[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 179 (Thursday, September 16, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50394-50415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24051]
[[Page 50393]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Two Chinook
Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in California; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 1999 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 50394]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223
[Docket No. 990303060-9231-03; I.D. 022398C]
RIN 0648-AM54
Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Two
Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in California
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; notice of determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Previously, NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of
west coast chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) populations in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California and identified 15 ESUs within
this range. After soliciting additional data to resolve scientific
disagreements, NMFS now issues a final rule to list two ESUs as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Central Valley
spring-run ESU was originally proposed as endangered, but new
information indicates that the ESU should instead be considered a
threatened species. The California Coastal ESU was originally proposed
as threatened, as part of a larger Southern Oregon and California
Coastal ESU, but new information supports a threatened listing for a
revised ESU consisting of California coastal chinook salmon populations
from Redwood Creek (Humboldt County) south through the Russian River.
Other coastal populations to the north of this ESU (and originally
proposed as threatened) are now considered part of a separate Southern
Oregon and Northern California Coastal ESU that does not warrant
listing at this time.
NMFS is also making final listing determinations for two other
chinook salmon ESUs originally proposed as threatened. It has
considered new information about the Central Valley fall and late fall-
run ESU and has determined that listing is not warranted at this time,
but it will consider it a candidate species. In the case of the
proposed ESU expansion for threatened Snake River fall-run chinook
salmon, NMFS has determined that the ESU does not include Deschutes
River populations and that listing this latter population is not
warranted at this time.
In the two ESUs identified as threatened, only naturally spawned
populations of chinook salmon are listed. At this time, no hatchery
populations are deemed essential for recovery in either of the two
listed ESUs, so no hatchery populations are part of this final listing
determination.
NMFS intends to issue protective regulations under section 4(d) of
the ESA for these threatened ESUs. Even though NMFS is not now issuing
protective regulations for the threatened ESUs, Federal agencies are
required under section 7 to consult with NMFS if any activity they
authorize, fund, or carry out may affect listed chinook salmon in these
ESUs.
DATES: Effective November 15, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Branch Chief, NMFS, Northwest Region, Protected Resources
Division, 525 NE. Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737;
Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, NMFS,
Southwest Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA
90802-4213; Salmon Coordinator, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Reference materials regarding this listing determination can also
be obtained from the internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin at (503) 231-2005, Craig
Wingert at (562) 980-4021, or Chris Mobley at (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Species Background
Chinook salmon are anadromous and semelparous, i.e., as adults they
migrate from the marine environment into the freshwater rivers and
streams of their birth (anadromous) where they spawn and die
(semelparous). They are the largest of the Pacific salmon species and
are distributed in freshwater and marine areas from California to Asia.
The four ESUs considered in this determination spawn and rear in
coastal and interior rivers in California and Oregon and forage in vast
nearshore and marine zones of the North Pacific Ocean. More detailed
biological information for west coast chinook salmon can be found in
species' status assessments by NMFS (Matthews and Waples, 1991; Waples
et al., 1991; NMFS, 1995; Waknitz et al., 1995; Myers et al., 1998;
NMFS, 1998a; NMFS, 1999a), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW, 1991; Nickelson et al., 1992; Kostow et al., 1995), California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)(Clark, 1929; CDFG, 1965; Hallock and
Fry, 1967; Reynolds et al., 1993; Yoshiyama et al., 1996), and for
species life history summaries (Miller and Brannon, 1982; Healey,
1991), and in previous Federal Register documents (56 FR 29542, June
27, 1991; 63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998).
Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Chinook Salmon
Descriptions of previous Federal ESA actions pertaining to west
coast chinook salmon are summarized in the proposed rule (63 FR 11482,
March 9, 1998), and recent final rule (63 FR 14308, March 24, 1999) for
several chinook salmon ESUs. NMFS initially announced its intention to
conduct a coastwide review of chinook salmon status in response to a
petition to list several Puget Sound chinook salmon stocks on September
12, 1994 (59 FR 46808). Having received on February 1, 1995, a more
comprehensive petition from the Oregon Natural Resources Council and
from Dr. Richard Nawa, NMFS reconfirmed its intention to conduct a
coastwide review (60 FR 30263, June 8, 1995). During that 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 from 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 chinook salmon and their
habitats. The NMFS Biological Review Team (BRT), composed of staff from
NMFS' Northwest, Southwest, and Auke Bay Fisheries Science Centers,
Northwest and Southwest Regions, as well as staff from the National
Biological Survey, reviewed and evaluated scientific information
provided by the PSBTCs and other sources. 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 as accurate and complete as possible. The BRT then incorporated all
comments into the coastwide chinook salmon status review.
Based on the results of the completed status report on west coast
chinook salmon (Myers et al., 1998), NMFS identified 15 ESUs of chinook
salmon from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, including 11 new
ESUs, and 1 redefined ESU (63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998). After assessing
information concerning chinook salmon abundance, distribution,
population trends, and risks and after considering efforts being made
to protect chinook salmon, NMFS
[[Page 50395]]
determined that several chinook salmon ESUs did not warrant listing
under the ESA. The chinook salmon ESUs not requiring ESA protection
included the Upper Klamath and Trinity River ESU, Oregon Coast ESU,
Washington Coast ESU, Middle Columbia River spring-run ESU, and Upper
Columbia River summer- and fall-run ESU.
Also based on this evaluation, and after considering efforts being
made to protect chinook salmon, NMFS proposed that seven chinook salmon
ESUs warranted listing as either endangered or threatened species under
the ESA. The chinook salmon ESUs proposed as endangered species
included California Central Valley spring-run and Washington's Upper
Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon. The chinook salmon ESUs
proposed as threatened species included California Central Valley fall
and late fall-run, Southern Oregon and California Coastal, Puget Sound,
Lower Columbia River, and Upper Willamette River spring-run chinook
salmon. Additionally, NMFS found that fall-run chinook salmon from the
Deschutes River in Oregon shared a strong genetic and life history
affinity to currently listed Snake River fall-run chinook. Based on
this affinity, NMFS proposed to revise the existing listed Snake River
fall-run ESU to include fall-run chinook salmon in the Deschutes River.
The resulting revised ESU would be listed as threatened.
Following these proposed listings, NMFS conducted 21 public
hearings within the range of the proposed chinook salmon ESUs in
California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. NMFS accepted and reviewed
public comments solicited during a 112-day public comment period. Also
during the comment period, NMFS solicited peer and co-manager review of
NMFS' proposal and received comments and new scientific information
concerning the status of the chinook salmon ESUs proposed for listing.
NMFS also received information regarding the relationship of existing
hatchery stocks to native populations in each ESU. This new information
was evaluated by NMFS' BRT and published in an updated status review
for these chinook salmon entitled ``Status Review Update for West Coast
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from Puget Sound, Lower
Columbia River, Upper Willamette River, and Upper Columbia River
Spring-run ESUs.'' (NMFS, 1998a).
Based on these public hearings, comments, and additional technical
meetings with Indian tribes and the states, NMFS found that listing was
warranted for four ESUs (Upper Columbia River spring-run, Puget Sound,
Lower Columbia River, and Upper Willamette River spring-run ESUs) (63
FR 14308, March 24, 1999). However, substantial scientific
disagreements precluded the agency from making final determinations for
California's Central Valley spring-run and Central Valley fall and late
fall-run, Southern Oregon and California Coastal, and Snake River fall-
run ESUs. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the
ESA, NMFS extended the period for making final determinations for these
ESUs by 6 additional months (63 FR 14329, March 24, 1999).
During the 6 month period, NMFS received new scientific information
concerning the boundaries, population structure, and status of the
deferred ESUs and met with the affected states, Indian Tribes, and
Federal co-managers. This new information was considered by NMFS' BRT,
and NMFS has now completed an updated status review that analyzes this
new information as well as the ESU status of existing hatchery stocks
(NMFS, 1999a). Based on this updated status review and other
information, NMFS now issues its final determinations for these four
proposed ESUs. Copies of NMFS' updated status review reports 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 nearly 300
written comments regarding the west coast chinook salmon proposed rule.
A number of comments addressed issues pertaining to the proposed
critical habitat designation for west coast chinook salmon. NMFS will
address these comments in a forthcoming Federal Register document
announcing the agency's conclusions about critical habitat for all
listed chinook salmon ESUs.
NMFS also sought new data and analyses from tribal, state, and
Federal co-managers and met with them to formally discuss technical
issues associated with the deferred chinook salmon ESUs. This new
information and analysis were considered by NMFS' BRT in its re-
evaluation of ESU boundaries and species' status; this information is
discussed in an updated status review report for these chinook salmon
ESUs (NMFS, 1999a).
In addition to soliciting and reviewing public comments, NMFS
sought peer review of its listing proposals. 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 13 individuals to take part in a peer
review of its west coast chinook salmon proposed rule. All individuals
solicited are recognized experts in the field of chinook salmon biology
and represent a broad range of interests, including Federal, state, and
tribal resource managers and academia. Four individuals took part in
the peer review of this action; new information and comments provided
by the public and comments from peer reviewers were considered by NMFS'
BRT and are summarized in the updated status review documents (NMFS,
1998a; NMFS, 1999a). Copies of these documents are available upon
request (see ADDRESSES).
A summary of comments received in response to the proposed rule
follows.
Issue 1: Sufficiency and Accuracy of Scientific Information and
Analysis
Comment 1: Some commenters questioned the sufficiency and accuracy
of data NMFS employed in the listing proposal. In contrast, peer
reviewers commented that the agency's status review was both credible
and comprehensive, even though they may not have concurred with all of
NMFS' conclusions.
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 and taking into account any efforts being made to protect such
species. NMFS believes that information contained in the agency's
status review (Myers et al., 1998), together with more recent
information obtained in response to the proposed rule (NMFS, 1998a;
NMFS, 1999a), represents the best scientific and commercial information
presently available for the chinook 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 as described
previously. If new data become available to change these conclusions,
NMFS will act accordingly.
[[Page 50396]]
Comment 2: Several of the comments received suggested that the ESA
does not provide for the creation of ESUs and that ESUs do not
correspond to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments
(DPSs) that are specifically identified in the ESA. Further, NMFS' use
of genetic information (allozyme- or DNA-derived) to determine ESU
boundaries was criticized by several commenters. It was argued that
allozyme-based electrophoretic data cannot be used to imply either
evolutionary significance or local adaptation. Other commenters
indicated that NMFS used genetic distances inconsistently in
determining the creation of ESUs. Several commenters argued that there
was insufficient scientific information presented to justify the
establishment of the chinook salmon ESUs discussed. Information was
lacking concerning a number of ``key'' criteria for defining ESUs, such
as phenotypic differences, evolutionary significance, or ecological
significance of various chinook populations. Commenters contended that
NMFS did not find any life history, habitat, or phenotypic
characteristics that were unique to any of the ESUs discussed.
Disagreement within the BRT regarding ESU delineations was also given
as a reason for challenging the proposed listing decision.
Response: General issues relating to ESUs, DPSs, and the ESA have
been discussed extensively in past Federal Register documents as
described in this paragraph. Regarding application of its ESU policy,
NMFS relies on its policy describing how it will apply the ESA
definition of ``species'' to anadromous salmonid species published in
1991 (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). More recently, NMFS and FWS
published a joint policy, that is consistent with NMFS' policy,
regarding the definition of ``distinct population segments'' (DPSs)(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, a 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, needs 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 more recent
scientific paper by Waples (1995).
The National Research Council (NRC) has recently addressed the
issue of defining species under the ESA (NRC, 1995). Its report found
that protecting DPSs 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
concludes that either approach would lead to similar DPS descriptions
most of the time.
ESUs were identified using the best available scientific and
commercial information. As discussed in the status review, genetic data
were used primarily to evaluate the criterion regarding reproductive
isolation, not evolutionary significance. In some cases, there was a
considerable degree of confidence in the ESU determinations; in other
cases, more uncertainty was associated with this process. Similarly,
the risk analysis necessarily involved a mixture of quantitative and
qualitative information and scientific judgement. NMFS' process for
conducting its risk assessment has evolved over time as the amount and
complexity of information has changed, and NMFS continues to seek and
incorporate comments and suggestions to improve this process. NMFS
believes that there is evidence to support the identification of DPSs
for chinook salmon. The chinook salmon status reviews describe a
variety of characteristics that support the ESU delineations for this
species, including ecological and life history parameters. NMFS also
assessed available genetic data for the proposed ESUs and concludes
that sufficient genetic differences existed between these and adjacent
ESUs to support separate delineations. As described later in this
notice, new information has resulted in significant changes in the
configurations of some proposed ESUs.
Issue 2: Status Assessments for Chinook Salmon ESUs
Comment 3: Some comments suggested that risk assessments were made
in an arbitrary manner and that NMFS did not rely on the best available
science. Several commenters questioned NMFS' methodology for
determining whether a given chinook salmon ESU warranted listing. In
some cases, such commenters also expressed opinions regarding whether
listing was warranted for a particular chinook salmon ESU.
Response: Throughout the status review of west coast chinook
salmon, NMFS has solicited and evaluated the best available scientific
and commercial data for the species. The agency believes that this
review, coupled with considerable input from the public, comanagers,
peer reviewers, and other species experts, clearly demonstrates that
the listing determinations are not arbitrary but instead are based on
an open and rigorous scientific assessment. Section 3 of the ESA
defines the term ``endangered species'' as ``any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is defined as ``any species
which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' NMFS has
identified a number of factors that should be considered in evaluating
the level of risk faced by an ESU, including: (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. A more detailed discussion of the status of
individual ESUs is provided later in this document under Issues 5
through 8.
Issue 3: Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast Chinook
Salmon
Comment 4: Some comments identified factors for decline that were
either not identified in the status review or which they believed were
not given sufficient weight in the risk analysis. Other commenters
contended that recent declines in chinook salmon abundance were related
to natural factors such as predation and changes in
[[Page 50397]]
ocean productivity. Furthermore, these commenters contend that NMFS did
not show how the present declines were significantly different from
natural variability in abundance, nor that abundances were below the
current carrying capacity of the marine environment and freshwater
habitat.
Response: The status review did not attempt to exhaustively
identify factors for decline, except insofar as they contributed
directly to the risk analysis. Nevertheless, NMFS agrees that a
multitude of factors, past and present, have contributed to the decline
of west coast chinook salmon. Many of the identified factors were
specifically cited as risk agents in NMFS's status review (Myers et
al., 1998) and listing proposal (63 FR 11482, March 9, 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, artificial
propagation, and widespread habitat modification) have played an
equally significant role in the decline of chinook salmon.
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 chinook 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 the
elimination and degradation of freshwater habitats have contributed to
the decline of these chinook salmon ESUs. The past destruction,
modification, and curtailment of freshwater habitat was reviewed in a
recent NMFS coastwide assessment for steelhead (NMFS, 1996), and, more
recently, for chinook salmon (NMFS, 1998b). Many of the identified
risks and conclusions apply specifically to these chinook salmon.
Examples of habitat alterations affecting chinook salmon include: water
withdrawal, conveyance, storage, and flood control (resulting in
insufficient flows, stranding, juvenile entrainment, and increased
stream temperatures); and logging and agriculture (resulting in loss of
large woody debris, sedimentation, loss of riparian vegetation, and
habitat simplification)(NMFS, 1996; Spence et al., 1996; Myers et al.,
1998; NMFS, 1998b). 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 chinook 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, 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
1999b). 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 at the 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
1999b).
Issue 4: Consideration of Existing Conservation Measures
Comment 5: Several comments expressed concerns about NMFS' reliance
and characterization of the efficacy of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NFP), citing significant differences in management practices between
various Federal land management agencies. Numerous commenters noted
that an array of state and Federal conservation measures were underway
for this and other species (particularly in California) and asked that
NMFS give them more consideration in its listing determination.
Response: In the listing proposal, NMFS noted that the NFP requires
specific management actions on Federal lands, including actions in key
watersheds in southern Oregon and northern California 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, 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.
Additional consideration was given to various conservation efforts
in California and elsewhere within the range of proposed chinook ESUs
that have been implemented or are expected to be initiated. See
``Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon'' later in
this document.
Comment 6: Several comments expressed concern over the need to
list these chinook salmon ESUs and the effects of these listings on
Indian resources, programs, land management, and associated Trust
responsibilities. Particular concern was expressed about the effects of
listing Deschutes River chinook salmon on tribal fishing for this and
other species.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that ESA listings may impact Indian
resources, programs, land management and associated Trust
responsibilities. NMFS will continue to work closely with affected
Indian tribes through government to government consultation as harvest
and other management issues arise and will continue to support the
development of sound, strong tribal and state conservation efforts to
restore listed chinook salmon and other west coast salmon populations.
[[Page 50398]]
Issue 5: ESU Delineation and Status of Central Valley Spring-run
Chinook Salmon
Comment 7: Some commenters questioned this ESU's configuration and
felt that NMFS was inconsistent in separating spring and fall runs in
the Central Valley. A peer reviewer stated that the genetic information
presented was not sufficient to justify the creation of a separate
spring-run chinook salmon ESU. The majority of commenters agreed that
this ESU is currently at risk, but there were disparate views as to
whether the risks warranted an endangered listing under the ESA. For
example, one commenter believed that Central Valley spring-run
populations have remained stable (although at low levels of abundance)
and that current fluctuations are consistent with natural terrestrial
and ocean productivity cycles. This commenter suggested that
information on cohort replacement rates, the level of interaction
between fall and spring runs, and the impact of various factors
relating to the survival of emigrating juveniles and returning adults
need to be further investigated before a listing determination can be
made. Another commenter felt that listing was warranted, but that a
threatened status was more appropriate, given the relatively stable
population sizes for most spring-run fish over the last 20 years and
the increasing abundance found in Butte Creek.
Recent large returns to Butte Creek prompted a number of comments
specific to spring-run chinook salmon in this Sacramento River
tributary. One commenter suggested that the recent increases were due
to high flows through the Sutter Bypass during the recent wet years.
Spring-run adults returning to the upper Sacramento River would be
attracted to the Bypass and routed up into Butte Creek. Therefore, the
commenters contend that spring-run fish currently spawning in Butte
Creek represent an amalgamation of fish from the upper Sacramento River
and its tributaries. Another commenter believed that NMFS incorrectly
suggested that the Butte Creek populations were the product of hatchery
releases. Similarly, two commenters presented genetic information that
indicates that the spring-run chinook salmon population in Butte Creek
is not the result of strays from the Feather River Hatchery as was
speculated by NMFS. They also noted that the 1998 abundance estimate
for the Butte Creek spring run is approximately 19,000 spawners and
that, if these fish are included in the total abundance estimate for
the Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon ESU, there is a several
fold increase in abundance.
Several commenters cited specific factors for decline that impact
the fall run: predation by non-native species, dam and reservoir
operations, catastrophic stranding, incorporation of naturally produced
salmon into hatchery broodstocks, and competition and predation by
hatchery chinook salmon and steelhead on naturally produced chinook
salmon. Some contended that a variety of existing conservation efforts
aimed at addressing factors for decline (e.g., the Bay-Delta Accord,
CALFED, and harvest and hatchery reforms) were sufficient to prevent
this ESU from becoming extinct. In addition, some commenters believed
that significant benefits would accrue to spring-run chinook salmon as
a result of the State of California's ESA listing for the species, as
well as actions by NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council
(PFMC) to protect winter-run chinook salmon. Others disagreed with
these contentions and asserted that efforts had clearly failed to
adequately protect chinook salmon in the Central Valley.
Since the initial status review, NMFS has received new data and
information which have helped resolve the scientific uncertainties
associated with the proposed listing for this ESU (NMFS, 1999a), and
are summarized as follows.
Response - ESU Delineation: NMFS recently analyzed new genetic
data collected for California chinook salmon. In 1998 and 1999, NMFS,
CDFG, FWS, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) collected samples of
spawned adult chinook salmon from 13 rivers and hatcheries in the
Central Valley and Klamath River Basin. The new samples were analyzed
along with allozyme data for California and southern Oregon chinook
salmon that were previously used in the NMFS coastwide status review
(Myers et al., 1998). The population structure revealed by the new
analysis of allozyme data was consistent with the delineations of major
genetic groups described in previous genetic studies of California and
southern Oregon chinook salmon (Utter et al., 1989; Bartley et al.,
1992; Myers et al., 1998). The most genetically divergent group of
samples was from the Central Valley. Within the Central Valley, the
most genetically divergent sample was from the Coleman National Fish
Hatchery (CNFH) winter-run population. Spring-run chinook salmon
sampled from Deer and Butte Creeks were distinct from the winter-run
fish sample and also from samples of fall- and late fall-run chinook
salmon from the Central Valley. The Deer Creek and Butte Creek samples
were genetically distinct from each other. The sample of spring-run
chinook salmon from the Feather River Hatchery was genetically
intermediate between spring- and fall-run samples and most similar to
the sample of Feather River Hatchery fall-run chinook salmon. Samples
of fall-run and late fall-run populations formed a diverse subcluster
that included samples from both Sacramento and San Joaquin populations.
Banks et al. (1999) studied 5 to 11 microsatellite loci in 41
samples to assess genetic diversity among winter-, spring-, fall-, and
late fall-run chinook salmon in California's Central Valley. Five
homogeneous subpopulations were found: (1) wild and hatchery broodstock
winter run, (2) wild spring run from Deer and Mill Creeks, (3) wild
spring run from Butte Creek, (4) wild and hatchery fall run, and (5)
wild and hatchery late-fall run. Winter-run samples were the most
genetically divergent. Butte Creek spring-run chinook salmon were the
next most divergent, followed by spring-run samples from Deer and Mill
Creeks. Fall and late-fall runs were separated by a very small genetic
distance. It is noteworthy that the sample of Butte Creek spring-run
fish did not show evidence of introgression from Feather River hatchery
fall-run stock. However, fewer alleles and lower heterozygosities in
both winter-run and Butte Creek spring-run samples indicate that these
populations may have experienced past reductions in population size.
Banks et al. (1999) used five microsatellite loci to investigate
genetic relationships among 11 fall- and spring-run chinook salmon
populations in the Klamath River and to compare these populations to
chinook salmon from the Central Valley. Despite extensive sampling and
analysis, no homogeneous population pools were found. Overall, Klamath
River Basin populations were differentiated from Central Valley
populations, and winter-run chinook salmon were genetically distinct
and did not cluster with other populations.
Nielsen et al. (1994) and Nielsen (1995) examined mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) variation in 14 samples of chinook salmon from Central Valley
rivers and hatcheries and one sample from Guadalupe River, a southern
tributary of San Francisco Bay. Nielsen et al. (1999) concluded that
their data support their earlier conclusions (Nielsen et al., 1994)
that fall, late fall, spring, and winter runs of Central Valley chinook
salmon show consistently significant differences for the mtDNA locus,
indicating infrequent
[[Page 50399]]
straying and limited gene flow among the temporal spawning runs.
Kim et al. (1999) examined genetic variation in winter-, spring-,
fall-, and late fall-run adult chinook salmon taken from the upper
Sacramento River between 1991 and 1995. An analysis of population
structure indicated that winter-run chinook salmon were the most
genetically distinct, while fall- and late fall-run samples were
closely related to each other. Spring-run samples were genetically
intermediate between the winter and fall and late-fall runs. A sample
of Butte Creek spring-run chinook salmon was genetically similar to
Sacramento River mainstem spring-run samples.
Ecological and life history information for this ESU was also re-
evaluated, particularly historical and current information concerning
Butte Creek populations. Yoshiyama et al. (1996) reported that spring,
fall, and probably late-fall runs of chinook salmon historically
utilized Butte Creek. Gold mining, logging activities, and irrigation
withdrawals have all had a considerable impact on habitat quality
(Clark, 1929; Hanson et al., 1940). In 1917, two diversion dams were
constructed by Pacific Gas and Electric. The Centerville Diversion Dam
eliminated access to the upper watershed (Mills and Ward, 1996). Clark
(1929) reported that the fall-run fish had declined dramatically and
that summer flows in the lower river had been reduced by irrigation
withdrawals. There was no mention of the status of a spring run. A
survey by Hanson et al. (1940) reported that much of the upper
watershed had been logged, and that mining operations continued to
impact the river flow, and that ``none of the flow of Butte Creek
except perhaps a little seepage reaches the Sacramento River during
this summer.
Yoshiyama et al. (1996) reported that Butte Creek spring-run
chinook salmon enter the creek in February through April (compared with
May or June for Feather River spring-run chinook salmon). USFS
monitoring (which began in 1930) indicated that flows in Butte Creek
peak during the February to June period (peaks vary from 1,000 to over
10,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), with a maximum of 25,000 cfs in
1997), but are below 100 cfs during much of the remainder of the year
(U.S. Geological Survey, 1999). Although Butte Creek originates in the
Sierra Nevada Mountains (2000 m), spring-run adults spawn at a
relatively low altitude (300 m), in part because of the absence of
passage at the Centerville Dam. Yoshiyama et al. (1996) were uncertain
if spring-run chinook salmon historically migrated above a 7.6 m
waterfall located near the Centerville Dam. Spring-run chinook salmon
spawn in September. Juveniles emigrate primarily as fry (December to
March) and may rear in the Sacramento River Delta for extended periods
(Baracco, 1996). Fall-run chinook salmon are reported to spawn further
downstream, below the Parrot-Phelam Dam (Yoshiyama et al., 1996).
Based on a re-assessment of information relevant to the
configuration of this ESU, NMFS reiterates its previous decisions that
the spring-run populations in the Central Valley constitute a distinct
ESU and that the extirpated spring-run populations in the southern
portion of this ESU may have constituted their own ESU (based on
ecological and biogeographical data). NMFS considered several issues
related to the configuration of the Central Valley spring-run chinook
salmon ESU. The genetic data indicate that spring-run fish spawning in
Butte Creek are not the progeny of Feather River Hatchery spring-run
releases, but represent a naturally spawning population distinct from
both Feather River fish and spring-run chinook salmon in Deer and Mill
Creeks. Further sampling and analysis of mainstem Sacramento River
spring-run fish (the only remaining known population that is not
presently genetically described) are potentially important to
understanding the relationship among Central Valley spring-run chinook
salmon populations. Furthermore, NMFS is concerned that hatchery
operations at the Feather River Hatchery may have resulted in the
hybridization of spring- and fall-run fish. However, NMFS concludes
that the Feather River spring run may retain ``spring-run'' life
history characteristics and concludes it is still part of this ESU.
Response - ESU Status: NMFS also examined updated risk information
for this ESU. Abundance of spring-run chinook salmon has increased in
several streams since 1996, the most recent year considered in the
previous risk evaluation by NMFS. The Feather River population
abundance has been fairly constant at 3,000 to 7,000 fish per year
spawning naturally. The 5-year geometric mean abundance of spring-run
chinook salmon in the Feather River increased from 4,260 fish through
1996 to 5,013 through 1998. CDFG and other fisheries biologists
familiar with Central Valley runs believe that the so-called spring-run
fish in the Feather River are not likely to be representative of the
historically wild spring-run fish because of the introgression between
wild spring-run populations and hatchery spring- and fall-run chinook
salmon (CDFG, 1998a). Three streams, Deer, Mill, and Butte Creeks,
which contain naturally spawning populations of spring-run chinook
salmon in this ESU, have also shown increases in mean abundance. The 5-
year geometric mean abundance in Deer Creek increased from 564 through
1997 to 805 through 1998, and, in Mill Creek, the mean abundance
increased from 252 through 1996 to 346 through 1998.
The most impressive change in status since the previous NMFS risk
evaluation for this ESU was the continuing strong return of spring
chinook to Butte Creek. In 1998, 20,259 spring-run chinook salmon
returned to the creek, 2.7 times greater than the 1995 parental cohort
of 7,500 fish resulting in a 5-year geometric mean abundance of 2,302
fish. The dissimilarity in genetic composition (Banks et al., 1999; Kim
et al., 1999) and lack of concordance of trends in abundance (CDFG,
1998b) of Butte Creek and Feather River spring chinook suggest that the
recent large escapements of spring chinook to Butte Creek are not the
result of fish straying from the Feather River.
The spawning population of spring-run chinook salmon in the
mainstem Sacramento River above Red Bluff Diversion Dam has continued
to decline in abundance since the previous risk evaluation. The 5-year
geometric mean abundance through 1998 is estimated to be around 300
fish, down from a mean of 435 through 1996. CDFG discussed sporadic
reports of spring-run chinook salmon in Antelope, Cottonwood, and Big
Chico Creeks, but the infrequent occurrence of these fish indicates
that they do not represent self-sustaining populations (CDFG, 1998a).
After reviewing additional scientific information regarding the
status of this ESU, NMFS concludes that the Central Valley spring-run
chinook salmon ESU is not currently at risk of extinction but is likely
to become endangered in the foreseeable future. NMFS is encouraged by
the increase in abundance in Deer and Butte Creeks. Next to Butte
Creek, the largest population of spring-run chinook salmon in the ESU
is in the Feather River, and NMFS has concerns regarding the extensive
introgression with fall-run fish in the hatchery population. The
prospects for using the Feather River stock for conservation purposes
in this ESU are unclear. The complete extirpation of the spring run
from the San Joaquin River and the loss of historical spawning habitat
above the dams in the Sacramento River Basin have resulted in a greatly
reduced distribution of spring-run fish in the Central Valley. The
primary reasons for
[[Page 50400]]
the change in the risk evaluation from ``presently in danger of
extinction'' previously proposed by NMFS were the increase in abundance
of Butte Creek fish in recent years and the genetic evidence that the
spring chinook salmon in Butte Creek are not of hatchery origin.
NMFS also notes a number of recent events that may have improved
conditions for the Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon ESU,
including reduced ocean and in-river harvest levels, the Federal
listing of winter-run chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead, the
state listing of spring-run chinook salmon, and the habitat
improvements occurring under the CALFED program. NMFS has considered
the impacts of various conservation efforts affecting this ESU under
the section ``Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon''
of this document.
Issue 6: ESU Delineation and Status of Central Valley Fall and Late
Fall-run Chinook Salmon
Comment 8: The vast majority of public comments on these four
chinook salmon listing proposals involved NMFS' assessment of the
Central Valley fall and late fall-run ESU. While some commenters agreed
with NMFS' listing proposal, most did not agree that this ESU warranted
listing as a threatened species. Others believed that NMFS' risk
assessment may have been significantly influenced by six recent drought
years. One commenter asserted that Central Valley chinook salmon
populations have historically undergone extreme fluctuations in
abundance due to environmental fluctuations and that NMFS did not
adequately take these fluctuations (and the ability of the natural
populations to recover) into account when assessing the risk of
extinction. Several commenters also highlighted the high overall
escapement level for this ESU and felt that there was not sufficient
evidence to justify a listing. One commenter asserted that the small
river systems that flow into San Francisco Bay did not historically
support chinook salmon. Another did not agree that the San Joaquin
River Basin constituted a significant portion of the ESU and felt that
the depressed nature of San Joaquin fall-run stocks was not an adequate
basis for a listing. Others believed that the ESU should be split into
two ESUs. Several commenters cited specific factors for decline that
impact the fall run: predation by non-native species, dam and reservoir
operations, catastrophic stranding, incorporation of naturally produced
salmon into hatchery broodstocks, and competition and predation by
hatchery chinook salmon and steelhead on naturally produced chinook
salmon.
Issues related to hatchery-produced chinook salmon in this ESU were
particularly common. Many commenters felt that NMFS did not
conclusively show that hatchery-produced fish were a risk to naturally-
produced fish. Some felt that NMFS needed to provide a method for
distinguishing hatchery and natural production, and justify the
exclusion of hatchery fish from the risk determination (given that the
majority of the broodstock originated from within the ESU). One
commenter argued that, in many instances, hatchery and naturally
spawning fish have co-mingled for generations, hence the fish are
genetically indistinguishable and effectively represent one population.
In many cases the persistence of naturally spawning fish has been
dependent on the continued operation of the hatchery program. Under
these conditions, the commenter contended, hatchery abundances should
be included in the assessment of the risk of extinction for an ESU.
Another suggested that, if hatchery impacts were great, NMFS should
conclude that the Central Valley fall and late fall-run chinook salmon
ESU was similar to the Lower Columbia River coho salmon ESU and exclude
the Central Valley chinook salmon ESU from consideration for listing.
One commenter argued that NMFS needed to identify which hatchery
populations are in the ESU and which are not before making any
conclusions on the status of this ESU. Another included data that
indicated a rising proportion of coded-wire tag (CWT) fish being
recovered in tributaries to the San Joaquin River; these CWT estimates
did not take into account the contribution of unmarked hatchery-reared
fish. In determining the risks facing this ESU, one commenter suggested
that NMFS use the San Joaquin Basin populations as a benchmark. Still
another called for more genetic sampling to determine whether the San
Joaquin River Basin should be established as a separate ESU.
Finally, numerous commenters highlighted the importance of taking
into account habitat restoration programs that are underway throughout
the Central Valley and asserted that recent run sizes for the San
Joaquin Basin have been increasing partly because of improvements in
habitat conditions (e.g., gravel, temperature, and flows). Some
believed that demonstrable habitat improvements had and would result
from the CALFED program and that these results were predictable given
the definitive nature of the program and the guaranteed nature of the
funding. However, other commenters were skeptical that these efforts
would be sufficient to reduce the risks facing this ESU. Key elements
of the programs cited by commenters involved modified flow regimes,
improved passage facilities, improved hatchery and harvest practices,
and improved monitoring. In addition, some commenters believed that
significant benefits would accrue to fall- and late fall-run chinook
salmon as a result of the State of California's ESA listing for the
spring run, as well as of actions by NMFS and the PFMC to protect
winter-run chinook salmon.
Since the initial status review, NMFS has received new data and
information which have helped resolve the scientific uncertainties
associated with the proposed listing for this ESU (NMFS, 1999a), and
are summarized as follows.
Response - ESU Delineation: NMFS recently analyzed new genetic
data collected for California chinook salmon. In 1998 and 1999, NMFS,
CDFG, FWS, and USFS collected samples of spawned adult chinook salmon
from 13 rivers and hatcheries in the Central Valley and Klamath River
Basin. The new samples were analyzed along with allozyme data for
California and southern Oregon chinook salmon that were previously used
in the NMFS coastwide status review (Myers et al., 1998). The
population structure revealed by the new analysis of allozyme data was
consistent with the delineations of major genetic groups described in
previous genetic studies of California and southern Oregon chinook
salmon (Utter et al., 1989; Bartley et al., 1992; Myers et al., 1998).
The most genetically divergent group of samples was from the Central
Valley. Within the Central Valley, the most genetically divergent
sample was from the CNFH winter-run population. Spring-run chinook
salmon sampled from Deer and Butte Creeks were distinct from the
winter-run fish sample and also from samples of fall- and late fall-run
chinook salmon from the Central Valley. The Deer Creek and Butte Creek
samples were genetically distinct from each other. The sample of
spring-run chinook salmon from the Feather River Hatchery was
genetically intermediate between spring- and fall-run samples and most
similar to the sample of Feather River Hatchery fall-run chinook
salmon. Samples of fall- and late fall-run populations formed a diverse
subcluster that included samples from both Sacramento and San Joaquin
populations.
Microsatellite DNA variation has also been used in recent studies
to examine
[[Page 50401]]
genetic relationships among populations of chinook salmon in
California. Nielsen et al. (1994) found significant heterogeneity among
fall-run hatchery stocks and also among naturally spawning fall-run
populations but there was no significant geographic structure at the
basin level for wild fall-run chinook salmon. However, comparisons of
wild fall-run carcasses and hatchery stocks suggest that naturally
spawning fall-run fish in several basins retain some degree of genetic
distinctiveness not found in hatcheries. Allele-frequencies for carcass
collections made on the American, Tuolumne, Merced, and Feather Rivers
were significantly different from samples of hatchery populations found
within the same drainage. The Merced and Mokelumne Rivers were found to
be most similar to hatchery populations on their respective rivers. The
heterogeneity comparisons for some wild fall-run carcass collections
may have been biased by small sample sizes. Fall-run hatchery
populations were differentiated from populations of other run times but
samples of wild fall-run populations were not compared to populations
of winter, spring, or late-fall runs. Naturally spawning late fall-run
fish were differentiated in allozyme analysis from all other
populations including CNFH late fall-run salmon. The naturally spawning
late fall-run population was most genetically similar to either winter-
run fish or the CNFH late fall-run population, depending on the genetic
distance measure used. Nei's measure of genetic distance indicated that
late fall-run populations were most similar to hatchery fall-run
populations.
Banks et al. (1999) used five microsatellite loci to investigate
genetic relationships among 11 fall- and spring-run chinook salmon
populations in the Klamath River and to compare these populations to
chinook salmon from the Central Valley. Despite extensive sampling and
analysis, no homogeneous population pools were found. Klamath River
Basin populations were differentiated from Central Valley populations,
and winter-run chinook salmon were genetically distinct and did not
cluster with other populations.
Nielsen et al. (1994) and Nielsen (1995) examined mtDNA variation
in 14 samples of chinook salmon from Central Valley rivers and
hatcheries and 1 sample from the Guadalupe River, a southern tributary
of San Francisco Bay. Nielsen et al. (1999) concluded that their data
support their earlier conclusions (Nielsen et al., 1994) that fall,
late-fall, spring, and winter runs of Central Valley chinook salmon
show consistently significant differences for the mtDNA locus,
indicating infrequent straying and limited gene flow among the temporal
spawning runs. Nielsen et al. (1999) concluded that additional sampling
is needed to test for significant genetic differences among natural
spawning and hatchery populations of fall-run chinook salmon. A sample
of chinook salmon from Guadalupe River showed significant haplotype
frequency differences from samples of the four spawning runs in the
Central Valley, primarily due to a haplotype (CH9) found in 2 fish in
the Guadalupe River. This haplotype has not been observed in fish from
the Central Valley but has been found in samples of Russian River
chinook salmon. The remaining 27 samples from the Guadalupe River could
not be differentiated from the chinook salmon in the Merced and Feather
River hatcheries through the use of mtDNA.
Kim et al. (1999) examined genetic variation in winter-, spring-,
fall-, and late fall-run adult chinook salmon taken from the upper
Sacramento River between 1991 and 1995. An analysis of population
structure indicated that winter-run chinook salmon were the most
genetically distinct, while fall- and late fall-run samples were
closely related to each other. Spring-run samples were genetically
intermediate between the winter and fall/late- fall runs. A sample of
Butte Creek spring-run chinook salmon was genetically similar to
Sacramento River mainstem spring-run samples.
NMFS also re-examined ecological and life history information for
this ESU. The San Joaquin River Basin includes the Mokelumne,
Consumnes, Calaveras, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers.
Historically, salmon also utilized the Kings River during years of high
precipitation (Yoshiyama et al., 1996). Ecologically, the Consumnes and
Calaveras are distinct from the other San Joaquin River Basin
tributaries in that their flows are influenced by rainfall rather than
snow melt. Historically, fall-run chinook salmon were present in all of
the basins, and there is some evidence that a late-fall run may have
existed in the Mokelumne River (Yoshiyama et al., 1993). Furthermore,
Reynolds et al. (1993) described a ``winter-run'' population that
spawned in the Calaveras River from 1972 to 1984; however, this
population appears to have been extirpated, and its relationship with
other temporal runs in the Central Valley was never established.
Impassible dams and water withdrawals have severely reduced the
quantity and quality of salmon habitat. Presently, only 45 percent of
the total historical chinook salmon habitat is accessible (not
including habitat in the Kings River Basin). Much of the habitat lost
would have been utilized by spring-run chinook salmon; however, water
conditions in the remaining habitat have degraded. Ecologically, rivers
in the San Joaquin (including the Mokelumne River) and American River
Basins experience peak flows in May, fed primarily by snow melt from
the Sierra Nevada Range. Geologically, the Sierra Nevada Range is very
different from the volcanic structure of the Cascades that constitute
the headwaters for most rivers in the northern portion of the Central
Valley.
There is little historical information concerning the life history
characteristics of fall-run chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River
Basin. Fall-run chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River Basin enter
fresh water in late September or October (depending on water
conditions) and spawn in November and December, with some spawning
continuing into January. The mean date of entry (for the years 1974 to
1995) into the trap at the Merced River Fish Facility is October 21. In
1939, Hatton (1940) reported that the date of river entry for the fall
run varied from early and mid-October for the Tuolumne and Merced
Rivers, early November for the Mokelumne River, and early December for
the Consumnes River. The majority of juveniles emigrate during their
first winter (January to March). The run and spawn timing currently
exhibited by fall-run fish in the San Joaquin River Basin may not
reflect historical timing due, in part, to changes in river flow and
temperature conditions over the last century. However, it is clear that
the environmental conditions in the San Joaquin River represent the
extreme of chinook salmon temperature tolerance. In the 1870s, salmon
were observed migrating through the San Joaquin River in July and
August (which were probably the historical spring-run chinook salmon)
when water temperatures were in excess of 26 degrees Centigrade (U.S.
Fish Commission, 1876). Despite an apparent tolerance to high water
temperature conditions, San Joaquin River Basin chinook salmon
populations continued to deteriorate until only the late portion of the
fall run was able to ascend the tributaries (Clark, 1929).
The age at maturation for fall-run chinook salmon varies
considerably from year to year due to differential survival of
emigrating juveniles and returning adults related to water conditions.
Most notably, a number of female San Joaquin River fall-run
[[Page 50402]]
chinook salmon mature after only 2 years (Myers et al., 1998).
Based on a re-assessment of information relevant to the
configuration of this ESU, NMFS maintains that the original description
proposed for the Central Valley fall and late fall-run chinook salmon
ESU is valid. NMFS believes that the new genetic information on spring-
run and winter-run populations in the Central Valley further reinforces
the previous decision to establish ESUs for the winter and spring runs
distinct from the fall- and late-fall run (Myers et al., 1998). NMFS
also maintains the agency's previous conclusion that Central Valley
fall and late- fall runs are in the same ESU.
NMFS considered the possible existence of a distinct fall/late
fall-run ESU in the southern portion of the existing ESU (i.e., San
Joaquin River and tributaries). The agency believes that ecological
differences in the northern and southern Central Valley were large
enough to have historically supported two ESUs of fall- and late fall-
run chinook salmon, with fish from the American, Mokelumne, Stanislaus,
Tuolumne, Merced, and San Joaquin River Basins in the southern ESU and
fish from areas north of the American River in a northern ESU. Allozyme
analysis indicated that samples of hatchery and naturally spawning
fall-run chinook salmon from the American River and San Joaquin River
Basin formed a cluster within the general grouping of Central Valley
chinook salmon populations.
The status of chinook salmon spawning in tributaries to San
Francisco Bay was also considered. The presence of chinook salmon
adults and juveniles (including observed spawning activities) has been
recorded in a number of rivers and creeks draining into San Francisco
Bay (Leidy, 1984; Myers et al., 1998; San Francisco Estuary Project,
1998; Jones, 1999, unpubl. data). However, NMFS was unable to establish
if any of these populations were self-sustaining. Although the
historical relationship between chinook salmon spawning in San
Francisco Bay tributaries and the coastal and Central Valley ESUs is
not known, present day adults may have originated from the numerous
off-site releases of Central Valley hatchery fall-run chinook salmon
into the delta or San Francisco Bay. Additional information on genetic
and life history traits for San Francisco Bay chinook salmon and their
relationships with Central Valley and coastal chinook salmon
populations is necessary to resolve this issue.
Response - ESU Status: NMFS also examined updated risk information
for this ESU. Trends in abundance of fall- and late fall-run chinook
salmon in this ESU continue to be mixed, but natural spawning abundance
is quite high (5-year geometric mean was 190,000 natural spawners for
the Sacramento River Basin). The number of mainstem fall-run spawners
continues to decline in the upper Sacramento River, as indicated by
counts at Red Bluff Diversion Dam (5-year geometric mean abundance
through 1996 was 78,996 fish, and mean abundance through 1998 was
26,092 fish). The dam counts represent the total number of fall-run
chinook salmon returning to that portion of the river, including
hatchery fish. Available evidence suggests that at least 20 to 40
percent of these natural spawners are of hatchery origin (Heberer,
1999). The other Sacramento River Basin streams showing continued
declines in abundance of fall-run chinook salmon are Deer and Mill
Creeks (short-term trend in abundance through 1998 was -10 percent per
year for Mill Creek, long-term trend in abundance through 1998 was -2.8
percent per year for Deer Creek). All other streams for which there are
abundance data show increases in abundance over the past 10 years. As
discussed in the BRT report (Myers et al., 1998), many of the streams
with high abundance of fall-run chinook salmon in this ESU are
influenced by hatchery programs (especially the Feather and American
Rivers and Battle Creek), so the contribution of those populations to
the overall persistence of the wild component of the ESU is not clear.
The late-fall component of the Sacramento River run continues to
have low, but perhaps stable abundances. Recent estimates up to 1992,
when Red Bluff Diversion Dam counts were still accurate, ranged from
6,700 to 9,700. Estimates from 1993 to 1997 were essentially incomplete
due to the inability to monitor fish at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam.
Beginning in 1998, carcass surveys again allowed a reasonable estimate
to be made, and the 1998 abundance estimate (9,717 fish) seems
comparable to the early 1990s. Nevertheless, there is considerable
uncertainty in estimating the recent trend in abundance due to changes
in estimation methods.
Populations of fall-run chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River
Basin have exhibited synchronous population booms and busts and
currently appear to be on an upward trend in abundance. Aside from a
negative short-term trend in abundance in the Stanislaus River (-6.2
percent per year through 1998), the other tributaries to the San
Joaquin River are exhibiting increases in abundance over the most
recent 10 years. Lindley (NMFS, unpubl. data) developed a series of
models relating recruitment of fall chinook in the Tuolomne and
Stanislaus Rivers to various factors to see if there was a simple
explanation for the high variability in recruitment. Explanatory
variables examined included spring river flow, ocean harvest, hatchery
releases, sea surface temperature, and spawning stock. The model
providing the best fit to empirical data was a logistic growth (stock-
recruit) model with the carrying capacity parameter a linear function
of river flow during the downstream juvenile migration period (Lindley,
NMFS, unpubl. data). The apparent dependency of stock-recruitment
relationships on flow does not rule out the potential influences of
other factors (e.g., hatchery production) on variability in recruitment
(Lindley, NMFS, unpubl. data).
The influence of hatchery fish on natural production in the San
Joaquin River Basin is not clear. As in the rest of the Central Valley,
the nature of CWT applications and insufficient sampling of natural
spawners make quantitative estimation of hatchery influence difficult.
After reviewing additional scientific and commercial information
regarding the status of this ESU, NMFS concludes that the Central
Valley fall and late fall-run chinook salmon ESU is not presently in
danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable
future. The change in the risk evaluation was due primarily to the
increases in abundance in Central Valley streams. The number of natural
spawners is quite high (190,000 fish) and numerous streams have seen
increases during the past 10 years, with some exceptions. The recent
upward trends in fall-run chinook salmon populations in the San Joaquin
tributaries are also encouraging, but NMFS is concerned about the high
variation in abundance and its strong correspondence with human and
naturally impacted flow regimes. The late fall-run chinook salmon
escapement appears to be higher than it has been in recent years, but
NMFS is concerned about the uncertainty in the escapement estimates.
The major sources of continued threats to the chinook salmon in
this ESU are habitat degradation (primarily water withdrawals and
stream shifts), water quality, loss of riparian and estuarine habitat,
and the influence of hatchery fish. NMFS believes that several recent
actions are likely to
[[Page 50403]]
mitigate the threats facing chinook salmon in the Central Valley fall
and late fall-run chinook salmon ESU, including harvest reductions, the
listing of winter-run chinook salmon and steelhead under the Federal
ESA, the listing of spring-run chinook salmon under the California ESA
(CESA), improvements in water flow and habitat conditions resulting
from development and implementation of restoration projects as part of
the CALFED and Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) programs,
implementation of the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP) in the
San Joaquin River Basin, and the recently initiated comprehensive
review of hatchery programs in the Central Valley by CDFG and FWS. NMFS
has considered the impacts of various conservation efforts affecting
this ESU under the section ``Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast
Chinook Salmon'' of this document.
Issue 7: ESU Delineation and Status of Southern Oregon and California
Coastal Chinook Salmon
Comment 9: Many commenters, disputing the proposed boundaries for
this ESU, questioned NMFS' rationale for a separate Upper Klamath and
Trinity River chinook salmon ESU within the range of the larger
Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU. For example, one commenter
disputed the southern border of the ESU and asserted that there is no
definitive proof that chinook salmon populations existed in any of the
San Francisco Bay tributaries. Furthermore, they stated that native
chinook salmon were now extinct in the Russian River and that the ESU's
boundary should extend no farther south than to the limit of extant
chinook salmon populations. Another commenter believed that the chinook
salmon population in the Russian River was never historically abundant.
Several commenters suggested that this ESU be divided into two ESUs,
but the suggested configurations varied. Some believed that the
existing ESU should be split south of the Klamath River while others
believed that the split should be north of the Klamath River. Still
another believed that the ESU should be split north of the Eel River.
Finally, some commenters believed that NMFS should adopt ESU
configurations more similar to those for coho salmon or steelhead, both
of which have multiple ESUs within the range of the Southern Oregon and
California Coastal chinook salmon ESU. Most commenters suggesting
alternative ESU configurations believed that chinook salmon in the
``transboundary'' region of Oregon and California would not require
protection under the ESA.
Some commenters and peer-reviewers 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 substantiated 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 different runs was inconsistent, given the creation of
distinct fall- and spring-run ESUs in the Central Valley of California.
Several commenters highlighted the benefits from various
restoration programs underway in the range of the proposed ESU (e.g.,
the NFP and Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative), while others
expressed little confidence in the adequacy of existing conservation
efforts. One commenter described risks to chinook salmon in the Eel
River Basin by the introduction of the Sacramento pikeminnow
(Ptychocheilus grandis) in the late 1970s, noting increases in the
number of pikeminnow in the Eel River Basin which corresponded with
declines in chinook salmon during the 1980s and 1990s. Another
commenter suggested that NMFS had underestimated the impact of
predators (such as cormorants) on chinook salmon populations in the
range of the proposed ESU.
Since the initial status review, NMFS has received new data and
information which have helped resolve the scientific uncertainties
associated with the proposed listing for this ESU (NMFS, 1999a), and
are summarized as follows.
Response - ESU Delineation: NMFS recently analyzed new genetic
data for California chinook salmon. In 1998 and 1999, NMFS, CDFG, FWS,
and USFS collected samples of spawned adult chinook salmon from 13
rivers and hatcheries in the Central Valley and Klamath River Basin.
The new samples were analyzed along with allozyme data for California
and southern Oregon chinook salmon that were previously used in the
NMFS coastwide status review (Myers et al., 1998). The population
structure revealed by the new analysis of allozyme data was consistent
with the delineations of major genetic groups described in previous
genetic studies of California and southern Oregon chinook salmon (Utter
et al., 1989; Bartley et al., 1992; Myers et al., 1998). The most
genetically divergent group of samples was from the Central Valley. The
remaining samples formed two large genetic groups composed of samples
from the Klamath River Basin and those from coastal rivers. The single
sample from the lower Klamath River, Blue Creek, was included in the
cluster of coastal samples. The samples from coastal rivers were
further differentiated into two subclusters of samples from rivers
south of the Klamath River and from those to the north (including Blue
Creek).
Several subclusters appeared within the samples of chinook salmon
from the Klamath River Basin. The sample from Blue Creek in the lower
Klamath River was the most genetically distinct of all the samples from
the Klamath River Basin. Samples from the Trinity and Salmon Rivers
(both fall- and spring-run populations) clustered separately from
samples from rivers farther upstream.
Nielsen et al. (1994) reported that mtDNA haplotypes from some of
the fall-run chinook salmon smolts captured in 1993 and 1994 from the
Russian River did not match haplotypes from the Russian River hatchery
(Warm Springs Hatchery) population; in fact, there was a rare haplotype
that was found only in chinook salmon from the Russian and Guadalupe
(San Francisco Bay) Rivers. In 1999, several naturally produced chinook
salmon juveniles were collected in the Russian River Basin by the
Sonoma County Water Agency, and a subset of these were genetically
analyzed by the Bodega Bay Marine Laboratory (Banks, 1999, unpubl.
data).
Banks et al. (1999) used five microsatellite loci to investigate
genetic relationships among 11 fall- and spring-run chinook salmon
populations in the Klamath River and to compare these populations to
chinook salmon from the Central Valley. Results revealed two large
clusters with Klamath River Basin populations differentiated from
Central Valley populations. Within the Klamath River Basin, Blue Creek
from the lower Klamath River was the most genetically divergent
population and was found to be more similar to southern Oregon and
California coastal chinook populations than to upper Klamath/Trinity
River populations. The most upstream populations from the Klamath River
(Scott River, Shasta River, and Iron Gate Hatchery) were differentiated
from subclusters of fall- and spring-run populations in the Trinity and
Salmon Rivers.
[[Page 50404]]
Little new information on life history traits is available for this
ESU. Comparisons of the timing of adult chinook salmon passage over
dams on the Mad River (Sweasey Dam) and South Fork Eel River (Benbow
Dam) in 1948 to 1949 (Murphy and Shapovalov, 1950) does not reveal a
shift in run timing when compared with recent information presented in
Myers et al. (1998), indicating that introductions of out-of-basin
stocks have had little observable impact. A review of ocean
distribution information collected from 1986 to 1989 (Gall et al.,
1989) suggests that there may be geographic and timing differences in
the ocean distribution of chinook salmon from the Smith River and
southern Oregon relative to Eel River and other coastal stocks.
There was little information available on the southern limit of
self-sustaining chinook populations in this ESU. Cobb (1930) discussed
the existence of fall-run populations in the Noyo and Mattole Rivers;
furthermore, the Noyo River fall-run population was large enough to
sustain a small fishery early in this century. Clark (1940) estimated
that the salmon catch in the Eel River during 1916 was nearly 450,000
kg, and 32,000 kg in the Mad River during 1918. Snyder (1908) described
the presence of chinook salmon in the Russian River; however,
Shapavalov (1944) made no mention of the presence of chinook salmon in
the Russian River. In October of 1972, a number of salmon (no
identification of the species was possible) were observed spawning in
the Russian River below Dry Creek (Holman, 1972).
Within San Francisco Bay there are a number of streams where
chinook salmon have been observed (Jones, 1999). Spawning chinook
salmon or redds have been observed in the Guadalupe River, Napa River,
Petaluma River, Walnut Creek, and Green Valley Creek (Jones, 1999).
There is very little information on the origin or sustainability of
chinook salmon ``populations'' in these systems. South of San Francisco
Bay, chinook salmon have historically been documented in the San
Lorenzo and Pajaro Rivers (Snyder, 1913) and in the Ventura River
(Jordan and Gilbert, 1881). However, it is unclear if coastal
populations south of the Russian River were historically persistent or
if they were merely colonized by more northerly populations on an
intermittent basis during favorable climatic periods (Myers et al.,
1998). Recently, adult chinook salmon have also been observed in Scott
Creek, but in low numbers and only on an intermittent basis (Streig,
Monterey Bay Salmon & Trout Project, pers. comm.). Currently, there are
no known persistent populations of chinook salmon on the coast south of
San Francisco Bay.
Based on a re-assessment of information relevant to the
configuration of this ESU, NMFS concludes that the proposed Southern
Oregon and California Coastal chinook salmon ESU should be split into
two ESUs: a Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal chinook
salmon ESU, extending from Euchre Creek through the Lower Klamath River
(inclusive), and a California Coastal chinook salmon ESU, extending
from Redwood Creek south through the Russian River (inclusive). This
new ESU boundary is similar to that designated between Klamath
Mountains Province and Northern California steelhead ESUs. At this
time, NMFS concludes that the Russian River Basin presently contains
the most southern persistent population of chinook salmon on the
California coast.
NMFS reconsidered the reconfiguration of this proposed ESU based on
a number of issues. The acquisition of new genetic samples from the
Central Valley, California coastal streams, and Upper Klamath and
Trinity Rivers made possible a new analysis indicating distinct
clusters of coastal populations north and south of the Klamath River.
The genetic distances between these clusters correspond roughly to the
differences observed between Central Valley spring- and fall and late
fall-run chinook salmon ESUs, and the Washington and Oregon coast
chinook salmon ESUs.
Ecological differences between the northern and southern portions
of the Southern Oregon and California Coastal chinook salmon ESU were
also discussed. Rivers to the north (especially the Rogue River) tended
to be larger than those to the south. River flows in the northern
portion tend to peak in January, while those to the south peak in
February (Myers et al., 1998). Annual precipitation is considerably
higher in the northern portion than in the south. These geographic and
ecological differences may be responsible for the presence of a limited
proportion of yearling outmigrants (less than 10 percent) in the
northern portion of the ESU compared with the apparent absence of
yearling outmigrants in the southern portion. Furthermore, soils in the
southern portion are highly erodible, causing high silt loads that
result in berms which close off the mouths of many of the rivers during
summer low flows. River conditions in most of these coastal basins,
especially in the south, have very limited temporal windows for adult
access and juvenile emigration. Given these conditions, it is unlikely
that substantial differences in the life history traits normally
measured (e.g., run timing, spawn timing, juvenile emigration) could
evolve among most rivers in the northern and southern portions of the
proposed ESU. However, NMFS did consider the presence of spring-run
chinook salmon in the northern portion of the ESU, Rogue and Smith
Rivers, as a further indicator of geographic and life history
differences (although there may have historically been a spring run in
the Eel River). Finally, there was some ocean harvest information that
indicated differences in the migration pattern of populations from the
northern (Rogue and Smith Rivers) and southern (Eel River) portions of
the proposed ESU (Gall et al., 1989).
Response - ESU Status: New abundance information was provided by
several commenters and co-managers for a number of streams in the
Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal chinook salmon ESU
(Howard and Albro, 1997; Howard, 1998 and 1999; USFS, 1997 and 1999;
Waldvogel, 1997 and 1999; Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program, 1997 and
1999; ODFW, 1999). Recent total estimated escapement of fall- and
spring-run chinook salmon in Oregon streams is close to 100,000 fish.
The largest run of fall chinook salmon in the ESU occurs in the Rogue
River, and ODFW recently has revised its estimates of abundance to
average over 51,000 fish in the run during the most recent 5 years. In
addition, ODFW estimated that the escapement of fall chinook to the
Chetco River in 1995 and 1996 was 8,500 and 3,500 fish, respectively.
In spite of the high estimated abundances in the Chetco River, between
31 and 58 percent of those naturally spawning fish were estimated to be
of hatchery origin.
Although trends in abundance are mixed over the long term, most
short-term trends in abundance of fall chinook salmon are positive in
the smaller coastal streams in the ESU. Spawning ground surveys from a
number of smaller coastal and tributary streams from Euchre Creek to
the Smith River show declines in abundance from the late 1970s through
the early 1990s, but recently, the peak counts predominantly show
increases. In addition to adult counts, downstream migrant trapping
generally shows increases in production in fall chinook juveniles over
the last 4 years in the Pistol and Winchuck Rivers and in Lobster
Creek, a tributary to the lower Rogue River. Short- and long-term
[[Page 50405]]
trends in abundance for the Rogue River fall chinook are declining, but
as mentioned above, the overall run size is still large.
Northern coastal California streams support small, sporadically
monitored populations of fall-run chinook salmon. Trends in fall
chinook salmon abundance in those California streams that are monitored
are mixed; in general, the trends tend to be more negative in streams
that are farther south along the coast (i.e., populations in the Eel,
Mattole, and Russian Rivers). Estimates of absolute population
abundance are not available for most populations in the California
portion of the region encompassing this ESU.
The release of hatchery fall chinook salmon into some southern
Oregon coastal streams recently has been reduced or discontinued.
Releases of fall chinook salmon into the lower Rogue River were reduced
to 75,000 smolts and 75,000 unfed fry, and the Chetco River program
recently was reduced to 150,000 smolts. ODFW also has provided NMFS
with new estimates of the percentage of hatchery fall chinook salmon
spawning naturally in the Chetco River. In 1995 and 1996, the
percentage of naturally spawning hatchery fish was 31 and 58 percent,
respectively. During those same years, the estimated numbers of
naturally spawning adults returning to the Chetco River were 8,530 and
3,561 fall chinook salmon, respectively.
Most spring-run chinook salmon in this ESU continue to be
distributed in a few populations that are declining in abundance. The
run size of spring-run chinook salmon in the Rogue River above Gold Ray
Dam has averaged 7,709 over the last 5 years, and the estimated
percentage of hatchery fish in the run has ranged from 25 to 30 percent
over that time period. The Smith River contains the only known
populations of spring-run chinook salmon on the California coast, and
those runs continue to decline in the Middle Fork, but are increasing
in the South Fork. ODFW believes that spring-run chinook populations in
the Smith River probably have always been small, based on in-river
fishery landings, historical cannery records, and the judgement of
local biologists.
In the California Coastal chinook salmon ESU, fall chinook salmon
occur in relatively low numbers in northern streams and, only
sporadically, in streams in the southern portion of the ESU's range.
Estimates of absolute population abundance are not available for most
populations in this ESU. The 5-year geometric mean abundance of fall
chinook passing Cape Horn Dam on the upper Eel River is 36 fish, but
those counts are considered to be a small and variable fraction of the
run in the Eel River.
Trends in fall chinook salmon abundance in those California streams
that are monitored are mixed; in general, the trends tend to be more
negative in streams that are farther south along the coast (i.e.,
populations in the Eel, Mattole, and Russian Rivers). Trends in
abundance in several tributaries in the Redwood Creek drainage have
been monitored since 1995; these numbers will be useful in assessing
the status of chinook salmon in those streams in the future. Trends in
abundance in the Mad River Basin have been declining over the long
term, but they are showing signs of increase in recent years. Peak
index counts and carcass surveys have been conducted since the mid-
1960s in Sprowl and Tomki Creeks, both tributaries to the Eel River.
The long-term trend in abundance in Sprowl Creek is -4.4 percent per
year, but recent years show increases. In contrast, both the long- and
short-term trends in abundance in Tomki Creek are severely declining.
Shorter-term monitoring has occurred in other Eel River tributaries
since the late 1980s; abundance in Hollow Tree and Redwood Creeks has
been declining precipitously. Recent monitoring of index areas in the
Mattole and Russian River Basins indicates declining trends in
abundance, with the exception of the increasing abundance at the Coyote
Valley Fish Facility on the Russian River from 1992 to 1998. Hatchery
chinook salmon occur in the Russian and North Fork Mad Rivers, but the
contribution of hatchery fish to natural spawning escapements is not
known.
After reviewing additional scientific and commercial information
regarding the status of these revised ESUs, NMFS concludes that the
revised California Coastal chinook salmon ESU is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future. Most of NMFS' concerns regarding
the status of this ESU are related to abundance and trends/productivity
risks. NMFS believes that widespread declines in abundance of chinook
salmon relative to historical levels and the present distribution of
small populations with sometimes sporadic occurrences contribute to the
risks faced by this ESU. Overall, NMFS is concerned about the paucity
of information on the presence or abundance of chinook salmon in the
geographic area encompassing this ESU. The abundance data series are
short-term for most of the streams in this ESU, and there are no
current data for the long time series at Benbow Dam for the population
that may have been historically the largest (South Fork Eel River).
NMFS believes that habitat degradation and water withdrawals in the
river drainages in coastal California have contributed to the continued
reduction in abundance and distribution of chinook salmon in this ESU.
Smaller coastal drainages, such as the Noyo, Navarro, Garcia, and
Gualala Rivers, likely supported chinook salmon runs historically, but
they contain few or no fish today. The Russian River probably contains
some natural production, but the origin of those fish is not clear
because of a number of non-native introductions of hatchery fish over
the last century. NMFS is concerned about the possible extinction of
the spring run in the upper Eel River, which represents an important
loss of life history diversity in this ESU.
NMFS believes that the following factors are likely to have
improved the conditions for chinook salmon in the California Coastal
chinook salmon ESU: Reductions in the Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) and
Central Valley harvest index, the listing of coho salmon and steelhead
under the Federal ESA, changes in harvest regulations by the States of
Oregon and California to protect coho salmon and steelhead,
improvements in stream water quality due to enhanced enforcement of
Clean Water Act standards, and changes in timber and land-use practices
resulting from completed Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs).
In contrast, NMFS concludes that chinook salmon in the revised
Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal chinook salmon ESU are
not presently in danger of extinction, nor are they likely to become so
in the foreseeable future. NMFS is encouraged by the overall numbers of
chinook salmon in this ESU and by the recent increases in abundance in
many of the smaller coastal streams. In addition to the large runs
returning to the Rogue River, chinook salmon appear to be well
distributed in a number of coastal streams throughout the geographic
region encompassing this ESU. Although many of the new data sets
received by NMFS are of short duration, NMFS is encouraged by recent
efforts by the co-managers to improve monitoring of chinook salmon in
this region. Risks associated with the presence of hatchery fish in
this ESU are relatively low; nevertheless, NMFS is concerned about the
high percentages of naturally spawning hatchery fish in the Chetco
River and in the spring-run chinook salmon population in the Rogue
River. In addition, the restricted distribution of
[[Page 50406]]
spring-run chinook salmon to the Rogue and Smith River Basins and their
significant decline in the Rogue River could represent an important
threat to the total diversity of fish in this ESU.
NMFS believes several factors are likely to have improved the
conditions for chinook salmon in the Southern Oregon and Northern
California Coastal chinook salmon ESU, including reductions in the KMZ
troll fishery, the ESA listing of coho salmon, changes in harvest
regulations by the States of Oregon and California to protect naturally
produced coho salmon and steelhead, and changes in timber and land-use
practices on Federal public lands resulting from the NFP. NMFS has
considered the impacts of various conservation efforts affecting this
ESU under the section ``Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast
Chinook Salmon'' of this document.
Issue 8: ESU Delineation and Status of Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon
Comment 10: Several commenters, including state and tribal co-
managers, 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 Snake River chinook salmon. There were a number of
scenarios given to explain the genetic similarity between the Deschutes
River and Snake River fall-run populations. One scenario suggested
that, with the loss of the majority of their historical spawning
habitat, the existing Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU no longer
represented the historical population. An alternative view was that the
genetic differences among all ocean-type chinook salmon above the
Dalles Dam were relatively small and that the clustering of populations
was subject to possible bias depending on the procedures used. It was
also stressed that the existing allozyme information was acquired after
the Columbia River Basin had undergone considerable alterations
(mainstem dam construction) and many of the native populations had been
extirpated. It was also suggested that the marine CWT recovery
information for the Deschutes River fall run was potentially biased due
to the limited number of tags recovered and the limited number of
broodyears that were tagged. Two commenters 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
closely with ocean-type fish in the Upper Columbia River summer- and
fall-run chinook salmon ESU. Some reviewers suggested that all ocean-
type chinook salmon above the historical location of Celilo Falls
should be considered one ESU. The most commonly suggested alternative
ESU configuration included the Deschutes River and the now extinct
populations that were in the John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers
as a separate ESU.
Several other commenters challenged the NMFS exclusion of hatchery
fish abundances from the risk assessment. They argued that, in many
instances, hatchery and naturally spawning fish have co-mingled for
generations. These fish are genetically indistinguishable and
effectively represent one population. In many cases, the persistence of
naturally spawning fish has been dependent on the continued operation
of the hatchery program. Under these conditions, they contend, hatchery
abundances should be included in the risk assessment for an ESU.
Since the initial status review, NMFS has received new data and
information which have helped resolve the scientific uncertainties
associated with the proposed listing for this ESU (NMFS, 1999a), and
are summarized as follows.
Response - ESU Delineation: The Confederated tribes of the Warm
Springs Reservation (CTWSRO) provided NMFS with a preliminary report of
genetic studies of fall-run chinook salmon in the Deschutes River
(CTWSRO, 1999). Both allozyme and mtDNA loci were used to determine if
the Deschutes fall chinook population is more genetically and
demographically related to the Snake River fall chinook populations
than to any other population in the Columbia Basin. The authors
concluded from the mtDNA and allozyme data that there is little or no
geographic organization of the fall-run genetic data and no compelling
evidence to support adding the Deschutes River to the Snake River fall-
run chinook salmon ESU.
The similarity in life history traits between the Deschutes and
Snake River fall-run populations was an important factor in the
proposed ESU designation incorporating these two geographically
separated basins into one ESU. Since the time of the proposed rule,
NMFS has reviewed additional information on ecological and life history
traits for this ESU and a CTWSRO analysis of information previously
reviewed by the BRT (CTWSRO, 1999). Similarities in ocean distribution,
as reflected by CWT recoveries, were observed for wild Deschutes River
fall-run and Snake River fall-run chinook salmon. Analysis by CTWSRO
(1999) indicates that there was a strong correlation (0.95) in the
ocean distributions of Deschutes River and Snake River fish; however,
there were equally strong similarities between Deschutes River fish and
fall-run fish from a number of lower Columbia River basins. The
correlation between the distribution of ocean recoveries for the
Deschutes River fall-run and that for upriver ``bright'' fall-run
chinook salmon (i.e. Hanford Reach, Priest Rapids) was much weaker
(0.61). Because only 35,000 Deschutes River fall-run fish were tagged
during each of 3 broodyears (1977 to 1979), and of these only 79 tags
were recovered in the ocean fishery, CTWSRO (Patt, 1999) cautioned the
use of this information to establish the ESU configuration.
Age structure information was also used in the initial NMFS
decision to group fall-run chinook salmon in the same ESU. In the
Coastwide Status Review (Myers et al., 1998) similarities were observed
between the Deschutes River and Snake River fall-run populations,
relative to Hanford Reach and other upper Columbia River fall-run
populations. Age structure for the Deschutes River, Snake River (using
Lyons Ferry return data), and Hanford Reach fall-run fish was
determined using scale data from several broodyears in the late 1970s
and 1980s. CTWSRO (Patt, 1999) also presented run reconstructions
provided by Howard Schaller (ODFW). For the Deschutes and Hanford Reach
data series, this information, based on scales recovered from returning
adults, age-length indices, and CWT recoveries, represented a more
complete description of the populations concerned than was presented in
Myers et al. (1998). However, the Snake River age structure data were
not based on the direct measurement of Snake River fish, but rather
derived from an index of upriver bright stocks. It was advised that
considerable caution be used in employing the Snake River age structure
data in any comparisons (Schaller, ODFW, pers. comm.).
Spawn timing differences presented by CTWSRO (1999) indicated that
Deschutes River fish spawn primarily in October (in contrast to the
November peak spawning cited in Myers et al., 1998), rather than in
early and mid-November for fall-run chinook salmon in the Snake River
and Hanford Reach of the Columbia River (Myers et al., 1998). This
earlier timing may be related to water conditions in the Deschutes
River or may be an indicator of the integration of a historical summer
run into the fall run. A review of historical
[[Page 50407]]
information indicated that fall-run chinook in the Snake River near
Salmon Falls (Rkm 922) arrived on the spawning grounds in late August
and September and that ripe fish were caught in the fishery in early
October (Evermann, 1896). Spawning was nearly complete by the end of
October. Differences in the spawning time of present day and historical
Snake River fall-run chinook salmon populations may be a response to
different temperature and flow regimes in the lower river (the current
accessible habitat) or may indicate the extirpation of the earlier,
upriver, spawning populations from the ESU.
Fecundity estimates provided an additional life history trait for
comparison. Myers et al. (1998) cited average fecundity values for
Deschutes River fall-run chinook salmon of 4,439 eggs per female, and
for Lyons Ferry Hatchery fish (Snake River) 3,102 eggs per female
(adjusted to 4,011 eggs per female at a standard length of 740 mm).
Fecundity estimates (Howell et al., 1985) for wild Snake River fall-run
chinook salmon (trapped at Oxbow Dam) of 4,276 (1961 to 1969) and 4,185
eggs per female (1977 to 1983) were similar to Deschutes River fish,
but do not include spawner sizes and are difficult to compare.
Meristic data were also reviewed to assess the similarities of the
fall-run stocks under consideration. Of the traits analyzed by Schreck
et al. (1986), only lateral line scale counts were potentially useful
in discriminating among the Deschutes, Snake, and mainstem Columbia
River (Hanford Reach) populations. Deschutes River fall-run chinook
salmon exhibited a lower mean lateral scale count (136.6) compared with
the fall-run fish from Hanford Reach (140.6) and the Snake River (Lyons
Ferry Hatchery) (143.3). The Deschutes River lateral line scale counts
most closely resembled those from several fall-run populations in the
Lower Columbia River (below the location of Celilo Falls); however,
these differences may not be statistically significant.
Little documentation is available on the existence of a summer run
in the Deschutes River Basin. This issue is relevant to the discussion
on ESU configuration due to the ocean-type life history expressed by
summer-run fish in the Upper Columbia River and the stream-type life
history expressed by summer-run fish in the Snake River Basin. If, as
has been asserted by Patt (1999), the summer run in the Deschutes River
Basin exhibited an ocean-type life history, it would provide an
evolutionary link with the upper Columbia River ocean-type stocks.
Information presented by CTWSRO (1999) indicates that there was a
significant temporal separation in the arrival of spring-run and
summer/fall-run adults at the Pelton Dam Trap (River kilometer (Rkm)
161). Jonasson and Lindsay (1988), Beaty (1996), and Lichatowich (1998)
have suggested that summer-run fish existed in the Deschutes River.
Whether these summer-run fish historically spawned above the present
site of Pelton Dam or above Sherars Falls, which reportedly was
impassable during low summer flows early in this century, is not known
although both scenarios would have provided for the geographic
separation of summer and fall runs. In the 1960s, three returning
adults that were tagged while passing Bonneville Dam during July were
later recovered in the Metolius River, tributary to the Deschutes River
at Rkm 178 (Galbreath, 1966). However, Nehlsen (1995) cited several
personal communications which indicate that fall spawning fish were not
observed in the Deschutes River Basin above the site of Pelton Dam.
Analysis of downstream juvenile migrants (1959 to 1962) through the
Pelton project did not detect any subyearling migrants (which would be
consistent with the presence of ocean-type fish). Analysis of mtDNA
variability from fish sampled at Sherars Falls and the Pelton Dam Trap
suggests that genetic differences exist among adults collected at the
two sampling locations (CTWSRO, 1999). It has been suggested that the
genetic differences are indicative of a vestigial run of summer-run
fish that have retained the propensity to migrate farther upstream than
do fall-run fish. However, Jonasson and Lindsey (1988) state that there
is no correlation between the date of ascending Sherars Falls and the
date or location of subsequent spawning. Furthermore, analysis of
scales from adults sampled at Sherars Falls in 1978 indicated that
stream-type fish constituted 31.2, 25, 4.4, and 2.2 percent of the run
passing the Falls in July, August, September, and October, respectively
(Aho et al., 1979). During 1979, the percentage of stream-type fish
sampled at Pelton Trap during this same period dropped to 14 and 5.5
percent for July and August, respectively. The possibility exists that
many of the fish sampled in the mtDNA study (especially at the Pelton
Trap) were stream-type fish; further analysis of allozyme variation may
resolve this issue.
Ecological differences among the Deschutes River Basin, the upper
Columbia River Basin, and the Snake River Basin (especially historical
fall-run spawning areas in the upper mainstem Snake River) were
reviewed previously (Waples et al., 1991; Myers et al., 1998). Although
the mainstem Columbia River and the lower reaches of its tributaries
(including the Snake River) are all in the Columbia River Basin
Ecoregion (Omernick and Gallant, 1986), the upper Snake River (above
the Hells Canyon Dam complex) flows through three different ecoregions.
Irving and Bjornn (1981) indicated that prior to 1958 the major
spawning area for Snake River fall-run chinook salmon was in a 30-mile
section between Swan Falls Dam and Marsing, Idaho, and historically,
fall-run chinook salmon spawning extended as far upstream as Shoshone
Falls (Howell et al., 1985). Historically, most of the fall-run chinook
spawning would have taken place in the Snake River Basin/High Desert
Ecoregion.
Fall-run chinook salmon populations in the John Day, Umatilla, and
Walla Walla Rivers were thought to have been extirpated (Kostow, 1995).
However, there have been recent reports of chinook salmon spawning in
the lower mainstem John Day River, but there is no information to
establish the source of these fish or whether they were reproductively
successful.
Based on its re-assessment of information relevant to the
configuration of this ESU, NMFS believes that the proposed ESU
configuration, combining ocean-type fish in the Snake and Deschutes
River Basins into one ESU, was not supported by the information
available. The agency concludes that the Deschutes River summer- and
fall-run fish should be considered in a separate ESU, rather than be
grouped with either the Snake River fall-run or Upper Columbia River
summer- and fall-run chinook salmon ESUs. There is considerable
uncertainty on the historical configuration of this new ESU,
specifically whether it included fall-run populations in the John Day,
Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers.
In reaching this conclusion, NMFS considered several scenarios for
the configuration of the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU and
the potential reconfiguration of the Upper Columbia River summer- and
fall-run chinook salmon ESU. NMFS identified four potential
configurations: (1) The grouping of all ocean-type chinook salmon above
the historical site of Celilo Falls into one ESU, (2) the configuration
in the proposed rule, with Deschutes River summer- and fall-run chinook
salmon being grouped with the existing Snake River fall-run chinook
salmon ESU and a separate Upper Columbia River summer- and fall-run
chinook
[[Page 50408]]
salmon ESU, (3) the grouping of Deschutes River summer- and fall-run
chinook salmon with other ocean-type mainstem and tributary spawners in
the Upper Columbia River summer- and fall-run chinook salmon ESU and a
separate Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU, and (4) the creation
of a new Deschutes River chinook salmon ESU, which may or may not have
included the extirpated populations that existed in the John Day,
Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers, along with the existing Snake River
fall-run and Upper Columbia River summer- and fall-run chinook salmon
ESUs.
There is considerable uncertainty regarding the importance of
ecological and geographic factors in providing the basis for
reproductive isolation and local adaptation. For example, because the
mainstem Columbia River (above Celilo Falls) and the lower reaches of
its tributaries are all in the Columbia River Basin Ecoregion, there is
an ecological link for the majority of the existing spawning
populations of ocean-type fish. Historically, mainstem and tributary
spawners may have formed a continuum of populations throughout the
upper Columbia River and, to a lesser extent, the Snake River.
Furthermore, genetic and life history differences are modest (or the
interpretations of the existing data are ambiguous) among ocean-type
chinook salmon populations above Celilo Falls, suggesting that perhaps
all of the populations are part of a single ESU. Another viewpoint is
that the three lines of evidence (genetics, ecology, life history) used
in the 1991 status review (Waples et al., 1991) to determine that Snake
and Upper Columbia fall chinook salmon are in separate ESUs are still
valid. In addition, the historical spawning distribution of most of the
Snake River fall-run populations was well separated from Columbia River
fall-run chinook salmon (Irving and Bjornn, 1981). NMFS considered all
of these factors and believes that none of the new information gives
sufficient cause to group all upriver bright fall-run chinook salmon
into one ESU.
NMFS reviewed the evidence for including Deschutes River fall-run
chinook salmon in the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU. Data
provided by co-managers on genetics and ocean recoveries of CWTs were
important elements of this review. NMFS is uncertain of the assertion
made by CTWSRO (1999) that genetic samples from the Grande Ronde and
Clearwater Rivers were representative of Snake River populations.
Spawning surveys indicated that prior to 1990, redd counts in the
Grande Ronde River were at or near zero, with counts in the Clearwater
River numbering in the low tens of redds (Irving and Bjornn, 1981;
Howell et al., 1985; Garcia et al., 1999). Recent increases in redd
counts in the Snake River Basin, above Lower Granite Dam, have
coincided with a large influx of non-Snake River fish (Production
Advisory Committee, 1998). NMFS believes that the weight of the genetic
evidence, from a number of different sources, indicates a closer
relationship of Deschutes River fish with Snake River fish than with
Columbia River fish. Data from CWT studies also show Deschutes River
fall-run chinook salmon have an ocean distribution and age at capture
more similar to Snake River (both Lyons Ferry Hatchery fish and wild
Snake River fish) than to Columbia River upriver bright fall-run
populations. Additionally, if (as has been suggested by ODFW) the
Deschutes River fall-run population was part of a larger historical ESU
that included the John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers, these
intermediate populations could have provided a link between the
Deschutes and Snake River Basins. However, the ecological
distinctiveness of the historical Snake River, Umatilla and Walla Walla
Rivers, and Deschutes River spawning habitats argues against their
being included in the same ESU; for example, the Deschutes River is a
spring-fed stream with relatively stable water temperature, which is
very different from the mainstem Snake River.
NMFS' re-consideration on the grouping of Deschutes River and Upper
Columbia River summer- and fall-run populations focused on the
historical distribution of mainstem spawners in the Columbia River,
which extended more or less continuously from Celilo Falls to Kettle
Falls, thus providing a link between different tributary populations,
including the Deschutes River. In contrast, the center of fall-run
spawning activity in the Snake River Basin was far removed from the
confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers. Environmental features of
the Deschutes and upper Columbia Rivers are more similar over this
entire area than either is to the upper Snake River Basin. Tributary
spawners in the Yakima, Wenatchee, and Okanogan Rivers are already
included in the Upper Columbia River summer- and fall-run chinook
salmon ESU, so it is possible to include Deschutes River ocean-type
chinook salmon with the other upper river tributaries as well. NMFS
also considered the possible ocean-type life history of the Deschutes
River summer run. If that is the case, then the relationship between
summer- and fall-run fish in the Deschutes River would resemble the
Upper Columbia River, where summer- and fall-run fish are in the same
ESU, rather than that in the Snake River, where the summer- and fall-
run fish are from different evolutionary lineages.
After weighing the best available information, NMFS reaffirms the
conclusion of previous status reviews that found that Snake River and
Upper Columbia River ocean-type fish are in separate ESUs. There is
remaining uncertainty about the ESU affinities of the Deschutes River
population. The scenario with the Deschutes River population in a
separate ESU from the Snake River fall-run and Upper Columbia River
summer- and fall-run chinook salmon ESUs is probably the most
compelling, but arguments can also be made for including the Deschutes
River in the Upper Columbia or Snake River chinook salmon ESUs. One of
the factors that influenced NMFS to identify three separate ESUs was
the lack of conclusive evidence for including the Deschutes River in
either of the existing ESUs.
Under the assumption that the Deschutes River population is in a
separate ESU from Upper Columbia or Snake River fish, NMFS was unable
to resolve the historical extent of that ESU. The major uncertainty
centers on the ESU status of historical populations from the John Day,
Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers, which have been extirpated. The lack
of biological information for these historical populations makes a
determination of their ESU status difficult. The Deschutes River is
distinctive enough ecologically to have supported its own ESU; however,
it is reasonable to believe that the historical ESU also included
ocean-type populations in tributaries at least as far upstream as the
confluence with the Snake River. NMFS believes it is highly likely that
all mainstem Columbia River spawners above Celilo Falls historically
were part of what is now termed the Upper Columbia River summer- and
fall-run chinook salmon ESU. The agency also believes that all ocean-
type chinook salmon in the Deschutes River (in particular, any
vestigial summer-run fish that may exist) are part of the same ESU as
the Deschutes River fall-run population.
Response - ESU Status: As discussed previously, NMFS concludes that
the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU should remain unchanged,
but is unable to conclude with certainty the ESU affinity of the
Deschutes River population. Updated information on the abundance of
fall-run chinook salmon
[[Page 50409]]
in the Deschutes River indicates that the run continues to increase in
number--the most recently estimated 5-year geometric mean abundance is
over 16,000 fish, and the short-term trend in abundance has been
increasing by 18 percent per year (Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission, 1999). However, there is considerable uncertainty
associated with the run-size estimates of chinook salmon in the
Deschutes River (Beaty, 1996). The population estimate is based on
aerial redd surveys above and below Sherars Falls and on a mark-
recapture survey for fish passing above Sherars Falls. The expansion
estimate is based on an estimate of the number of adults per redd for
the entire river, calculated using the mark-recapture data for fish
above the falls. Since the late 1970s, the distribution of spawners has
shifted from the bulk of the spawning occurring from above to below
Sherars Falls. The total number of redds below the falls has not
significantly declined since 1972, but the redd counts above the falls
have declined dramatically over that time period (Beaty, 1996). The
shift in relative abundance of spawning adults above and below Sherars
Falls has resulted in an expansion estimate based on mark-recapture
studies on an increasingly small proportion of the total population in
the river. The errors in run-size estimation for the Deschutes River
have become so high that the overall estimate of run size is not
reliable. Because of the problems associated with the run-size
estimates, NMFS considered the trends in redd counts to be a relatively
more reliable indicator of the status of the Deschutes River chinook
salmon population. Nevertheless, there is reportedly high inter-annual
variation in the quality of redd counts due to visibility problems
during aerial surveys (Beaty, 1996), so even the redd count data are
not completely reliable.
Counts of chinook salmon at Pelton trap on the Deschutes River have
declined since the late 1950s. The 5-year geometric mean abundance of
fish at the trap is 81, and the short term trend in abundance is
declining by over 6 percent per year. These fish may be representative
of a remnant summer run of chinook salmon (CTWSRO, 1999). The
percentage of hatchery chinook salmon in the Deschutes River continues
to be very low, as reported in more detail in the historical
information obtained at the time of the original NMFS status review
(Myers et al., 1998).
The estimated abundance of fall-run chinook salmon in the Snake
River has been increasing over the most recent 10 years (5-year
geometric mean abundance was 565 naturally produced fish, increasing by
13.7 percent per year.) Redd counts from streams in the Snake River
Basin starting in the mid 1980s to 1990s show mostly increasing trends
in abundance, although the estimated population sizes continue to be
very small.
NMFS believes that the new information does not substantially
change the risk assessments for the Snake River and Upper Columbia
River chinook salmon ESUs, and the status of these ESUs was not
reconsidered. Evaluation of the status of the ESU that includes the
Deschutes River is difficult because the historical and current extent
of the ESU is not well characterized. For this reason, NMFS did not
attempt a formal extinction risk analysis for this ESU. However, the
agency did review abundance, trend, and other information for the
Deschutes River population and concludes that ocean-type chinook salmon
in the Deschutes River do not appear to be in danger of extinction, nor
are they likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
NMFS remains concerned about the uncertainty in the abundance
estimates for fall- and summer-run chinook salmon in the Deschutes
River. Uncertainty about the true population status centers primarily
around different indicators of status emerging from the analysis of
redd counts (declining sharply in the upper basin; stable in the lower
basin) and run size estimates based on expansion of mark-recapture
studies (which indicate a relatively large and increasing population).
The only conclusion NMFS can make from the data is that the numbers of
chinook salmon above Sherars Falls have been severely declining since
the mid-1970s, while the population below the falls appears to be
stable. The shift in the proportion of the total Deschutes River fall-
run chinook salmon run spawning above and below Sherars Falls has
resulted in unreliable expansion estimates for escapement both above
and below the falls. In addition, the change in the estimated ratio of
the number of adults per redd over time represents a significant
problem for interpreting the expansion procedure used to generate the
abundance estimates. NMFS is hopeful that recent efforts by the CTWSRO
and ODFW to conduct more extensive mark-recapture studies in the lower
river will improve escapement estimates.
NMFS also was concerned about the severe decline and possible
extinction of the summer-run chinook salmon in the Deschutes River. The
significant reduction in this life history form would represent an
important loss to the historical diversity in this ESU. The uncertainty
associated with the geographic boundaries containing the historical ESU
added to the overall uncertainty in the risk evaluation. The historical
run sizes of fall-run chinook salmon in the Umatilla, John Day, and
Walla Walla Rivers are not well known, and the numbers of fall-run
chinook salmon present today are very low and do not represent
naturally self-sustaining runs. If fall-run chinook salmon that
historically occurred in those streams are considered to be part of the
Deschutes River chinook salmon ESU, a higher extinction risk may be
appropriate for the current ESU because extinction of the ESU would
have occurred over a significant portion of its range.
Summary of Factors Affecting Chinook 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 (Secretary) 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 chinook salmon throughout
its range are numerous and varied. The present depressed condition 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
environmental variability from such factors as drought, floods, and
poor ocean conditions.
As noted earlier, NMFS received numerous comments regarding the
relative importance of various factors contributing to the decline of
chinook salmon. A summary of various risk factors and their roles in
the decline of west coast chinook salmon was presented in NMFS' March
9, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 11482), as well as in several ``Factors
for Decline'' reports published in conjunction with proposed rules for
steelhead and for chinook salmon (NMFS, 1996 and 1998b).
[[Page 50410]]
Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon
Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, the Secretary 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 chinook 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 9,
1998, proposed rule (63 FR 11482). Since then, NMFS has received some
new information regarding these and other efforts being made to protect
chinook salmon. Notable efforts within the range of the chinook ESUs to
be listed continue to be the NFP, PACFISH, Oregon Plan for Salmon and
Watersheds (OPSW), CVPIA, CALFED Bay-Delta Program implementation and
development, development and implementation of VAMP, Klamath and
Trinity Basin restoration programs and flow re-evaluations, CDFG's
Salmonid Restoration Program for coastal watersheds, NMFS and state
funded multi-county conservation planning efforts in California, and
the ongoing ESA section 7 and habitat conservation planning efforts
within the range of currently listed species.
In California's Central Valley and coastal watersheds within the
range of the chinook ESUs to be listed, several important conservation
efforts have recently been implemented or initiated. In the Central
Valley, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and Ecosystem Restoration Plan are
continuing to be implemented while a long-term implementation plan
continues to be developed. The CALFED program and its implementation
through 1997 is described in detail in previous Federal Register
notices (63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998; 63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998). In
1998, CALFED funded 71 restoration projects totaling $27.5 million
throughout the Central Valley dealing with fish passage assessment,
fish passage and/or screening projects, floodplain management/habitat
restoration, watershed planning, and other activities. In 1999, CALFED
funded 13 projects totaling $52.5 million in the Central Valley. Nearly
$40 million of these funds were directed at major salmon and steelhead
habitat restoration activities on Battle Creek in the upper Sacramento
River and fish passage improvements at the Anderson-Cottonwood
Irrigation District in the upper Sacramento River. Substantial new
funding is anticipated in 2000.
Several important projects have been initiated or implemented in
the Central Valley since 1998 as a result of CALFED and/or CVPIA
funding. In the Sacramento River Basin, significant efforts are
underway to restore habitat in the Battle Creek drainage in the upper
Sacramento River. NMFS, FWS, and CDFG have reached agreement with the
Pacific Gas and Electric Company to restore access to nearly 42 miles
of high quality spawning and rearing habitat. Water acquisitions are
ongoing, and most restoration actions should be completed by 2002. This
effort in Battle Creek will primarily benefit spring-run chinook
salmon. Significant habitat restoration efforts are also underway in
Butte, Deer, Mill and Clear Creeks which are tributaries to the upper
Sacramento River to remove barriers, improve stream flows, and improve
riparian habitat conditions which are expected to benefit both spring
and fall chinook salmon. Major new fish screen projects have also
recently been initiated or completed. Construction on the Glenn-Colusa
Irrigation District fish screen was implemented and is scheduled for
completion in late 1999. This is the single largest diversion on the
upper Sacramento River (3,000 cfs) and will include a $1.0 million
evaluation and monitoring program. New screens have been installed on
four additional major diversions in the Sacramento River which total a
combined diversion of nearly 2,000 cfs. In the San Joaquin River Basin,
important habitat restoration projects have been implemented in the
Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers to improve instream and riparian habitat
and flow conditions. These efforts will benefit San Joaquin fall-run
chinook salmon. Additional habitat restoration efforts were funded in
the Delta region which should benefit all anadromous salmonids in the
Central Valley.
In the San Joaquin Basin, collaboration between water interests and
state and Federal resource agencies has also led to the development of
a scientifically based adaptive fisheries management effort known as
VAMP. The VAMP is intended to (1) improve protection of fall-run
chinook salmon smolt passage from the San Joquin River Basin, (2)
gather scientific information on the effects of various flows and Delta
facilities operations on the survival of salmon smolts through the
Delta, and (3) provide environmental benefits in the San Joaquin River
tributaries, the lower San Joaquin River, and the Delta. The 12-year
plan will be implemented in 1999 through a combination of increasing
experimental flow releases from tributary streams in the San Joaquin
Basin and through such operational changes as the reduction of exports
at the Delta export pumping plants during the peak smolt outmigration
period (approximately April 15 to May 15). Additional attraction flows
are targeted for adult fall-run chinook upstream passage in October. In
coordination with VAMP, the California Department of Water Resources
(CDWR) will install and operate a barrier at the head of Old River to
improve the survival of juvenile fall chinook emigrating from the lower
San Joaquin River. By selecting a combination of flows and export
rates, VAMP represents a long-term commitment to evaluate the effects
of San Joaquin River flows and Delta export rates on San Joaquin Basin
fall-run chinook salmon and to provide improved interim protections.
In June 1998, the State of California listed Sacramento River
(Central Valley) spring-run chinook salmon as a threatened species
under the CESA based on a status review conducted by CDFG. Since the
state listing of Central Valley spring-run chinook, CDFG and NMFS have
engaged in a joint ESA/CESA consultation/conference with the CDWR and
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to assess the effects the State
Water Project's and the Central Valley Project's operations are having
on Sacramento River spring-run chinook salmon. This consultation/
conference focuses on a 1-year operation period through the spring of
2000, at which time it is anticipated that a plan for implementation of
Stage 1 for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and a Federal Record of
Decision (ROD) will be completed. Pursuant to CDFG's 1994 Fish
Screening Policy, all diversions that are located within the essential
habitat of a CESA-listed species require screening. Accordingly, many
unscreened diversions in the principal spring-run chinook salmon
tributaries, particularly Butte Creek, have been identified and
assigned a high priority for implementing corrective actions and
receiving restoration funding.
NMFS identified state and Federal hatchery practices within the
Central Valley as a serious risk factor to fall- and spring-run chinook
populations at the time of the listing proposal. In an effort to
address these concerns, both the State of California and FWS have
recently initiated several actions to address hatchery practice
concerns. First, CDFG has obtained funding from CALFED to develop a
statistically designed marking/tagging and recovery program for Central
Valley hatchery-produced
[[Page 50411]]
chinook salmon to address questions about the relative contribution of
hatchery and natural production in naturally-spawning adult
populations, fisheries, and at Central Valley salmon hatcheries, and to
develop a methodology for evaluating the desirability of selective
fisheries. Second, CDFG, in conjunction with NMFS, has initiated a
comprehensive review of anadromous salmonid hatchery practices in
California. As part of this effort, CDFG has completed an internal
review of its hatchery operating criteria at Iron Gate, Trinity River,
Feather River, Nimbus, Mokelumne, and Merced hatcheries and, in some
instances, modified operations. A major objective of this joint
evaluation is to review these hatchery operating criteria and identify
further modifications that are appropriate for natural stock integrity,
while maintaining the mitigation and/or supplementation objectives of
individual facilities. Finally, FWS, in conjunction with NMFS, has
undertaken a reassessment of the mitigation goals and operational
criteria for the CNFH, which is the only Federal hatchery in
California. This assessment was initiated in early 1999 and may be
integrated with the CDFG/NMFS review of state hatchery practices. In
conjunction with its ongoing re-evaluation of CNFH hatchery programs,
FWS has substantially reduced its future target for the production and
release of fall-run chinook salmon fry in order to reduce the potential
impacts on naturally spawning fall-run populations.
In the 1998 fiscal year, CDFG's Salmonid Restoration Program
established a Watershed Initiative element aimed at supporting local,
community-based watershed planning and landowner-based timber harvest
planning for coastal regions of California. That same fiscal year, CDFG
funded $2.65 million in projects for the restoration of coastal salmon
and anadromous trout habitat through its Salmon and Steelhead Trout
Restoration Account. CDFG entered into 102 contracts, through the
Fishery Restoration Grants Program, with public agencies, nonprofit
groups, recognized Native American Tribes, and individuals to restore
habitats lost or degraded as a result of past land use practices.
During the 1999 and 2000 fiscal years, CDFG's Fishery Restoration
Grants Program has increased funding for this program for coastal
restoration project grants to approximately $7 million annually. In
addition to funding these restoration programs, CDFG has substantially
increased its program staff (36.2 additional personnel-years) to
improve anadromous salmonid management efforts in coastal watersheds.
Pursuant to a March 1998 Memorandum of Agreement between NMFS and
the State of California, NMFS and the State committed to an expedited
review of California's forest practice rules, their implementation, and
enforcement. This effort has been ongoing over the past year and has
resulted in proposals to improve forestry practices in California.
These proposals are currently undergoing further review prior to being
submitted to the Board of Forestry for action. The current schedule
calls for implementing measures adopted by the Board in January 2000.
NMFS believes this effort is critically important for improving habitat
conditions in coastal watersheds for anadromous salmonids, including
chinook salmon.
An additional Federal effort affecting the Snake River fall-run
chinook salmon ESU, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management
Project (ICBEMP), was not addressed in the proposed rule. ICBEMP
addresses Federal lands in this region that are managed under USFS and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land and Resource Management Plans or
Land Use Plans amended by PACFISH. PACFISH provides objectives,
standards, and guidelines that are applied to all Federal land
management activities, such as timber harvest, road construction,
mining, grazing, and recreation. USFS and BLM implemented PACFISH in
1995 intending to provide interim protection to anadromous fish habitat
while a longer term, basin scale aquatic conservation strategy was
developed by ICBEMP. It is intended that ICBEMP will have a Final
Environmental Impact Statement and ROD by early 2000.
For other ESUs already listed in the Interior Columbia Basin (e.g.,
Snake River chinook salmon, Snake River steelhead, Upper Columbia River
steelhead, and Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon), NMFS'
ESA section 7 consultations have required several components that are
in addition to the PACFISH strategy (NMFS, 1995; NMFS, 1998c). NMFS,
USFS, and BLM intend these additional components to bridge the gap
between interim PACFISH direction and the long-term strategy envisioned
for ICBEMP. NMFS anticipates that these components will also be carried
forward in the ICBEMP direction. These components include, but are not
limited to, implementation monitoring and accountability, a system of
watersheds that are prioritized for protection and restoration,
improved and monitored grazing systems, road system evaluation and
planning requirements, mapping and analysis of unroaded areas, multi-
year restoration strategies, and batching and analyzing projects at the
watershed scale.
In the range of these chinook salmon ESUs, several notable efforts
have recently been initiated. Harvest, hatchery, and habitat
protections under state control are evolving under OPSW. The OPSW is a
long-term effort to protect all at-risk wild salmonids through
cooperation between state, local, and Federal agencies, tribal
governments, industry, private organizations, and individuals. Parts of
the OPSW are already providing benefits including an aggressive program
by the Oregon Department of Transportation to inventory, repair, and
replace road culverts that block fish from reaching important spawning
and rearing areas. The OPSW also encourages efforts to improve
conditions for salmon through non-regulatory means, including
significant efforts by local watershed councils. An Independent Multi
disciplinary Science Team provides scientific oversight to OPSW
components and outcomes. A recent Executive Order from Governor
Kitzhaber reinforced his expectation that all state agencies will make
environmental health improvement and salmon recovery part of their
mission.
NMFS and FWS are also engaged in an ongoing effort to assist in the
development of multiple species HCPs for state and privately owned
lands in Oregon, Washington, and California. While section 7 of the ESA
addresses species protection associated with Federal actions and lands,
Habitat Conservation Planning under section 10 of the ESA addresses
species protection on private (non-Federal) lands. HCPs are
particularly important since more than 85 percent of the habitat in the
range of the Central Valley spring-run and California Coastal ESUs is
in non-Federal ownership. The intent of the HCP process is to ensure
that any incidental taking of listed species will not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of survival of the species, will reduce conflicts
between listed species and economic development activities, and will
provide a framework that would encourage ``creative partnerships''
between the public and private sectors and state, municipal, and
Federal agencies in the interests of endangered and threatened species
and habitat conservation. Implementation of the recently approved
Pacific Lumber HCP, which covers 210,000 acres in
[[Page 50412]]
California's coastal watersheds, has begun in earnest with review of
timber harvest plans and formalization of watershed analysis and
monitoring programs. The foundation of this HCP rests on watershed
analysis which is used to tailor site-specific prescriptions for salmon
conservation on a watershed-specific basis. The initial watershed
analysis is proceeding and is expected to establish a framework for
similar analyses in the Pacific Lumber HCP and other HCP efforts which
are under development in California.
NMFS will continue to evaluate state, tribal, and non-Federal
efforts to develop and implement measures to protect and begin the
recovery of chinook salmon populations within these ESUs. Because a
substantial portion of land in these ESUs is in state or private
ownership, conservation measures on these lands will be key to
protecting and recovering chinook salmon populations in these ESUs.
NMFS recognizes that strong conservation benefits will accrue from
specific components of many non-Federal conservation efforts.
While NMFS acknowledges that many of the ongoing protective efforts
are likely to promote the conservation of chinook salmon and other
salmonids, some are very recent and few address 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 Central Valley spring-run and California Coastal
chinook salmon 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 chinook salmon populations.
Determinations
Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as any
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The term ``threatened species'' is defined as any
species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
After reviewing the best available information, including public
and peer review comments, biological data on the species' status, and
an assessment of protective efforts directed at the four chinook ESUs
proposed for listing, NMFS has concluded that only two ESUs--the
Central Valley spring-run ESU and California Coastal ESU--warrant
protection under the ESA. NMFS has determined that both ESUs are at
risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of their range. While NMFS has determined that
the Central Valley fall and late fall-run ESU does not warrant listing
at this time, the agency remains concerned about the status of this ESU
and will consider it a candidate species. The agency will reevaluate
the status of the Central Valley fall and late fall-run ESU as new
information becomes available to determine whether listing may be
warranted.
In the listed ESUs, only ``naturally spawned'' populations of
chinook salmon are listed. NMFS' intent in listing only these
populations is to protect chinook salmon stocks that are indigenous to
(i.e., part of) the ESUs. In this listing determination, NMFS has
identified various non-indigenous populations that co-occur with fish
in the California Coastal ESU. NMFS 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 ESUs and
have no distinguishing mark). Therefore, to reduce confusion regarding
which chinook salmon are considered listed within the ESUs, 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 chinook 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 chinook salmon in the listed ESUs (NMFS, 1999a). In the
Central Valley spring-run ESU, spring-run chinook salmon (and their
progeny) from the Feather River Hatchery stock are considered part of
the ESU. However, they are not considered to be essential for its
recovery and are not listed at this time. In the California Coastal
ESU, chinook salmon (and their progeny) from the following hatchery
stocks are considered part of the ESU: Redwood Creek, Hollow Tree
Creek, Freshwater Creek, Mad River Hatchery, Van Arsdale Station, Yager
Creek, and Mattole River fall-run stock. However, they too, are not
considered to be essential for the ESU's recovery and are not listed at
this time. In addition, NMFS concludes that fall-run chinook salmon
from the following stocks are not part of the California Coastal ESU
(thus, not listed): Warm Springs Hatchery stock and fall-run fish of
Feather River or Nimbus Hatchery origin that are released in this ESU.
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 populations 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
chinook populations considered to be part of the Central Valley spring-
run ESU or California Coastal ESU, NMFS' protective regulations may not
apply the take prohibitions to naturally spawned listed fish used 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 (except in
cases where NMFS has listed the hatchery population as well).
In addition, NMFS believes it may be desirable to incorporate
naturally spawned fish into these unlisted 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.
NMFS is not now issuing protective regulations under section 4(d)
of the ESA for these ESUs. NMFS will propose such protective measures
it considers
[[Page 50413]]
necessary for the conservation of chinook salmon ESUs listed as
threatened in a forthcoming Federal Register document. Even though NMFS
is not now issuing protective regulations for these ESUs, Federal
agencies possess a duty under section 7 of the ESA to consult with NMFS
if any activity they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect listed
chinook salmon ESUs. The effective date for this requirement is
November 15, 1999.
Prohibitions and Protective Measures
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or
indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all
individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary to implement regulations
``to provide for the conservation of [threatened] species,'' that may
include extending any or all of the prohibitions of section 9 to
threatened species. Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits violations of
protective regulations for threatened species implemented under section
4(d). NMFS intends to issue protective regulations pursuant to section
4(d) for the Central Valley spring-run and California Coastal ESUs, as
well as for other threatened chinook salmon ESUs.
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 adequacy 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 measures or plans
exist, NMFS may choose to incorporate them into the recovery planning
process starting with protective regulations. NMFS has already adopted
ESA section 4(d) protective regulations that ``except'' a limited range
of activities from section 9 take prohibitions. For example, the
interim rule for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon
(62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997) does not apply the take prohibitions to
habitat restoration activities conducted in accordance with approved
plans and fisheries conducted in accordance with an approved state
management plan. In the future, such rules may contain limits on take
prohibitions applicable to such activities 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 the 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) of the ESA. For example, if a healthy population exists
within an overall ESU that is listed, 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 the efforts to
protect them.
Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult
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) requires Federal agencies to ensure
that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must enter into consultation with NMFS.
Examples of Federal actions likely to affect chinook salmon in the
listed ESUs include authorized land management activities of the USFS,
BLM, and National Park Service, as well as operation of hydroelectric
and storage projects of the BOR 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
(FERC) 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 while avoiding or reducing
impacts to chinook salmon and their habitat within the range of the
listed ESU.
There are likely to be Federal actions ongoing in the range of the
listed ESUs at the time the listing becomes effective. Therefore, NMFS
will review all ongoing actions that may affect the listed species with
Federal agencies and will complete formal or informal consultations,
when 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 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 to determine population distribution and
abundance, and for collection of adult fish for artificial propagation
programs. NMFS is aware of sampling efforts for chinook salmon within
the listed chinook salmon ESUs, including efforts by Federal and state
fisheries agencies and by private landowners. These and other research
efforts could provide critical information regarding chinook 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 state or privately operated and funded hatcheries,
state or university research on other species 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 ongoing 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
chinook salmon from the listed ESUs acquired lawfully by permit issued
by
[[Page 50414]]
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 such activities as
silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam construction and
operation, discharge of fill material, stream channelization or
diversion for which a 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 notice, NMFS may adopt ESA section 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 chinook salmon in the listed ESUs and result in a violation of
section 9 of the ESA include, but are not limited, to the following:
(1) Land-use activities in riparian areas and areas susceptible to mass
wasting and surface erosion, which may disturb soil and increase
sediment delivered to streams, such as logging, grazing, farming, and
road construction; (2) destruction or alteration of chinook salmon
habitat in these 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) construction or operation
of dams or water diversion structures with inadequate fish screens or
fish passage facilities in a listed species' habitat; (4) construction
or maintenance of inadequate bridges, roads, or trails on stream banks
or unstable hill slopes adjacent to or above a listed species' habitat;
(5) discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants (e.g.,
sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting listed
chinook salmon; (6) violation of discharge permits; (7) pesticide and
herbicide applications; (8) interstate and foreign commerce of chinook
salmon from the listed ESUs without an ESA permit, unless the fish were
harvested pursuant to legal exception; (9) collecting or handling of
chinook 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 (10) release of non-
indigenous or artificially propagated species into a listed species'
habitat or where they may access the habitat of listed species. 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 chinook 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
chinook salmon and the broad geographic range of these chinook salmon
ESUs, NMFS recognizes that numerous parties may be affected by the
listings. Therefore, to permit an orderly implementation of the
consultation requirements and take prohibitions associated with this
action, the final listings will take effect on November 15, 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, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals.
Several conservation efforts are underway that may reverse the
decline of west coast chinook salmon and other salmonids. NMFS is
encouraged by these significant efforts, which could provide all
stakeholders with a less regulatory approach to achieving the purposes
of the ESA--protecting and restoring native fish populations and the
ecosystems upon which they depend. NMFS will continue to encourage and
support these initiatives as important components of recovery planning
for chinook salmon and other salmonids.
To succeed, protective regulations and recovery programs for
chinook 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,
chinook 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 different
degrees in specific areas.
1. Measures could be taken to promote practices that are more
protective of (or restore) chinook 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, returns, 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 chinook
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 chinook salmon.
5. Predator control/relocation programs could be implemented in
areas where predators pose a significant threat to chinook salmon.
6. Measures could be taken to improve monitoring of chinook salmon
populations and their habitat.
7. Federal agencies such as the USFS, BLM, NPS, FERC, COE, U.S.
Department of Transportation, and BOR 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
[[Page 50415]]
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 no more than
one additional year.
In the proposed rule (63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998), NMFS described
the areas that may constitute critical habitat for these chinook salmon
ESUs. Since then, NMFS has received numerous comments from the public
concerning the process and definition of critical habitat for these and
other listed salmonids. The agency needs additional time to complete
the needed biological assessments and evaluate special management
considerations affecting critical habitat. Therefore, critical habitat
is not yet determinable for these ESUs, and NMFS extends the deadline
for designating critical habitat for no more than 1 year until the
required assessments can be made.
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 the
environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
a 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 chinook 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.
Change in Enumeration of Threatened and Endangered Species
In the proposed rule issued on March 9, 1998 (63 FR 11482), the
Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon was added as an endangered
species to paragraph (a) in Sec. 222.23, while several threatened
chinook salmon ESUs (including populations in the California Coastal
chinook salmon ESU) were enumerated under Sec. 227.4. Since that time
NMFS has issued a final rule consolidating and reorganizing existing
regulations regarding implementation of the ESA (64 FR 14052, March 23,
1999). In this reorganization, Sec. 222.23 has been redesignated as
Sec. 224.101, and Sec. 227.4 has been redesignated as Sec. 223.102.
Given these reorganized regulations, as well as the Central Valley
spring-run ESU's revised status as threatened, both the Central Valley
spring-run and the California Coastal chinook salmon ESUs are now
designated in this final rule as paragraphs (a)(20) and (a)(21) and
added under Sec. 223.102, respectively.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine
mammals, Transportation.
Dated: September 9, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out 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 is revised 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)(20) and (a)(21) are added to
read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(20) Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha). Includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run
chinook salmon in the Sacramento River Basin, and its tributaries,
California.
(21) California coastal chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon from
Redwood Creek (Humboldt County, California) through the Russian River
(Sonoma County, California).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-24051 Filed 9-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
