Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened Status and Designated Critical Habitat for Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon and Columbia River Chum Salmon

SUMMARY: NMFS has completed a comprehensive status review of chum

salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) populations in Washington, Oregon, and

California and has identified four Evolutionarily Significant Units

(ESUs) within this range. NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to list

two ESUs as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): the Hood

Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU, which spawns in tributaries to Hood

Canal, Discovery Bay, and Sequim Bay, Washington and the Columbia River

chum salmon ESU, which spawns in tributaries to the lower Columbia

River in Washington and Oregon. NMFS has also determined that listing

is not warranted for two additional chum salmon ESUs (Puget Sound/

Strait of Georgia and Pacific Coast ESUs).

In both ESUs identified as threatened, only naturally spawned chum

salmon are being proposed for listing. Critical habitat for each ESU is

being proposed as the species' current freshwater and estuarine range

and includes all waterways, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones

below longstanding, naturally impassable barriers.

NMFS is requesting public comments and input on the issues

pertaining to this proposed rule. NMFS is also soliciting suggestions

and comments on integrated local/state/Federal conservation measures

that might best achieve the purposes of the ESA relative to recovering

the health of chum salmon populations and the ecosystems upon which

they depend. Should the proposed listings be made final, protective

regulations under the ESA would be put into effect and a recovery plan

would be adopted and implemented.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 1998. The dates

and locations of public hearings regarding this proposal will be

published in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Chief, Protected Resources

Division, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin at (503) 231-2005, or

Joe Blum at (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petition Background

On March 14, 1994, NMFS was petitioned by the Professional

Resources Organization-Salmon (PRO-Salmon) to list Washington's Hood

Canal, Discovery Bay, and Sequim Bay summer-run chum salmon

(Oncorhynchus keta) as threatened or endangered species under the ESA

(PRO-Salmon, 1994). A second petition, received April 4, 1994, from the

Save Allison Springs Citizens Committee (Save Allison Springs Citizens

Committee, 1994), requested listing of fall chum salmon found in the

following southern Puget Sound streams or bays: Allison Springs, McLane

Creek, tributaries of McLane Creek (Swift Creek and Beatty Creek),

Perry Creek, and the southern section of Mud Bay/Eld Inlet. A third

petition, received by NMFS on May 20, 1994, was submitted by Trout

Unlimited (Trout Unlimited, 1994). This petition requested listing for

summer chum salmon that spawn in 12 tributaries of Hood Canal.

In response to these petitions and to the more general concerns

about the status of Pacific salmon throughout the region, NMFS

published on September 12, 1994, a notice in the Federal Register (59

FR 46808) announcing that the petitions presented substantial

scientific information indicating that a listing may be warranted and

that the agency would initiate ESA status reviews for chum and other

species of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. These

comprehensive reviews considered all populations in the States of

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. Hence, the status review for

chum salmon encompasses, but is not restricted to, the populations

identified in the petitions described. This Federal Register notice

will focus on populations in the contiguous United States; however,

information from Asia, Alaska, and British Columbia was also considered

to provide a broader context for interpreting status review results.

During the coastwide chum salmon status review, NMFS assessed the

best available scientific and commercial data, including technical

information from Pacific Salmon Biological Technical Committees

(PSBTCs) and other interested parties. The PSBTCs consisted primarily

of scientists (from Federal, state, and local resource agencies, Indian

tribes, industries, universities, professional societies, and public

interest groups) possessing technical expertise relevant to chum salmon

and their habitats. The NMFS Biological Review Team (BRT), composed of

staff from NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center, reviewed and

evaluated scientific information provided by the PSBTCs and other

sources and completed a coastwide status review for chum salmon (NMFS,

1996a) which was subsequently augmented with additional information

regarding Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, also considered by NMFS in

this proposed designation (NMFS, 1996b). Copies of these documents are

available upon request (see ADDRESSES). A complete status review of

west coast chum salmon will be published in a forthcoming NMFS

technical memorandum. Early drafts of the BRT review were distributed

to state and tribal fisheries managers and peer reviewers who are

experts in the field to ensure that NMFS' evaluation was accurate and

complete. The review, summarized below, identifies four ESUs of chum

salmon in Washington, Oregon, and California, and describes the basis

for the BRT's conclusions regarding the proposed ESA status of each

ESU.

Use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this document refers

to critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be confused

with the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

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

Chum Salmon Life History

Chum salmon belong to the family Salmonidae and are one of eight

species of Pacific salmonids in the genus Oncorhynchus. Chum salmon are

semelparous (spawn only once then die), spawn primarily in fresh water,

and apparently exhibit obligatory anadromy, as there are no recorded

landlocked or naturalized freshwater populations (Randall et al.,

1987). The species is best known for the enormous canine-like fangs and

striking body color (a calico pattern, with the anterior two-thirds of

the flank marked by a bold, jagged, reddish line and the posterior

third by a jagged black line) of spawning males. Females are less

[[Page 11775]]

flamboyantly colored and lack the extreme dentition of the males.

The species has the widest natural geographic and spawning

distribution of any Pacific salmonid, primarily because its range

extends farther along the shores of the Arctic Ocean than that of the

other salmonids (Groot and Margolis, 1991). Chum salmon have been

documented to spawn from Korea and the Japanese island of Honshu, east,

around the rim of the North Pacific Ocean, to Monterey Bay in southern

California. The species' range in the Arctic Ocean extends from the

Laptev Sea in Russia to the Mackenzie River in Canada (Bakkala, 1970;

Fredin et al., 1977). Historically, chum salmon were distributed

throughout the coastal regions of western Canada and the United States,

as far south as Monterey, California. Presently, major spawning

populations are found only as far south as Tillamook Bay on the

northern Oregon coast.

Chum salmon may historically have been the most abundant of all

salmonids. Neave (1961) estimated that, prior to the 1940s, chum salmon

contributed almost 50 percent of the total biomass of all salmonids in

the Pacific Ocean. Chum salmon also grow to be among the largest of

Pacific salmon, second only to chinook salmon in adult size, with

individuals reported up to 108.9 cm in length and 20.8 kg in weight

(Pacific Fisherman, 1928). Average size for the species is around 3.6

to 6.8 kg (Salo, 1991).

Chum salmon usually spawn in coastal areas, and juveniles

outmigrate to seawater almost immediately after emerging from the

gravel that covers their redds (Salo, 1991). This ocean-type migratory

behavior contrasts with the stream-type behavior of some other species

in the genus Oncorhynchus (e.g., coastal cutthroat trout, steelhead,

coho salmon, and most types of chinook and sockeye salmon), which

usually migrate to sea at a larger size, after months or years of

freshwater rearing. This means that survival and growth in juvenile

chum salmon depend less on freshwater conditions (unlike stream-type

salmonids which depend heavily on freshwater habitats) than on

favorable estuarine and marine conditions. Another behavioral

difference between chum salmon and most species that rear extensively

in fresh water is that chum salmon form schools, presumably to reduce

predation (Pitcher, 1986), especially if their movements are

synchronized to swamp predators (Miller and Brannon, 1982).

Age at maturity appears to follow a latitudinal trend in which a

greater number of older fish occur in the northern portion of the

species' range. Age at maturity has been investigated in many studies,

and in both Asia and North America, it appears that most chum salmon

(95 percent) mature between 3 and 5 years of age, with 60 to 90 percent

of the fish maturing at 4 years of age. However, a higher proportion of

5-year-old fish occurs in the north, and a higher proportion of 3-year-

old fish occurs in the south (southern British Columbia, Washington,

Oregon) (Gilbert, 1922; Marr, 1943; Pritchard, 1943; Kobayashi, 1961;

Oakley, 1966; Sano, 1966). Helle (1979) has shown that the average age

at maturity in Alaska is negatively correlated with growth during the

second year of marine life, but not with growth in the first year, and

that age at maturity is negatively correlated with year-class strength.

A few populations of chum salmon also show an alternation of dominance

between 3 to 4 year-old fish, usually in the presence of dominant year

classes of pink salmon (Gallagher, 1979).

Chum salmon usually spawn in the lower reaches of rivers typically

within 100 km of the ocean. Redds are usually dug in the mainstem or in

side channels of rivers. In some areas (particularly in Alaska and

northern Asia), they typically spawn where upwelled groundwater

percolates through the redds (Bakkala, 1970; Salo, 1991).

Chum salmon are believed to spawn primarily in the lower reaches of

rivers because they usually show little persistence in surmounting

river blockages and falls. However, in some systems, such as the Skagit

River, Washington, chum salmon routinely migrate over long distances

upstream (at least 170 km in the Skagit River) (Hendrick, 1996). In two

other rivers, the species swims a much greater distance. In the Yukon

River, Alaska, and the Amur River, between China and Russia, chum

salmon migrate more than 2,500 km inland. Although these distances are

impressive, both rivers have low gradients and are without extensive

falls or other blockages to migration. In the Columbia River Basin,

there are reports that chum salmon may historically have spawned in the

Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers, more than 500 km from the sea (Nehlsen

et al., 1991). However, these fish would have had to pass Celilo Falls,

a web of rapids and cascades, which presumably were passable by chum

salmon only at high water flows.

During the spawning migration, adult chum salmon enter natal river

systems from June to March, depending on characteristics of the

population or geographic location. Groups of fish entering a river

system at particular times or seasons are often called ``runs'', and

run timing has long been used by the fishing community to distinguish

anadromous populations of salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat

trout. Run timing designations (e.g., summer versus fall or early-fall

versus late-fall) are important in this status review because two of

the ESA petitions for chum salmon (PRO-Salmon, 1994; Trout Unlimited,

1994) used run timing as evidence supporting population distinction. In

Washington, a variety of seasonal runs are recognized, including

summer, fall, and winter populations. Fall-run fish predominate, but

summer runs are found in Hood Canal, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and in

southern Puget Sound (Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) et al.,

1993). Only two rivers have fish returning so late in the season that

the fish are designated as winter-run fish, and both of these are in

southern Puget Sound.

Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA

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

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

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

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

segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds

when mature.'' On November 20, 1991, NMFS published a policy describing

how the agency will apply the ESA definition of ``species'' to

anadromous salmonid species (56 FR 58612). This policy provides that a

salmonid population will be considered distinct, and hence a species

under the ESA, if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit

(ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria

to be considered an ESU: (1) It must be reproductively isolated from

other conspecific population units, and (2) it must represent an

important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological

species. The first criterion, reproductive isolation, need not be

absolute, but must be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important

differences to accrue in different population units. The second

criterion is met if the population contributes substantially to the

ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a whole. Guidance on the

application of this policy is contained in a scientific paper ``Pacific

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

Endangered Species Act'' and a NOAA Technical Memorandum ``Definition

of `Species' Under the Endangered Species

[[Page 11776]]

Act: Application to Pacific Salmon,'' which are available upon request

(see ADDRESSES).

ESU Determinations

The proposed ESU determinations described here represent a

synthesis of a large amount of diverse information. In general, the

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

within which the members of the ESU are typically found) are supported

by several lines of evidence that show similar patterns. However, the

diverse data sets are not always entirely congruent (nor would they be

expected to be), and the proposed boundaries are not necessarily the

only ones possible. In some cases environmental changes occur over a

transition zone rather than abruptly. In addition, as ESU boundaries

are based on biological and environmental information, they do not

necessarily conform to state or national boundaries, such as the U.S./

Canada border.

Major types of information evaluated by the NMFS BRT include the

following: (1) Physical features, such as physiography, geology,

hydrology, and oceanic and climatic conditions; (2) biological

features, including vegetation, zoogeography, and ``ecoregions''

identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Omernik and

Gallant, 1986; Omernik, 1987); (3) life history information such as

patterns and timing of spawning and migration (adult and juvenile),

fecundity and egg size, and growth and age characteristics; and (4)

genetic evidence for reproductive isolation between populations or

groups of populations. Genetic data (from protein electrophoresis and

DNA markers) were the primary evidence considered for reproductive

isolation criterion. This evidence was supplemented by inferences about

barriers to migration created by natural geographic features. Data

considered important in evaluations of ecological/genetic diversity

included distributions, migrational and spawning timing, life history,

ichthyogeography, hydrology, and other environmental features of the

habitat.

Based on a review of the best available scientific and commercial

information pertaining to chum salmon, the BRT identified four ESUs for

the species in the Pacific Northwest. Each of the ESUs include multiple

spawning populations of chum salmon, and most ESUs also extend over a

considerable geographic area. This result is consistent with NMFS

species definition policy, which states that, in general, ``ESUs should

correspond to more comprehensive units unless there is clear evidence

that evolutionarily important differences exist between smaller

population segments'' (Waples, 1991). However, considerable diversity

in genetic or life-history traits or habitat features may exist within

a single complex ESU. The descriptions below briefly summarize the

proposed chum salmon ESUs and some of the notable types of diversity

within each ESU:

(1) Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU

The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU includes most U.S.

populations of chum salmon outside Alaska and includes all chum salmon

populations from Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca as far west

as the Elwha River, with the exception of summer-run populations in

Hood Canal and along the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. The BRT

concluded that this ESU also includes Canadian populations from streams

draining into the Strait of Georgia. A northern boundary for this ESU

was tentatively identified as Johnstone Strait, but this determination

was hampered by a lack of information on populations in the central and

northern regions of the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Chum

salmon from the west coast of Vancouver Island are not considered part

of this ESU, in part because available genetic information suggests

these fish are distinct from Puget Sound or Strait of Georgia fish.

Genetic, ecological, and life-history information were the primary

factors used to identify this ESU. Environmental characteristics that

may be important to chum salmon (e.g., water temperature, and amount

and timing of precipitation) generally show a strong north-south trend,

but no important differences were identified between Washington and

British Columbia populations. An east-west gradient separating Olympic

Peninsula populations from those to the east was considered to be more

important for evaluating chum salmon populations.

Chum salmon populations within this ESU exhibit considerable

diversity in life-history features. For example, although the majority

of populations in this ESU are considered to be fall-run stocks

(spawning from October to January), four summer-run (spawning from

September to November) and two winter-run (spawning from January to

March) stocks are recognized by state and tribal biologists in southern

Puget Sound. Summer chum salmon in southern Puget Sound are genetically

much more similar to Puget Sound fall chum salmon than to any other

summer-run populations in Hood Canal and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

These data suggest relatively weak isolation between summer- and fall-

run chum salmon in southern Puget Sound and/or a relatively recent

divergence of the two forms. Reproductive isolation of the Nisqually

River and Chambers Creek winter-run populations, which are the only

populations in the ESU whose spawning continues past January, may be

somewhat stronger.

The Nisqually and Puyallup Rivers are also unique in southern Puget

Sound because their headwaters are fed by glaciers on Mount Rainier,

giving the rivers different characteristics than other regional river

systems. The Nisqually population is also one of the more genetically

distinctive chum salmon populations in Puget Sound. However, the

genetic differences are not large in an absolute sense, and the

majority of the BRT felt that the distinctiveness of the winter-run

populations was not sufficient to designate these populations a

separate ESU. Rather, the team concluded that these populations, along

with the summer-run populations in southern Puget Sound, reflect

patterns of diversity within a relatively large and complex ESU.

(2) Hood Canal Summer-Run ESU

This ESU includes summer-run chum salmon populations in Hood Canal

in Puget Sound and in Discovery and Sequim Bays on the Strait of Juan

de Fuca. It may also include summer-run fish in the Dungeness River,

but the existence of that run is uncertain. Distinctive life-history

and genetic traits were the most important factors in identifying this

ESU.

Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon are defined in the Salmon and

Steelhead Stock Inventory or ``SASSI'' (WDF et al., 1993) as fish that

spawn from mid-September to mid-October. Fall-run chum salmon are

defined as fish that spawn from November through December or January.

Run timing data from as early as 1913 indicated temporal separation

between summer and fall chum salmon in Hood Canal, and recent spawning

surveys show that this temporal separation still exists. Genetic data

indicate strong and long-standing reproductive isolation between chum

salmon in this ESU and other chum salmon populations in the United

States and British Columbia. Hood Canal is also geographically

separated from other areas of Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and

the Pacific Coast.

In general, summer-run chum salmon are most abundant in the

northern part of the species' range, where they spawn in the mainstems

of rivers. Farther south, water temperatures and stream flows during

late summer and early fall

[[Page 11777]]

become unfavorable for salmonids. These conditions do not improve until

the arrival of fall rains in late October/November. Presumably for

these reasons, few summer chum populations are recognized south of

northern British Columbia. Ecologically, summer-run chum salmon

populations from Washington must return to fresh water and spawn during

periods of peak high water temperature, suggesting an adaptation to

specialized environmental conditions that allow this life-history

strategy to persist in an otherwise inhospitable environment. The BRT

concluded, therefore, that these populations contribute substantially

to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a whole.

Some chum salmon populations in the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia

ESU, which has four recognized summer-run populations and two

recognized winter-run populations, also exhibit unusual run timing.

However, allozyme data indicate that these populations are genetically

closely linked to nearby fall-run populations. Therefore, variation in

run timing has presumably evolved more than once in the southern part

of the species' range. Genetic data indicate that summer-run

populations from Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca are part of

a much more ancient lineage than summer-run chum salmon in southern

Puget Sound.

(3) Pacific Coast ESU

This ESU includes all natural chum salmon populations from the

Pacific coasts of Washington and Oregon, as well as populations in the

Strait of Juan de Fuca west of the Elwha River. This ESU is defined

primarily on the basis of life-history and genetic information.

Allozyme data show that coastal populations form a coherent group that

show consistent differences between other fall-run populations in

Washington and British Columbia. Geographically, populations in this

ESU are also isolated from most populations in the Puget Sound/Strait

of Georgia and Columbia River ESUs.

Ecologically, the western Olympic Peninsula and coastal areas

inhabited by chum salmon from this ESU experience a more severe drought

in late summer and are far wetter during the winter than areas in the

Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia region. All chum salmon populations in

this ESU are considered to include fall-run fish. Some Oregon

populations are the only known locations to which 2-year-old adult fall

chum salmon consistently return with any appreciable frequency.

Chum salmon from this ESU cover a large and diverse geographic area

(from the Strait of Juan de Fuca to at least southern Oregon), and the

historical ESU may have extended to the recorded extreme limit of the

species' distribution near Monterey, California. Many BRT members

thought that multiple ESUs of chum salmon may exist in this area, but a

more detailed evaluation was hampered by a scarcity of biological

information of all types. It is possible that many reports of chum

salmon in California and southern Oregon do not represent permanent

spawning populations, but rather episodic colonization from northern

populations. Even if this is the case, however, it is not clear where

the southern limit for permanent natural populations occurs.

There was considerable discussion by the BRT regarding the boundary

between this ESU and the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU,

particularly with respect to fall chum salmon in the Dungeness and

Elwha Rivers. Genetic data for these two populations are ambiguous

(Elwha--because of hatchery stocking) or nonexistent (Dungeness), and

run timing is also largely uninformative regarding the affinities of

these two populations. Although coastal populations generally return

and spawn slightly earlier than those in Puget Sound, there is little

difference in run timing between Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca

populations. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)

(Phelps et al., 1995) considers the Dungeness and Elwha River

populations to be affiliated with Strait of Juan de Fuca populations to

the west, primarily because of their geographic separation from inner

Puget Sound fall-run populations. However, the transition to the

wetter, coastal climate occurs west of the Elwha and Dungeness Rivers

on the Olympic Peninsula. After careful consideration of these factors,

the BRT concluded that, based on available information, fall chum

salmon from the Dungeness and Elwha Rivers should be considered part of

the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU.

(4) Columbia River ESU

The BRT concluded that, historically, at least one ESU of chum

salmon occurred in the Columbia River. Ecologically, Columbia River

tributaries differ in several respects from most coastal drainages.

Genetic data are available only for two small Columbia River

populations, which differ substantially from each other as well as from

all other samples examined to date.

Historically, chum salmon were abundant in the lower reaches of the

Columbia River and may have spawned as far upstream as the Walla Walla

River (over 500 km inland). Today only remnant chum salmon populations

exist, all in the lower Columbia River. They are few in number, low in

abundance, and of uncertain stocking history.

The question of the extent of the Columbia River ESU along the

Washington and Oregon coasts prompted considerable debate within the

BRT. The BRT concluded that, based upon the genetic and ecological data

available, chum salmon in the Columbia River were different enough from

other populations in nearby coastal river systems (e.g., Willapa Bay,

Grays Harbor, Nehalem River, and Tillamook River) that the Columbia

River ESU should extend only to the mouth of the river.

Status of Chum Salmon ESUs

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

which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant

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

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

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its

range.'' NMFS considers a variety of information in evaluating the

level of risk faced by an ESU. Important considerations include the

following: (1) Absolute numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal

distributions; (2) current abundance in relation to historical

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

abundance, based on indices such as dam or redd counts or on estimates

of spawner-recruit ratios; (4) natural and human-influenced factors

that cause variability in survival and abundance; (5) possible threats

to genetic integrity (e.g., selective fisheries and interactions

between hatchery and natural fish); and (6) recent events (e.g., a

drought or a change in management) that have predictable short-term

consequences for abundance of the ESU. Additional risk factors, such as

disease prevalence or changes in life-history traits, may also be

considered in evaluating risk to populations. Aspects of several of

these risk considerations are common to all four chum salmon ESUs and

described in greater detail in NMFS' status review. After evaluating

patterns of abundance and other risk factors for chum salmon from these

four ESUs, the BRT reached the following conclusions:

(1) Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU

The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU of chum salmon encompasses

[[Page 11778]]

much diversity in life history and includes summer, fall, and winter

runs of chum salmon. WDF et al. (1993) identified 38 stocks with

sufficient data to calculate trends in escapement within the area

encompassed by this ESU: 10 had negative trends and 23 had positive

trends. All of the statistically significant trends (P 2) size of subaerial wetland of 64 percent (Standard

Deviation 35 percent) with losses in the Puyallup of 100 percent, the

Duwamish of 99 percent, and the Samish of 96 percent. Only in the

Nooksack had wetland area increased, and that was only by 0.2 percent.

Simenstad et al. (1982) used similar methods to calculate losses of

wetlands in Grays Harbor and found a decrease of 30.3 percent. They

also reported that, as part of maintenance dredging operations, the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers removed 2.3 million m3 of

sediments annually from estuaries in Washington State, nearly half of

this in Grays Harbor. Hutchinson (1988) estimated change in the area of

intertidal marshes around the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound at the

time of European settlement to the present. He found overall losses to

18 percent around the Strait of Georgia and 58 percent around Puget

Sound. Dahl et al. (1990) reported that over 33 percent of total

(freshwater and estuarine) wetland area in Washington and Oregon have

been lost and that much of the remaining habitat is degraded.

Levings and Thom (1994) also estimated changes in extent of habitat

coverage in Puget Sound for the following habitat types: Marshes/

riparian, sandflats, mudflats, rock-gravel habitats, unvegetated

subtidal, kelp beds, intertidal algae, and eelgrass. They were able to

quantify change only in the marshes/riparian and kelp bed habitats. For

all other areas, they could estimate change only as a loss or as an

increase. However, for the marshes and riparian areas in the 11 major

river deltas in Puget Sound, they estimated a loss of at least 76

percent (from 732 km2 prior to the mid-1800s to 176.1

km2 in the early 1990s), based upon the reports of Nesbit

(1885), Boule et al. (1983), and others.

[[Page 11784]]

Levings and Thom (1994) were also able to quantify a change in

extent of kelp beds. They found that the locations of kelp beds have

been relatively well documented as navigational aids, for marking the

location of shallow rocky bottom areas, and as sources of kelp for

potash. Based upon several comprehensive surveys (one dating back to

the Wilkes expedition in 1841 (Thom and Hallum, 1990)), they estimated

that the length of shore with kelp beds in Puget Sound has increased

from 1912 to the present by as much as 53 percent (from 205.5

km2 to 313.8 km2). The significance of kelp beds

to chum salmon is undocumented, but presumably they would supply a

refuge from waves, currents, and perhaps predators.

Most regulatory reviews and environmental analysis of estuarine

modification have been focused on major estuaries and at river mouths

near high-intensity industrial and urban development, but this

development affects only 2 percent of the approximately 3,620 km of

Puget Sound shoreline (Canning, 1997). Perhaps a better estimate of

overall historical changes in intertidal and nearshore habitats is the

inventories of shoreline armoring (e.g., construction of rock,

concrete, and timber bulkheads or retaining walls) as these habitat

modifications occur primarily with residential development in

relatively rural areas (Shipman, 1997). Armoring has a cumulative

environmental impact that eventually results in loss of riparian

vegetation, burial of the upper beach areas, altered wave interaction

with the shoreline, and obstruction of sediment movement (Shipman,

1997). Morrison et al. (1993) inventoried armoring in Thurston County,

Washington, and compared this to 1977 studies. They found a more than

100 percent increase in the length of armoring from 1977 to 1993.

Kathey (1993) inventoried armoring along Bainbridge Island in Puget

Sound and found that between 42 and 67 percent of the entire shoreline

was armored.

Although not all of the chum salmon stocks identified by WDF et al.

(1993) had habitat factors listed for them; numerous habitat-or land-

use practices were identified as having a detrimental impact on chum

salmon. The northern portion of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU

was reported to incur its greatest impact from agricultural (diking)

and logging practices (sedimentation). Habitat impacts in the southern

portion of this ESU (excluding Hood Canal) were listed as loss of

freshwater and estuarine wetlands due to diking and armoring (e.g.,

construction of bulkheads, piers, and docks), urbanization, degradation

of water quality, and loss of spawning habitats. Habitat factors in

Hood Canal were primarily identified for the Hood Canal summer-run chum

salmon ESU and included gravel aggradation (due to logging in some

areas), channel shifting, and diking. No chum salmon habitat factors

were identified in the Washington portion of the Coastal ESU, but the

greatest impacts to other species were reported to be from forest and

agricultural practices. In the Lower Columbia River ESU, habitat

``limiters'' associated with chum salmon included gravel quality and

stability, availability to good quality nearshore mainstem freshwater

and marine habitat, road building, timber harvest, diking, and

industrialization (WDF et al., 1993).

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Education

Purposes

Chum salmon have been targeted for commercial and recreational

fisheries throughout their range. In Washington, commercial harvest has

been increasing since the early 1970s with the majority of this harvest

taken from the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU. While Washington chum

salmon fisheries occur in several Puget Sound rivers, most chum salmon

are harvested in salt water, as fish return to different spawning

areas. The relative run size in terminal areas and genetic mixed-stock

analysis (MSA) indicate that various stocks are included in these

mixed-stock fisheries (Graves, 1989).

As described previously, the NMFS BRT considered incidental harvest

in salmon fisheries in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and coho salmon

fisheries in Hood Canal to be a significant threat for the Hood Canal

summer-run ESU. Historically, summer chum salmon have not been a

primary fishery target in Hood Canal, as harvests have focused on

chinook, coho, and fall chum salmon. Summer chum salmon have a run

timing that overlaps with those of chinook and coho salmon, and they

have been incidentally harvested in fisheries directed at those species

(Tynan, 1992). Prior to the Boldt decision in 1974, Hood Canal was

designated a commercial salmon fishing preserve, with the only net

fisheries in Hood Canal occurring on the Skokomish Reservation (WDF et

al., 1973). In 1974, commercial fisheries were opened in Hood Canal,

and incidental harvest rates on summer chum salmon began to increase

rapidly. By the late 1970s, incidental harvest rates had increased to

50 to 80 percent in most of Hood Canal and exceeded 90 percent in Area

12A during the 1980s. In 1991, coho salmon fishing in the main part of

Hood Canal was closed to protect depressed natural coho salmon runs.

Commercial fisheries, targeting hatchery-produced coho salmon,

continued in Quilcene Bay. Beginning in 1992, fishing practices in this

fishery, including changes in gear, seasons, and fishing locations,

were modified to protect summer chum salmon (WDFW, 1996). Since then,

the tribal and nontribal harvests of coho salmon during the summer chum

migration have been by beach seine with the requirement that summer

chum salmon be released or surrendered to the USFWS for broodstock in

the interagency enhancement program at Quilcene National Fish Hatchery.

Exploitation rates on summer-run chum salmon in Hood Canal have

been greatly reduced since 1991 as a result of closures of the coho

salmon fishery and of efforts to reduce the harvest of summer chum

salmon (WDFW, 1996). Between 1991 and 1996, harvests removed an average

of 2.5 percent of the summer-run chum salmon returning to Hood Canal,

compared with an average of 71 percent in the period from 1980 to 1989.

These harvest rates and the reconstructed run sizes on which they are

based are imprecise and are probably overestimated in recent years,

when summer-run chum salmon abundance has been depressed.

Summer-run chum salmon are still harvested incidentally in British

Columbia in pink and sockeye salmon fisheries in the Strait of Juan de

Fuca (Area 20) and Johnstone and Georgia Straits (LeClair 1995, 1996;

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) data 1995; Tynan,

1996a). Summer-run chum salmon are also taken in troll fisheries off

the west coast of Vancouver Island (PSMFC data 1995). Net and troll

fisheries in these areas target Fraser River sockeye and coho salmon

but incidentally harvest chum salmon. Bycatch of chum salmon in

Canadian Area 20 in the period from 1968 to 1995 has been estimated at

2,803 fish (Tynan, 1996b). These harvests have traditionally been

allocated between U.S. and British Columbia populations using the

proportions determined from genetic MSA estimates in samples of fall

chum salmon caught in later fisheries that were directed at chum salmon

(Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), Joint Chum Technical Committee,

1995).

Recently, fishery managers have begun to suspect that Hood Canal

and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon may be the majority

of chum salmon migrating through Area 20

[[Page 11785]]

in August and early September when Area 20 fisheries for sockeye and

pink salmon occur (WDFW, 1996). Genetic MSA was used to estimate the

proportion of Hood Canal summer chum salmon in the Area 20 catch

(LeClair 1995, 1996). Estimates indicated that Hood Canal and Strait of

Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon accounted for 31 percent of the

Area 20 catch in 1995 and 68 percent of the catch in 1996 (WDFW, 1996).

This corresponded to estimated harvest rates on Hood Canal fish of

approximately 3 percent in 1995 and approximately 1.5 percent in 1996

and, on Strait of Juan de Fuca fish of approximately 17 percent in 1995

and approximately 2 percent in 1996.

The Columbia River historically contained large runs of chum salmon

that supported a substantial commercial fishery in the first half of

this century. These landings represented a harvest of more than 500,000

chum salmon in some years. There are presently neither recreational nor

directed commercial fisheries for chum salmon in the Columbia River,

although some chum salmon are taken incidentally in the gill-net

fisheries for coho and chinook salmon and there has been minor

recreational harvest in some tributaries (WDF et al., 1993).

Disease or Predation

There is no clear evidence that diseases pose a risk factor for

chum salmon in Washington and Oregon. However, predation has been

identified as a risk factor for this species. Predation by juvenile

coho salmon was the primary cause of mortality to chum salmon in all

the freshwater studies reviewed by the NMFS BRT. In Big Beef Creek on

Hood Canal, size selection of chum salmon juveniles by coho salmon was

identified by Beall (1972), but, in a later study (Fresh and Schroder,

1987), size selection by coho salmon and rainbow trout was not

observed.

Mortality of chum salmon juveniles, especially those from natural

populations, is difficult to estimate in estuaries. In studies on

fluorescently marked juvenile chum salmon released from the Enetai

Hatchery in Hood Canal, Bax (1983a, b) estimated average daily

mortalities between 31 and 46 percent over a 2- and 4-day period. In a

study on releases of equal numbers of fish of two different sizes,

Whitmus (1985) estimated that small fish suffered higher mortalities

than did large fish. About 58 percent of the small fish died over 2

days, and of the fish remaining after 10 days only 26 percent were

small fish. This mortality appeared to be due to predation by cutthroat

trout and marine birds, but predator selectivity on fish size may have

been due to the distribution of the differently sized fish rather than

to selective behavior (i.e., large fish avoided predation in the study

area by emigrating out of the area sooner than small fish). Ames (1980)

hypothesized that competition for food and predation between pink and

chum salmon juveniles in estuary and nearshore marine habitats may

cause distinct odd- and even-year cycles in natural chum salmon

populations in Puget Sound. Estuarine predation on natural and hatchery

pink and chum salmon by larger, piscivorous salmon, such as coho and

chinook salmon smolts, may have caused declines in some Puget Sound

pink and chum salmon populations (Johnson, 1973; Simenstad et al.,

1982).

Adult chum salmon (more so than most other salmonids in Washington

State) concentrate in large numbers in estuaries and off the mouths of

small streams to such an extent that their dorsal fins break the

water's surface. The cause of milling is unclear, but the behavior does

make adults particularly vulnerable to fisheries and natural predation.

For example, Evenson and Calambokidis (1993) found that the number of

harbor seals at Dosewallips State Park in Hood Canal, Washington, was

highest when adult chum salmon were present.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Under the ESA, a determination to propose a species for listing as

threatened or endangered requires considering the biological status of

the species, as well as efforts being made to protect the species (see

Existing Protective Efforts). Typically, regulatory mechanisms

established by Federal, state, tribal, and local governments provide

the most effective means to prevent a species from facing the peril of

extinction. Unfortunately, the continued widespread decline of

naturally spawning chum salmon and other salmonids in numerous West

Coast streams suggests that existing regulations may not provide

adequate protection for this species. Because many existing protective

efforts are new or have uncertain regulatory mechanisms, it is not

possible to determine if they will be adequate to reverse the declining

trend in chum salmon abundance. During the period between this proposed

rule and a final rule, NMFS will continue to evaluate the efficacy of

existing efforts to protect and restore chum salmon populations (see

Public Comments Solicited).

Other Natural or Human-Made Factors

Climatic and Ocean Factors

Climatic conditions are known to have changed recently in the

Pacific Northwest. Most Pacific salmonids south of British Columbia

have been affected by changes in ocean production that occurred during

the 1970s (Pearcy, 1992; Lawson, 1993). Changes in productivity in the

nearshore marine environment have been implicated in declines in

chinook and coho salmon abundance and productivity. Chum salmon tend to

migrate farther offshore than chinook and coho salmon and are thought

to have been less affected by changes in the nearshore environment.

However, the chum salmon populations considered in the NMFS status

review are from the southern end of the range of the species, and their

migration patterns are poorly understood. Much of the Pacific coast has

also been experiencing drought conditions in recent years, which may

depress freshwater production, even of species such as chum salmon that

spend only a brief time in fresh water. At this time, we do not know

whether these climatic conditions represent a long-term shift in

conditions that will continue to affect salmonids into the future or

short-term environmental fluctuations that can be expected to be

reversed in the near future.

Artificial Propagation

For almost 100 years, hatcheries in the U.S. Pacific Northwest have

produced chum salmon for the purpose of increasing harvest and

rebuilding depleted runs. Potential problems associated with hatchery

programs include genetic impacts on indigenous, naturally reproducing

populations, disease transmission, predation of wild fish, difficulty

in determining wild stock status due to incomplete marking of hatchery

fish, depletion of wild stock to increase brood stock, and replacement

rather than supplementation of wild stocks through competition and

continued annual introduction of hatchery fish (Waples, 1991; Hindar et

al., 1991; Stewart and Bjornn, 1990). All things being equal, the more

hatchery fish that are released, the more likely natural populations

are to be impacted by hatchery fish. Similarly, the more genetically

similar hatchery fish are to natural populations they spawn with, the

less change there will be in the genetic makeup of future generations

in the natural population. The substantial influence of artificial

propagation on genetic/ecological integrity of natural salmon and

steelhead populations is discussed in

[[Page 11786]]

considerable detail in the NMFS status review.

Although past hatchery practices may have substantially influenced

some isolated chum salmon populations, the relatively small magnitude

of most current hatchery programs and the predominant use of local

broodstock argue that hatchery practices are unlikely to threaten the

genetic integrity of most chum salmon populations considered in the

NMFS status review. Large programs take place in Hood Canal and

southern Puget Sound, and genetic concerns in these areas are

proportionally greater. Small population effects (such as genetic

drift, mutation, and introgression) are likely to influence summer-run

chum in Hood Canal and populations spawning from the Columbia River

south.

Proposed Determination

The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a

threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the

listing determination be based solely on the best scientific and

commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status of

the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being

made to protect such species.

Based on results from its coastwide status review, NMFS has

identified four ESUs of chum salmon on the west coast of the United

States which constitute ``species'' under the ESA. NMFS has determined

that listing is not warranted for two chum salmon ESUs (Puget Sound/

Strait of Georgia and Pacific Coast ESUs) and that two ESUs are

currently threatened (Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River ESUs)

and proposes to list them as such at this time. The geographic

boundaries for the ESUs proposed for listing are described under ``ESU

Determinations'' and critical habitat is described below under

``Critical Habitat of Chum Salmon ESUs Proposed for Listing.'' The best

available scientific information, coupled with an assessment of

existing protective efforts, supports a proposed listing of these two

chum salmon ESUs under the ESA.

While the majority of the BRT considered the Hood Canal summer-run

ESU to meet the definition for an endangered species under the ESA,

NMFS is proposing it as threatened due to continued improvements in

spawning escapement (including very recent data not available for

review by the BRT) and to the ongoing and expanding protective efforts

being made throughout the range of the ESU. Due to uncertainties

regarding the severity of risks facing Columbia River chum salmon

populations, NMFS believes that it is appropriate to propose a

threatened designation for this ESU. If new information indicates a

substantial change in the biological status of either ESU or if

protective efforts are judged to be inadequate, NMFS will alter this

listing proposal.

In both ESUs, only naturally spawned chum salmon are being proposed

for listing. Prior to the final listing determination, NMFS will

examine the relationship between hatchery and natural populations of

chum salmon in these ESUs and assess whether any hatchery populations

are essential for their recovery. This may result in the inclusion of

specific hatchery populations as part of a listed ESU in NMFS' final

determination.

Prohibitions and Protective Regulations

Section 4(d) of the ESA requires NMFS to issue protective

regulations that it finds necessary and advisable to provide for the

conservation of a threatened species. Section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits

violations of protective regulations for threatened species promulgated

under section 4(d). The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with

respect to the threatened species, some or all of the acts which

section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species.

These 9(a) prohibitions and 4(d) regulations apply to all individuals,

organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. NMFS intends

to have final 4(d) protective regulations in effect at the time of a

final listing determination on the chum salmon ESUs proposed as

threatened in the present notice. The process for completing the 4(d)

rule will provide the opportunity for public comment on the proposed

protective regulations.

In the case of threatened species, NMFS also has flexibility under

section 4(d) to tailor the protective regulations based on the contents

of available conservation measures. Even though existing conservation

efforts and plans are not sufficient to preclude the need for listings

at this time, they are nevertheless valuable for improving watershed

health and restoring fishery resources. In those cases where well-

developed and reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS may choose to

incorporate them into the recovery planning process, starting with the

protective regulations. NMFS has already adopted 4(d) protective

regulations that exempt a limited range of activities from section 9

take prohibitions. For example, the interim 4(d) rule for Southern

Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997)

exempts habitat restoration activities conducted in accordance with

approved plans and fisheries conducted in accordance with an approved

state management plan. In the future, 4(d) rules may contain limited

take prohibitions applicable to activities such as forestry,

agriculture, and road construction when such activities are conducted

in accordance with approved conservation plans.

These are all examples where NMFS may apply modified section 9

prohibitions in light of the protections provided in a strong

conservation plan. There may be other circumstances as well in which

NMFS would use the flexibility of section 4(d). For example, in some

cases there may be a healthy population of salmon or steelhead within

an overall ESU that is listed. In such a case, it may not be necessary

to apply the full range of prohibitions available in section 9. NMFS

intends to use the flexibility of the ESA to respond appropriately to

the biological condition of each ESU and to the strength of efforts to

protect them.

Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies confer

with NMFS on any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence

of a species proposed for listing and on actions likely to result in

the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

For listed species, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal

agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or

to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal

action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with NMFS (see

Activities That May Affect Chum Salmon or Critical Habitat).

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with

authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions (see

regulations at 50 CFR 222.22 through 222.24). Section 10(a)(1)(A)

scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued to entities

(Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that involves a directed

take of listed species.

NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research or enhancement permits

for other listed species (e.g., Snake River chinook salmon and

Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon) for a number of activities,

including trapping and tagging, electroshocking to

[[Page 11787]]

determine population presence and abundance, removal of fish from

irrigation ditches, and collection of adult fish for artificial

propagation programs. NMFS is aware of several sampling efforts for

chum salmon in the proposed ESUs, including efforts by Federal and

state fishery management agencies. These and other research efforts

could provide critical information regarding chum salmon distribution

and population abundance.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-

Federal entities performing activities that may incidentally take

listed species. The types of activities potentially requiring a section

10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the operation and release of

artificially propagated fish by state or privately operated and funded

hatcheries, state or university research on species other than chum

salmon, not receiving Federal authorization or funding, the

implementation of state fishing regulations, and timber harvest

activities on non-Federal lands.

Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions, Federal

agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on taking.

Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation

actions by Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, private

organizations, and individuals.

Several conservation efforts are underway that may reverse the

decline of west coast chum salmon and other salmonids (see Existing

Protective Efforts). NMFS is encouraged by these significant efforts,

which could provide all stakeholders with an approach to achieving the

purposes of the ESA--protecting and restoring native fish populations

and the ecosystems upon which they depend--that is less regulatory.

NMFS will continue to encourage and support these initiatives as

important components of recovery planning for chum salmon and other

salmonids. Based on information presented in this proposed rule,

general conservation measures that could be implemented to help

conserve the species are listed below. This list does not constitute

NMFS' interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) of the ESA.

1. Measures could be taken to promote land management practices

that protect and restore chum salmon habitat. Land management practices

affecting chum salmon habitat include timber harvest, road building,

agriculture, livestock grazing, and urban development.

2. Evaluation of existing harvest regulations could identify any

changes necessary to protect chum salmon populations.

3. Artificial propagation programs could be modified to minimize

impacts upon native populations of chum salmon.

4. Water diversions could have adequate headgate and staff gauge

structures installed to control and monitor water usage accurately.

Water rights could be enforced to prevent irrigators from exceeding the

amount of water to which they are legally entitled.

5. Irrigation diversions affecting chum salmon could be screened. A

thorough review of the impact of irrigation diversions on the species

could be conducted.

NMFS recognizes that, to be successful, protective regulations and

recovery programs for chum salmon will need to be developed in the

context of conserving aquatic ecosystem health. NMFS intends that

Federal lands and Federal activities play a primary role in preserving

listed populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. However,

throughout the range of the ESUs proposed for listing, chum salmon

habitat occurs and can be affected by activities on state, tribal or

private land. Agricultural, timber, and urban management activities on

nonfederal land could and should be conducted in a manner that avoids

adverse effects to chum salmon habitat.

NMFS encourages nonfederal landowners to assess the impacts of

their actions on potentially threatened or endangered salmonids. In

particular, NMFS encourages the formulation of watershed partnerships

to promote conservation in accordance with ecosystem principles. These

partnerships will be successful only if state, tribal, and local

governments, landowner representatives, and Federal and nonfederal

biologists all participate and share the goal of restoring salmon to

the watersheds.

Definition of Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as

(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by

the species * * * on which are found those physical or

biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species

and (II) which may require special management considerations or

protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area

occupied by the species * * * upon a determination by the Secretary

that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

The term ``conservation,'' as defined in section 3(3) of the ESA,

means ``* * * to use and the use of all methods and procedures which

are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to

the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no

longer necessary.''

In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following

requirements of the species: (1) Space for individual and population

growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals,

or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or

shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring;

and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historic geographical and ecological

distributions of this species (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to

these factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and biological

features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that

are essential to the conservation of the species and may require

special management considerations or protection. These essential

features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food

resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (see 50

CFR 424.12(b)).

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

The economic and other impacts of a critical habitat designation

have been considered and evaluated in this proposed rulemaking. NMFS

identified present and anticipated activities that may adversely modify

the area(s) being considered or be affected by a designation. An area

may be excluded from a critical habitat designation if NMFS determines

that the overall benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of

designation, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the

species (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).

The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental

impacts specifically resulting from a critical habitat designation,

above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the

species or resulting from other authorities. Since listing a species

under the ESA provides significant protection to a species' habitat, in

many cases, the economic and other impacts resulting from the critical

habitat designation, over and above the impacts of the listing itself,

are minimal (see Significance of Designating Critical Habitat). In

general, the designation of critical habitat highlights geographical

[[Page 11788]]

areas of concern and reinforces the substantive protection resulting

from the listing itself.

Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the

take prohibitions contained in section 9 of the ESA and associated

regulations. ``Take'', as defined in the ESA means to harass, harm,

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to

attempt to engage in any such conduct (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harm

can occur through destruction or modification of habitat (whether or

not designated as critical habitat) that significantly impairs

essential behaviors, including breeding, feeding, rearing or migration.

Significance of Designating Critical Habitat

The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself,

restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific

management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation

contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important

areas and by describing the features within those areas that are

essential to the species, thus alerting public and private entities to

the area's importance. Under the ESA, the only regulatory impact of a

critical habitat designation is through the provisions of section 7 of

the ESA. Section 7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement

(e.g., authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency) and does

not affect exclusively state or private activities.

Under the section 7 provisions, a designation of critical habitat

would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or adversely

modify designated critical habitat. Activities that destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat are defined as those actions that

``appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the

survival and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Regardless

of a critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must ensure that

their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of

the listed species. Activities that jeopardize a species are defined as

those actions that ``reasonably would be expected, directly or

indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival

and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Using these

definitions, activities that would destroy or adversely modify critical

habitat would also be likely to jeopardize the species. Therefore, the

protection provided by a critical habitat designation generally

duplicates the protection provided under the section 7 jeopardy

provision. Critical habitat may provide additional benefits to a

species in cases where areas outside the species' current range have

been designated. When actions may affect these areas, Federal agencies

are required to consult with NMFS under section 7 (see 50 CFR

402.14(a)), which may not have been recognized but for the critical

habitat designation.

A designation of critical habitat provides a clear indication to

Federal agencies as to when section 7 consultation is required,

particularly in cases where the action would not result in immediate

mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a listed species (e.g., an

action occurring within the critical area when a migratory species is

not present). The critical habitat designation, describing the

essential features of the habitat, also assists in determining which

activities conducted outside the designated area are subject to section

7 (i.e., activities that may affect essential features of the

designated area).

A critical habitat designation will also assist Federal agencies in

planning future actions, since the designation establishes, in advance,

those habitats that will be given special consideration in section 7

consultations. With a designation of critical habitat, potential

conflicts between Federal actions and endangered or threatened species

can be identified and possibly avoided early in the agency's planning

process.

Another indirect benefit of a critical habitat designation is that

it helps focus Federal, tribal, state, and private conservation and

management efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address

special considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including

conservation regulations to restrict private as well as Federal

activities. The economic and other impacts of these actions would be

considered at the time of those proposed regulations and, therefore,

are not considered in the critical habitat designation process. Other

Federal, tribal, state, and local management programs, such as zoning

or wetlands and riparian lands protection, may also provide special

protection for critical habitat areas.

Process for Designating Critical Habitat

Developing a proposed critical habitat designation involves three

main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species are

evaluated, and essential habitat areas and features are identified. If

alternative areas exist that would provide for the conservation of the

species, such alternatives are also identified. Second, the need for

special management considerations or protection of the area(s) or

features are evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and other

impacts of designating these essential areas as critical habitat are

evaluated. After considering the requirements of the species, the need

for special management, and the impacts of the designation, the

proposed critical habitat is published in the Federal Register for

comment. The final critical habitat designation, considering comments

on the proposal and impacts assessment, is typically published within 1

year of the proposed rule. Final critical habitat designations may be

revised, using the same process, as new information becomes available.

A description of the essential habitat, need for special

management, impacts of designating critical habitat, and the proposed

action are described in the following sections.

Critical Habitat of Chum Salmon ESUs Proposed for Listing

The following is a brief overview of distribution and habitat

utilization information for chum salmon in the Pacific Northwest; more

detailed information can be found in the previous section of this

Federal Register proposed rule on ``Chum Salmon Life History'' and

species reviews by NMFS (1996a and 1996b), Pauley et al. (1988), Salo

(1991), and Pearcy (1992). The current geographic range of chum salmon

from the Pacific Northwest includes vast areas of the North Pacific

ocean, nearshore marine zone, and extensive estuarine and riverine

areas. Historically, chum salmon were distributed throughout the

coastal regions of western Canada and the United States, as far south

as Monterey, California. Presently, major spawning populations are

found only as far south as Tillamook Bay on the northern Oregon coast.

Any attempt to describe the current distribution of chum salmon must

take into account the fact that extant populations and densities are a

small fraction of historical levels. Hence, some populations that are

considered extinct could in fact exist but are represented by only a

few individuals that could escape detection during surveys.

In the Hood Canal summer-run ESU, chum salmon are currently present

throughout much of their historical range. Spawning populations

recognized by WDF et al. (1993) include the Quilcene, Dosewallips,

Duckabush, Hamma, Dewatto, Tahuya, and Union Rivers and three streams

along the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Snow and Salmon Creeks in Discovery

Bay and Jimmycomelately Creek in Sequim Bay)

[[Page 11789]]

(WDF et al., 1993). Some populations on the east side of Hood Canal

(Big Beef Creek, Anderson Creek, and the Dewatto River) are severely

depressed and have recently had no returning adults.

In the Columbia River ESU, chum salmon occupy a small remnant of

their historic range. Presently, on the Washington side of the lower

Columbia River, only three streams are recognized as containing native

chum salmon: Hamilton and Hardy Creeks near Bonneville Dam at river km

235 and Grays River (river km 34) (WDF et al., 1993). Oregon currently

recognizes 23 ``provisional'' populations in the Columbia River Basin,

ranging from the Lewis and Clark River (river km 13) to Milton Creek

(river km 144) near St. Helens, Oregon (Kostow, 1995). ODFW considers

these populations as provisional because ``very few chum are observed

in spawning ground surveys, hatchery rack counts, or as incidental

catch in adjacent fisheries'' and further adds that the few fish

observed are probably strays from Washington populations (ODFW, 1997).

Although it is uncertain whether they would be considered part of the

extant ESU, there are reports that some extinct runs of chum salmon may

historically have spawned in the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers, more

than 500 km from the sea (Nehlsen et al., 1991).

Chum salmon typically spawn in the lower reaches of rivers, with

redds usually dug in the mainstem or in side channels of rivers from

just above tidal influence to nearly 100 km from the sea. Populations

in both ESUs proposed for listing appear to spawn within approximately

16 km of the river mouths (WDF et al., 1993). After hatching, juvenile

chum salmon spend a very limited amount of time in fresh water and

typically migrate to estuarine and marine areas soon after emergence.

Essential features of chum salmon critical habitat include

adequate: (1) Substrate; (2) water quality; (3) water quantity; (4)

water temperature; (5) water velocity; (6) cover/shelter; (7) food; (8)

riparian vegetation; (9) space; and (10) safe passage conditions. Given

the vast geographic range occupied by each of these chum salmon ESUs,

and the diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is

not practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of

these essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these

environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed

to the decline of this and other salmonids can be found in reviews by

Pauley et al. (1988), Bjornn and Reiser (1991), Nehlsen et al. (1991),

WDF et al. (1993), Botkin et al. (1995), NMFS (1996) and Spence et al.

(1996).

NMFS believes that the current freshwater and estuarine range of

the species encompasses all essential habitat features and is adequate

to ensure the species' conservation. Therefore, designation of habitat

areas outside the species' current range is not necessary. For the Hood

Canal ESU, these areas include all river reaches accessible to listed

chum salmon (including estuarine areas and tributaries) draining into

Hood Canal as well as Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and

Sequim Bay, Washington. Also included is the Hood Canal waterway, from

its southern terminus at the Union River north to its confluence with

Admiralty Inlet near Port Ludlow, Washington. Critical habitat for the

Columbia River ESU encompasses accessible reaches of the Columbia River

(including estuarine areas and tributaries) downstream from Bonneville

Dam, excluding Oregon tributaries upstream of Milton Creek at river km

144 near the town of St. Helens.

It is important to note that habitat quality in this current range

is intrinsically related to the quality of upland areas and upstream

areas (including headwater or intermittent streams) which provide key

habitat elements (e.g., LWD, gravel, water quality) crucial for chum

salmon in downstream reaches. NMFS recognizes that estuarine habitats

are critical for chum salmon and has included them in this designation.

This definition of estuarine habitat includes the mixing and seawater

portions of Hood Canal defined in NOAA's National Estuarine Inventory

(NOAA, 1985). Marine habitats (i.e., oceanic or nearshore areas seaward

of the mouth of coastal rivers or Hood Canal) are also vital to the

species and ocean conditions may have a major influence on chum salmon

survival. However, there does not appear to be a need for special

management consideration or protection of this habitat. Therefore, NMFS

is not proposing to designate critical habitat in marine areas at this

time. If additional information becomes available that supports the

inclusion of such areas, NMFS may revise this designation.

Based on consideration of the best available information regarding

the species' current distribution, NMFS believes that the preferred

approach to identifying critical habitat for chum salmon is to

designate all areas (and their adjacent riparian zones) accessible to

the species within the range of each ESU. NMFS believes that adopting a

more inclusive, watershed-based description of critical habitat is

appropriate because it: (1) Recognizes the species' use of diverse

habitats and underscores the need to account for all of the habitat

types supporting the species' freshwater and estuarine life stages; (2)

takes into account the natural variability in habitat use; and (3)

reinforces the important linkage between aquatic areas and adjacent

riparian/upslope areas.

An array of management issues encompasses these habitats and

special management considerations will be needed, especially on lands

and streams under Federal ownership (see sections below describing

Activities that May Affect Critical Habitat and Need for Special

Management Considerations or Protection). While marine areas are also a

critical link in this cycle, NMFS does not believe that special

management considerations are needed to conserve the habitat features

in these areas. Hence, only the freshwater and estuarine areas are

being proposed for critical habitat at this time.

Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection

In order to assure that the essential areas and features are

maintained or restored, special management may be needed. Activities

that may require special management considerations for freshwater and

estuarine life stages of listed chum salmon include, but are not

limited to: (1) Land management; (2) timber harvest; (3) point and non-

point water pollution; (4) livestock grazing; (5) habitat restoration;

(6) irrigation water withdrawals and returns; (7) mining; (8) road

construction; (9) dam operation and maintenance; and (10) dredge and

fill activities. Not all of these activities are necessarily of current

concern within every watershed; however, they indicate the potential

types of activities that will require consultation in the future. No

special habitat management considerations have been identified for

listed chum salmon while they are residing in the ocean environment.

Activities That May Affect Chum Salmon or Critical Habitat

A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat

requirements of listed chum salmon. These activities include water and

land management actions of Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest

Service (USFS), U.S. National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (COE), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Federal

Highways Administration (FHA), and related or similar activities of

other Federally-regulated projects and lands including; (1)Timber sales

and

[[Page 11790]]

harvest conducted by USFS; (2) road building activities authorized by

FHA, USFS, and NPS; (3) hydropower sites licensed by FERC; (4) dams

built or operated by COE; (5) dredge and fill, mining, and bank

stabilization activities authorized or conducted by COE; and (6) mining

and road building activities authorized by the states of Washington and

Oregon.

This proposed designation will provide clear notification to these

agencies, private entities, and the public of critical habitat

designated for listed chum salmon and the boundaries of the habitat and

protection provided for that habitat by the section 7 consultation

process. This proposed designation will also assist these agencies and

others in evaluating the potential effects of their activities on

listed chum salmon and their critical habitat and in determining when

consultation with NMFS is appropriate. Consultation may result in

specific conditions designed to achieve the intended purpose of the

project and avoid or reduce impacts to chum salmon and its habitat

within the range of the listed ESUs.

Expected Economic Impacts of Critical Habitat Designation

The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat

designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation

above the economic impacts attributable to listing or attributable to

authorities other than the ESA (see Consideration of Economic and Other

Factors). Incremental impacts result from special management activities

in areas outside the present distribution of the listed species that

have been determined to be essential to the conservation of the

species. However, NMFS has determined that the species' present

freshwater and estuarine range contains sufficient habitat for

conservation of the species. Therefore, the economic impacts associated

with this critical habitat designation are expected to be minimal.

USFS and NPS manage areas of proposed critical habitat for the

listed chum salmon ESUs. COE, FERC, FHA, and other Federal agencies

that may be involved with funding or permits for projects in critical

habitat areas may also be affected by a designation. Because NMFS

believes that virtually all ``adverse modification'' determinations

pertaining to critical habitat would also result in ``jeopardy''

conclusions, designation of critical habitat is not expected to result

in significant incremental restrictions on Federal agency activities.

Critical habitat designation will, therefore, result in few if any

additional economic effects beyond those that may have been caused by

listing and by other statutes.

NMFS Policies on Endangered and Threatened Fish and Wildlife

On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with USFWS, published a series of

new policies regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy for

peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270) and a policy to identify,

to the maximum extent possible, those activities that would or would

not constitute a violation of Sec. 9 of the ESA (59 FR 34272).

Role of peer review: The intent of the peer review policy is to

ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial

data available. Prior to a final listing, NMFS will solicit the expert

opinions of three qualified specialists. Independent peer reviewers

will be selected from the academic and scientific community, tribal and

other native American groups, Federal and state agencies, and the

private sector.

Identification of those activities that would constitute a

violation of Sec. 9 of the ESA: The intent of this policy is to

increase public awareness of the effect of this listing on proposed and

ongoing activities within the species' range. NMFS will identify, to

the extent known at the time of the final rule, specific activities

that will not be considered likely to result in violation of Sec. 9, as

well as activities that will be considered likely to result in

violation. For those activities whose likelihood of violation is

uncertain, a contact will be identified in the final listing document

to assist the public in determining whether a particular activity would

constitute a prohibited act under Sec. 9.

Public Comments Solicited

To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and effective as possible, NMFS is soliciting comments

and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.

Public hearings will be held in several locations in Oregon and

Washington in proximity to the range of the proposed ESUs (see Public

Hearings). In particular, NMFS is requesting information regarding: (1)

Biological or other relevant data concerning any threat to chum salmon;

(2) current or planned activities in the subject areas and their

possible impact on this species; (3) efforts being made to protect

naturally spawned populations of chum salmon in Washington and Oregon;

(4) relationship of hatchery chum salmon and naturally-reproducing chum

salmon; and (5) suggestions for specific regulations under Sec. 4(d) of

the ESA that should apply to threatened chum salmon. Suggested

regulations should address activities, plans, or guidelines that,

despite their potential to result in the incidental take of listed

fish, will ultimately promote the conservation of threatened chum

salmon.

NMFS is also requesting quantitative evaluations describing the

quality and extent of freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats for

juvenile and adult chum salmon as well as information on areas that may

qualify as critical habitat within the range of ESUs proposed for

listing. Areas that include the physical and biological features

essential to the recovery of the species should be identified. NMFS

recognizes that there are areas within the proposed boundaries of these

ESUs that historically constituted chum salmon habitat, but may not be

currently occupied. NMFS is requesting information about chum salmon in

these currently unoccupied areas and whether these habitats should be

considered essential to the recovery of the species or excluded from

designation. Essential features should include, but are not limited to:

(1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal

behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional

or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for

reproduction and rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that are

protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic

geographical and ecological distributions of the species.

For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is

requesting information describing: (1) The activities that affect the

area or could be affected by the designation; and (2) the economic

costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures

likely to result from the designation.

The economic cost to be considered in the critical habitat

designation under the ESA is the probable economic impact ``of the

[critical habitat] designation upon proposed or ongoing activities''

(50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider the incremental costs specifically

resulting from a critical habitat designation that are above the

economic effects attributable to listing the species. Economic effects

attributable to listing include actions resulting from section 7

consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy to the species and from

the taking prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA. Comments concerning

economic impacts should distinguish the costs of listing from the

[[Page 11791]]

incremental costs that can be directly attributed to the designation of

specific areas as critical habitat.

NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information

regarding the status of the chum salmon ESUs described herein and, as

required under the ESA, will complete a final rule within one year of

this proposed rule. The availability of new information may cause NMFS

to re-assess the status of these ESUs or the geographic extent of

critical habitat.

Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the

Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person

so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to

list a species or to designate critical habitat (See 50 CFR

424.16(c)(3)). In a forthcoming Federal Register notice, NMFS will

announce the dates and locations of public hearings on this proposed

rule to provide the opportunity for the public to give comments and to

permit an exchange of information and opinion among interested parties.

NMFS encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters.

References

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request (see ADDRESSES).

Compliance With Existing Statutes

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the

information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.

Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the

opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir.

1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from the

environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.

In addition, NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments and

Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for

this critical habitat designation made pursuant to the ESA. See Douglas

County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.

Ct. 698 (1996).

Classification

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has

determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

NMFS proposes to designate only the current range of these chum

salmon ESUs as critical habitat. Areas excluded from this proposed

designation include marine habitats in the Pacific Ocean and any

historically-occupied areas above impassable natural barriers (e.g.,

long-standing, natural waterfalls). NMFS has concluded that currently

inhabited areas within the range of each ESU are the minimum habitat

necessary to ensure their conservation and recovery.

Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed species

as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any additional

requirements or economic effects upon small entities, beyond those

which may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires Federal

agencies to insure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund

is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat (ESA Sec. 7(a)(2)). The consultation requirements of

Sec. 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the time of species'

listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS and ensure

their actions do not jeopardize a listed species, regardless of whether

critical habitat is designated.

In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat

areas outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation

and recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action

and assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis

would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of

the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and

governments.

Accordingly, the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and

Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the

proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact

of a substantial number of small entities, as described in the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement

for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The AA has determined that the proposed designation is consistent

to the maximum extent practicable with the approved Coastal Zone

Management Program of the states of Washington and Oregon. This

determination will be submitted for review by the responsible state

agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

At this time NMFS is not promulgating protective regulations

pursuant to ESA section 4(d). In the future, prior to finalizing its

4(d) regulations for these threatened ESUs, NMFS will comply with all

relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 226

Endangered and threatened species.

50 CFR Part 227

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine

mammals, Transportation.

Dated: February 26, 1998.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 226 and 227

are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

2. Section 226.26 is added to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec. 226.26 Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta),

Columbia River chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta).

Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent

riparian zone of estuarine and riverine reaches in hydrologic units and

counties identified in Tables 7 and 8 for Hood Canal summer-run chum

salmon and Columbia River chum salmon, respectively. Accessible reaches

are those within the historical range of the ESUs that can still be

occupied by any life stage of chum salmon. Inaccessible reaches are

those above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural

waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years). Adjacent

riparian zones are defined as those areas within a slope distance of

300 ft (91.4 m) from the normal line of high water of a stream channel

or adjacent off-channel habitats (600 ft or 182.8 m, when both sides of

the channel are included). Figures 12 and 13 to part 226 identify the

general geographic extent of larger rivers and streams within

hydrologic units designated as critical habitat for Hood Canal summer-

run chum salmon and Columbia River chum salmon, respectively. Note that

Figures 12 and 13 to part 226 do not constitute the definition of

critical habitat but, instead, are provided as a general reference to

guide Federal agencies and interested parties in locating the

boundaries of critical habitat for listed

[[Page 11792]]

Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon and Columbia River chum salmon.

Hydrologic units are those defined by the Department of the Interior

(DOI), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publication, ``Hydrologic Unit

Maps, Water Supply Paper 2294, 1986, and the following DOI, USGS,

1:500,000 scale hydrologic unit maps: State of Oregon (1974) and State

of Washington (1974) which are incorporated by reference. This

incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies

of the USGS publication and maps may be obtained from the USGS, Map

Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies may be inspected at NMFS,

Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland,

OR 97232-2737, or NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.

(a) Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta)

geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all

river reaches accessible to listed chum salmon (including estuarine

areas and tributaries) draining into Hood Canal as well as Olympic

Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and Sequim Bay, Washington. Also

included is the Hood Canal waterway, from its southern terminus at the

Union River north to its confluence with Admiralty Inlet near Port

Ludlow, Washington.

(b) Columbia River chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) geographic

boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches

accessible to listed chum salmon (including estuarine areas and

tributaries) in the Columbia River downstream from Bonneville Dam,

excluding Oregon tributaries upstream of Milton Creek at river km 144

near the town of St. Helens.

3. Table 7 to part 226 is added to read as follows: Table 7 to Part

226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Hood

Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon.

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

Counties contained in

Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and

unit number within range of ESU \1\

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

Skokomish...................... 17110017 Mason (WA), Jefferson

(WA).

Hood Canal..................... 17110018 Mason (WA), Jefferson

(WA), Kitsap (WA),

Clallam (WA).

Puget Sound.................... 17110019 Jefferson (WA).

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

\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or

riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult

USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific

county and basin boundaries.

4. Table 8 to part 226 is added to read as follows: Table 8 to Part

226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for

Columbia River Chum Salmon

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

Counties contained in

Hydrologic unit name Hydrologic hydrologic unit and

unit number within range of ESU \1\

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

Lower Columbia................. 17080006 Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum

(WA), Lewis (WA),

Clatsop (OR).

Lower Cowlitz.................. 17080005 Cowlitz (WA), Lewis

(WA), Skamania (WA).

Lower Columbia--Clatskanie..... 17080003 Wahkiakum (WA), Lewis

(WA), Cowlitz (WA),

Clark (WA), Skamania

(WA), Clatsop (OR),

Columbia (OR).

Lewis.......................... 17080002 Cowlitz (WA), Clark

(WA), Skamania (WA)

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

(WA), Multnomah (OR).

Lower Willamette............... 17090012 Columbia (OR),

Multnomah (OR),

Washington (OR).

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

\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or

riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult

USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific

county and basin boundaries.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 11793]]

5. Figure 12 to part 226 is added to read as follows:

Figure 12 to Part 226--Critical Habitat for Hood Canal Summer-run

Chum Salmon

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR98.013

[[Page 11794]]

6. Figure 13 to Part 226 is added to read as follows:

Figure 13 to Part 226--Critical Habitat for Columbia River Chum

Salmon

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR98.014

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 11795]]

PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE

7. The authority citation for part 227 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 and 1531-1543.

8. In Sec. 227.4, paragraphs (m) and (n) are added to read as

follows:

Sec. 227.4 Enumeration of threatened species.

* * * * *

(m) Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Includes

all naturally spawned populations of summer-run chum salmon (and their

progeny) in Hood Canal and its tributaries as well as populations in

Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and Sequim Bay, Washington;

and

(n) Columbia River chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Includes all

naturally spawned populations of chum salmon (and their progeny) in the

Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon.

[FR Doc. 98-5472 Filed 3-9-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P