[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 24, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14329-14333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6816]
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 24, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 14329]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 990303060-9060-01; I.D.022398C]
RIN 0648-AM54
Endangered and Threatened Species: Notice of Partial 6-Month
Extension on Final Listing Determinations for Four Evolutionarily
Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Chinook Salmon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; partial extension of deadline for final
determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that substantial scientific disagreements
exist regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to final
listing determinations for the California Central Valley spring-run and
Central Valley fall/late fall-run, Southern Oregon and California
Coastal, and Snake River fall-run ESUs of chinook salmon.
By this publication, NMFS intends to extend the deadline for a
final listing determination for these four ESUs for 6 months to collect
and analyze specific additional information from co-managing agency
scientists and other scientific experts on this species that will
enable NMFS to make a final listing determination based on the best
available scientific information. NMFS has also issued final listing
determinations for Puget Sound chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River
chinook salmon, Upper Willamette spring-run chinook salmon and Upper
Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon which published elsewhere in
the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register issue.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 23, 1999. The new deadline
for final action on the four ESUs of west coast chinook salmon is
extended from March 9, 1999, to September 9, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Chief, Protected
Resources Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite
500, Portland, OR 97232-2737; or to Chief, Protected Resources
Division, NMFS, Southwest Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200,
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; or to Chief, Endangered Species Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, 503-231-2005, Craig
Wingert, 310-980-4021, or Christopher Mobley, 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Historically, chinook salmon inhabited most coastal streams in
Washington, Oregon, and California, as well as many inland streams in
these states and in Idaho. However, during this century, over 50
indigenous, naturally reproducing stocks of chinook salmon are believed
to have been extirpated, and many more have been identified as being at
moderate or high risk of extinction in numerous coastal and inland
streams in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California (Nehlsen et al.,
1991; Higgins et al., 1992).
The history of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing petitions
received regarding west coast chinook salmon is summarized in the
proposed listings rule published on March 9, 1998 (63 FR 11482). The
most recent and comprehensive petition was submitted by Oregon Natural
Resources Council and Siskiyou Project Staff Ecologist Dr. Rich Nawa on
February 1, 1995. In response to this petition, as well as to earlier
petitions, NMFS collected and assessed the best available scientific
and commercial data, including technical information compiled from the
Pacific Salmon Biological Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and from
interested parties in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The
PSBTCs consisted primarily of scientists from Federal, state, and local
resource agencies, Indian tribes, industries, universities,
professional societies, and public interest groups possessing technical
expertise relevant to chinook salmon and their habitats.
NMFS also established a Biological Review Team (BRT) that was
composed of staff from NMFS' Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science
Centers and Southwest Regional Office, as well as a representative of
the National Biological Survey. The BRT conducted a coastwide status
review for west coast chinook salmon (Myers et al., 1998) and
identified 15 ESUs in the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California. These ESUs included two Snake River ESUs already listed
under the ESA, one previously identified ESU (mid-Columbia River
summer/fall run) for which no listing was proposed and one population
(Sacramento River winter-run) that was listed as a ``distinct
population segment'' prior to the formulation of the NMFS ESU policy.
Based on the results of the BRT report and after considering other
information and efforts being made to protect chinook salmon, NMFS
proposed (1) Listing two ESUs as endangered; (2) listing five ESUs as
threatened; and (3) redefining the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon
ESU (previously listed as a threatened species under the ESA in 1992
(57 FR 14653)) to include fall chinook salmon populations in the
Deschutes River, and listing the redefined ESU as a threatened species
(63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998). NMFS also concluded that at the time four
ESUs did not warrant protection under the ESA.
Finding
Within 1 year from the date of a proposed listing, section 4(b)(6)
of the ESA requires NMFS to take one of three actions: (1) Finalize the
proposed listing; (2) withdraw the proposed listing; or (3) extend the
1-year period for not more than 6 months pursuant to section
4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA. Section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA allows NMFS
to extend the deadline for a final listing determination for not more
than 6 months for the purpose of soliciting additional data. NMFS' ESA
implementing regulations condition such an extension on the finding of
``substantial disagreement among scientists knowledgeable about the
species concerned regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the
available data relevant to the determination.'' (50 CFR
424.17(a)(1)(iv)).
NMFS has analyzed new information and public comments received in
response to the March 9, 1998, proposed rule. As a result of the new
information and comments, NMFS has determined that substantial
scientific disagreements exist regarding the sufficiency and accuracy
of data relevant to final listing determinations for California's
Central Valley spring-run and fall/late fall-run and for Southern
Oregon and California Coastal and for Snake River fall-run chinook
salmon ESUs (Memorandum from U. Varanasi and M. Tillman to W. Stelle
and W. Hogarth, October 30, 1998). These scientific disagreements
concern the consistency of analysis used to identify temporal runs of
chinook salmon in the same basin, the data needed to determine the
geographic boundaries of certain ESUs, and information related to the
risk assessment for some chinook salmon ESUs. Therefore, NMFS extends
the final listing determination deadline for these four ESUs for 6
months to collect and analyze these additional data.
Several efforts are underway that may resolve the scientific
disagreements relevant to these ESUs. These efforts include (1)
analysis of tissue samples of
[[Page 14330]]
Central Valley, Southern Oregon and California Coastal, and Upper
Klamath and Trinity River spring- and fall-run chinook salmon that have
been and will be collected this summer and fall by various parties,
including the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and NMFS,
to help determine the genetic relationship between conspecific temporal
runs of chinook salmon in these ESUs; (2) collection of Deschutes River
fall-run chinook salmon samples by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs Reservation (CTWSR) which will be genetically analyzed by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and used by NMFS to
determine the genetic makeup of these chinook salmon in relationship to
the genetic structure of listed Snake River fall-run chinook salmon;
and (3) analysis of additional genetic and abundance data regarding the
ratio of hatchery-to-natural fall-run chinook salmon in California's
Central Valley. A more detailed discussion of the areas of substantial
scientific disagreement and of the efforts to resolve it follows.
Points of Substantial Scientific Disagreement
Knowledgeable scientists from state fish and wildlife agencies,
tribes, the public, and some peer reviewers dispute the sufficiency and
accuracy of data employed by NMFS in its proposed listing of west coast
chinook salmon ESUs in California, Oregon, and Washington. The primary
areas of dispute fell into two broad categories: issues relating to ESU
definitions and issues relating to risk assessment. The following
sections briefly discuss the types of data that are subject to
disagreement within each category.
Issues Relating to ESU Definitions
Two points of scientific disagreement may affect chinook salmon ESU
boundaries. One area of disagreement concerns NMFS' treatment of
diverse life history forms within the individual ESUs, specifically the
relationship between spring and fall chinook salmon in the same river
basins. Comments received focused on NMFS' use of primarily genetic
data in making its determination to combine spring and fall chinook
salmon into a single ESU. Some commenters argued that not all relevant
life history characteristics are apparent through an analysis of
discrete genetic markers.
CDFG, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hoopa Valley Tribal Council
(HVTC), Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program (YTFP), and several of the peer-
reviewers, as well as a number of local government agencies,
conservation groups, and private citizens, all felt that in a number of
cases where spring- and fall-run chinook salmon were included in the
same ESU, separate ESUs should have been established. These
recommendations were supported with information on ecological
differences in spring and fall-run spawning and juvenile rearing
habitat. Furthermore, it was argued that separation in spawning time
and location provided a significant amount of reproductive isolation,
even in those systems where dams had restricted access to historical
spring-run spawning habitat. Several of the commenters highlighted
these ecological and life history differences in those ESUs where
genetic data were limited or lacking. Furthermore, the commenters
stated that the lumping of spring and fall runs in the Klamath River
ESU and in coastal ESUs was inconsistent with the recognition of
separate fall- and spring-run ESUs in California's Central Valley and
the upper Columbia River Basin.
However, another point of disagreement concerns whether there is
significant reproductive isolation between spring and fall chinook
salmon to warrant their designation as separate ESUs. One peer reviewer
indicated that the genetic differences observed between the Central
Valley fall/late fall- and Central Valley spring-run ESU were not
compelling enough to justify their separation into two ESUs. NMFS will
receive new samples of spring and fall chinook salmon from CDFG and
CTWSR at the conclusion of the run year early in 1999 and will need
time to analyze these additional data.
The relationship between different chinook salmon temporal runs
within the same geographic areas varies by region. For example, in
Puget Sound and in the Columbia River, considerable information is
available on the relationship between spring- and fall-run populations.
The two runs are well differentiated by both genetic and life history
traits in the upper Columbia and Snake Rivers, whereas the same
characters show only modest differences between runs in Puget Sound.
These patterns are well established and are not likely to change if
additional information were gathered.
The relationship of different temporal runs in some other areas,
especially those south of Cape Blanco, Oregon, are much less clear.
NMFS had limited genetic information on the relationship between spring
and fall runs in California's Central Valley and in the Klamath River
Basin. The only allozyme information available for spring-run chinook
salmon in both of these regions is from hatchery broodstocks.
Furthermore, available information suggests that these ``spring-run''
broodstocks have undergone significant hybridization with fall-run
chinook salmon returning to the Feather River Hatchery in the Central
Valley. In the Upper Klamath and Trinity River ESU, there was no
genetic information available for naturally-spawning populations. NMFS
concluded that the case for separating the spring and fall runs in this
ESU on an ecologic and life-history basis alone was not as compelling
as was the case in the Central Valley. However, NMFS will review this
decision if new genetic information on naturally-spawning spring-run
populations becomes available to NMFS.
Another scientific disagreement concerning California's Central
Valley spring-run chinook salmon ESU concerns the origins of some
spring-run chinook salmon populations. Disagreements have arisen
concerning the origin of the recently increasing number of spring-run
chinook salmon in Butte Creek, a tributary of the Sacramento River. The
California Department of Water Resources and CDFG presented genetic
information which indicates that the spring-run chinook salmon
population in Butte Creek is not the result of Feather River Hatchery
stray chinook salmon, as NMFS suggested might be the case. New DNA data
suggests that Butte Creek spring-run chinook salmon may be more closely
related to spring-run fish in Deer and Mill Creeks than to fall or
late-fall run stocks. NMFS was unable to positively ascertain the
origin of spring-run chinook salmon in Butte Creek at the time of the
proposed listing and is curently analyzing new genetic samples of Butte
Creek spring-run chinook salmon provided by CDFG so that it can more
accurately address questions concerning ESU configurations and
abundance within the Central Valley.
Scientific disagreement was also raised by the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), CDFG, and a number of other commenters who
disputed the geographic boundaries of the Southern Oregon and
California Coastal chinook salmon ESU. Comments focused on two issues:
(1) Splitting the ESU just south of the Klamath River; and (2) revising
the southern boundary to the Russian River or north of the Russian
River. Genetic data presented in the status review indicate that within
this ESU there are two somewhat distinct subgroups (the first group
includes populations from Cape Blanco to the Klamath River Basin,
inclusive, and the second group includes populations south of the
Klamath
[[Page 14331]]
River). These commenters argued that the genetic distance separating
these groups is comparable to the distance between other ESUs
recognized by NMFS (e.g., between Upper Columbia summer and fall-run
and Snake River fall-run ESUs, and Oregon Coast and Washington Coast
ESUs). Furthermore, these commenters argued that there are considerable
ecological differences between the northern and southern populations
within this large ESU. These geological and environmental differences
had been used by NMFS, in part, to separate coho salmon and steelhead
from this large geographic area into two separate ESUs. ODFW further
contended that the depressed status of chinook salmon in the southern
portion of this ESU was dramatically different from that found in the
northern part, and that the causal factor(s) for this difference may be
related to environmental and management differences between the regions
of this ESU.
The second geographic boundary issue that was presented by
reviewers was the boundary of the southern border of the Southern
Oregon and California Coastal ESU. Several citations were given to
substantiate claims that self-sustaining chinook salmon populations do
not presently, and did not historically, exist in river basins south of
the Russian River or in San Francisco Bay. Additionally, some
commenters contended that chinook salmon native to the Russian River
are extinct, and that the historical abundance of the population was
never very large and may have been intermittent. Part of the rationale
for not dividing the Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU was
based on the absence of biological information on populations in the
southern portion of the ESU. Although genetic information was available
for these southern stocks, the differences observed were not consistent
with the genetic differences used to distinguish other ESUs.
Information on the historical distribution of chinook salmon south
of the Mattole River is very limited. Historical records from the turn
of the century indicate that the southernmost population was in the
Ventura River. The only extant coastal populations south of the Mattole
River are a fall-run population(s) in the Ten-Mile River (Mendocino
County) and possibly the Russian River. CDFG and other reviewers
concluded that the native run in the Russian River was extirpated early
in this century, and genetic information and hatchery transfer records
indicate that the current population is composed of a myriad of
introduced stocks. Chinook salmon have also been observed spawning in
the Guadalupe River (south San Francisco Bay) and have been recently
observed in several other tributaries in San Francisco Bay (Coyote
Creek), San Pablo Bay (Sonoma Creek, Napa River), and Suisun Bay
(Walnut Creek) (SOE, 1996), but NMFS was unable to resolve the origin
of these populations.
Regarding the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU, ODFW, CTWSR,
the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), and other
reviewers disagreed with the inclusion of the Deschutes River fall-run
chinook salmon in this ESU. They argued that the Deschutes River and
Snake River Basins are ecologically distinct. Furthermore, the
geographic distance between these basins would preclude any significant
genetic exchange, especially if one considers the historical spawning
distribution of the Snake River chinook salmon. A number of scenarios
were suggested that might explain the genetic similarity between the
Deschutes River and Snake River fall-run populations. One scenario
presented by ODFW suggested that, after the loss of the majority of
their historical spawning habitat, the remaining Snake River fall-run
populations no longer represent the genetic characteristics of the
historical ESU. They stressed that the existing allozyme information
NMFS analyzed was acquired after the Columbia River Basin had undergone
considerable alterations (mainstem dam construction) and many of the
native populations had been extirpated. An alternative view is that
because the genetic differences between all ocean-type chinook salmon
above the Dalles Dam are relatively small, the clustering of
populations is subject to uncertainty and possible bias, depending on
the procedures used. The commenters also suggested that the marine
coded-wire tag recovery information for the Deschutes River fall-run
populations may be biased due to the limited number of tags recovered
and the limited number of brood years that were tagged. CTWSR asserted
that an ocean-type summer-run existed (and may still exist) in the
Deschutes River, and this would evolutionarily link the Deschutes River
ocean-type fish more with ocean-type fish in the Upper Columbia summer/
fall-run ESU, which (unlike the Snake River fall-run ESU) also includes
summer-run populations.
Some reviewers suggested that all ocean-type chinook salmon above
the historical location of Celilo Falls should be considered a single
ESU. The most commonly suggested alternative ESU configuration was for
a separate ESU that would include the Deschutes River, and the now
extinct populations that once spawned in the John Day, Umatilla, and
Walla Walla Rivers.
Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the Snake River fall-run
chinook salmon ESU configuration, and none of the alternatives
considered (including the configuration in the proposed rule) for these
chinook salmon populations can be convincingly substantiated by the
existing scientific evidence.
Issues Related to Risk Assessment
Risk assessment involves the collection and analysis of data on the
abundance and status of west coast chinook salmon and the threats
presented by various human activities and natural occurrences. In its
``Factors for Decline'' report for west coast chinook salmon, NMFS
identified the principal threats to chinook as past and present harvest
and hatchery practices, habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation,
as well as adverse ocean conditions (NMFS, 1998).
With respect to abundance data, several commenters argued that NMFS
lacked sufficient and accurate data to estimate current chinook salmon
abundance. These commenters argued that NMFS failed to accurately
estimate the number and effects of hatchery fish spawning in the wild,
and that NMFS' analysis upwardly biased its assessment of the risks
facing chinook salmon in those instances.
The Association of California Water Agencies and other resources
agencies disagreed with NMFS' conclusion that a considerable portion of
the naturally-spawning population in the Central Valley were hatchery
strays. They argued that in the absence of definitive information
regarding the proportion of strays spawning naturally that NMFS could
not adequately define risks. Additionally, they argued that if hatchery
and natural populations were indistinguishable (due to the use of
broodstocks from within the ESU) and hatcheries are needed to mitigate
lost habitat, then hatchery abundance should be included in the risk
determination. Furthermore, one estimate of the hatchery stray rate (20
percent) is much lower than that found in other ESUs that were not
recommended for listing.
NMFS considered several different estimates of hatchery
contribution to naturally spawning chinook salmon populations in the
Central Valley. The estimates of stray rates varied from 20 to over 50
percent. Additionally, NMFS inferred the status of naturally-spawning
populations by comparing the
[[Page 14332]]
abundance trends for populations that were near hatchery release sites
relative to those more distantly situated. Recent information indicates
that stray rates for many basins, especially those in the San Joaquin
River Basin, are well in excess of 50 percent, but may be quite low for
selected basins in the upper Sacramento River. Additional spawner
survey, smolt sampling, and coded-wire-tag recovery data have been
received from CDFG, the water resource agencies, and other comanagers.
This information begins to fill an important void in NMFS'
understanding of the relationship between hatchery and spawning fish.
There are still a number of major basins for which there is limited,
dated information on spawner strays. NMFS and CDFG staff are currently
collecting additional information and data to help resolve these
substantial scientific disagreements.
In the case of Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon, spawner
abundance in Butte Creek increased from less than a hundred to several
thousand in a few years; the 1998 abundance estimate for the Butte
Creek spring run is approximately 19,000 spawners. This increase was so
abrupt that it caused some speculation that it was not due to natural
production. Furthermore, water from the Feather River had been diverted
into Butte Creek to improve flows, and it was suggested that this may
have attracted Feather River Hatchery fish. If these fish are included
in the total abundance estimate for the Central Valley spring-run
chinook salmon ESU, it represents a several fold increase in total
spring-run chinook salmon abundance and this new information may affect
NMFS' determination. NMFS was unable to positively ascertain the origin
of spring-run chinook salmon in Butte Creek at the time of the proposed
listing, and our recently collected genetic samples have yet to be
fully analyzed.
Prospects for Resolving Existing Disagreements
Several efforts are underway that may resolve scientific
disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to
these listings. Currently, NMFS is obtaining genetic samples from
naturally-spawning spring- and fall-run populations in the Central
Valley and the upper Klamath and Trinity River Basins. Furthermore, a
number of co-managing agencies (U.S. Forest Service, CDFG, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, HVTC, and YTFP) in the Upper Klamath
and Trinity Rivers and Southern Oregon and Coastal California ESUs have
collected samples for microsatellite DNA analysis from both spring and
fall runs. These samples would be very useful in determining the
relationship between conspecific temporal chinook salmon runs within an
ESU, as currently defined, and would provide a wider geographic context
for the DNA data that were utilized in determining the configuration of
the California chinook salmon stocks. Additionally, DNA information has
been made available from California State agencies for an additional
naturally-spawning spring run in California's Central Valley (Butte
Creek). Over the next few months the analysis of this genetic
information will be completed at the Bodega Bay Marine Laboratory and
Hopkins Marine Station Laboratory (DNA samples) and by NMFS (allozyme
samples). The results will provide a more complete picture of the
genetic relationship between conspecific temporal runs and may
significantly alter the configuration of the proposed ESUs.
Presently, there are reports of chinook salmon (of unknown run size
and origin) spawning in a number of tributaries to Suisun Bay, San
Pablo Bay, and San Francisco Bay. New information is being gathered by
NMFS to document the occurrence of spawning chinook salmon throughout
San Francisco Bay and the lower Delta region.
Regarding the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU, ODFW and
CTWSR are currently collecting new genetic samples from fish spawning
in the Deschutes River. Samples are being taken from above and below
Sherars Falls to establish whether multiple populations exist within
the Deschutes River. The CTWSR is also reviewing historical
environmental data for the Deschutes and Snake River Basins. CTWSR and
CRITFC will prepare a report of the results of their studies for NMFS
to review by late spring 1999.
For California's Central Valley ESUs, NMFS will receive and analyze
additional spring- and fall-run genetic samples as well as rigorously
evaluate ecological characteristics to determine if further subdivision
of these ESUs are warranted. Currently, NMFS is obtaining tissue
samples for allozyme analysis from Butte Creek, Deer Creek, and
possibly Mill Creek (the latter two sites contain what are generally
thought to be the native spring runs). The inclusion of these samples
in the NMFS allozyme database should help resolve the origin of the
Butte Creek fish, and evaluate the reproductive isolation of
conspecific temporal relationships between spring- and fall-run chinook
salmon in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.
Determination
NMFS expects that information that has just become (or will soon
become) available will, when fully analyzed, significantly help to
resolve scientific uncertainties associated with ESU determinations
and/or extinction risk analysis for the chinook salmon ESUs discussed
earlier in this document. Four of these chinook salmon ESUs were
proposed for listing in 1998: Central Valley spring- and fall/late
fall-run, Southern Oregon and California Coastal, and Snake River fall-
run chinook salmon. This information should also help clarify the ESU
configuration and status of populations in the Upper Klamath and
Trinity Rivers ESU (an ESU that was not proposed for listing), thus
providing greater certainty and consistency in ESU determinations
coastwide.
With respect to the other ESUs of chinook salmon that were proposed
for listing on March 9, 1998 (Puget Sound, Lower Columbia River, Upper
Willamette River, and Upper Columbia River spring-run), NMFS has made
final listing determinations published elsewhere in the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register issue.
The scientific disagreements concerning data and analyses discussed
earlier are substantial and may alter NMFS' assessment of the status of
California's Central Valley spring-run and Central Valley fall/late
fall-run, Southern Oregon and California Coastal, and Snake River fall
chinook salmon ESUs. In light of these disagreements and the fact that
more data are forthcoming on risk assessment and ESU boundaries, NMFS
extends the final determination deadline for California's Central
Valley spring-run and Central Valley fall/late fall-run, Southern
Oregon and California Coastal, and Snake River fall-run chinook salmon
ESUs for 6 months from the 1-year decision deadline, until September 9,
1999. During this period, NMFS will analyze new information aimed at
resolving these disagreements. New information or analyses may indicate
that changing the proposed status of one or more of these ESUs of west
coast chinook salmon is warranted, and NMFS will either finalize,
withdraw, or modify the proposed rule accordingly.
Request for Comments
In addition to collecting and analyzing data received, NMFS seeks
additional comments on the information presented in this Federal
Register document. Comments must be received by April 23, 1999.
[[Page 14333]]
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 742a et. seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 16 U.S.C. 31 U.S.c. 9701.
Dated: March 15, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-6816 Filed 3-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
