[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 57 (Thursday, March 25, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14508-14517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6814]
[[Page 14507]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for Two ESUs of
Chum Salmon in Washington and Oregon, for Two ESUs of Steelhead in
Washington and Oregon, and for Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon in
Washington; Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 57 / Thursday, March 25, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 14508]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 980219042-9069-02; I.D. 011498B]
RIN 0648-AK53
Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for Two ESUs
of Chum Salmon in Washington and Oregon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; notice of determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
