JJ -
I'll take a stab at your questions -
1) Should similar hatchery fish be counted? It is clear that the use of hatcheries can in at least some situation aid with the recovery of a given population thus there may be situations where hatcheries could and possibly should be one of the tools available for recovery though I beleive that use should be limited.

The test of genetic similarity tells only part of the story and for me at least not a very good screening factor. It is much more important that hatchery fish be at least reasonably productive in the habitat in which one is striving for recovery.

An example (timely given the recent petition to list steelhead in Puget Sound) would be the Chamber's Creek winter steelhead. Clearly they are genetically very similar to some of the central South Sound wild steelhead populations. Under the criteria being discussed would likely be included in a listing of the Puget Sound steelhead. However it has also been clearly shown that those hatchery fish spawning in the wild are extremely unproductive and in most (all?) situations I would be hard pressed to show how they might contribute to the recovery of a depressed population. Thus I would feel that they should be excluded from any listing.

2) Should rainbows be include with steelhead?

In all discussion of recovery efforts of an ESA listed stock the diversity aspect of the population in question is one of the essentials for recovery. The resident life history of O. mykiss (rainbows) is clearly part of the life history diversity of the species. It has been shown that rainbows will spawn with steelhead (usually rainbow males and steelhead females), that the offspring from rainbows may produce steelhead smolts, and that some offspring of steelhead may remain in freshwater their entire life.

In short rainbows are an important part of the species diversity and likely play an important role in the long term viability of the species therefore should be included in ESA discussions of steelhead.

Tight lines
S malma