveness of measures conservation measures represent assessments that the ESU is ‘‘likely to under the Oregon Plan in conserving the encouraging signs in addressing the become endangered within the Oregon Coast Coho ESU is underway ESU’s factors for decline. The expected foreseeable future.’’ NMFS concludes but not yet completed. In the absence of dam removals on the Sandy River, once that the ESU in-total is likely to become this analysis, the information available accomplished, would restore fish endangered within the foreseeable as evaluated pursuant to the PECE does passage and open up currently future throughout all or a significant not provide sufficient certainty of inaccessible spawning and rearing portion of its range. NMFS proposes that implementation and effectiveness to habitats. Federal, state, and locally the Southern Oregon/Northern alter the BRT’s and the Artificial funded projects have improved fish California Coast coho ESU remain listed Propagation Evaluation Workshop’s passage, river flow management, and under the ESA as a threatened species. assessments that the ESU is ‘‘likely to instream and riparian habitat conditions become endangered within the at many locations. The WA DNR HCP Oregon Coast Coho ESU foreseeable future.’’ Based upon the will benefit riparian zone habitats, The BRT concluded that the naturally information currently available, which improve road and forest management spawned component of the Oregon does not include the findings from practices, and encourage improved Coast coho ESU is ‘‘likely to become Oregon’s analysis of the Oregon Plan monitoring efforts. endangered within the foreseeable with respect to this ESU, NMFS NMFS recognizes that the genetic future.’’ Following recruitment failure concludes that the ESU in-total is likely resources that reside in the ESU’s for the 1994–1996 brood years to become endangered within the hatchery programs may play a vital role (returning in 1997–1999, respectively), foreseeable future throughout all or a in the future in expanding the the ESU has seen near record significant portion of its range. NMFS, distribution of naturally spawning coho recruitment for the 1997–1999 brood therefore, proposes that the Oregon populations in the Lower Columbia years (returning in 2000–2002, Coast coho ESU be listed under the ESA River. The manner in which these respectively). These recent returns are as a threatened species. If, upon genetic resources are being managed, extremely encouraging; however, these completion of the analysis, information however, poses significant risks to the increases need to be sustained through is made available to the agency showing sustainability of these programs in the additional brood years to resolve that the Oregon Plan and/or other foreseeable future, as well as the ESU remaining uncertainties regarding the conservation efforts substantially in-total. NMFS strongly encourages the ESU’s viability. Additional data mitigate ESU extinction risk, NMFS will reform of existing hatchery practices to demonstrating that the freshwater re-initiate a status review for Oregon provide better stewardship over the habitat can support high abundances of Coast coho to consider the best and ESU’s remaining diversity. Potentially natural spawners and sustain recent most recent scientific and commercial effective improvements in hatchery abundance levels would help resolve information available. practices by the Oregon and Washington uncertainties regarding the ESU’s Departments of Fish and Wildlife resilience under less favorable ocean Lower Columbia River Coho ESU include: (1) Ending the transfer of eggs conditions. The BRT concluded that the naturally among basins; (2) use of broodstock that The artificial propagation programs spawned component of the Lower reflects what was historically present in producing coho populations considered Columbia River coho ESU is ‘‘in danger a given basin, (3) development of to be part of the ESU have undergone of extinction.’’ The BRT observed that Hatchery and Genetic Management substantial changes in the last 10 years although the scale of artificial Plans that reflect the natural escapement to limit adverse effects to natural propagation poses genetic and goals for each basin, and that identify Oregon Coast coho populations. ecological threats to the two extant how the hatchery programs will However, they are not managed to natural populations in the ESU, the incorporate natural-origin fish into their contribute to the ESU’s abundance, within-ESU hatchery programs broodstock; (4) commitments to productivity, spatial structure, or represent a substantial proportion of the continue 100 percent marking of diversity. NMFS’ assessment of the genetic resources remaining in the ESU. released hatchery fish; (5) commitments effects of artificial propagation on the However, the manner in which the to continue monitoring of natural ESU’s extinction risk concluded that the majority of these hatchery fish are being production and the proportion of within-ESU hatchery programs do not produced does not adhere to best hatchery-origin fish on spawning substantially reduce the extinction risk management practices, and may be grounds; and (6) development of a of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). The compromising the integrity of these program to evaluate the reproductive severe reduction of harvest levels for genetic resources. NMFS’ assessment of success of naturally spawning hatchery Oregon Coast coho populations since the effects of artificial propagation on coho and their contribution to the 1998 has contributed to the increased the ESU’s extinction risk concluded that productivity of the natural populations. abundance of natural spawners. hatchery programs collectively mitigate NMFS concludes that the ESU in-total Hatchery reform and the reduction of the immediacy of extinction risk for the is likely to become endangered within harvest represent effective management Lower Columbia River coho ESU in- the foreseeable future over all or a tools that can quickly yield results. total in the short term, but that these significant portion of its range, and However, once implemented, there is programs do not substantially reduce proposes that Lower Columbia River limited management flexibility to the extinction risk of the ESU in the coho ESU be listed under the ESA as a respond to future declines in the ESU’s foreseeable future (NMFS, 2004c). threatened species. productivity if caused by deteriorating Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant ocean or freshwater conditions. to the PECE, do not provide sufficient Columbia River Chum ESU The Oregon Plan has made or certainty of implementation and The BRT concluded that the Columbia encouraged significant contributions effectiveness to alter the Artificial River chum ESU is ‘‘likely to become toward conserving salmon and Propagation Evaluation Workshop’s endangered within the foreseeable steelhead populations in the state of assessment that the ESU is ‘‘likely to future.’’ NMFS’ assessment of the effects Oregon. As noted in the Protective become endangered within the of artificial propagation on the ESU’s Efforts in Oregon section, an ESU-scale foreseeable future.’’ However, several extinction risk concluded that the

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33162 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

within-ESU hatchery programs do not therefore, the Artificial Propagation in the steelhead escapement to the substantially reduce the extinction risk Evaluation Workshop did not evaluate Carmel River since the mid-1990s. of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). this ESU. The most important protective Recreational harvest of O. mykiss has Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant efforts in this ESU have resulted from been reduced by the State in recent to the PECE, do not provide sufficient ESA section 7 consultations and habitat years and the outplanting of hatchery certainty of implementation and restoration projects funded by the State fish from the Monterey Bay Salmon and effectiveness to alter the BRT’s and the of California. Habitat restoration efforts Trout Project into this ESU has been Artificial Propagation Evaluation in the Lower Santa Ynez River and new halted. Both of these protective efforts Workshop’s assessments that the ESU is fish passage facilities at the Robles have provided benefits to the ESU. ‘‘likely to become endangered within Diversion Dam on the Ventura River are Other restoration efforts and protective the foreseeable future.’’ However, flow recent efforts that are expected to efforts, such as ESA section 7 management under the 2000 FCRPS provide benefits to O. mykiss. Other consultations and habitat restoration biological opinion, federally funded conservation efforts such as the Matilija projects funded by the State have habitat restoration efforts, the WA DNR and Rindge Dam removal projects have provided benefits on a local scale, but HCP, and other protective efforts are long-term potential to benefit the ESU, have not reduced extinction risk at the encouraging signs in addressing the but their implementation is uncertain. scale of the ESU. The BRT expressed ESU’s factors for decline. NMFS Other habitat restoration or protective particular concern about the degraded concludes that the ESU in-total is likely efforts are very local in scale, and so habitat conditions in the Pajaro and to become endangered within the they do not provide benefits at the scale Salinas river basins. No significant foreseeable future throughout all or a of large watersheds or the ESU in-total. protective efforts are currently being significant portion of its range, and Blockage of historical spawning and implemented in either watershed. proposes that the Columbia River chum rearing habitat in both large and small Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant ESU remain listed under the ESA as a watersheds and instream flow to the PECE, do not provide sufficient threatened species. conditions remain to be addressed on a certainty of implementation and broad scale in this ESU. Information on effectiveness to alter the BRT’s Hood Canal Summer Chum ESU the abundance and distribution of assessment that the ESU is ‘‘likely to The BRT concluded that the naturally steelhead and resident O. mykiss become endangered within the spawned component of the Hood Canal remains limited and is a major concern foreseeable future.’’ NMFS concludes summer-run chum ESU is ‘‘likely to since there are not comprehensive that the ESU in-total is likely to become become endangered within the monitoring efforts being implemented. endangered in the foreseeable future foreseeable future.’’ NMFS’ assessment Efforts are underway by NMFS and the throughout all or a significant portion of of the effects of artificial propagation on State, however, to develop a coastal its range. NMFS proposes that the the ESU’s extinction risk concluded that salmonid monitoring program that, if South-Central Coast O. mykiss ESU the within-ESU hatchery programs do implemented for this ESU, will likely remain listed under the ESA as a not substantially reduce the extinction allow improved long-term assessment of threatened species. risk of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). spatial distribution and abundance Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant trends. Protective efforts, as evaluated to the PECE, do not provide sufficient pursuant to the PECE, do not provide The BRT concluded that the naturally certainty of implementation and sufficient certainty of implementation spawned component of the Central effectiveness to alter the BRT’s and the and effectiveness to alter the BRT’s California Coast O. mykiss ESU is Artificial Propagation Evaluation assessment that the ESU is ‘‘in danger ‘‘likely to become endangered within Workshop’s assessments that the ESU is of extinction.’’ NMFS, therefore, the foreseeable future.’’ For some BRT ‘‘likely to become endangered within concludes that the ESU in-total is in members, the presence of resident fish the foreseeable future.’’ Habitat danger of extinction throughout all or a reduces risks to the ESU’s natural improvements, HCPs, and other significant portion of its range. NMFS abundance, but provides an uncertain protective efforts are nonetheless proposes that the Southern California O. contribution to the ESU’s productivity, encouraging signs in addressing the mykiss ESU remain listed under the spatial structure, and diversity. ESU’s factors for decline. NMFS ESA as an endangered species. Informed by the BRT’s findings (NMFS, concludes that the ESU in-total is likely 2003b) and the assessment of artificial to become endangered within the South-Central California Coast O. propagation programs on the viability of foreseeable future throughout all or a mykiss ESU the ESU (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial significant portion of its range, and The BRT concluded that the naturally Propagation Evaluation Workshop proposes that the Hood Canal summer spawned component of the South- concluded that the Central California chum ESU remain listed under the ESA Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU Coast O. mykiss ESU is ‘‘likely to as a threatened species. is ‘‘likely to become endangered within become endangered within the the foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2003b). foreseeable future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). Southern California O. mykiss ESU For some BRT members, presence of There are two artificial propagation The BRT concluded that the Southern relatively numerous resident fish programs that are considered to be part California O. mykiss ESU is ‘‘in danger reduces risks to the ESU’s abundance, of the ESU. These two programs likely of extinction’’ (NMFS, 2003b). For some but provides an uncertain contribution provide some limited benefits to the BRT members, the presence of relatively to the ESU’s productivity, spatial ESU’s viability by contributing to local numerous resident fish reduces risks to structure, and diversity. No artificial population abundance, but do not the ESU’s abundance, but provides an propagation programs are considered to substantially reduce the ESU’s uncertain contribution to the ESU’s be part of this ESU, and therefore, the extinction risk. Resident O. mykiss productivity, spatial structure, and Artificial Propagation Evaluation populations above Dam 1 on Alameda diversity. There are no artificial Workshop did not evaluate this ESU. Creek are genetically similar to below- propagation programs producing Protective efforts in the Carmel dam populations that are part of the hatchery O. mykiss populations within watershed appear to have contributed, ESU, and therefore, are considered to be the geographic range of the ESU, and at least in part, to a substantial increase part of the ESU. Although these above-

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33163

dam resident populations are concluded that the California Central efforts are continuing to develop a considered part of the ESU, it is unclear Valley O. mykiss ESU is ‘‘in danger of fishing management and evaluation how and to what extent these resident extinction’’ (NMFS, 2004c). The two plan for O. mykiss in the central valley. populations contribute to the viability of artificial propagation programs NMFS believes that the protective the ESU in-total. Protective efforts that considered to be part of the ESU provide efforts being implemented for this ESU, have provided benefits to this ESU some limited benefits to the ESU’s as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, include implementation of numerous abundance, but they do not provide sufficient certainty of habitat restoration projects as part of the substantially reduce the ESU’s implementation and effectiveness to state’s habitat restoration grant program extinction risk. The BRT was concerned alter the BRT’s and the Artificial as well as ESA section 7 consultations that two out-of-ESU hatchery programs Propagation Evaluation Workshop’s for gravel mining and other habitat may pose ecological and diversity risks assessments that the ESU is ‘‘in danger impacting activities. Protective efforts to the natural O. mykiss populations in of extinction.’’ NMFS concludes that the that are expected to have benefits to this this ESU. All out-of-ESU hatchery ESU in-total is not in danger of ESU include completion and production, however, is marked and extinction, but is likely to become implementation of the Russian River releases occur in relatively close endangered within the foreseeable water project operations consultation proximity to the hatchery facilities. future throughout all or a significant with the USACE, and ongoing local These measures likely minimize portion of its range. Accordingly, NMFS county planning and restoration efforts straying and genetic introgression from proposes that the California Central that are addressing migration barriers the out-of-ESU hatchery stocks. In Valley O. mykiss ESU remain listed as and routine road maintenance activities. addition, in-river harvest of hatchery a threatened species under the ESA. Although some of the habitat protective steelhead is encouraged by complete Northern California O. mykiss ESU efforts have provided benefits to the marking of all hatchery production, and ESU, most notably the state’s habitat The BRT concluded that the naturally State fishing regulations which allow spawned component of the Northern restoration grant program and the multi- retention of marked fish only. county restoration efforts, they do no California O. mykiss ESU is ‘‘likely to Nonetheless, it is uncertain the degree become endangered within the reduce the ESU’s extinction risk. to which these out-of-ESU hatchery Changes in the management of foreseeable future.’’ The BRT did not programs are an ecological risk and recreational angling on the north coast consider resident fish to reduce risks to compromise the ESU’s diversity. The since the late 1990’s have reduced the ESU’s abundance, and their loss of most historical spawning and impacts to naturally spawning O. contribution to the ESU’s productivity, rearing habitat above impassable dams mykiss and likely contributed to spatial structure, and diversity is throughout the California Central reducing the ESU’s extinction risk. In uncertain. Informed by the BRT’s Valley, the restriction of natural addition, the cessation of O. mykiss findings (NMFS, 2003b) and the production areas, the apparent planting from the Monterey Bay Salmon assessment of artificial propagation continuing decline in O. mykiss and Trout Project into the adjacent programs on the viability of the ESU abundance, and the lack of any South-Central Coast ESU is a positive (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial development. Protective efforts, as monitoring efforts designed to assess O. Propagation Evaluation Workshop evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not mykiss abundance and trends remain concluded that the Northern California provide sufficient certainty of major concerns for this ESU. A positive O. mykiss ESU is ‘‘likely to become implementation and effectiveness to development is that CALFED has endangered within the foreseeable alter the BRT’s and the Artificial recently approved funding to develop a future’’ (NMFS, 2004c). The two Propagation Evaluation Workshop’s monitoring program for O. mykiss in the artificial propagation programs assessments that the ESU is ‘‘likely to Central Valley. Development of this considered to be part of the ESU may become endangered within the program and its subsequent provide some benefit to the abundance foreseeable future.’’ NMFS therefore implementation is a critically important of local populations, but they affect only concludes that the ESU in-total is action needed to assess the response of a small portion of the ESU in-total and ‘‘likely to become endangered in the O. mykiss to habitat restoration efforts do not substantially reduce the ESU’s foreseeable future throughout all or a in the Central Valley. Major efforts have extinction risk. Although some significant portion of its range, and been undertaken over the past decade protective efforts aimed at reducing therefore, proposes that the Central by Federal and state agencies to improve threats to habitat and harvest impacts California Coast O. mykiss ESU remain habitat conditions in the Central Valley have benefited this ESU, most notably listed as a threatened species under the and the major tributaries supporting the State’s habitat restoration grant ESA. spring chinook salmon. These efforts program and multi-county conservation have also provided benefits to O. mykiss planning efforts aimed primarily at California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU as well. These efforts include projects fixing migration barriers and improving The BRT concluded that the implemented as part of the CALFED road maintenance activities, these and California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU program and the Central Valley Project other programs collectively do not is ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ For some Improvement Act. Restoration efforts substantially reduce the ESU’s BRT members, the presence of resident have been implemented and are ongoing extinction risk. These protective efforts, fish reduces risks to the ESU’s in Battle Creek, Butte Creek, Little Chico as evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do abundance somewhat, but provides an Creek, Clear Creek, and the Yuba River. not provide sufficient certainty of uncertain contribution to the ESU’s In addition, local watershed groups are implementation and effectiveness to productivity, spatial structure, and working in many of these watersheds to alter the BRT’s and the Artificial diversity. Informed by the BRT’s improve habitat conditions that provide Propagation Evaluation Workshop’s findings (NMFS, 2003b) and the benefits to both spring chinook and O. assessments that the ESU is ‘‘likely to assessment of artificial propagation mykiss. NMFS has worked closely with become endangered within the programs on the viability of the ESU the state over the past several years to foreseeable future.’’ NMFS concludes (NMFS, 2004b), the Artificial ensure that in-river harvest impacts on that the ESU in-total is likely to become Propagation Evaluation Workshop natural O. mykiss are minimized and endangered within the foreseeable

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33164 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

future throughout all or a significant River, federally funded habitat do not as yet substantially reduce portion of its range. NMFS proposes that restoration efforts, and the WA DNR threats to the ESU. the Northern California O. mykiss ESU HCP are encouraging signs in addressing Continued and additional remain listed as a threatened species the ESU’s factors for decline. NMFS conservation efforts are needed to under the ESA. concludes that the ESU in-total is likely address threats to the ESU to the point to become endangered within the that the protections afforded under the Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU foreseeable future throughout all or a ESA are no longer necessary. The BRT concluded that the Upper significant portion of its range, and Conservative harvest and hatchery Willamette River O. mykiss ESU is proposes that the Lower Columbia River management, continued riparian zone ‘‘likely to become endangered within O. mykiss ESU remain listed under the and habitat restoration efforts, the foreseeable future.’’ The BRT did not ESA as a threatened species. improvements in fish passage and the consider resident fish to reduce risks to management of instream flows, and the ESU’s abundance, and their Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU adherence to best management practices contribution to the ESU’s productivity, The BRT was closely divided on the for grazing, forestry, artificial spatial structure, and diversity is extinction risk faced by the naturally propagation, mining, and recreational uncertain. There are no artificial spawned component of the Middle activities are all critical to the recovery propagation programs producing Columbia River O. mykiss ESU between of the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss hatchery O. mykiss populations that are ‘‘likely to become endangered within ESU. NMFS concludes that the ESU is considered to be part of the ESU. the foreseeable future’’ and ‘‘not in likely to become endangered within the Protective efforts under FWS’ danger of extinction or likely to become foreseeable future throughout all or a Greenspaces Program, the Oregon Plan, endangered within the foreseeable significant portion of its range, and and other efforts are encouraging signs. future.’’ The BRT concluded that the proposes that the Middle Columbia However, restoration efforts in the ESU relatively abundant and widely River O. mykiss ESU remain listed as a are very local in scale, and have yet to distributed resident fish in the ESU threatened species. provide benefits at the scale of reduce risks to overall ESU abundance, Although NMFS believes that the watersheds or the larger spatial scale of but provide an uncertain contribution to Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU the ESU. The blockage of historical the ESU’s productivity, spatial at present still warrants listing under spawning habitat and the restriction of structure, and diversity. The improved the ESA, the risk assessments by the natural production areas remain to be viability of the ESU is attributable, in BRT and the Artificial Propagation addressed. Protective efforts, as part, to recent improvements in ocean Evaluation Workshop were almost evaluated pursuant to the PECE, do not and freshwater conditions. The evenly divided on whether the ESU is provide sufficient certainty of principal improvements in viability likely to become endangered in the implementation and effectiveness to over the last 5 years include: Dramatic foreseeable future. NMFS recognizes alter the BRT’s assessment that the ESU increases in abundance throughout the that the decision to propose retaining is ‘‘likely to become endangered within ESU; and positive short-term the threatened listing was a close one. the foreseeable future.’’ NMFS productivity in all production areas. NMFS views the improved viability of concludes that the ESU in-total is likely However, there is insufficient certainty the Middle Columbia River O. mykiss to become endangered within the that these encouraging trends will ESU as an exceptional opportunity to foreseeable future throughout all or a continue into the future. Despite recent secure specific conservation measures significant portion of its range, and increases, the natural populations in the that would help ensure the ESU’s proposes that the Upper Willamette Yakima, Klickitat, and Touchet Rivers viability over the long term, and likely River O. mykiss ESU remain listed remain well below their interim bring the ESU to the point where the under the ESA as a threatened species. recovery target abundance levels, and protections of the ESA are no longer long-term trends for 11 of 12 production necessary. NMFS is interested in Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU areas in the ESU remain negative. assuring that certain major threats are The BRT concluded that the naturally Although adult returns in the Deschutes addressed through firm commitments, spawned component of the Lower River have increased, the presence of plans, and funding. In addition to Columbia River O. mykiss ESU is substantial numbers of out-of-basin continued habitat protections, the ‘‘likely to become endangered within hatchery strays may pose risks to the following specific actions are likely to the foreseeable future.’’ The BRT did not productivity and diversity of this have the greatest influence on the consider resident fish to reduce risks to population. viability of this ESU: (1) Continued the ESU’s abundance, and their NMFS’ assessment of the effects of funding by the Bonneville Power contribution to the ESU’s productivity, artificial propagation on the ESU’s Administration of ESU-wide riparian spatial structure, and diversity is extinction risk concluded that the zone and instream habitat restoration uncertain. NMFS’ assessment of the within-ESU hatchery programs do not efforts, consistent with its Fish and effects of artificial propagation on the substantially reduce the extinction risk Wildlife Program’s portion of the ESU’s extinction risk concluded that the of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). subbasin and recovery plans being within-ESU hatchery programs do not Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant developed; (2) adherence of the BLM to substantially reduce the extinction risk to the PECE, do not provide sufficient best management practices for grazing, of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). certainty of implementation and mining, and recreational activities ESU- Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant effectiveness to alter the BRT’s and the wide; (3) adherence of the USFS to best to the PECE, do not provide sufficient Artificial Propagation Evaluation management practices for grazing, certainty of implementation and Workshop’s assessments that the ESU is forestry, and mining activities ESU- effectiveness to alter the BRT’s and the ‘‘likely to become endangered within wide; (4) continued conservative Artificial Propagation Evaluation the foreseeable future.’’ Ongoing actions fisheries management by the Workshop’s assessments that the ESU is under the 2000 FCRPS biological Washington Department of Fish and ‘‘likely to become endangered within opinion, federally funded habitat Wildlife within the range of this ESU, the foreseeable future.’’ Nonetheless, the restoration efforts, and other protective and its development and expected dam removals on the Sandy efforts continue to benefit the ESU, but implementation of a long-term approach

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33165

that balances natural and hatchery mykiss ESU. If such actions were taken species, be listed under the ESA as a production across the ESU; (5) following a final determination to list threatened species. continued conservative fisheries this ESU, NMFS may similarly reinitiate management by ODFW in this ESU a status review to consider the best and Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU (particularly in the John Day River most recent scientific and commercial The BRT concluded that the naturally subbasin), its development and information available. spawned component of the Snake River implementation of management Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU Basin O. mykiss ESU is ‘‘likely to approaches to reduce the straying of The BRT was divided on the become endangered within the out-of-basin stocks into Deschutes and foreseeable future.’’ For many BRT John Day spawning areas, and its extinction risk faced by the naturally spawned component of the Upper members, the presence of relatively development and implementation of a numerous resident fish reduces risks to long-term approach that balances Columbia River O. mykiss ESU between ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ and ‘‘likely to the ESU’s abundance, but provides an natural and hatchery production across uncertain contribution to the ESU’s the ESU; (6) improved passage and flow become endangered within the foreseeable future,’’ with a majority productivity, spatial structure, and management by the BOR in the Yakima diversity. Native resident O. mykiss River and the Umatilla River subbasins, finding that the ESU is ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ For many BRT members, populations above Dworshak Dam on including the establishment of fish the North Fork Clearwater River are passage into significant tributaries; (7) the presence of relatively numerous resident fish reduces risks to the ESU’s genetically similar to below-dam establishment of passage in the populations that are part of the ESU, Deschutes River subbasin above the abundance, but provides an uncertain contribution to the ESU’s productivity, and, therefore, are considered to be part Pelton/Rounde Butte complex, the of the ESU. Although these above-dam restoration of the downstream water spatial structure, and diversity. NMFS’ assessment of the effects of artificial resident populations are considered part temperature regime to historical levels, of the ESU, it is unclear how and to and the restoration and enhancement of propagation on the ESU’s extinction risk concluded that hatchery programs what extent these resident populations upstream/downstream habitats by the collectively mitigate the immediacy of contribute to the viability of the ESU in- FERC; (8) improvements in fish passage, extinction risk for the Upper Columbia total. NMFS’ assessment of the effects of screening and flow management in the River O. mykiss ESU in-total in the short artificial propagation on the ESU’s Walla Walla River subbasin by the term, but that the contribution of these extinction risk concluded that the USACE, as well as altering the flood programs in the foreseeable future is within-ESU hatchery programs do not operating rule for Mill Creek or uncertain (NMFS, 2004c). Protective substantially reduce the extinction risk alternatively screening the diversion efforts, as evaluated pursuant to the of the ESU in-total (NMFS, 2004c). into Bennington Lake; (9) continued PECE, do not provide sufficient Protective efforts, as evaluated pursuant conservative hatchery and harvest certainty of implementation and to the PECE, do not provide sufficient management and adherence to best land effectiveness to alter the Artificial certainty of implementation and management practices by the Yakama Propagation Evaluation Workshop’s effectiveness to alter the BRT’s and the Nation; (10) continued conservative assessments that the ESU is ‘‘likely to Artificial Propagation Evaluation hatchery and harvest management by become endangered within the Workshop’s assessments that the ESU is the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla foreseeable future.’’ Actions under the ‘‘likely to become endangered within Reservation; and (11) continued 2000 FCRPS biological opinion, the foreseeable future.’’ Nonetheless, adherence to best land management federally funded habitat restoration actions under the 2000 FCRPS practices by the Confederated Tribes of efforts, and other protective efforts are biological opinion and improvements in the Warm Springs Reservation in the encouraging signs in addressing the hatchery practices have provided some Deschutes River subbasin. ESU’s factors for decline, but do not as encouraging signs in addressing the In the event that such actions are yet substantially reduce the ESU’s ESU’s factors for decline. NMFS undertaken to address these factors extinction risk. NMFS concludes that concludes that the ESU in-total is likely prior to making our final listing the ESU in-total is likely to become to become endangered within the determination, and adequate endangered within the foreseeable foreseeable future throughout all or a commitments are made that they will be future throughout all or a significant significant portion of its range. NMFS continued, NMFS will take such portion of its range. NMFS proposes that proposes that the Snake River Basin O. opportunity to re-initiate a status review the Upper Columbia River O. mykiss mykiss ESU remain listed under the for the Middle Columbia River O. ESU, presently listed as an endangered ESA as a threatened species.

Number of artificial Current Endangered Species Proposed listing propagation Evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) Act (ESA) status determination programs included in the ESU

Snake River sockeye ESU ...... Endangered ...... Endangered ...... 1 Ozette Lake sockeye ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 2 Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESU ...... Endangered ...... Threatened ...... 2 Central Valley spring-run chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 0 California Coastal chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 7 Upper Willamette River chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 7 Lower Columbia River chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 17 Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook ESU ...... Endangered ...... Endangered ...... 6 Puget Sound chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 22 Snake River fall-run chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 4 Snake River spring/summer-run chinook ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 15

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33166 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Number of artificial Current Endangered Species Proposed listing propagation Evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) Act (ESA) status determination programs included in the ESU

Central California Coast coho ESU ...... Threatened ...... Endangered ...... 4 Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 3 Oregon Coast coho ESU ...... Threatened * ...... Threatened ...... 5 Lower Columbia River coho ESU ...... Candidate ...... Threatened ...... 21 Columbia River chum ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 3 Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 8 Southern California O. mykiss ESU ...... Endangered ...... Endangered ...... 0 South-Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 0 Central California Coast O. mykiss ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 2 California Central Valley O. mykiss ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 2 Northern California O. mykiss ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 2 Upper Willamette River O. mykiss ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 0 Lower Columbia River O. mykiss ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 10 Middle Columbia River O. mykiss ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 7 Upper Columbia River O. mykiss ESU ...... Endangered ...... Threatened ...... 6 Snake River Basin O. mykiss ESU ...... Threatened ...... Threatened ...... 6 * But see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2004).

Findings on Delisting Petitions regulations may prohibit, with respect approach, however, presents some to threatened species, some or all of the challenges to hatchery and fisheries With regard to the six petitions acts which section 9(a) of the ESA management. While the ESA requires (detailed above in the ‘‘Summary of prohibits with respect to endangered NMFS to list all populations within a Petitions’’ section) seeking to delist a species. These 9(a) prohibitions and 4(d) threatened or endangered ESU, it does total of 15 salmon and O. mykiss ESUs, regulations apply to all individuals, not require NMFS to implement NMFS finds on the basis of the best organizations, and agencies subject to protective regulations equally among available scientific and commercial U.S. jurisdiction. populations within threatened ESUs. information that the petitioned actions Even though existing protective NMFS has discretion under the ESA to are not warranted. NMFS finds that efforts and plans, including certain allow for the take of hatchery fish, listing is warranted for all of the 15 artificial propagation programs and their considered to be part of a threatened petitioned ESUs: six chinook ESUs (the associated hatchery stocks, are not ESU, provided that such take is not Snake River spring/summer-run, Snake sufficient to preclude the need for inconsistent with the recovery of the River fall-run, Puget Sound, Lower listing the subject ESUs at this time, ESU. Columbia River, Upper Willamette they are nevertheless valuable for River, and Upper Columbia River improving watershed health and Current ESA 4(d) Protective Regulations spring-run chinook ESUs); two coho restoring fishery resources. In those for Threatened Salmonids ESUs (the Central California Coast and cases where regulations or conservation Currently there are a total of 29 Southern Oregon/Northern California programs are in place, which will ‘‘limits’’ to ESA Section 9(a) ‘‘take’’ Coast coho ESUs); two chum ESUs (the adequately protect threatened ESUs, prohibitions for threatened salmonid Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia NMFS may choose to limit the ESUs. Comprehensive descriptions of River chum ESUs); and five O. mykiss application of the take prohibitions for each 4(d) limit are contained in ‘‘A ESUs (the Upper Columbia River, Snake those ESUs. NMFS has already adopted Citizen’s Guide to the 4(d) River Basin, Middle Columbia River, ESA 4(d) rules that exempt a range of Rule’(available on the Internet at Lower Columbia River, and Upper activities from the take prohibitions for http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/ Willamette River O. mykiss ESUs). threatened salmon and O. mykiss ESUs salmesa/final4d.htm), and in previously Prohibitions and Protective Regulations (62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997; 65 FR published Federal Register notices (62 42422, July 10, 2000; 65 FR 42485, July FR 38479, July 18, 1997; 65 FR 42422, ESA section 9(a) take prohibitions (16 10, 2000; 67 FR 1116, January 9, 2002; July 10, 2000; 65 FR 42485, July 10, U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B)) apply to all species see description of the current 4(d) 2000; 67 FR 1116, January 9, 2002). listed as endangered. Hatchery stocks protective regulations for threatened The first six of these limits determined to be part of endangered salmonids in the following section). promulgated (50 CFR 223.204(b)(1) ESUs are afforded the full protections of NMFS intends to use the flexibility of through (b)(6)) were published as an the ESA. In the case of threatened the ESA to respond appropriately to the interim rule in 1997 for the Southern species, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the biological condition of each ESU and to Oregon/Northern California Coast coho Secretary’s discretion whether and to the strength of regulations and ESU (62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997). These what extent to extend the statutory 9(a) conservation programs to protect them. six limits allow for the take of coho ‘‘take’’ prohibitions, and directs the The Court ruled in the Alsea case that salmon in Oregon and California, under agency to issue regulations it considers NMFS may not list only a portion of an certain circumstances, if the take is: part necessary and advisable for the ESU when making its ESA listing of approved fisheries management conservation of the species. NMFS has determinations. Informed by the Court’s plans; part of an approved hatchery flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor ruling, hatchery stocks considered to be program; part of approved fisheries protective regulations based on the part of an ESU will be listed if it is research and monitoring activities; or contributions of available conservation determined that the ESU in-total is part of approved habitat restoration measures. The 4(d) protective threatened or endangered. This activities.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33167

In 2000, NMFS promulgated 13 limits research, habitat restoration activities; obligations) while preserving all future affecting, in total, 14 ESUs in California, properly screened water diversions, recovery options. It may be determined Oregon, and Washington (65 FR 42422, routine road maintenance activities, and through ongoing recovery planning July 10, 2000; 50 CFR 223.203(b)(1) development and redevelopment efforts that these hatchery stocks are through (b)(13)). These ‘‘limits’’ include: activities. Rather than including the four essential for recovery. California ESUs under the limits paragraph (b)(1) activities conducted in Simplification of Existing 4(d) Protective promulgated in 2000, these ESUs were accordance with ESA section 10 Regulations for Threatened Salmonids incidental take authorization; paragraph treated under separate limits. Although the ESA section 4(d) (b)(2) scientific or artificial propagation Proposed Amendment to 4(d) Protective activities with pending applications at regulations for threatened salmonids Regulations for Threatened Salmonid have proven effective at appropriately the time of rulemaking; paragraph (b)(3) ESUs emergency actions related to injured, protecting threatened salmonid ESUs stranded, or dead salmonids; paragraph NMFS proposes to amend existing and permitting certain activities, several (b)(4) fishery management activities; 4(d) regulations to provide the necessary of the limits described therein are paragraph (b)(5) hatchery and genetic flexibility to ensure that fisheries and redundant, outdated, or are located management programs; paragraph (b)(6) artificial propagation programs are disjunctly in the Code of Federal activities in compliance with joint managed consistently with the Regulations (CFR). The resulting tribal/state plans developed within conservation needs of ESA-listed ESUs. complexity of the existing 4(d) United States (U.S.) v. Washington or NMFS proposes to apply section 4(d) regulations unnecessarily increases the U.S. v. Oregon; paragraph (b)(7) protections to unmarked anadromous administrative and regulatory burden of scientific research activities permitted fish with an intact adipose fin. (The managing protective regulations for or conducted by the states; paragraph clipping of adipose fins in hatchery fish threatened ESUs, and does not (b)(8) state, local, and private habitat just prior to release into the natural effectively convey to the public the restoration activities; paragraph (b)(9) environment is a commonly employed specific ESUs for which certain properly screened water diversion method for the marking of hatchery activities may be exempted from the devices; paragraph (b)(10) routine road production). Hatchery fish that are take prohibitions under 4(d). As part of maintenance activities; paragraph surplus to the recovery needs of an ESU, this proposed rulemaking, NMFS (b)(11) certain park pest management and that are otherwise distinguishable proposes to clarify the existing section from naturally spawned fish in the ESU 4(d) regulations for threatened activities in Portland, Oregon; paragraph (e.g., by run timing or location) may be salmonids so that they can be more (b)(12) certain municipal, residential, exempted from the section 4(d) efficiently and effectively accessed and commercial, and industrial protections under limits (b)(4) and (b)(6) interpreted by all affected parties. development and redevelopment under 50 CFR 223.203 for fishery NMFS proposes simplifying the ESA activities; and paragraph (b)(13) forest management plans, as well as under 50 4(d) regulations by making the following management activities on state and CFR 223.209 for tribal resource clarifying changes: (1) NMFS proposes private lands within the State of management plans. NMFS believes this to apply the same set of limits to all Washington. The Southern Oregon/ approach provides needed flexibility to threatened ESUs by bringing the Snake Northern California Coasts coho ESU appropriately manage artificial River fall-run chinook, Snake River was included under two of these 13 propagation and direct take of spring/summer-run chinook, Southern limits (limits 50 CFR 223.203(b)(1) and threatened salmon and O. mykiss for the Oregon/Northern California Coast coho, (b)(3)). The limits published in 2000 conservation and recovery of these Central Valley spring-run chinook, that addressed fishery and harvest ESUs. Not all hatchery stocks California Coastal chinook, Central management, scientific research, and considered to be part of listed ESUs are California Coast coho, Lower Columbia habitat restoration activities did not of equal value for use in conservation River coho, and Northern California O. supersede the 6 limits for the Southern and recovery. Certain ESU hatchery mykiss ESUs under the 13 limits Oregon/Northern California Coast coho stocks may comprise a substantial promulgated in 2000; (2) for those ESUs ESU promulgated in the 1997 interim portion of the genetic diversity currently listed as endangered but being rule, despite addressing the same types remaining in a threatened ESU, and thus proposed for threatened status (the of activities (although for different are essential assets for ongoing and Sacramento River winter-run chinook, ESUs). Also in 2000, NMFS issued a future recovery efforts. If released with Upper Columbia River spring-run limit for all threatened ESUs exempting adipose fins intact, hatchery fish in chinook, and Upper Columbia River O. activities undertaken consistent with an these populations would be afforded mykiss ESUs), NMFS also proposes to approved tribal resource management protections under 4(d). NMFS, however, apply the 4(d) protections and 13 limits plan (65 FR 42485, July 10, 2000; 50 may need to allow take of listed promulgated in 2000; (3) NMFS CFR 223.209). hatchery stocks to manage the number proposes to amend an expired limit (50 In 2002, NMFS added an additional of hatchery fish allowed to spawn CFR 223.203(b)(2)) to apply to the nine limits (67 FR 1116, January 9, naturally to limit potential adverse Lower Columbia River coho ESU; and 2002; 50 CFR 223.203(b)(14) through effects to spawning natural-origin fish. (4) NMFS proposes moving the limit for (b)(22)) addressing four salmonid ESUs Other hatchery stocks, although Tribal Resource Management Plans (50 in California: the Central Valley spring- considered to be part of a threatened CFR 223.209) so that it appears in the run chinook, California Coastal chinook, ESU, may be of limited or uncertain CFR next to the 4(d) rule. These four Central California Coast coho, and conservation value. Artificial clarifying changes are described in Northern California O. mykiss ESUs. propagation programs producing further detail below. These limits are essentially identical to within-ESU hatchery populations could NMFS believes that the clarity and limits previously promulgated in 2000. release adipose-fin-clipped fish, such consistency of the existing ESA 4(d) These additional nine limits similarly that protections under 4(d) would not regulations would be improved by address emergency actions, fishery apply, and these populations could including all threatened salmonid ESUs management activities, artificial fulfill other purposes (e.g., fulfilling under the same set of limits, rather than propagation programs, scientific Federal trust and tribal treaty maintaining separate and partially

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33168 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

redundant sets of limits for different currently subject to the 2000 4(d) are covered under the limits ESUs. As noted in the previous section, protective regulations (i.e., the promulgated in 2000. the limits added in 2002 are essentially Columbia River chum, Lower Columbia The second substantive change in the identical to limits promulgated in 2000. River chinook, Upper Willamette River protective regulations for the Southern Removing the nine limits promulgated chinook, and Lower Columbia River O. Oregon/Northern California Coast coho in 2002 (67 FR 1116, January 9, 2002; mykiss ESUs). The 21 hatchery ESU concerns certain scientific research limits 50 CFR 223.203 (b)(14) through programs included in the ESU all activities. Under the 1997 interim ESA (b)(22)) and consolidating them under employ 100 percent marking by 4(d) rule for this ESU (50 CFR the limits promulgated in 2000 will adipose-fin clip. Extending the 4(d) 223.204(a)(4)) take of the listed species simplify and clarify the existing 4(d) protective regulations to the Lower associated with certain fisheries regulations, reduce their regulatory and Columbia River ESU is necessary to research and monitoring activities administrative impact, while remaining provide the needed flexibility to conducted by ODFW and CDFG equally protective of the affected ESUs: appropriately manage artificial personnel are not prohibited, pending the Central Valley spring-run chinook, propagation and direct take consistent NMFS’ review and approval. This limit California Coastal chinook, Central with the conservation and recovery of is not extended beyond ODFW and California Coast coho, and Northern the ESU. CDFG, such that take for all other California O. mykiss ESUs. NMFS proposes to remove the six research (e.g., research conducted by NMFS also proposes to apply the limits of the 1997 interim rule for the academic researchers, contractors, and limits promulgated in 2000 to the Snake Southern Oregon/Northern California consultants) can only be exempted River fall-run and spring/summer-run Coast coho ESU (62 FR 38479, July 18, under section 10(a)(1). However, a limit chinook ESUs. Currently, these ESUs 1997; 50 CFR 223.204), and to bring the promulgated in 2000 (specifically 50 are afforded the section 9(a) take ESU under the limits promulgated in CFR 223.203 (b)(7)) provides for a take prohibitions and the limit exempting 2000 (65 FR 42422; July 10, 2000; limits limitation to any party conducting activities with ESA section 10 50 CFR 223.203 (b)(1) through (b)(13)). research under a state permit. NMFS has incidental take authorization (50 CFR The 1997 interim rule was the first determined that the impact on listed 223.203(b)(1)). However, the remaining ‘‘limited’’ ESA 4(d) regulation species is the same whether take is 12 limits promulgated in 2000 do not promulgated by NMFS for a salmonid afforded under section 4(d) or section apply (50 CFR 223.203 (b)(2) through ESU. The limits promulgated in 2000 10. However, requiring parties to seek (b)(13)). At the time of the 2000 addressed the same types of activities take exemptions under section 10 rulemaking, NMFS stated that the 4(d) addressed in the 1997 interim rule, as increases the regulatory and protective regulations for the two Snake additional activities determined to be administrative burden without River chinook ESUs provided the consistent with the conservation and providing additional protections or necessary flexibility to support research, recovery of threatened salmonid ESUs. safeguards for listed fish. Accordingly, monitoring, and conservation activities. Including the Southern Oregon/ this proposed change will streamline However, the take limits provided by Northern California Coasts coho ESU the permitting processes for research the 2000 rulemaking have proved under the 2000 ESA 4(d) limits will activities, while remaining equally extremely useful in managing other result in two substantive changes in the protective of the Southern Oregon/ threatened ESUs, including the Snake take prohibitions afforded. The first Northern California Coasts coho ESU. River Basin O. mykiss ESU, which has change concerns the use of Limit 50 CFR 223.203(b)(2) exempts an overlapping geographic range with electrofishing in research and scientific or artificial propagation the two Snake River chinook ESUs. monitoring activities. In lieu of agency activities with pending applications at NMFS proposes including these two technical guidance on how to minimize the time of 2000 rulemaking (65 FR ESUs under limits 50 CFR 223.203(b)(3) the adverse effects of electrofishing on 42422, July 10, 2000; 67 FR 1116, through (b)(13) to provide consistency salmonids, the 1997 interim rule January 9, 2002). The deadline with other threatened ESUs and to specifically prohibits the use of associated with this exemption has encourage regulations and conservation electrofishing (50 CFR 223.204(a)(5)). In expired. The proposed amendment of programs that are consistent with their 2000, NMFS released its ‘‘Guidelines for this expired limit will not impact in any conservation and recovery. Electrofishing Waters Containing way the protective regulations for the Section 4(d) of the ESA states that Salmonids Listed Under the Endangered threatened ESUs addressed in the 2000 whenever any species is listed as a Species Act’’ (Electrofishing Guidelines; rulemaking. NMFS proposes to amend threatened species, ‘‘the Secretary shall NMFS, 2000b; available online at limit § 223.203(b)(2) to apply to the issue such regulations as he deems http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/ Lower Columbia River coho ESU, which necessary and advisable to provide for salmesa/4ddocs/final4d/ is presently not a listed species but is the conservation of the species.’’ NMFS electro2000.pdf), based on NMFS’ being proposed for threatened status. proposes to apply the 4(d) protections research expertise, as well as input from NMFS proposes to amend limit and 13 limits promulgated in 2000 to fishery researchers and specialists in § 223.203(b)(2) to allow for research on the Lower Columbia River coho ESU, electrofishing technology. NMFS Lower Columbia River coho to continue being proposed for threatened status. believes that exempting the use of for 6 months, provided the researcher These protections are necessary to electrofishing in research and submits an application within 30 days promote the conservation of the monitoring activities for the Southern of the effective date of the final ESA 4(d) remaining natural populations in the Oregon/Northern California Coast coho rule. ESU (i.e., the Sandy and Clackamas ESU, consistent with the Electrofishing The limit for certain tribal resource River populations). However, extending Guidelines, will adequately protect fish management plans (50 CFR 223.209) is the 4(d) protective regulations to the in the ESU. Additionally, this action separated by several sections in the CFR Lower Columbia River coho ESU will will provide consistency by permitting from the other limits (50 CFR 223.203). not represent an additional similar activities for the Southern Although this does not diminish the administrative or regulatory burden. Oregon/Northern California Coast coho applicability of the limit to certain The ESU has an overlapping geographic ESU as are permitted for other ESUs activities under tribal plans, its range with four threatened ESUs that are within the same geographical range that appearance in the CFR as a disjunct

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33169

section does not clearly convey to tribal NMFS can provide ESA coverage flood control. Federal actions, including governments the opportunities through ESA section 4(d) rules, section the USACE section 404 permitting associated with these plans. NMFS 10 research, enhancement, and activities under the Clean Water Act, proposes to move the limit for tribal incidental take permits, or through USACE permitting activities under the plans, so that it appears in the CFR next section 7 consultation with Federal River and Harbors Act, FERC licenses to the 13 ESA 4(d) limits. This agencies. If take is likely to occur, then for non-Federal development and reorganization will improve the clarity the jurisdiction, entity or individual operation of hydropower, and Federal of the ESA 4(d) regulations, but will not should modify its practices to avoid the salmon hatcheries, may also require modify the limit for tribal plans in any take of these threatened salmonid ESUs, consultation. way. or seek protection from potential ESA Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of NMFS believes that the ESA section liability through section 7, section 10, or the ESA provide NMFS with authority 9(a) take prohibitions, which are section 4(d) procedures. to grant exceptions to the ESA’s ‘‘take’’ applicable for endangered species, are to Jurisdictions, entities, and individuals prohibitions. Section 10(a)(1)(A) some extent necessary and advisable for are not required to seek coverage under scientific research and enhancement the conservation of the Sacramento an ESA 4(d) limit from NMFS. In order permits may be issued to entities winter-run chinook, Lower Columbia to reduce its liability, a jurisdiction, (Federal and non-Federal) conducting River coho, and Upper Columbia River entity, or individual may also research that involves a directed take of O. mykiss ESUs, which are being informally comply with a limit by listed species. A directed take refers to proposed for threatened status. choosing to modify its programs to be the intentional take of listed species. However, the take of listed fish in these consistent with the evaluation NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) ESUs need not be prohibited when it considerations described in the research/enhancement permits for results from activities which are in individual limits. Finally, a jurisdiction, currently listed salmon and O. mykiss accordance with adequate regulations entity, or individual may seek to qualify ESUs for a number of activities, and conservation programs. NMFS its plans or ordinances for inclusion including trapping and tagging, therefore proposes to apply ESA section under a take limit by obtaining a 4(d) electroshocking to determine population 9(a) prohibitions to these three ESUs, take limit authorization from NMFS. presence and abundance, removal of and to apply the 13 limits promulgated NMFS will continue to work fish from irrigation ditches, and in 2000. No change is needed in 50 CFR collaboratively with all affected collection of adult fish for artificial 223.209 to include these three ESUs governmental entities to recognize propagation programs. Section under the limit for Tribal Resource existing management programs that 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may Management Plans. Limit 50 CFR conserve and meet the biological be issued to non-Federal entities 223.209(a) applies the limit for tribal requirements of listed salmonids, and to performing activities which may plans to all threatened species listed in strengthen other programs toward the incidentally take listed species. The 50 CFR 223.203(a). conservation of listed ESUs. Any final types of activities potentially requiring Certain ESA 4(d) limits are regional in rule resulting from this proposal may be a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take scope and are not necessarily applicable amended (through proposed rule permit include the operation and release to those ESUs outside the area of making and public comment) to add of artificially propagated fish by state or coverage. These limits are for: activities new limits on the take prohibitions, or privately operated and funded in compliance with joint tribal/state to amend or delete adopted take limits hatcheries, state or academic research plans developed within United States as circumstances warrant. not receiving Federal authorization or (U.S.) v. Washington or U.S. v. Oregon Other Protective Regulations funding, the implementation of state (50 CFR 223.203(b)(6)); certain park pest fishing regulations, logging, road management activities in Portland, Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires building, grazing, and diverting water Oregon (50 CFR 223.203(b)(11); and that Federal agencies confer with NMFS into private lands. forest management activities on state on any actions likely to jeopardize the and private lands within the State of continued existence of a species NMFS Policies on Endangered and Washington (50 CFR 223.203(b)(13)). proposed for listing and on actions Threatened Fish and Wildlife NMFS emphasizes that these take likely to result in the destruction or On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with limits are not prescriptive regulations. adverse modification of proposed FWS, published a series of policies The fact that an activity is not critical habitat. For listed species, regarding listings under the ESA, conducted within the specified criteria section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies including a policy for peer review of for a take limit does not automatically to ensure that activities they authorize, scientific data (59 FR 34270) and a mean that the activity violates the ESA fund, or conduct are not likely to policy to identify, to the maximum or the proposed regulation. Many jeopardize the continued existence of a extent possible, those activities that activities do not affect the threatened listed species or to destroy or adversely would or would not constitute a ESUs covered by this proposed rule, modify its critical habitat. If a proposed violation of section 9 of the ESA (59 FR and, therefore, need not necessarily be Federal action may affect a listed 34272). conducted within a given limit to avoid species or its critical habitat, the section 9 take violations. Nevertheless, responsible Federal agency must enter Role of Peer Review there is greater certainty that an activity into consultation with NMFS. Examples The intent of the peer review policy or program is not at risk of violating the of Federal actions likely to affect salmon is to ensure that listings are based on the section 9 take prohibitions, and at risk and O. mykiss include authorized land best scientific and commercial data of enforcement actions, if it is management activities of the USFS and available. Prior to a final listing, NMFS conducted in accordance with these the BLM, as well as operation of will solicit the expert opinions of at take limits. hydroelectric and storage projects of the least three qualified specialists, Jurisdictions, entities, and individuals BOR and the USACE. Such activities concurrent with the public comment are encouraged to evaluate their include timber sales and harvest, period. Independent peer reviewers will practices and activities to determine the permitting livestock grazing, be selected from the academic and likelihood of whether take is occurring. hydroelectric power generation, and scientific community, Native American

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33170 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

tribal groups, federal and state agencies, 3. Discharges or dumping of toxic proposed for designation (see section and the private sector. chemicals or other pollutants (e.g., 318(a)(3) of the National Defense sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or Authorization Act, Pub. L. 108–136). Identification of Those Activities That riparian areas supporting the salmon or The ESA defines critical habitat under Would Constitute a Violation of Section O. mykiss in any proposed ESU; section 3(5)(A) as: 9 of the ESA 4. Violation of discharge permits; ‘‘(I) The specific areas within the NMFS and the FWS published in the 5. Pesticide applications; geographical area occupied by the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 6. Interstate and foreign commerce of species, at the time it is listed * * *, on 34272), a policy that NMFS shall salmon or O. mykiss from any of the which are found those physical or identify, to the maximum extent proposed ESUs and import/export of biological features (I) essential to the practicable at the time a species is salmon or O. mykiss from any ESU conservation of the species and (II) listed, those activities that would or without a threatened or endangered which may require special management would not constitute a violation of species permit; considerations or protection; and section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this 7. Collecting or handling of salmon or (ii) Specific areas outside the policy is to increase public awareness of O. mykiss from any of the proposed geographical area occupied by the the effect of this listing on proposed and ESUs. Permits to conduct these species at the time it is listed * * * ongoing activities within the species’ activities are available for purposes of upon a determination by the Secretary range. At the time of the final rule, scientific research or to enhance the that such areas are essential for the NMFS will identify to the extent known propagation or survival of the species; conservation of the species.’’ specific activities that will not be or Once critical habitat is designated, considered likely to result in violation 8. Introduction of non-native species section 7 of the ESA requires Federal of section 9, as well as activities that likely to prey on salmon or O. mykiss agencies to ensure they do not fund, will be considered likely to result in in any proposed ESU or displace them authorize or carry out any actions that violation. NMFS believes that, based on from their habitat. will destroy or adversely modify that the best available information, the These lists are not exhaustive. They habitat. This requirement is in addition following actions will not result in a are intended to provide some examples to the other principal section 7 violation of section 9: of the types of activities that might or requirement that Federal agencies 1. Possession of salmon or O. mykiss might not be considered by NMFS as ensure their actions do not jeopardize from any ESU listed as threatened constituting a take of salmon or O. the continued existence of listed which are acquired lawfully by permit mykiss in any of the proposed ESUs species. issued by NMFS pursuant to section 10 under the ESA and its regulations. On February 16, 2000, NMFS of the ESA, or by the terms of an Questions regarding whether specific published a final rule designating incidental take statement pursuant to activities will constitute a violation of critical habitat for 19 ESUs of west coast section 7 of the ESA; or the section 9 take prohibition, and salmon and O. mykiss (65 FR 7764). The 2. Federally funded or approved general inquiries regarding prohibitions designations included more than 150 projects that involve activities such as and permits, should be directed to river subbasins in WA, OR, ID, and CA. silviculture, grazing, mining, road NMFS (see ADDRESSES). Within each occupied subbasin, NMFS designated as critical habitat those lakes construction, dam construction and Critical Habitat operation, discharge of fill material, and river reaches accessible to listed stream channelization or diversion for Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires fish along with the associated riparian which section 7 consultation has been NMFS to designate critical habitat for zone, except for reaches on Indian land. completed, and when activities are threatened and endangered species ‘‘on Areas considered inaccessible included conducted in accordance with any terms the basis of the best scientific data areas above long-standing natural and conditions provided by NMFS in an available and after taking into impassable barriers and areas above incidental take statement accompanying consideration the economic impact, the impassable dams, but not areas above a biological opinion. impact on national security, and any ephemeral barriers such as failed Activities that NMFS believes could other relevant impact, of specifying any culverts. potentially ‘‘harm’’ salmon or O. mykiss particular area as critical habitat.’’ This In considering the economic impact, (see ESA 3(19) and 50 CFR 222.102 section grants the Secretary [of NMFS determined that the critical [harm]) in any of the proposed ESUs, Commerce] discretion to exclude any habitat designations would impose very and result in a violation of the section area from critical habitat if he little or no additional costs beyond 9 take prohibition include, but are not determines ‘‘the benefits of such those already imposed by the listing of limited to: exclusion outweigh the benefits of the species themselves. NMFS reasoned 1. Land-use activities that adversely specifying such area as part of the that since it was designating only affect salmon or O. mykiss habitats in critical habitat.’’ The Secretary’s occupied habitat, there would be few or any proposed ESU (e.g., logging, discretion is limited, as he may not no actions that adversely modified grazing, farming, urban development, exclude areas if it ‘‘will result in the critical habitat that also did not road construction in riparian areas and extinction of the species.’’ In addition, jeopardize the continued existence of areas susceptible to mass wasting and the Secretary may not designate as the species. Therefore, there would be surface erosion); critical habitat any lands or other no economic impact as a result of the 2. Destruction/alteration of the geographical areas owned or controlled designations (65 FR 7764, 7765; salmon or O. mykiss habitats in any by the Department of Defense, or February 16, 2000). proposed ESU, such as removal of large designated for its use, that are subject to The National Association of woody debris and ‘‘’sinker logs’’’ or an integrated natural resources Homebuilders (NAHB) challenged the riparian shade canopy, dredging, management plan under Section 101 of designations in District Court in discharge of fill material, draining, the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Washington, DC, as having inadequately ditching, diverting, blocking, or altering Secretary determines in writing that considered the economic impacts of the stream channels or surface or ground such plan provides a benefit to the critical habitat designations (National water flow; species for which critical habitat is Association of Homebuilders v. Evans,

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33171

2002 WL 1205743 No. 00–CV–2799 existing critical habitat designations for description of ‘‘limits’’ or activities that (D.D.C.). NAHB also challenged NMFS’ six ESUs (the Snake River sockeye, should not be subject to the take designation of Essential Fish Habitat Sacramento River winter-run chinook, prohibitions for these threatened (EFH) (Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Central California Coast coho, Southern species. Additionally, NMFS seeks Management Plan, 2000). While the Oregon/Northern California Coast coho, comment on: (a) The divergence NAHB litigation was pending, the Court Snake River spring/summer-run threshold used for determining whether of Appeals for the 10th Circuit issued its chinook, and Snake River fall-run hatchery stocks should be considered decision in New Mexico Cattlegrowers’ chinook ESUs) that were not subject to part of a salmonid ESU (i.e., excluding Association v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife the Court’s decision in National from ESUs those hatchery stocks that Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001) Association of Homebuilders v. Evans. exhibit substantial genetic divergence (NMCA). In that case, the Court rejected See 68 FR 55926 (September 29, 2003) from the natural population(s)); (b) the FWS’ approach to economic for further detail on NMFS’ efforts in NMFS’ BRT assessment of the viability analysis, which was similar to the designating critical habitat for West and extinction risk of the naturally approach taken by NMFS in the final Coast salmon and O. mykiss. spawned component of the subject ESUs; (c) NMFS’ consideration of rule designating critical habitat for 19 Public Comments Solicited ESUs of west coast salmon and O. artificial propagation and hatchery mykiss. The Court ruled that ‘‘Congress To ensure that the final action stocks in evaluating the extinction risk intended that the FWS conduct a full resulting from this proposed rule will be of ESUs in-total; (d) NMFS’ assessment analysis of all of the economic impacts as accurate and effective as possible, of the benefits and risks provided by of a critical habitat designation, and informed by the best available artificial propagation programs and regardless of whether those impacts are scientific and commercial information, hatchery stocks; (e) NMFS’ overall attributable co-extensively to other NMFS is soliciting information, assessments of ESU-level extinction risk causes.’’ Subsequent to the 10th Circuit comments, and suggestions from the and ESA listing status for the subject decision, NMFS entered into and sought public, other governmental agencies, the ESUs; and (f) NMFS’ proposed approach judicial approval of a consent decree scientific community, industry, and any for managing protective regulations resolving the NAHB litigation. That other interested parties. Public hearings under section 4(d) of the ESA for decree provided for the withdrawal of will be held in several locations in the threatened species. critical habitat designations for the 19 range of the proposed ESUs; details NMFS invites and will consider all regarding the locations, dates and times salmon and O. mykiss ESUs and pertinent information and comment. will be published in a forthcoming dismissed NAHB’s challenge to the EFH NMFS requests that information and Federal Register document. designations. The District Court comments be organized and identified NMFS recognizes that in several as relating to issues (1)–(8) and (a)–(f) approved the consent decree and instances there are serious limits to the vacated the critical habitat designations listed above to ensure that it is most quantity and quality of available effectively and efficiently considered in by Court order on April 30, 2002 information, and accordingly NMFS has (National Association of Homebuilders the development of the final rule. It is exercised its best professional judgment further requested that data, information, v. Evans, 2002 WL 1205743 (D.D.C. in developing this proposed rule. NMFS 2002). and comments be accompanied by: will appreciate any additional Supporting documentation such as As a result of the Court’s decision, information regarding: (1) The maps, logbooks, bibliographic NMFS removed critical habitat relatedness of specific hatchery stocks references, personal notes, and/or designations for the following 19 ESUs to the 27 subject ESUs; (2) biological or reprints of pertinent publications; and of salmon and O. mykiss: One sockeye other relevant data concerning the the name of the person submitting the ESU (the Ozette Lake sockeye ESU); six viability and/or threats to Pacific data, the address, and any association, chinook ESUs (the Puget Sound, Lower salmon and O. mykiss ESUs, including institution, or business that the person Columbia River, Upper Willamette the abundance, productivity, spatial represents. River, Upper Columbia River, California structure, and diversity of the subject Central Valley spring-run, and ESUs; (3) current or planned activities Public Hearings California coastal chinook ESUs); one in the subject areas and their possible Joint Commerce—Interior ESA coho ESU (the Oregon Coast coho ESU); impact on these species; (4) the implementing regulations state that the two chum ESUs (the Hood Canal relationship, range, distribution, and Secretary shall promptly hold at least summer-run and Columbia River chum habitat-use patterns of anadromous and one public hearing if any person who ESUs; and nine O. mykiss ESUs (the resident O. mykiss populations; (5) requests within 45 days of publication Southern California, South-Central genetic or other relevant data indicating of a proposed regulation to list a species California Coast, Central California the amount of exchange and the degree or to designate critical habitat (see 50 Coast, California Central Valley, Upper of relatedness between anadromous and CFR 424.16(c)(3)). In a forthcoming Columbia River, Snake River Basin, resident O. mykiss life-history forms; (6) Federal Register document, NMFS will Lower Columbia River, Upper the existence of natural and artificial announce the dates and locations of Willamette River, and Middle Columbia barriers to anadromous O. mykiss public meetings to provide the River O. mykiss ESUs) (68 FR 55900; populations, and the relationship of opportunity for the interested September 29, 2003). NMFS is currently resident fish located above natural and individuals and parties to give compiling information to prepare manmade impassible barriers to comments, exchange information and critical habitat proposals for the 19 anadromous and resident populations opinions, and engage in a constructive ESUs vacated by the Court in April below such barriers; (7) efforts being dialogue concerning this proposed rule. 2002, as well as for the Northern made to protect salmonid populations NMFS encourages the public’s California O. mykiss ESU listed as in California, Oregon, Washington, and involvement in such ESA matters. threatened on February 12, 2001 (66 FR Idaho; and (8) suggestions for specific 9808). If new information warrants, the regulations under section 4(d) of the References agency also may later revise, subject to ESA to apply to threatened salmon and A complete list of the references used appropriate regulatory procedures, O. mykiss ESUs, including the in this proposed rule is available upon

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33172 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

request (see ADDRESSES) or via the of the listed species. In most cases, it is small businesses. According to the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ not necessary or advisable for the Northwest Sportfishing Industry ProposedListings/References.html. conservation of the listed species to Association, salmon and steelhead prohibit the take of hatchery fish. anglers spend over $600 million per Classification Moreover, if NMFS does not amend the year in the Northwest. (Other sources National Environmental Policy Act current rules, take of hatchery fish will provide lower and higher estimates.) be prohibited once they are listed. West Tribal salmon fisheries are conducted Proposed ESA listing decisions are coast commercial and recreational by over 30 west coast Indian tribes with exempt from the requirement to prepare fisheries primarily harvest hatchery treaty and other rights to fish. Tribes an environmental assessment or salmonids. range in size from a few hundred to environmental impact statement under NMFS is proposing to revise the several thousand individuals. Tribal the NEPA. See NOAA Administrative current ESA section 4(d) rule so that members rely on salmon fisheries for Order 216–6.03(e)(1) and Pacific Legal take is prohibited only of fish with an ceremonial and subsistence needs as Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 intact adipose fin. Hatchery managers well as for economic benefit. The value (6th Cir. 1981). Thus, NMFS has typically mark fish intended for harvest of ceremonial and subsistence fisheries determined that the proposed listing by removing the small fin near the tail is incalculable. The value of salmon determinations for 27 ESUs of Pacific on the fish’s back. This visible mark harvest for commercial sale is included salmonids described in this notice are allows harvesters to distinguish and in the figures available for commercial exempt from the requirements of the release naturally spawned fish while fisheries generally. NEPA of 1969. NMFS has conducted an retaining clipped fish. Environmental Assessment (EA) under NMFS is also proposing to amend the Economic Impacts the NEPA analyzing the proposed rule to protect two species that were The revisions NMFS is proposing will amendments to the 4(d) protective previously listed as endangered but are largely preserve the existing regulatory regulations for Pacific salmonids. now proposed for threatened status; to regime. Currently, hatchery fish are not Copies of the EA are available from protect one species newly proposed for listed, so their take is not prohibited. NMFS upon request (see FOR FURTHER listing; and to consolidate certain The proposed revisions will allow INFORMATION CONTACT and ADDRESSES, provisions of the existing rules that hatchery fish to continue to be available above). provide exceptions to the take for harvest by not prohibiting their take. Regulatory Flexibility Act prohibition in certain circumstances. Currently, for the two species listed as endangered, all take is prohibited by The Chief Counsel for Regulation of Description and Estimate of the Number section 9(a) of the ESA. The proposed the Department of Commerce certified of Small Entities to Which the Rule revisions will maintain take to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Applies prohibitions but with the greater Small Business Administration that the The proposed rule applies to Non- flexibility allowed by a section 4(d) rule. proposed rule issued under authority of tribal commercial salmon fisheries Currently, the species listed as ESA section 4, if adopted, would not including ocean troll, Puget Sound seine threatened are covered under a mix of have a significant economic impact on and gillnet, Washington coastal bays 4(d) rules with varying degrees of a substantial number of small entities. gillnet, and lower Columbia non-Indian flexibility. The proposed revisions will As a result, no regulatory flexibility gillnet. Most of the entities involved in consolidate all of the species under one analysis for the proposed listing these fisheries are small entities. In rule and apply the set of prohibitions determinations contained in this rule Washington, California and Oregon and exceptions NMFS has found most has been prepared. combined, there were 2,840 troll flexible. For one species, Columbia licenses as of 2003; in the Columbia Basis and Purpose of the Proposed Rule River Coho, the proposed revisions will River there were 588 gillnet licenses as impose take prohibitions where none Under section 4(d) of the ESA, NMFS of 2003; and in Washington there were previously existed. NMFS has is required to adopt such regulations as 1,274 purse seine and gillnet licenses as concluded that this revision will not it deems necessary and advisable for the of 2000. Not all of these licenses are have significant impacts on small conservation of species listed as actively fished. In 2003 the total number entities. Since take of hatchery fish will threatened, including prohibiting ‘‘take’’ of vessels reporting landings in all not be prohibited, fisheries will be of the listed species. With respect to the ocean fisheries was 1120. In 2003, the largely unaffected. Landowners will not listing determination itself, economic value of commercial landings of west be affected because the range of the impacts cannot be considered, as noted coast salmon in all fisheries was $33 newly listed coho ESU overlaps that of in the Conference Report on the 1982 million. Ocean harvest accounted for already-listed species whose take is amendments to the ESA. Therefore, the $19 million of that total, with $12 already prohibited. economic analysis requirements of the million in the troll fishery. The average Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are not ex-vessel value of landings per vessel Conclusion applicable to the listing process. was $17,567. NMFS concludes that the proposed Adoption of regulations under ESA Recreational salmon fisheries include rule will not have a significant impact section 4(d), in contrast, contains ocean, inland marine and freshwater as on a substantial number of small entities elements of discretion and, therefore, it far inland as Idaho. The entities that because it largely leaves intact the is appropriate to consider its impacts on service the recreational fisheries include existing regulatory scheme. Moreover, small entities. bait and tackle suppliers, guides, failure to adopt the revisions would NMFS has previously adopted ESA outfitters, charter boat operators, and have a large adverse impact on small 4(d) rules prohibiting take, except in lodging and related service providers. businesses by prohibiting take of newly- certain circumstances, of all salmon and These entities range in size from multi- listed hatchery fish. steelhead (salmonid) species listed as national corporations and chain stores If you believe that this proposed rule threatened under the ESA. Pursuant to to small local family businesses. Except will impact your economic activity, a court order, NMFS is now proposing for the multi-national corporations and please comment on whether there is a to list all hatchery fish considered part chain stores, most of these entities are preferable alternative that would meet

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33173

the statutory requirements of ESA necessary to pay the direct compliance List of Subjects section 4(d) (see ADDRESSES). Please costs incurred by the tribal 50 CFR Part 223 describe the impact that alternative governments. This proposed rule does would have on your economic activity not impose substantial direct Enumeration of threatened marine and why the alternative is preferable. compliance costs on the communities of and anadromous species, Restrictions applicable to threatened marine and Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. anadromous species. Notwithstanding any other provision 13084 do not apply to this proposed of the law, no person is required to 50 CFR Part 224 rule. Nonetheless, NMFS intends to respond to, nor shall any person be Enumeration of endangered marine inform potentially affected tribal subject to a penalty for failure to comply and anadromous species. governments and to solicit their input with, a collection of information subject Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. to the requirements of the PRA, unless on the proposed rule. NMFS will that collection of information displays a continue to give careful consideration to Dated: May 28, 2004. currently valid Office of Management all written and oral comments received William T. Hogarth, and Budget (OMB) Control Number. on the proposed rule and will continue Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, This proposed rule does not contain its coordination and discussions with National Marine Fisheries Service. a collection-of-information requirement interested tribes as the agency moves For the reasons set out in the for purposes of the PRA of 1980. forward toward a final rule. preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 are Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 E.O. 13132—Federalism proposed to be amended as follows: The proposed listing determinations E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take PART 223—THREATENED MARINE and amendments to the ESA 4(d) into account any federalism impacts of AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES protective regulations addressed in this regulations under development. It rule have been determined to be 1. The authority citation for part 223 includes specific consultation directives significant for the purposes of E.O. continues to read as follows: for situations where a regulation will 12866. NMFS has prepared a Regulatory Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart B, preempt state law, or impose substantial Impact Review which was provided to § 223.12 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et the OMB. direct compliance costs on state and seq. local governments (unless required by 2. In § 223.102, paragraph (a) is E.O. 13084—Consultation and statute). Neither of those circumstances revised to read as follows: Coordination With Indian Tribal is applicable to this proposed rule. In Governments fact, this notice proposes mechanisms § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened E.O. 13084 requires that if NMFS by which NMFS, in the form of 4(d) marine and anadromous species. issues a regulation that significantly or limits to take prohibitions, may defer to * * * * * uniquely affects the communities of state and local governments where they (a) Marine and anadromous fish. Indian tribal governments and imposes proved necessary protections for The following table lists the common substantial direct compliance costs on threatened salmonids. and scientific names of threatened those communities, NMFS must consult species, the locations where they are with those governments or the Federal listed, and the citations for the listings government must provide the funds and critical habitat designations.

Species 1 Where listed Citation(s) for listing deter- Citation(s) for critical habi- Common name Scientific name minations tat designations

(1)Gulf sturgeon ...... Acipenser oxyrinchus Everywhere ...... 56 FR 49653, Sep. 30, 68 FR 13370, Mar. 19, desotoi. 1991. 2003. (2) Ozette Lake sockeye .... Oncorhynchus nerka ...... U.S.A., WA, including all naturally spawned 64 FR 14528, Mar. 25, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 populations of sockeye salmon in Ozette 1999, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. Lake and streams and tributaries flowing into WHEN PUBLISHED AS Ozette Lake, Washington, as well as two arti- A FINAL RULE]. ficial propagation programs: The Umbrella Creek and Big River sockeye hatchery programs. (3) Sacramento winter-run Oncorhynchus U.S.A., CA, including all naturally spawned pop- [FR CITATION WHEN 58 FR 33212, June 16, chinook. tshawytscha. ulations of winter-run chinook salmon in the PUBLISHED AS A 1993. Sacramento River and its tributaries in Cali- FINAL RULE].. fornia, as well as two artificial propagation programs: Winter-run chinook from the Living- ston Stone National Fish Hatchery (NFH), and winter run chinook in a captive broodstock program maintained at Livingston Stone NFH and the University of California Bodega Marine Laboratory. (4) Central Valley spring- Oncorhynchus U.S.A., CA, including all naturally spawned pop- 64 FR 50394, Sep. 16, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 run chinook. tshawytscha. ulations of spring-run chinook salmon in the 1999, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. Sacramento River and its tributaries in Cali- WHEN PUBLISHED AS fornia. A FINAL RULE].

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33174 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Species 1 Where listed Citation(s) for listing deter- Citation(s) for critical habi- Common name Scientific name minations tat designations

(5) California Coastal chi- Oncorhynchus U.S.A., CA, including all naturally spawned pop- 64 FR 50394, Sep. 16, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 nook. tshawytscha. ulations of chinook salmon from rivers and 1999, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. streams south of the Kalmath River to the WHEN PUBLISHED AS Russian River, California, as well as sever ar- A FINAL RULE]. tificial propagation programs: The Humboldt Fish Action Council (Freshwater Creek), Yager Creek, Redwood Creek, Hollow Tree, Van Arsdale Fish Station, Mattole Salmon Group, and Mad River Hatchery fall-run chinook hatchery programs. (6) Upper Willamette River Oncorhynchus U.S.A., OR, including all naturally spawned pop- 64 FR 14308, Mar. 24, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 chinook. tshawytscha. ulations of spring-run chinook salmon in the 1999, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. Clackamas River and in the Willamette River, WHEN PUBLISHED AS and its tributaries, above Willamette Falls, Or- A FINAL RULE]. egon, as well as seven artificial propagation programs: The McKenzie River Hatchery (Or- egon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) stock # 24), Marion Forks/North Fork Santiam River (ODFW Stock # 21), South Santiam Hatchery (ODFW stock # 23) in the South Fork Santiam River, South Santiam Hatchery in the Calapooia River, South Santiam Hatchery in the Mollala River, Wil- lamette Hatchery (ODFW stock # 22), and Clackamas hatchery (ODFW stock # 19) spring-run chinook hatchery programs. (7) Lower Columbia River Oncorhynchus U.S.A., OR, WA, including all naturally spawned 64 FR 14308, Mar. 24, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 chinook. tshawytscha. populations of chinook salmon from the Co- 1999, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. lumbia River and its tributaries from its mouth WHEN PUBLISHED AS at the Pacific Ocean upstream to a transi- A FINAL RULE]. tional point between Washington and Oregon east of the Hood River and the White Salmon River, and includes the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, exclusive of spring- run chinook salmon in the Clackamas River, as well as seventeen artificial propagation programs: The Sea Resources Tule chinook Program, Big Creek Tule chinook Program, Astoria High School (STEP) Tule chinook Program, Warrenton High School (STEP) Tule chinook Program, Elochoman River Tule chinook Program, Spring Creek NFH Tule chinook Program, Cowlitz Tule Chinook Pro- gram, North Fork Toutle Tule chinook Pro- gram, Kalama Tule chinook Program, Washougal River Tule chinook Program, Spring Creek NFH Tule Chinook Program, Cowlitz spring chinook Program in the Upper Cowlitz River and the Cispus River, Friends of the Cowlitz spring chinook Program, Kalama River spring chinook Program, Lewis River spring chinook Program, Fish First spring chinook Program, and the Sandy River Hatchery (ODFW stock #11) chinook hatchery programs. (8) Puget Sound chinook ... Oncorhynchus U.S.A., WA including all naturally spawned pop- 64 FR 14308, Mar. 24, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 tshawytscha. ulations of chinook salmon from rivers and 1999, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. streams flowing into Puget Sound including WHEN PUBLISHED AS the Straits of Juan De Fuca from the Elwha A FINAL RULE]. River, eastward, including rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound and the Strait of Georgia in Wash- ington, as well as twenty-two artificial propagation programs: The Kendal Creek Hatchery, Marblemount Hatchery (fall, spring yearlings, spring subyearlings, and summer run), Har- vey Creek Hatchery, Whitehorse Springs Pond, Wallace River Hatchery (yearlings and subyearlings), Tualip Bay, Soos Creek Hatch- ery, Icy Creek Hatchery, Keta Creek Hatch- ery, White River Hatchery, White Acclimation Pond, Hupp Springs Hatchery, Voights Creek Hatchery, Diru Creek, Clear Creek, Kalama Creek, Dungeness/Hurd Creek Hatchery, Elwha Channel Hatchery Chinook Hatchery program.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33175

Species 1 Where listed Citation(s) for listing deter- Citation(s) for critical habi- Common name Scientific name minations tat designations

(9) Snake River fall-run chi- Oncorhynchus U.S.A., OR, WA, ID, including all naturally 57 FR 34639, Apr. 22, 58 FR 68543, Dec. 28, nook. tshawytscha. spawned populations of fall-run chinook salm- 1992; 57 FR 23458, 1993. on in the mainstem Snake River and in the Jun. 3, 1992, [FR CITA- Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, TION WHEN PUB- Imnaha River, Salmon River, and Clearwater LISHED AS A FINAL River, as well as four artificial propagation RULE]. programs: The Lyons Ferry Hatchery, Fall Chinook Acclimation Ponds Program, Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery, and Oxbow Hatchery fall-run chinook hatchery programs. (10) Snake River spring/ Oncorhynchus U.S.A., OR, WA, ID, including all naturally 57 FR 34639, Apr. 22, 58 FR 68543, Dec. 28, summer-run chinook. tshawytscha. spawned populations of spring/summer-run 1992; 57 FR 23458, 1993. 64 FR 57399, chinook salmon in the mainstem Snake River Jun. 3, 1992 [FR CITA- Oct. 25, 1999. and the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde TION WHEN PUB- River, Imnaha River, and Salmon River sub- LISHED AS A FINAL basins, as well as fifteen artificial propagation RULE]. programs: the Tucannon River conventional Hatchery, Tucannon River Captive Broodstock Program, Lostine River, Catherine Creek, Lookingglass Hatchery, Upper Grande Ronde, Imnaha River, Big Sheep Creek, McCall Hatchery, Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement, Lemhi River Cap- tive Rearing Experiment, Pahsimeroi Hatch- ery, East Fork Captive Rearing Experiment, West Fork Yankee Fork Captive Rearing Ex- periment, and the Sawtooth Hatchery spring/ summer-run chinook hatchery programs. (11) Oregon Coast coho .... Oncorhynchus kisutch ...... U.S.A., OR, including all naturally spawned pop- 63 FR 42587, Aug. 10, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 ulations of coho salmon in Oregon coastal 1998 [FR CITATION FR 55900]. streams south of the Columbia River and WHEN PUBLISHED AS north of Cape Blanco, as well as five artificial A FINAL RULE]. propagation programs: the North Umpqua River (ODFW stock #18), Cow Creek (ODFW stock #37), Coos Basin (ODFW stock #37), Coquille River (ODFW stock #44), and North Fork Nehalem River (ODFW stock #32) coho hatchery programs. (12) Southern Oregon/ Oncorhynchus kisutch ...... U.S.A., CA, OR, including all naturally spawned 62 FR 24588, May 6, 64 FR 24049, May 5, Northern California Coast populations of coho salmon in coastal 1997 [FR CITATION 1999. coho. streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and WHEN PUBLISHED AS Punta Gorda, California, as well three artificial A FINAL RULE]. propagation programs: the Cole Rivers Hatch- ery (ODFW stock #52), Trinity River Hatch- ery, and Iron Gate Hatchery coho hatchery programs. (13) Lower Columbia River Oncorhynchus kisutch ...... U.S.A., OR, WA, including all naturally spawned [FR CITATION WHEN NA. coho. populations of coho salmon in the Columbia PUBLISHED AS A River and its tributaries in Washington and FINAL RULE]. Oregon, from the mouth of the Columbia up to and including the Big White Salmon and Hood Rivers, as well as twenty-one artificial propagation programs; the Grays River, Sea Resources Hatchery, Peterson Coho Project, Big Creek Hatchery, Astoria High School (STEP) Coho Program, Warrenton High School (STEP) Coho Program, Elochoman Type-S Coho Program, Elochoman Type-N Coho Program, Cathlamet High School FFA Type-N Coho Program, Cowlitz Type-N Coho Program in the Upper and Lower Cowlitz Riv- ers, Cowlitz Game and Anglers Coho Pro- gram, Friends of the Cowlitz Coho Program, North Fork Toutle River Hatchery, Lewis River Type-N Coho Program, Lewis River Type-S Coho Program, Fish First Wild Coho Program, Fish First Type-N Coho Program, Syverson Project Type-N Coho Program, Sandy Hatchery, and the Bonneville/Cascade/ Oxbow complex coho hatchery programs. (14) Columbia River chum Oncorhynchus keta ...... U.S.A., OR, WA, including all naturally spawned 64 FR 14508, Mar. 25, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 populations of chum salmon in the Columbia 1999 [FR CITATION FR 55900]. River and its tributaries in Washington and WHEN PUBLISHED AS Oregon, as well as three artificial propagation A FINAL RULE]. programs: the Chinook River (Sea Resources Hatchery), Grays River, and Washougal River/Duncan Creek chum hatchery programs.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33176 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

Species 1 Where listed Citation(s) for listing deter- Citation(s) for critical habi- Common name Scientific name minations tat designations

(15) Hood Canal summer- Oncorhynchus keta ...... U.S.A., WA, including all naturally spawned 64 FR 14508, Mar. 25, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 run chum. populations of summer-run chum salmon in 1999 [FR CITATION FR 55900]. Hood Canal and it tributaries as well as popu- WHEN PUBLISHED AS lations in Olympic Peninsula rivers between A FINAL RULE]. Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay, Wash- ington, as well as eight artificial propagation programs: the Quilcene NFH, Hamma Hamma Fish Hatchery, Lilliwaup Creek Fish Hatchery, Union River/Tahuya, Big Beef Creek Fish Hatchery, Salmon Creek Fish Hatchery, Chimacum Creek Fish Hatchery, and the Jimmycomelately Creek Fish Hatch- ery summer-run hatchery programs. (16) South-Central Cali- Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... U.S.A., CA, including all naturally spawned 64 FR 43937, Aug. 18, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 fornia Coast anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) popu- 1997 [FR CITATION FR 55900]. Oncorhynchus mykiss. lations, as well as co-occurring resident O. WHEN PUBLISHED AS mykiss (rainbow trout) populations, below nat- A FINAL RULE]. ural and manmade impassible barriers in streams from the Pajaro River (inclusive) to, but not including the Santa Maria River, Cali- fornia. (17) Central California Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... U.S.A., CA, including all naturally spawned 64 FR 43937, Aug. 18, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 Coast Oncorhynchus anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) popu- 1997 [FR CITATION FR 55900]. mykiss. lations, as well as co-occurring resident O. WHEN PUBLISHED AS mykiss (rainbow trout) populations, below nat- A FINAL RULE]. ural and manmade impassible barriers in California streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, and the drainages of San Fran- cisco and San Pablo Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), excluding the Sac- ramento-San Joaquin River Basin, as well as two artificial propagation programs: the Dan Clausen Fish Hatchery, and Kingfisher Flat Hatchery/Scott Creek (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) steelhead hatchery programs. Native resident O. mykiss above Rub- ber Dam 1 on Alameda Creek are also considered part of the ESU. (18) California Central Val- Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... U.S.A., CA, including all naturally spawned [FR CITATION WHEN NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 ley Oncorhynchus mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) popu- PUBLISHED AS A FR 55900]. lations, as well as co-occurring resident O. FINAL RULE]. mykiss (rainbow trout) populations, below natural and manmade impassible barriers in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries, excluding steelhead from San Francisco and San Pablo Bays and their tributaries, as well as two artificial propagation programs: the Coleman NFH, and Feather River Hatchery steelhead hatchery programs. (19) Northern California Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... U.S.A., CA, including all naturally spawned 65 FR 36074, June 7, NA. Oncorhynchus mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) popu- 2000, [FR CITATION lations, as well as co-occurring resident O. WHEN PUBLISHED AS mykiss (rainbow trout) populations, below nat- A FINAL RULE]. ural and manmade impassible barriers in California coastal river basins from Redwood Creek south to the Gualala River (inclusive), as well as two artificial propagation programs: the Yager Creek Hatchery, and North Fork Gualala River Hatchery (Gualala River Steelhead Project) steelhead hatchery programs. (20) Upper Willamette Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... U.S.A., OR, including all naturally spawned 62 FR 43937, Aug. 18, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 River Oncorhynchus anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) popu- 1997, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. mykiss. lations, as well as co-occurring resident O. WHEN PUBLISHED AS mykiss (rainbow trout) populations, below nat- A FINAL RULE]. ural and manmade impassible barriers in the Willamette River, Oregon, and its tributaries upstream from Willamette falls to the Calapooia River (inclusive).

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33177

Species 1 Where listed Citation(s) for listing deter- Citation(s) for critical habi- Common name Scientific name minations tat designations

(21) Lower Columbia River Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... U.S.A., OR, WA, including all naturally spawned 63 FR 13347, Mar. 19, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 Oncorhynchus mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) popu- 1998, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. lations, as well as co-occurring resident O. WHEN PUBLISHED AS mykiss (rainbow trout) populations, below nat- A FINAL RULE]. ural and manmade impassible barriers in streams and tributaries to the Columbia River between the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers, Wash- ington (inclusive), and the Willamette and Hood Rivers, Oregon (inclusive), as well as ten artificial propagation programs: the Cow- litz Trout Hatchery (in the Cispus, Upper Cowlitz, Lower Cowlitz, and Tilton Rivers), Kalama River Wild (winter- and summer-run), Clackamas Hatchery, Sandy Hatchery, and Hood River (winter- and summer-run) steelhead hatchery programs. Excluded are O. mykiss populations in the upper Willamette River Basin above Willamette Falls, Oregon, and from the Little and Big White Salmon Riv- ers, Washington. (22) Middle Columbia River Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... U.S.A., OR, WA, including all naturally spawned 57 FR 14517, Mar. 25, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 Oncorhynchus mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) popu- 1999, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. lations, as well as co-occurring resident O. WHEN PUBLISHED AS mykiss (rainbow trout) populations, below nat- A FINAL RULE]. ural and manmade impassible barriers in streams from above the Wind River, Wash- ington, and the Hood River, Oregon (exclusive), upstream to, and including, the Yakima River, Washington, excluding O. mykiss from the Snake River Basin, as well seven artificial propagation programs: the Touchet River En- demic, Yakima River Kelt Reconditioning Pro- gram (in Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Naches River, and Upper Yakima River), Umatilla River, and the Deschutes River steelhead hatchery programs.. (23) Upper Columbia River Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... U.S.A., WA, including all naturally spawned 62 FR 43937, Aug. 18, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 Oncorhynchus mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) popu- 1997, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. lations, as well as co-occurring resident O. WHEN PUBLISHED AS mykiss (rainbow trout) populations, below nat- A FINAL RULE]. ural a¥d manmade impassible barriers in streams in the Columbia River Basin upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the U.S.-Canada border, as well six artificial propagation programs: the Wenatchee River, Wells Hatchery (in the Methow and Okanogan Rivers), Winthrop NFH, Omak Creek, and the Ringold steelhead hatchery programs. (24) Snake River Basin Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... U.S.A., OR, WA, ID, including all naturally 62 FR 43937, Aug. 18, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 Oncorhynchus mykiss. spawned anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) 1997, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. populations, as well as co-occurring resident WHEN PUBLISHED AS O. mykiss (rainbow trout) populations, below A FINAL RULE]. natural and manmade impassible barriers in streams in the Snake River Basin of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and Idaho, as well six artificial propagation programs: the Tucannon River, Dworshak NFH, Lolo Creek, North Fork Clearwater, East Fork Salmon River, and the Little Sheep Creek/ Imnaha River Hatchery steelhead hatchery progrmas. Native resident O. mykiss above Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater River are also considered part of the ESU. 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

3. In § 223.203, paragraphs (a), (b) fish with an intact adipose fin that are subparagraphs (b)(1) through (b)(13) introductory text, and (b)(2) are revised part of the threatened species of below: to read as follows: salmonids listed in § 223.102(a)(2) (1) * * * through (a)(24). (2) The prohibitions of paragraph (a) § 223.203 Anadromous fish. of this section relating to threatened * * * * * (b) Limits on the prohibitions. The limits to the prohibitions of paragraph species of salmonids listed in (a) Prohibitions. The prohibitions of § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24) do not (a) of this section relating to threatened section 9(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. apply to activities specified in an species of salmonids listed in 1538(a)(1) relating to endangered application for a permit for scientific § 223.102(a) are described in species apply to unmarked anadromous purposes or to enhance the conservation

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 33178 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules

or survival of the species, provided that upon the AA’s rejection of the 4. In § 223.203, paragraphs (b)(1) the application has been received by the application as insufficient, upon through (b)(13), and (c), the references Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, issuance or denial of a permit, or [date in the sections listed in the first column NOAA (AA), no later than [date 60 days 6 months after the publication of the below are amended according to the after the publication of the final rule in final rule in the Federal Register], directions in the second and third the Federal Register]. The prohibitions whichever occurs earliest. columns. of this section apply to these activities * * * * *

Section Remove Add

§ 223.203(b)(1) ...... § 223.102(a)(1) through (a)(10), and (a)(12) through § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). (a)(22). § 223.203(b)(3) introductory text ...... § 223.102(a)(4) through (a)(10), and (a)(12) through § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). (a)(19). § 223.203(b)(4) introductory text ...... § 223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and (a)(12) through § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). (a)(19). § 223.203(b)(5) introductory text ...... § 223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and (a)(12) through § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). (a)(19). § 223.203(b)(6) introductory text ...... § 223.102(a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(10), and (a)(12) through § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). (a)(19). § 223.203(b)(7) introductory text ...... § 223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and (a)(12) through § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). (a)(19). § 223.203(b)(8) introductory text ...... § 223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and (a)(12) through § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). (a)(19). § 223.203(b)(9) introductory text ...... § 223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and (a)(12) through § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). (a)(19). § 223.203(b)(10) introductory text ...... § 223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and (a)(12) through § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). (a)(19). § 223.203(b)(11) introductory text ...... § 223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and (a)(12) through § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). (a)(19). § 223.203(b)(12) introductory text ...... § 223.102(a)(5) through (a)(10), and (a)(12) through § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). (a)(19). § 223.203(b)(13) introductory text ...... § 223.102(a)(12), (a)(13), (a)(16), (a)(17), and § 223.102(a)(2) through (a) (24). (a)(19). § 223.203(c) ...... § 223.102(a)(3), (a)(5) through (a)(10), and (a)(12) § 223.102(a)(2) through (a)(24). through (a)(22). § 223.203(c) ...... § 223.209(a) ...... § 223.204(a).

§ 223.203 [Amended] PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE § 224.101 Enumeration of endangered 5. Remove § 223.203(b)(14) through AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES marine and anadromous species. (b)(22). * * * * * 1. The authority citation for part 224 (a) Marine and anadromous fish. § 223.204 [Removed] continues to read as follows: 6. Remove § 223.204. The following table lists the common Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 and scientific names of endangered § 223.209 [Redesignated] U.S.C. 1361 et seq. species, the locations where they are 7. Redesignate § 223.209 as § 223.204, 2. Revise § 224.101(a) to read as listed, and the citations for the listings and reserve § 223.209. follows: and critical habitat designations.

Species 1 Where listed Citations for listing deter- Critical habitat Common name Scientific name mination(s)

Shortnose sturgeon ...... Acipenser brevirostrum ..... Everywhere ...... 32 FR 4001, Mar. 11, NA 1967. Smalltooth sawfish ...... Pristis pectinata ...... U.S.A ...... 68 FR 15674, Apr. 1, 2003 NA Totoaba ...... Cynoscion macdonaldi ..... Everywhere ...... 44 FR 29480, May 21, NA 1979. Atlantic salmon ...... Salmo salar ...... U.S.A., ME, Gulf of Maine population, which in- 65 FR 69459, Nov. 17, NA cludes all naturally reproducing populations 2000. and those river-specific hatchery populations cultured from them. Snake River sockeye ...... Oncorhynchus nerka ...... U.S.A., ID, including all anadromous and resid- 56 FR 58619, Nov. 20, 58 FR 68543, Dec. 28, ual sockeye salmon from the Snake River 1991, [FR CITATION 1993. Basin, Idaho, as well as artificially propagated WHEN PUBLISHED AS sockeye salmon from the Redfish Lake cap- A FINAL RULE]. tive propagation program.

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 33179

Species 1 Where listed Citations for listing deter- Critical habitat Common name Scientific name mination(s)

Upper Columbia River Oncorhynchus U.S.A., WA, including all naturally spawned 64 FR 14308, Mar. 24, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 Spring-run chinook. tshawytscha. populations of chinook salmon in all river 1999, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. reaches accessible to chinook salmon in Co- WHEN PUBLISHED AS lumbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock A FINAL RULE]. Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in Washington (excluding the Okanogan River), the Columbia River from a straight line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream to Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, as well as six artificial propagation programs: the Twisp River, Chewuch River, Methow Composite, Winthrop NFH, Chiwawa River, and White River spring-run chinook hatchery programs. Central California Coast Oncorhynchus kisutch ...... U.S.A., CA, including all naturally spawned pop- 61 FR 56138, Oct. 31, 64 FR 24049, May 5, coho. ulations of coho salmon from Punta Gorda in 1996, [FR CITATION 1999. northern California south to and including the WHEN PUBLISHED AS San Lorenzo River in central California, as A FINAL RULE]. well as populations in tributaries to San Fran- cisco Bay, excluding the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system, as well as four artificial propagation programs: the Don Clausen Fish Hatchery Captive Broodstock Program, Scott Creek/King Fisher Flats Conservation Pro- gram, Scott Creek Captive Broodstock Pro- gram, and the Noyo River Fish Station egg- take Program coho hatchery programs. Southern California Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... U.S.A., CA, including all naturally spawned 62 FR 43937, Aug. 18, NA [vacated 9/29/03; 68 Oncorhynchus mykiss. anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) popu- 1997, [FR CITATION FR 55900]. lations, as well as co-occurring resident O. WHEN PUBLISHED AS mykiss (rainbow trout) populations, below nat- A FINAL RULE]. ural and manmade impassible barriers in streams from the Santa Maria River, San Luis Obispo County, California, (inclusive) to the U.S.-Mexico Border. 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

* * * * * [FR Doc. 04–12706 Filed 6–10–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate jul<14>2003 00:09 Jun 11, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2