Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for Two ESUs of Chum Salmon in Washington and Oregon

SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing a

final determination that the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon

(Oncorhynchus keta) and Columbia River chum salmon Evolutionarily

Significant Units (ESUs) are threatened species under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Fish in the Hood Canal summer-

run chum salmon ESU spawn in several tributaries to Hood Canal and

Discovery, Sequim, and Dungeness Bays, Washington, while those in the

Columbia River chum salmon ESU spawn in tributaries to the lower

Columbia River in Washington and Oregon.

In both ESUs only naturally spawned chum salmon residing below

impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, natural waterfalls)

are listed. NMFS has examined the relationship between hatchery and

natural populations of chum salmon in each ESU and determined that none

of the hatchery populations are currently essential for recovery and,

therefore, the hatchery populations (and their progeny) are not listed.

NMFS will issue any protective regulations deemed necessary under

section 4(d) of the ESA for the listed ESUs in a separate rulemaking.

Even though NMFS does not now issue protective regulations for these

ESUs, Federal agencies are required under section 7 of the ESA to

consult with NMFS if any activity they authorize, fund, or carry out

may affect listed chum salmon.

DATES: Effective May 24, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 525 NE

Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.

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

Mobley (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Reference materials regarding this listing determination can also

be obtained from the internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov.

Species Background

Biological information for chum salmon can be found in recent

species status assessments by NMFS (Johnson et al., 1997; NMFS, 1999a

and 1999b), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (Kostow,

1995), and Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Washington

Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Tribes (WDF et

al., 1993), in species life history summaries (Pauley et al., 1988;

Emmett et al., 1991; and Salo, 1991), and in the Federal Register

document announcing the listing proposal (63 FR 11774, March 10, 1998).

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Chum Salmon

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 (O. 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-run 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 a notification in the Federal Register (59 FR 46808,

September 12, 1994) 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 salmon 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 encompassed, but was not restricted to, the populations

identified in the petitions described.

During the coastwide chum salmon status review, NMFS requested

public comment and 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 (Johnson et al., 1997). 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.

Based on the results of the BRT report, and after considering other

information and existing conservation measures, NMFS published a

proposed listing determination (63 FR 11774, March 10, 1998) which

identified four ESUs of chum salmon in Washington, Oregon, and

California. The Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River ESUs were

proposed for listing as threatened species, while the Puget Sound/

Strait of Georgia ESU and Pacific Coast ESU did not warrant listing.

During the year between the proposed rule and this final

determination, NMFS solicited peer and comanager review of the agency's

proposal and received comments and new scientific information

concerning the status of the ESUs proposed for listing. NMFS also

received information regarding the relationship of existing hatchery

stocks to naturally spawned populations in each ESU. This new

information was evaluated by NMFS' BRT and published in updated status

review memoranda that draw conclusions about ESU delineation and risk

assessments for the Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River ESUs

(NMFS, 1999a and 1999b). Based on the updated NMFS status review and

other information, NMFS now issues its final listing determinations for

the two proposed ESUs. Copies of the NMFS status review

[[Page 14509]]

and related documents are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Summary of Comments and Information Received in Response to the

Proposed Rule

NMFS held 21 public hearings in California, Oregon, Idaho, and

Washington to solicit comments on this and other salmonid listing

proposals (63 FR 16955, April 7, 1998; 63 FR 30455, June 4, 1998).

During the 112-day public comment period, NMFS received 10 written

comments regarding the chum salmon proposed rule. NMFS also sought new

data and analyses from tribal and state comanagers and met with them to

formally discuss technical issues associated with the chum salmon

status review. Technical information was considered by NMFS' BRT in its

re-evaluation of ESU boundaries and risk assessments; this information

is discussed in the updated status review memoranda for chum salmon

(NMFS, 1999a and 1999b).

The new information focused on the Hood Canal summer-run ESU and

included data regarding an extension of the ESU's boundaries, updated

final 1997 (and preliminary 1998) spawning escapement estimates, and

revised run reconstruction data for the ESU. No new information bearing

on the risk assessment for the Columbia River ESU was provided for the

BRT's consideration.

A number of comments addressed issues pertaining to the proposed

critical habitat designation for chum salmon. NMFS will address these

comments in a forthcoming Federal Register document announcing the

agency's conclusions about critical habitat for the listed ESUs.

On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS), published a series of policies regarding listings under

the ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR

34270). In accordance with this policy, NMFS solicited 7 individuals to

take part in a peer review of its west coast chum salmon status review

and proposed rule. All individuals solicited are recognized experts in

the field of chum salmon biology, and represent a broad range of

interests, including Federal, state, and tribal resource managers, and

academia. Four of the seven individuals took part in the peer review of

this action; comments from peer reviewers were considered by NMFS' BRT

and are summarized in the updated status review document (NMFS, 1999a).

A summary of comments received in response to the proposed rule is

presented here.

Issue 1: Sufficiency and Accuracy of Scientific Information and

Analysis

Comment: Some commenters questioned the sufficiency and accuracy of

data which NMFS employed in the listing proposal. In contrast, peer

reviewers commented that the agency's status review was both credible

and comprehensive.

Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires that NMFS make its

listing determinations solely on the basis of the best available

scientific and commercial data after reviewing the status of the

species. NMFS believes that information contained in the agency's

status review (Johnson et al., 1997), together with more recent

information obtained in response to the proposed rule (NMFS, 1999a and

1999b), represent the best scientific information presently available

for the chum salmon ESUs addressed in this final rule. NMFS has made

every effort to conduct an exhaustive review of all available

information and has solicited information and opinion from all

interested parties, including peer reviewers. If, in the future, new

data become available to change these conclusions, NMFS will act

accordingly.

Issue 2: Delineation of Chum Salmon ESUs

Comment: The majority of responses generally supported the BRT's

findings on ESU boundaries. An exception was one commenter who

suggested the BRT did not present sufficiently strong scientific

evidence to support the identification of multiple ESUs in the Pacific

Northwest. This commenter believed that all the ESUs identified by the

BRT are likely segments of a general north-south cline of chum salmon

and not distinct ESUs. Comments solicited from peer reviewers with

specific expertise on chum salmon biology were supportive of the BRT's

delineations. One peer reviewer supported separation of the lower

Columbia River from coastal regions based upon a combination of the

genetic data developed by the BRT and data from other species. However,

he pointed out that only two genetic samples from the Columbia River

were evaluated by the BRT, and that this was inadequate to support an

accurate description of the ESU.

Response: As described in Issue 1, NMFS believes that the available

information is sufficiently accurate to support the proposed ESU

boundaries. NMFS has published a policy describing how it will apply

the ESA definition of ``species'' to anadromous salmonid species (56 FR

58612, November 20, 1991). More recently, NMFS and FWS published a

joint policy, which is consistent with NMFS' policy, regarding the

definition of ``distinct population segments'' (61 FR 4722, February 7,

1996). The earlier policy is more detailed and applies specifically to

Pacific salmonids and, therefore, was used for this determination. This

policy indicates that one or more naturally reproducing salmonid

populations will be considered to be distinct and, hence, species under

the ESA, if they represent an ESU of the biological species. To be

considered an ESU, a population must satisfy two criteria: (1) It must

be reproductively isolated from other population units of the same

species, 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 have been strong

enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to occur in

different population units. The second criterion is met if the

population contributes substantially to the ecological or genetic

diversity of the species as a whole. Guidance on applying this policy

is contained in a NOAA Technical Memorandum entitled ``Definition of

'Species' Under the Endangered Species Act: Application to Pacific

Salmon'' (Waples, 1991) and in a recent scientific paper by Waples

(1995).

The National Research Council (NRC) has recently addressed the

issue of defining species under the ESA (NRC, 1995). Their report found

that protecting distinct population segments (DPS) is soundly based on

scientific evidence, and recommends applying an ``Evolutionary Unit''

(EU) approach in describing these segments. The NRC report describes

the high degree of similarity between the EU and ESU approaches

(differences being largely a matter of application between salmon and

other vertebrates), and concluded that either approach would lead to

similar DPS descriptions most of the time.

NMFS believes there is evidence to support the identification of

distinct population segments for chum salmon, and that the extant

populations do not merely represent a north-south cline within the

species. The chum salmon status review describes a variety of

characteristics that support the ESU delineations for this species. For

example, the review noted that run-timing data from as early as 1913

indicate differences between Hood Canal summer-run (mid-September to

mid-October) and fall-run (November to December/January) populations.

In addition, the summer-run populations

[[Page 14510]]

spawn during peak periods of high water temperature, suggesting a

unique adaptation that allows this ESU to persist in an otherwise

inhospitable environment. For the Columbia River ESU, the BRT concluded

that there was historically at least one ESU of chum salmon in this

major west coast river basin. The BRT also assessed available allozyme

data for the proposed ESUs and concluded that sufficient genetic

differences existed between these and adjacent ESUs to support separate

delineations. Finally, other researchers have reported similar findings

of distinctness for this species in Washington (Busack and Shaklee,

1995; and Phelps et al., 1995).

Comment: One commenter presented data to support extending the

boundary of the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU approximately 10

miles (16 kilometers) westward along the Strait of Juan de Fuca to

include early-returning chum salmon in the Dungeness River.

Response: During the original BRT meetings in 1994 for the

coastwide status review of chum salmon, the BRT considered including

the Dungeness River early returning fish in the Hood Canal summer-run

ESU, but at that time, the only data available on summer-run fish in

the river were anecdotal. The new data provided by the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (and described in detail in the

updated status review) clearly shows that in almost every year since

extensive salmon surveys were begun in 1971, early-returning chum

salmon were observed in the mainstem Dungeness River. Further, because

the data are all incidental counts collected during pink or chinook

salmon spawning surveys, the actual numbers of early-returning summer-

run chum salmon might be significantly greater than these incidental

counts. Also, the Dungeness River is geographically and environmentally

similar to rivers in the Hood Canal summer-run ESU. The Dungeness River

drains from the Olympic Mountains (like other rivers in the ESU), the

mouth of the Dungeness River is less than 10 kilometers (6 miles) from

the western boundary of the proposed Hood Canal summer-run ESU, and its

tributaries intermingle with tributaries of Sequim Bay which was

identified as within the proposed ESU. Based on this information, the

BRT agreed with the commenter and concluded the Hood Canal summer-run

ESU should be extended westward to include summer-run chum salmon in

the Dungeness River.

Comment: Another peer reviewer said that chum salmon in the Lower

Columbia River do appear to select spawning sites with upwelling

groundwater, contrary to observations of WDFW biologists reported in

NMFS' status review. He reported that the three populations of chum

salmon monitored by WDFW in the Columbia River spawn in upwellings and

seeps (two in spring fed systems and one in seeps and springs, all with

upwellings). This commenter also noted that there is a population of

chum salmon of undetermined size spawning below Bonneville Dam between

Hamilton and Ives Islands in the Columbia River and that a few chum

salmon are documented to migrate above Bonneville Dam to an unknown

stream or streams.

Response: The NMFS status review presented the available

information regarding spawning ground and redd characteristics for this

species (Johnson et al., 1997). Several studies on Asian chum salmon

populations corroborate the reviewer's contention that the species may

prefer to spawn in areas with upwelling groundwater (Sano, 1966; Salo,

1991; and Smirnov, 1975). Unfortunately, similar published studies are

lacking for North American populations. Continued monitoring of

Columbia River populations should shed more light on this issue and

whether conservation efforts aimed at restoring subgravel flow could

accrue benefits to this ESU.

NMFS reviewed the information documenting chum salmon passage at

Bonneville Dam (ODFW and WDFW, 1995) and cited these data as one source

for estimating the population size for the Columbia River ESU (Johnson

et al., 1997). Unfortunately, the final spawning destination for these

fish is not known. However, these fish would still be considered part

of the listed ESU since NMFS has described the ESU to include all

naturally spawned populations of chum salmon in the Columbia River and

its tributaries in Washington and Oregon. Although data are limited,

NMFS has also reviewed WDFW surveys (dating back to at least 1976)

which indicate that chum salmon are known to spawn in the area below

Bonneville Dam (WDFW, 1997). NMFS has recently worked with the

Bonneville Power Administration and other Columbia River comanagers to

assess the effects of hydropower operations on these fish and has

recommended that monitoring be initiated to evaluate impacts resulting

from changes in operational flows (NMFS, 1998b).

Issue 3: Risk Analyses for Chum Salmon ESUs

Comment: Most commenters, including peer reviewers, generally

supported the BRT's findings on ESU risk designations. An exception was

one commenter who believed that NMFS had not shown with statistical

data that any chum salmon ESUs are at high risk of extinction. Two

commenters suggested that more data should be collected on chum salmon

from the Oregon coast and southern Puget Sound, because they believed

the data would demonstrate that these fish are at greater risk than

presently believed. Similarly, two peer reviewers expressed concern

about the paucity of data for making the determination that listing is

not warranted for the Pacific Coast ESU.

Response: For nearly a decade, NMFS scientists have been conducting

salmonid status reviews under the ESA using a risk assessment approach

that includes an evaluation of: (1) absolute numbers of fish and their

spatial and temporal distribution; (2) current abundance in relation to

historical abundance and current carrying capacity of the habitat; (3)

trends in abundance; (4) natural and human-influenced factors that

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

genetic integrity (e.g., from strays or outplants from hatchery

programs); and (6) recent events (e.g., a drought or changes in harvest

management) that have predictable short-term consequences for abundance

of the ESU. In determining whether an ESU is threatened or endangered,

BRT scientists must make judgements about the overall risk to the ESU

based on likely interactions among, and cumulative effects of, these

various status indicators.

During the chum salmon status review, NMFS evaluated both

quantitative and qualitative information regarding the various

indicators described above. The types and quality of information used

in these assessments vary considerably (both within and between ESUs)

and not all indicators lend themselves to rigorous statistical

analyses. When possible, NMFS used computed statistics to determine

overall trends in chum salmon populations (Johnson et al., 1997).

Except in the case of Puget Sound stocks, these statistics were either

not available or considered unreliable. However, statistical analyses

are not the only means by which to make risk assessments. For example,

while escapement data clearly demonstrated a steady decline in Hood

Canal summer-run chum salmon over the past 30 years, the BRT was

equally concerned about the ESU's low productivity, low current

abundance relative to historic abundance, and the loss of several of

the historically smaller populations on the Kitsap Peninsula (NMFS,

1999a). Other

[[Page 14511]]

concerns identified included genetic risks from artificial propagation,

the increasing urbanization of the Kitsap Peninsula, and recent

increases in pinniped populations in Hood Canal. The BRT had similar

concerns for the remaining Columbia River populations, which currently

persist at less than 1 percent of historical run sizes (Johnson et al.,

1997; and NMFS, 1999a).

With respect to the ESA status of the Pacific Coast ESU, NMFS

acknowledges that the available data sets are far from exhaustive.

However, the agency did not receive new information indicating that the

Pacific Coast ESU is at risk of extinction, nor did NMFS obtain

complete updated information for these or other populations not

proposed for listing. Still, justifiable concerns exist for specific

populations in both the Puget Sound and Pacific Coast ESUs. The NMFS

status review details some of these concerns. For example, populations

in the Tillamook District (the major chum salmon-producing area on the

Oregon coast) are at much lower abundance than they were historically,

with no apparent increase in abundance since the closure of commercial

fisheries in 1962. In the Puget Sound ESU, the BRT expressed concern

that the summer-run populations in this ESU spawn in relatively small,

localized areas and, therefore, are intrinsically vulnerable to habitat

degradation and demographic or environmental fluctuations. Concern was

also expressed about effects on natural populations of the high level

of hatchery production of fall chum salmon in the southern part of

Puget Sound and Hood Canal and about the high representation of non-

native stocks in the ancestry of hatchery stocks throughout this ESU.

If new information indicates that either of these ESUs warrant further

consideration for listing, NMFS will announce a re-opening of the

status review for the species.

Comment: Comments and new information on the risk analysis of the

Hood Canal summer-run ESU all supported the analysis conducted by the

BRT, although commenters pointed out some specific concerns. Among

these concerns were: (1) numbers of returning adults to the Union River

were depressed in 1996, but the decrease was not statistically

significant, and may have no biological significance; (2) in estimating

strength of Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, the BRT should use the

number of returning adults compared to the number of parents creating

those adults. Estimates of these ratios (spawner-to-spawner) suggest a

trend toward increasing populations over the last 8 years in those Hood

Canal runs that still exist; and (3) fishery co-managers have greatly

reduced harvest impacts on summer-run chum salmon by limiting fisheries

on other co-mingled species (even when these species have been

plentiful) and this should be taken into account in risk analyses. One

commenter stated that there are actually two streams (not one, as

stated in the proposed rule) in the Strait of Juan de Fuca portion of

the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU showing increases in adult

returns in 1996.

Response: With respect to one commenter's concerns about NMFS'

characterization of Union River returns in 1996, NMFS did not intend to

imply that this downturn was statistically significant. In contrast,

NMFS noted in the proposed rule that the Union River was classified as

a healthy stock (WDF et al., 1993). NMFS was merely expressing concern

that 1996 returns, while substantially improved for other populations,

were not uniformly distributed throughout the ESU. Based on suggestions

from this commenter, NMFS has considered the spawner-to-spawner ratios

for this ESU. The results may suggest a trend toward increasing

populations over the last 8 years in some Hood Canal streams. However,

these trends must be balanced against a variety of other risk factors

facing the ESU, including a steady decline in abundance over the past

30 years and the extinction of several populations in the ESU.

NMFS recognizes that Washington tribal and state fishery co-

managers have made significant strides in reducing harvest impacts on

summer-run chum salmon and the agency has taken these efforts into

account in this final listing determination. It was this recognition,

combined with increased returns in 1995 and 1996, that led NMFS to

propose this ESU as threatened instead of endangered. While some of

NMFS' concerns were mitigated by these harvest impact reductions, it is

clear that other risk factors (including Canadian fisheries in the

Northern Strait of Juan de Fuca) still bear upon this ESU. NMFS also

acknowledges that the proposed rule was in error and that two

populations (Snow and Salmon Creeks) in the Strait of Juan de Fuca

portion of the Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU showed increases

in adult returns in 1996. The third (Jimmycomelately Creek) continued

to demonstrate a long-term decline.

The new information received by NMFS did not substantially affect

the agency's previous conclusions about the status of the Hood Canal

summer-run ESU. The Western Washington Treaty Tribes and WDFW submitted

a revision of run reconstructions for Hood Canal summer-run chum

salmon. The revision has been comprehensive and thorough, including

recalculation of escapement from historic survey data using consistent

methods, an earlier cutoff date for distinguishing summer-run from

fall-run chum salmon in catches (i.e., substantial numbers of fall-run

chum salmon had been classified as summer-run chum salmon), and

incorporation of summer-run chum salmon catches in Canadian Area 20

fisheries (N. Lampsakis, Point No Point Treaty Council, pers. comm.,

November 1998). These changes in the run reconstruction database have

resulted in a substantial improvement in the quality of data available

for summer-run chum salmon. However, the revisions result in mostly

minor changes in escapement estimates for individual streams, with

little change in the overall pattern of historic spawning escapements.

In addition, WDFW (J. Ames, pers. comm., November 1998) provided

updated final 1997 and preliminary 1998 spawning escapement estimates

for summer-run chum salmon in Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca

tributaries. Spawning escapement to the ESU in 1997 was estimated to be

10,013 fish and preliminarily estimated in 1998 to be 5,290 fish. Of

these totals, 8,734 spawners in 1997 and 3,959 spawners in 1998

returned to streams with supplementation programs. These spawning

escapements in 1997 and 1998 represent 46 percent and 25 percent,

respectively, of the recent high escapement of 21,594 fish in 1996.

Comment: One peer reviewer concurred that the Columbia River ESU is

threatened (due to small population size with limited buffering

capacity) but he was not compelled to believe that this ESU faces a

high short term risk of extinction. Another peer reviewer stated

concerns about using hatchery fish from an out-of-basin stock (Willapa

Bay) in assessing extinction risk for the Columbia River ESU.

Response: NMFS did not receive new information bearing on the risk

assessment for the Columbia River ESU. During the original NMFS status

review, the BRT evaluated various indices of chum salmon abundance in

the Columbia River ESU, including historical commercial landings,

recent recreational harvests, spawner escapements in Washington

tributaries, Bonneville dam counts, and returns to the Sea Resources

Hatchery on the Chinook River, Washington (Johnson et al., 1997). In

addition, the BRT constructed a minimal run size estimate based on a

composite of these indices.

[[Page 14512]]

Including the Sea Resources Hatchery return data was considered

appropriate at the time of the proposed listing because the BRT had not

drawn conclusions about whether any hatchery population was part of the

ESU. However, NMFS has recently completed an assessment of hatchery

populations associated with this ESU (NMFS, 1999b), and the agency

agrees that the hatchery return data have likely inflated the minimal

run size estimates. The BRT took this information into account when it

re-assessed the status of the ESU for this final determination.

Issue 4: Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast Chum

Salmon

Comment: A few comments addressed specific factors believed to have

contributed to the decline of west coast chum salmon. Factors

identified include overharvest in commercial and recreational

fisheries, climate change, reduced ocean productivity, changes in the

Columbia River estuary food base, stress and disease, reduced body size

and fecundity, increased abundance of predators (e.g., marine mammals,

seabirds and exotic fishes), pollution from pesticide and herbicide

applications, urbanization, blocked habitats, decreased beaver-related

habitat, reductions in anadromous fish carcasses, removal of large

woody debris, and the general deterioration and loss of freshwater and

marine habitats throughout the region. A peer reviewer suggested that

NMFS evaluate potential negative impacts from hatchery releases of chum

salmon derived from stocks outside the ESU. One commenter noted that

NMFS failed to fully investigate and evaluate the impact of adverse

marine conditions and climate change on chum salmon abundance, and

further contended that degradation of freshwater habitat is not likely

the major cause of recent declines.

Response: NMFS agrees that a multitude of factors, past and

present, have contributed to the decline of west coast chum salmon.

Many of the identified factors were specifically cited as risk agents

in the NMFS status review (Johnson et al., 1997) and listing proposal

(63 FR 11774, March 10, 1998). NMFS recognizes that natural

environmental fluctuations have likely played a role in the species'

recent declines. However, NMFS believes other human-induced impacts

(e.g., harvest in certain fisheries and widespread habitat

modification) have played an equally significant role in this species'

decline.

The NMFS status review briefly addressed the impact of adverse

marine conditions and climate change, but concluded that there is

considerable uncertainty regarding the role of these factors in

controlling chum salmon abundance. At this time, we do not know whether

these climate conditions represent a long-term shift in conditions that

will continue into the future or short-term environmental fluctuations

that can be expected to reverse soon. A recent review by Hare et al.

(1999) suggests that these conditions could be part of an alternating

20- to 30-year long regime pattern. These authors concluded that, while

at-risk salmon stocks may benefit from a reversal in the current

climate/ocean regime, fisheries management should continue to focus on

reducing impacts from harvest and artificial propagation and improving

freshwater and estuarine habitats.

NMFS believes there is ample evidence to suggest that degradation

of freshwater habitats has contributed to the decline of Hood Canal and

Columbia River chum salmon. The past destruction, modification, and

curtailment of freshwater habitat was reviewed in a recent NMFS

assessment for steelhead (NMFS, 1996), and many of the identified risks

and conclusions also apply to chum salmon. Examples of habitat

alterations affecting chum salmon include water withdrawal, conveyance,

storage, and flood control (resulting in insufficient flows, stranding,

juvenile entrainment, and increased stream temperatures); logging and

agriculture (resulting in loss of large woody debris, sedimentation,

loss of riparian vegetation, and habitat simplification)(Johnson et

al., 1997). At a more population-specific level, Washington state and

tribal comanagers have completed an assessment which concludes that a

variety of habitat- and land-use practices have had a detrimental

impact on chum salmon (WDF et al., 1993). For example, they identified

gravel aggradation (due to logging in some areas), channel shifting,

and diking as habitat risk agents in Hood Canal. In the Columbia River,

habitat ``limiters'' associated with chum salmon included gravel

quality and stability, availability of good quality nearshore mainstem

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

and industrialization (WDF et al., 1993). These human-induced impacts

in freshwater ecosystems have likely reduced the species' resiliency to

natural factors for decline such as drought and poor ocean conditions.

A critical next step in restoring listed chum salmon will be

identifying and ameliorating specific factors for decline at both the

ESU and population level.

With respect to predation issues raised by some commenters, it is

worth noting that NMFS has recently published reports describing the

impacts of California sea lions and Pacific harbor seals upon salmonids

and on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California

(NMFS, 1997 and 1999c). These reports conclude that in certain cases

where pinniped populations co-occur with depressed salmonid

populations, salmon populations may experience severe impacts due to

predation. An example of such a situation is Ballard Locks, Washington,

where sea lions are known to consume significant numbers of adult

winter steelhead. These reports further conclude that data regarding

pinniped predation are quite limited, and that substantial additional

research is needed to fully address this issue. Existing information on

the seriously depressed status of many salmonid stocks is sufficient to

warrant actions to remove pinnipeds in areas of co-occurrence where

pinnipeds prey on depressed salmonid populations (NMFS, 1997 and

1999c).

The relationship between various hatchery stocks and naturally

spawned chum salmon, and their potential role for recovery of specific

ESUs, is discussed in the ``Determination'' section later in this

document.

Issue 5: Consideration of Existing Conservation Measures

Comment: One peer reviewer expressed concern about NMFS'

characterization of the efficacy of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP),

citing significant differences in management practices between various

Federal land management agencies.

Response: NMFS has reviewed existing conservation efforts and

plans, including the NFP, and concludes that existing conservation

efforts have generally helped ameliorate risks facing some chum salmon

populations. In the listing proposal, NMFS noted that the NFP requires

specific management actions on Federal lands, including actions in key

watersheds within the range of both ESUs that comply with special

standards and guidelines designed to preserve their refugia functions

for at-risk salmonids (i.e., watershed analysis must be completed prior

to timber harvests and other management actions, road miles should be

reduced, no new roads can be built in roadless areas, and restoration

activities are prioritized). In addition, the most significant element

of the NFP for anadromous fish is its Aquatic Conservation Strategy

(ACS), a regional-scale aquatic ecosystem conservation strategy that

includes (1) special land allocations (such as key watersheds,

[[Page 14513]]

riparian reserves, and late-successional reserves) to provide aquatic

habitat refugia; (2) special requirements for project planning and

design in the form of standards and guidelines; and (3) new watershed

analysis, watershed restoration, and monitoring processes. These ACS

components collectively ensure that Federal land management actions

achieve a set of nine ACS objectives that strive to maintain and

restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape scales to protect

habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent species and resources and

to restore currently degraded habitats. NMFS will continue to support

the NFP strategy and address Federal land management issues via ESA

section 7 consultations in concert with this strategy.

Comment: One commenter expressed concern over the need to list chum

salmon and the effects of these listings on Indian resources, programs,

land management, and associated Trust responsibilities. This commenter

was particularly concerned about the effects of listing Hood Canal

summer-run chum salmon on tribal fishing for this and other species,

and further noted that the Tribes had foregone significant harvest

opportunities in the interest of protecting summer-run chum salmon

stocks.

Response: NMFS believes that the best available scientific

information supports listing two ESUs of chum salmon as threatened

under the ESA. NMFS acknowledges that these listings may impact Indian

resources, programs, land management, and associated Trust

responsibilities. As stated previously in this document, NMFS applauds

the recent efforts by tribal and state comanagers to reduce specific

harvest impacts on at-risk chum salmon populations. NMFS will continue

to work closely with affected Indian tribes as harvest and other

management issues arise and will continue to support the development of

strong and credible tribal and state conservation efforts to restore

listed chum salmon and other west coast salmon populations.

Summary of Factors Affecting Chum Salmon

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS listing regulations (50 CFR

part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary of

Commerce must determine, through the regulatory process, if a species

is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a combination of the

following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,

modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made

factors affecting its continued existence.

The factors threatening naturally spawned chum salmon throughout

the species' range are numerous and varied. The present depressed

condition of many populations is the result of several long-standing,

human-induced factors (e.g., habitat degradation, water diversions,

harvest, and artificial propagation) that serve to exacerbate the

adverse effects of natural factors (e.g., competition and predation) or

environmental variability from such factors as drought and poor ocean

conditions.

As noted previously, NMFS received only a few comments regarding

the relative importance of various risk factors contributing to the

decline of chum salmon. A summary of these factors and their role in

the decline of the ESUs proposed for listing is presented in NMFS'

March 10, 1998, Federal Register notification (63 FR 11774), as well as

several documents in the agency's west coast chum salmon administrative

record (WDF et al., 1993; Kostow, 1995; Johnson et al., 1997; and NMFS,

1999a).

Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Chum Salmon

Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is

required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best

scientific and commercial data available and after taking into account

efforts being made to protect a species. During the status review for

west coast chum salmon and for other salmonids, NMFS reviewed

protective efforts ranging in scope from regional strategies to local

watershed initiatives; some of the major efforts are summarized in the

March 10, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 11774). Since then, NMFS has

received little new information regarding these or other efforts being

made to protect chum salmon. Notable efforts within the range of the

Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River ESUs continue to be the NFP,

Lower Columbia River National Estuary Program, Lower Columbia Steelhead

Conservation Initiative, Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds,

Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative, Washington Wild Salmonid

Policy, and Hood Canal/Strait of Juan de Fuca Chum Salmon Conservation

Plan (HCSCP).

Of the existing efforts, the HCSCP is currently the most

comprehensive chum salmon conservation effort operating at the scale of

an ESU. State and tribal fisheries managers involved in the HCSCP have

continued to endorse an array of harvest restrictions, including

refraining from directed fisheries on summer-run chum salmon in the

Hood Canal summer-run ESU. These management restrictions are

significant, and are expected to continue based on current management

objectives and the HCSCP. In addition, ongoing hatchery supplementation

and reintroduction efforts may play a key role in the recovery of this

ESU. NMFS will encourage the continued development and implementation

of the HCSCP as an important strategy for protecting and restoring Hood

Canal summer-run chum salmon.

While NMFS recognizes that many of the ongoing protective efforts

are likely to promote the conservation of chum salmon and other

salmonids, some are very recent and few address chum salmon

conservation at a scale that is adequate to protect and conserve entire

ESUs. NMFS concludes that existing protective efforts are inadequate to

preclude a listing for the Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River

ESUs. However, NMFS will continue to encourage these and future

protective efforts and will work with Federal, state, and tribal

fisheries managers to evaluate, promote, and improve efforts to

conserve chum salmon populations.

Determinations

Section 3 of 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 listing determinations 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 for chum salmon,

and after taking into account comments and new information described

previously, NMFS determines that the two ESUs proposed for listing on

March 10, 1998 (Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River ESUs) should

be classified as threatened under the ESA. In both cases, the majority

of the NMFS BRT concluded that the ESUs are likely to become endangered

in the foreseeable future if present conditions continue. Furthermore,

NMFS concludes that current protective efforts are insufficient to

change the BRT's forecast of extinction risk.

In both ESUs, only naturally spawned populations of chum salmon

residing

[[Page 14514]]

below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, natural

waterfalls) are listed. NMFS' intent in listing only ``naturally

spawned'' populations is to protect chum salmon stocks that are

indigenous to (i.e., part of) the ESU. In this listing determination,

NMFS has identified various non-indigenous populations that co-occur

with fish in the listed ESUs. The agency recognizes the difficulty of

differentiating between indigenous and non-indigenous fish, especially

when the latter are not readily distinguishable with a mark (e.g., fin

clip). Also, matings in the wild of either type would generally result

in progeny that would be treated as listed fish (i.e., they would have

been naturally spawned in the geographic range of the listed ESU and

have no distinguishing mark). Therefore, to reduce confusion regarding

which chum salmon are considered listed within an ESU, NMFS will treat

all naturally spawned fish as listed for purposes of the ESA. Efforts

to determine the conservation status of an ESU would focus on the

contribution of indigenous fish to the listed ESU. It should be noted

that NMFS will take actions necessary to minimize or prevent non-

indigenous chum salmon from spawning in the wild unless the fish are

specifically part of a recovery effort.

NMFS has evaluated the relationship between hatchery and natural

populations of chum salmon in these ESUs (NMFS, 1999b). In examining

this relationship, NMFS scientists consulted with hatchery managers to

determine whether any hatchery populations are similar enough to

native, naturally spawned fish to be considered part of the biological

ESU. The evaluation also considered whether any hatchery population

should be considered essential for the recovery of a listed ESU. In the

Hood Canal summer-run ESU, chum salmon from the following five hatchery

programs are considered part of the ESU: Quilcene National Fish

Hatchery; Long Live the Kings Enhancement Project (Lilliwaup Creek);

Hamma Hamma River Supplementation Project; Big Beef Creek Re-

introduction Project; and WDFW/Wild Olympic Salmon Cooperative

(Dungeness River). In the Columbia River ESU, chum salmon from the

Grays River Hatchery and Cowlitz River Hatchery programs are considered

part of the ESU, while chum salmon from the Sea Resources Hatchery

program are not considered part of the ESU.

At this time, none of the hatchery populations considered part of

the ESUs are being listed because none are deemed essential for the

recovery of either ESU. However, the determination that a hatchery

stock is not ``essential'' for recovery does not preclude it from

playing a role in recovery. Any hatchery population that is part of the

ESU is available for use in recovery if conditions warrant. In this

context, an ``essential'' hatchery population is one that is vital to

incorporate into recovery efforts (for example, if the associated

natural population(s) were extinct or at high risk of extinction).

Under such circumstances, NMFS would consider taking the administrative

action of listing existing hatchery fish.

NMFS' ``Interim Policy on Artificial Propagation of Pacific Salmon

Under the Endangered Species Act'' (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993)

provides guidance on the treatment of hatchery stocks in the event of a

listing. Under this policy, ``progeny of fish from the listed species

that are propagated artificially are considered part of the listed

species and are protected under the ESA.'' In the case of hatchery chum

salmon populations considered to be part of the Hood Canal summer-run

ESU or Columbia River ESU, the protective regulations that NMFS will

issue shortly may except take of naturally spawned listed fish for use

as broodstock as part of an overall conservation program. According to

the interim policy, the progeny of these hatchery-wild or wild-wild

crosses would also be listed. Given the requirement for an acceptable

conservation plan as a prerequisite for collecting broodstock, NMFS

determines that it is not necessary to consider the progeny of

intentional hatchery-wild or wild-wild crosses as listed.

In addition, NMFS believes it is desirable to incorporate naturally

spawned fish into these hatchery populations to ensure that their

genetic and life history characteristics do not diverge significantly

from the natural populations. NMFS therefore concludes that it is not

inconsistent with NMFS' interim policy, nor with the policy and

purposes of the ESA, to consider these progeny as part of the ESU, but

not listed.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

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 will

publish 4(d) protective regulations for both listed chum salmon ESUs in

a separate Federal Register document. 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) of the ESA 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 salmon populations. In those cases where

well-developed and reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS may choose

to incorporate them into the protective regulations and recovery plans.

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

Coasts 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 ESA section 9

prohibitions in light of the protections provided in a conservation

plan that is adequately protective. 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 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

[[Page 14515]]

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.

Examples of Federal actions likely to affect chum salmon in the

listed ESUs include authorized land management activities of the U.S.

Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as well

as operation of hydroelectric and storage projects of the Bureau of

Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Such activities

include timber sales and harvest, hydroelectric power generation, and

flood control. Federal actions, including the COE section 404

permitting activities under the Clean Water Act, COE permitting

activities under the River and Harbors Act, National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System permits issued by the Environmental

Protection Agency, highway projects authorized by the Federal Highway

Administration, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses for non-

Federal development and operation of hydropower, and Federal salmon

hatcheries, may also require consultation. These actions will likely be

subject to ESA section 7 consultation requirements that may result in

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.

There are likely to be Federal actions ongoing in the range of the

listed ESUs at the time these listings become effective. Therefore,

NMFS will review all ongoing actions that may affect the listed species

with Federal agencies and will complete formal or informal

consultations, where requested or necessary, for such actions pursuant

to ESA section 7(a)(2).

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

authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions.

Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be

issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that

involves a directed take of listed species.

NMFS has issued ESA 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 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 listed 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.

ESA 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 release of artificially

propagated fish by tribal, 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.

Take Guidance

On July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272) NMFS and FWS published a policy

committing the Services to identify, to the maximum extent practicable

at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would

not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this

policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on

proposed and on-going activities within the species' range. NMFS

believes that, based on the best available information, the following

actions will not result in a violation of section 9: (1) Possession of

chum salmon from the listed ESUs acquired lawfully by permit issued by

NMFS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the terms of an

incidental take statement pursuant to section 7 of the ESA; and (2)

federally funded or approved projects that involve activities such as

silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam construction and

operation, discharge of fill material, stream channelization or

diversion for which an ESA section 7 consultation has been completed,

and when such an activity is conducted in accordance with any terms and

conditions provided by NMFS in an incidental take statement accompanied

by a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. As described

previously in this document, NMFS may adopt 4(d) protective regulations

that except other activities from section 9 take prohibitions for

threatened species.

Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm, injure or

kill chum salmon in the listed ESUs and result in a violation of

section 9 include, but are not limited to: (1) land-use activities that

adversely affect chum salmon habitat in this ESU (e.g., logging,

grazing, farming, road construction in riparian areas, and areas

susceptible to mass wasting and surface erosion); (2) destruction or

alteration of chum salmon habitat in the listed ESUs, such as removal

of large woody debris and ``sinker logs'' or riparian shade canopy,

dredging, discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, diverting,

blocking, or altering stream channels or surface or ground water flow;

(3) discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants (e.g.,

sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting listed

chum salmon; (4) violation of discharge permits; (5) pesticide and

herbicide applications; (6) interstate and foreign commerce of chum

salmon from the listed ESUs and import/export of chum salmon from

listed ESUs without an ESA permit, unless the fish were harvested

pursuant to legal exception; (7) collecting or handling of chum salmon

from listed ESUs (permits to conduct these activities are available for

purposes of scientific research or to enhance the propagation or

survival of the species); and (8) introduction of non-native species

likely to prey on chum salmon in these ESUs or displace them from their

habitat. This list is not exhaustive. It is intended to provide some

examples of the types of activities that might or might not be

considered by NMFS as constituting a take of listed chum salmon under

the ESA and its regulations. Questions regarding whether specific

activities will constitute a violation of this rule, and general

inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits, should be directed to

NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Effective Date of Final Listing

Given the cultural, scientific, and recreational importance of this

species, and the broad geographic range of these listings, NMFS

recognizes that numerous parties may be affected by this listing.

Therefore, to permit an orderly implementation of the consultation

requirements associated with this action, this final listing will take

effect May 24, 1999.

Conservation Measures

Conservation benefits are provided to species listed as endangered

or threatened under the ESA through increased recognition, recovery

actions, Federal agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on

taking. Increased recognition through listing promotes public awareness

and conservation actions by Federal, state,

[[Page 14516]]

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. 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 are less regulatory. NMFS will continue to

encourage and support these initiatives as important components of

recovery planning for chum salmon and other salmonids.

To succeed, protective regulations and recovery programs for chum

salmon will need to focus on 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 listed ESUs, chum salmon

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

private land.

Conservation measures that could be implemented to help conserve

the species are listed here (the list is generalized and does not

constitute NMFS' interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f)

of the ESA). Progress on some of these is being made to differing

degrees in specific areas.

1. Measures could be taken to promote practices that are more

protective of (or restore) chum salmon habitat across a variety of land

and water management activities. Activities affecting this habitat

include timber harvest; agriculture; livestock grazing and operations;

pesticide and herbicide applications; construction and urban

development; road building and maintenance; sand and gravel mining;

stream channelization; dredging and dredged spoil disposal; dock and

marina construction; diking and bank stabilization; dam construction/

operation; irrigation withdrawal, storage, and management; mineral

mining; wastewater/pollutant discharge; wetland and floodplain

alteration; habitat restoration projects; and woody debris/structure

removal from rivers and estuaries. Each of these activities could be

modified to ensure that watersheds and specific river reaches are

adequately protected in the short- and long-terms.

2. Fish passage could be restored at barriers to migration through

the installation or modification of fish ladders, upgrade of culverts,

or removal of barriers.

3. Harvest regulations could be modified to protect listed chum

salmon populations affected by both directed harvest and incidental

take in other fisheries.

4. Artificial propagation programs could be modified to minimize

negative impacts (e.g., genetic introgression, competition, disease,

etc.) upon native populations of chum salmon.

5. Predator control/relocation programs could be implemented in

areas where predators pose a significant threat to chum salmon.

6. Measures could be taken to improve monitoring of chum salmon

populations and their habitat.

7. Federal agencies such as the USFS, BLM, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, COE, U.S. Department of Transportation, and U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation could review their management programs and use

their discretionary authorities to formulate conservation plans

pursuant to section 7(a)(1) of the ESA.

NMFS encourages non-Federal landowners to assess the impacts of

their actions on threatened or endangered salmonids. In particular,

NMFS encourages state and local governments to use their existing

authorities and programs, and encourages the formation 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 non-Federal biologists all participate and share the goal of

restoring salmon to the watersheds.

Critical Habitat

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent

and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the

listing of a species. Section 4(b)(6)(C)(ii) provides that, where

critical habitat is not determinable at the time of final listing, NMFS

may extend the period for designating critical habitat by not more than

one additional year.

In the proposed rule (63 FR 11774, March 10, 1998), NMFS described

the areas that may constitute critical habitat for the Hood Canal

summer-run and Columbia River ESUs. Since then, NMFS has received

numerous comments from the public concerning the process and definition

of critical habitat for chum salmon and other salmonids. Also, due to

statutory time limitations, NMFS has not yet consulted with affected

Indian tribes regarding the designation of critical habitat in areas

that may affect tribal trust resources, tribal-owned fee lands, or the

exercise of tribal rights.

Given these remaining unresolved issues, NMFS determines at this

time that a final critical habitat designation is not determinable for

these ESUs since additional time is required to complete the needed

biological assessments and evaluate special management considerations

affecting critical habitat. The agency therefore extends the deadline

for designating critical habitat for 1 year until such assessments can

be made and after appropriate consultations are completed.

Classification

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

information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.

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

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

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

environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.

As noted in Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA,

economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of

species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are not applicable to the listing

process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under E.O.

12866.

This rule has been determined to be major under the Congressional

Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.)

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 the threatened chum salmon ESUs, NMFS will comply

with all relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.

References

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request (see ADDRESSES) and can also be obtained from the internet at

www.nwr.noaa.gov.

Threatened Species Regulations Consolidation

In the proposed rule issued on March 10, 1998 (63 FR 11774), Hood

Canal summer-run chum salmon was designated the letter (m) and Columbia

River chum salmon the letter (n) in Sec. 227.4. Since March 10, 1998,

NMFS issued a final rule consolidating and reorganizing existing

regulations regarding implementation of the ESA. In this

reorganization, Sec. 227.4 has been redesignated as Sec. 223.102;

therefore, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon

[[Page 14517]]

is designated in this final rule as paragraph (a)(12) and Columbia

River chum salmon as paragraph (a)(13) of Sec. 223.102. The regulatory

text of the proposed rule remains unchanged in this final rule.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine

mammals, Transportation.

Dated: March 15, 1999.

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is

amended as follows:

PART 223-THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.; 31

U.S.C. 9701.

2. In Sec. 223.102, paragraphs (a)(12) and (a)(13) are added to

read as follows:

Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(12) Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta).

Includes all naturally spawned populations of summer-run chum salmon in

Hood Canal and its tributaries as well as populations in Olympic

Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay, Washington;

(13) Columbia River chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Includes all

naturally spawned populations of chum salmon in the Columbia River and

its tributaries in Washington and Oregon.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-6814 Filed 3-24-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F