[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23549]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 23, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Docket No. 940947-4247; I.D. 072994C]

 

Endangered and Threatened Species; Mid-Columbia River Summer 
Chinook Salmon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of determination.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that the mid-Columbia River summer chinook 
salmon, as petitioned, do not constitute a ``species'' under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and therefore does 
not qualify for listing under the ESA at this time. However, the mid-
Columbia River summer chinook are part of a larger evolutionarily 
significant unit (ESU) that includes all late-run (summer and fall) 
Columbia River chinook salmon from the mainstem Columbia River and 
tributaries between Chief Joseph and McNary dams, termed mid-Columbia 
River Summer/fall chinook salmon. NMFS has determined that at the 
present time this ESU does not warrant listing as a threatened or 
endangered species.

ADDRESSES: Environmental and Technical Services Division, NMFS, 
Northwest Region, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Suite 620, Portland, OR 97232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Garth Griffin, Environmental and Technical Services Division, (503/230-
5430) or Marta Nammack, Protected Species Management Division, (301/
713-2322).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Petition Background

    On June 3, 1993, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition from 
American Rivers, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Sierra Club 
Northwest Resource Information Center, Friends of the Earth, Inland 
Empire Public Lads Council, Washington Wilderness Coalition, North 
Central Washington Chapter Audubon Society, Trout Unlimited, Washington 
Trout, and the Federation of Flyfishers to list mid-Columbia River 
summer chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and to designate 
critical habitat under the ESA (15 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), NMFS published 
a document on September 3, 1993 (58 FR 46944), that the petition 
presented substantial scientific information indicating that the 
listing may be warranted. NMFS also announced its intention at that 
time to conduct a status review of mid-Columbia River summer chinook 
salmon and requested comments from any party having relevant 
information concerning: (1) Whether this stock qualifies as a 
``species'' under the ESA, and (2) whether the stock is endangered or 
threatened based on the listing criteria. Specifically, NMFS solicited 
information on the reproductive isolation and evolutionary significance 
of the mid-Columbia River summer chinook salmon compared to mid-
Columbia River fall chinook salmon and the present and historic status 
of the mid-Columbia River summer and fall chinook salmon. NMFS also 
requested information on areas that may qualify as critical habitat for 
the mid-Columbia River summer chinook salmon.

Biological Background

    NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center Biological Review Team 
(BRT) has reviewed the status of mid-Columbia River summer chinook 
(Northwest fisheries Science Center BRT 1994), the results of which are 
summarized below. A more complete discussion of the subject, including 
additional references, will be available upon request in the near 
future (see ADDRESSES).
    The ``mid-Columbia'' region of the Columbia River Basin, as defined 
here, encompasses the mainstem Columbia River, includes five principal 
subbasins, (the Okanogan, Methow, Entiat, Wenatchee, and Yakima), and 
is located between Chief Joseph Dam, River Mile (RM) 545, and McNary 
Dam, RM 292 (see Figure 1). The petition, however, limited the ``mid-
Columbia'' region to the Columbia River and its tributaries between 
Chief Joseph Dam and Priest Rapids Dam, RM 397, which excluded the 
Yakima Subbasin and the Hanford Reach, a section of the mainstem 
Columbia River downstream of Priest Rapids Dam. NMFS selected the 
larger boundary for the status review because it included not only the 
petitioned chinook salmon but also other Columbia River Basin summer- 
and fall-run chinook salmon above McNary Dam (excluding Snake River 
chinook salmon) which have a close affinity with the petitioned salmon, 
as indicated by genetic and life history information.
    In delineating the boundaries for a status review, NMFS policy is 
to determine if the petitioned stock represents an ESU. If NMFS 
determines that the petition does not address an ESU, as was the case 
here, NMFS examines larger units with an affinity to the petitioned 
stock to determine the ESU which encompasses the petitioned stock. The 
geographical area of this larger ESU will then serve as the boundaries 
for determining species status.
    Chinook salmon found in the mid-Columbia region have historically 
been divided into three runs, spring, summer, and fall, according to 
adult passage timing at the mainstem Columbia River hydropower projects 
and spawning location and timing. All adult mid-Columbia River chinook 
salmon must pass the four lower Columbia River hydropower projects, 
including Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and McNary dams. Those mid-
Columbia River chinook salmon destined for the northernmost spawning 
locations must then pass five mid-Columbia River hydropower projects, 
including Priest Rapids, Wanapum, Rock Island, Rocky Reach, and Wells 
dams.
    The bulk of the adult mid-Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon 
typically pass Priest Rapids Dam between the end of April and the end 
of May. Spring-run spawning occurs in August and September in the 
tributaries and upper reaches of four major mid-Columbia River 
tributaries (the Yakima, Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow rivers). Spring-
run juveniles primarily migrate to the ocean as yearling smolts after 
spending a full year in freshwater and are commonly referred to as 
``stream-type'' chinook salmon (Healey 1991).
    The bulk of the mid-Columbia River summer-run chinook salmon 
typically pass Priest Rapids Dam between the end of June and the middle 
of August, overlapping with the beginning of the fall-run chinook 
salmon, the bulk of which typically pass Priest Rapids Dam from the 
middle of August through October. In addition, the summer- and fall-run 
spawn timing and location also overlap and appear to form a continuum 
rather than two discrete patterns. Summer and fall chinook spawning 
occurs from the end of September through November and extends from the 
lower reaches of the major tributaries, including the Wenatchee, 
Methow, and Okanogan (including the Similkameen) rivers, into the 
mainstem mid-Columbia River. Summer- and fall-run juveniles primarily 
migrate as sub-yearling smolts to the ocean, after spending less than a 
year in freshwater, and are considered ``ocean-type'' chinook salmon 
(Healey 1991).

Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA

    To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, mid-
Columbia River summer chinook salmon must be a ``species'' under the 
ESA. The ESA defines a ``species'' to include any ``distinct population 
segment of any species of vertebrate. . . which interbreeds when 
mature.'' NMFS published a policy (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991) 
describing how the agency will apply the ESA definition of ``species'' 
to Pacific salmonid species. This policy provides that a salmonid 
population will be considered distinct, and hence a species under the 
ESA, if it represents an evolutionary significant unit (ESU) of the 
biological species. The population must satisfy two criteria to be 
considered an ESU: (1) It must be reproductively isolated from other 
conspecific population units, and (2) it must represent an important 
component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The 
first criterion, reproductive isolation, need not be absolute, but must 
be strong enough to permit evolutionary important differences to accrue 
in different population units. The second criterion is met if the 
population contributes substantially to the ecological/genetic 
diversity of the species as a whole. Further guidance on the 
application of this policy is contained in ``Pacific salmon 
(Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition of Species under the ESA,'' 
which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Reproductive Isolation

    For this criterion, NMFS considered available information regarding 
geographic and life-history factors that may isolate mid-Columbia River 
summer chinook salmon as well as genetic factors that indicate 
reproductive isolation. Both NMFS and the petitioners considered 
reproductive isolation with respect to three other groups of chinook 
salmon within the Columbia River Basin, including: Snake River summer 
chinook salmon, mid-Columbia River fall chinook salmon, and mid-
Columbia River spring chinook salmon.
    Reproductive isolation between summer chinook salmon from the 
Columbia and Snake rivers is complete or nearly so. Apart from the 
substantial geographic distance separating the two groups, large 
differences in life-history patters and in genetic characteristics 
revealed by protein electrophoresis indicate strong isolation over a 
substantial period of time.
    Although there is a lack of genetic information specifically for 
fall-run fish from the rivers identified in the petition (Methow, 
Okanogan, and Wenatchee), the close genetic similarity between mid-
Columbia River summer chinook salmon and fall chinook salmon from the 
Hanford Reach area was documented in NMFS' status reviews for the Snake 
River spring/summer chinook salmon and Snake River fall chinook salmon 
(Matthews and Waples 1991; Waples et al. 1991). This relationship was 
confirmed in recent analyses by Washington Department of Fisheries 
(WDF) which found close genetic similarities between two fall-run 
populations, (the Hanford Reach natural population and Priest Rapids 
hatchery population), and summer-run adults sampled at Wells Hatchery, 
Wells Dam passage ladder, and in the Similkameen River (a tributary of 
the Okanogan River) (Marshall 1993). Hence, similar genetic 
characteristics, in addition to similar life history information 
including adult and juvenile migration timing, and spawning timing and 
location, indicate that the petitioned fish, mid-Columbia summer 
chinook, are not reproductively isolated, but instead, are closely 
aligned with mid-Columbia fall chinook.
    There is strong evidence for reproductive isolation between spring-
run chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia River and the closely aligned 
summer- and fall-run chinook salmon. Washington Department of Fisheries 
(WDF) has compiled a considerable amount of genetic data for more 
recent samples in the area which showed a fairly large difference 
between the summer/fall-run and spring-run genetic characteristics 
(Marshall 1993). This genetic evidence is consistent with life-history 
differences between the two groups in the mid-Columbia River, including 
adult and juvenile migration timing, and spawning timing and location.

Ecological/Genetic Diversity

    For this criterion, NMFS used historic accounts to determine how 
the indigenous mid- and upper Columbia River chinook salmon populations 
have been altered and to determine the relationship of these historic 
populations to the present mid-Columbia River chinook salmon.
    The construction of Grand Coulee Dam in 1941 blocked the access of 
upper Columbia River chinook salmon to their spawning habitat in the 
Lake Windermere region of Canada. It seems likely that, given their 
extensive upriver migration and, presumably, distinctive habitat 
characteristics, these upper Columbia River chinook salmon may have 
historically comprised an ESU. The salmon which used the upper Columbia 
River were ``relocated'' during the Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance 
Project (GCFMP) into the Entiat, Methow, and Wenatchee rivers after 
being trapped at Rock Island Dam. Given this relocation program, the 
petitioners speculate that the present summer-run chinook salmon found 
in the Methow and Wenatchee rivers are the last remnants of the upper 
Columbia River summer-run chinook salmon. While it is possible that 
some genes from upriver stocks were incorporated into the mid-Columbia 
River summer chinook salmon, NMFS found no empirical evidence that any 
appreciable remnants of this gene pool, or distinctive upriver stock 
characteristics, presently remain in the petitioned summer-run chinook 
salmon found in the Methow and Wenatchee rivers. Review of historic 
accounts of the spawn timing of upriver populations, plus comparisons 
with Fraser River upriver populations in geographic proximity, indicate 
that upper Columbia River chinook salmon may have actually been stream-
type chinook salmon rather than ocean-type chinook salmon. Thus, it is 
uncertain what the relationship is between the ocean-type fish 
currently residing in the mid-Columbia River and the original upriver 
populations. Furthermore, if an upper Columbia River summer-run of 
chinook salmon with distinctively large individuals (termed ``June 
hogs'' by the petitioners) existed sometime prior to 1940, it had 
expired prior to the initiation of the GCFMP because late-run ocean-
type fish taken at Rock Island averaged only about 8 kg (Fulton and 
Pearson 1981).
    The Okanogan River was the only major tributary in the petitioned 
area that did not receive transplants from the GCFMP. However, it is 
unlikely that late-run fish in this river represent an essentially pure 
native stock. All late-run chinook salmon adults reaching rock Island 
Dam were taken for the GCFMP for a period of 5 years. According to age 
data for late-run chinook salmon from the mid-Columbia River, less than 
1 percent of returning adults are older than 5 years. Therefore, the 
current population in the Okanogan River, which is upstream from Rock 
Island Dam, must be derived largely, if not entirely, from 
recolonization. Furthermore, several genetic studies (Hershberger et 
al. 1988; Marshall 1993; unpublished NMFS data) have shown a strong 
genetic similarity between summer-run fish from the Wenatchee and 
Okanogan rivers and Wells Hatchery.
    Genetic and life-history information all fail to demonstrate that 
mid-Columbia summer chinook are reproductively isolated. Therefore, 
they do not comprise an ESU. Rather, this information indicates a close 
affinity between summer- and fall-run chinook salmon in the mid-
Columbia River. In addition, coded wire tag data suggest that the two 
forms have a similar ocean distribution (Howell et al. 1985). 
Therefore, NMFS concluded that all late-run chinook salmon from the 
mid-Columbia River (as defined here) are part of the same ESU. NMFS 
evaluated the relationship of this ESU to three other groups of 
Columbia River Basin chinook salmon. Spring chinook salmon from the 
mid-Columbia River are part of a separate ESU because of substantial 
life-history and genetic differences. Snake River summer chinook salmon 
are much more closely related to Snake River spring chinook salmon than 
they are to Columbia River summer chinook salmon. Ecological, genetic, 
and ocean distribution data were previously used to demonstrate that 
Snake River fall chinook salmon are distinct from mid-Columbia River 
fall chinook salmon and represent a separate ESU (Waples et al. 1991).
    Therefore, NMFS concludes that the best available information 
indicates that the late-run chinook salmon from the mid-Columbia River, 
termed mid-Columbia River summer/fall chinook salmon, meet both of the 
criteria necessary to be considered an ESU, are separate from all other 
chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin, and are considered a 
``species'' under the ESA.

Status of the Mid-Columbia River Summer/Fall Chinook Salmon ESU

    In considering whether the ESU is threatened or endangered 
according to the ESA, NMFS evaluated both qualitative and quantitative 
information. Qualitative evaluations considered recent, published 
assessments by agencies or conservation groups of the status of chinook 
salmon within the geographic area. Quantitative assessments were based 
on time series of both salmon redd counts in the tributaries and adult 
counts at Columbia River dams.
    Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered summer chinook salon to be of 
``special concern'' in the Okanogan River and at ``moderate risk of 
extinction'' in the Methow River. They also considered summer chinook 
salmon in the Entiat River to be extinct but considered fall chinook 
salmon populations in this area to not be at risk. WDF et al. (1993) 
considered summer chinook salmon in the Okanogan and Methow rivers to 
be ``depressed,'' but rated all other existing summer and fall chinook 
salmon stocks in this region to be ``healthy.''
    Redd counts (both summer- and fall-run fish) for the Wenatchee, 
Methow, Okanogan, and Similkameen rivers all show large fluctuations, 
with very low points in the early 1980s. Since that time, the Wenatchee 
River redd counts show a substantial increase, while redd counts for 
the other three rivers show no discernible trend. Over the entire 
available data series (1956-93), only the Methow River redd counts show 
a downward trend, although both the Methow and Okanogan River counts 
are substantially below peak counts from the late 1960s and early 
1970s. Both the Similkameen and Wenatchee River counts show substantial 
upward trends over the full data series.
    Counts of adult salmon ascending fish ladders at dams provide 
additional assessment of population abundance and trends. However, 
basing conclusions on dam counts is inadvisable due to the 
inconsistency between an actual continuum of passage, which can vary 
with environmental conditions, and the inflexible count cutoff dates 
between spring-, summer-, and fall-run chinook salmon.
    The longest time series (1993-93) count record for the mid-Columbia 
River is from Rock Island Dam on the mainstem Columbia River below the 
Wenatchee River. Because of this location, Rock Island Dam counts 
provide an index primarily of the petitioned stocks and not the entire 
ESU. Counts of adult late-run chinook salmon at Rock Island Dam decline 
in the late 1930, followed by a substantial increase during the 1940s 
and 1950s. Since the late 1950s, abundance has fluctuated over about a 
threefold range with no substantial trend. Counts of late-run adult 
chinook salmon in 1991 and 1992 at mid-Columbia River dams were well 
below the 10-year average, and at some dams, the 1992 counts were 
record lows. In 1993, counts at all dams were well above the 1992 low 
point, and most were near or above the 10-year average. While the low 
counts in 1991 and 1992 are of concern, they are not unprecedented. 
Similar low counts occurred in 1982 and 1983, after which counts 
increased, reaching record highs at Priest Rapids and Rock Island dams 
in the late 1980s.
    Total abundance of the ESU is relatively large, with a recent 
(1989-93) 5-year average estimate of 22,000 adults passing Priest 
Rapids Dam and an additional 42,000 adults spawning in Hanford Reach of 
the Columbia River and the Yakima River, or a total of approximately 
64,000 adults for the entire ESU. (Note that Hanford Reach and Yakima 
River spawning estimates are calculated by subtracting counts from 
Priest Rapids Dam, Ice Harbor Dam, and various hatcheries from McNary 
Dam counts; therefore, these estimates may be subject to error.)
    NMFS has not attempted to estimate extinction probabilities for 
late-run mid-Columbia chinook salmon. However, two reports submitted to 
the administrative record (ADFG 1993; Chapman et al. 1994) provided 
such estimates. Both applied the Dennis et al. (1991) model to an 
aggregate stock of late-run mid-Columbia River chinook salmon. 
Collectively, the results suggest that the near-term risk of extinction 
of the ESU is probably low. Results from both applications of the 
Dennis model should be viewed with caution because they are based on a 
simple model, depend upon simplistic assumptions regarding salmon 
population age structure, may not include all sources of variation in 
stock abundance, ignore subpopulation structure, and have wide 
confidence intervals.
    In conclusion, while dam and redd count information indicate that 
some of the individual runs, which originate in a limited portion of 
the ESU's geographic range, are of concern, the mid-Columbia River 
late-run chinook salmon ESU as a whole appears to be relatively 
healthy, with little risk of extinction in the foreseeable future. Even 
if NMFS considered a unit that included only those rivers identified in 
the petition (Okanogan including Similkameen, Methow, and Wenatchee), 
there appears to be little risk of extinction of that unit as a whole. 
While redd counts in two of these rivers (Okanogan and Methow) have 
exhibited substantial declines since the late 1960s, they have been 
relatively stable since 1980, and counts in both the Wenatchee and 
Similkameen rivers have exhibited long-term (1956-93) increasing 
trends. Based on Rock Island Dam adult counts, this smaller unit is 
certainly more abundant than it was in the 1930s and 1940s.

Special Considerations

    While NMFS does not believe that this ESU is at significant risk of 
extinction or endangerment, the low numbers of late-run chinook salmon 
above Rocky Reach Dam (including the Methow and Okanogan rivers) 
despite the virtual elimination of in-river harvest during the summer 
season, are of concern. The declines since the mid 1970s in this region 
may indicate local problems with habitat, dam passage, or hatchery 
practices. Special management consideration of late-run mid-Columbia 
River chinook salmon may be warranted.
    Some aspects of artificial propagation also pose risks for 
populations within the ESU. For example, large releases of fall chinook 
salmon have occurred in the mainstem Columbia River and in the Yakima 
River in recent years. The potential genetic and ecological 
consequences of these releases have not been adequately addressed.
    The number of chinook salmon in many areas of the Columbia River 
Basin are at very low levels in 1994, with prospects of even lower 
returns in 1995. On exception was the 1994 summer chinook adult passage 
count as Priest Rapids Dam which reached the 10 year average count, and 
was similar in magnitude to the 1993 count (FPC Weekly Report #94-22). 
The 1994 adult return estimate for mid-Columbia River fall chinook is 
not yet available. While these recent adult returns numbers indicate 
that the population remains stable for now, the ESU should be monitored 
over the next few years to evaluate the effects of short-term 
environmental factors, as well as on-going human activities.

Determination

    After a thorough analysis of all information available, NMFS has 
determined that the mid-Columbia River summer chinook salmon, as 
petitioned, do not constitute a ``species'' under the ESA. NMFS has 
determined that the mid-Columbia River summer chinook salmon is part of 
a large ESU that includes all late-run Columbia River chinook salmon 
from the mainstem Columbia River and its tributaries between Chief 
Joseph and McNary dams, termed mid-Columbia River summer/fall chinook 
salmon. NMFS has determined that at the present time this ESU does not 
warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species.

References

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 1993. Comments concerning 
status of mid-Columbia River summer chinook salmon. Submitted to 
National Marine Fisheries Service ESA Administrative Record, October 
1993. 21 p.
Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, D. Deppert, M. Erho, S. Hays, C. 
Peven, B. Suzumoto, R. Klinge. 1994. Status of summer/fall chinook 
salmon in the mid-Columbia Region. Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., 
Boise.
Dennis, B., P.L. Munholland, and J.M. Scott. 1991. Estimation of 
growth and extinction parameters for endangered species. Ecol. 
Monogr. 61:115-143.
Fish Passage Center (FPC) weekly report #94-22, 9 p. Available from 
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, 2501 S.W. First Ave., 
Suite 230, Portland, OR 97201-4752
Fulton, L.A., and R.A. Pearson. 1981. Transplantation and homing 
experiments on salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and steelhead trout, Salmo 
gairdneri, in the Columbia River system: Fish of the 1939-44 broods. 
U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-12, 97 p.
Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha). pp. 311-393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds. Pacific 
salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Hershberger, W.K., D. Dole, and X. Guo. 1988. Genetic identification 
of salmon and steelhead stocks in the mid-Columbia River. University 
of Washington, School of Fisheries, Seattle. Report to Don Chapman 
Consultants, Boise, ID.
Howell, P., K. Jones, D. Scarnecchia, L. LaVoy, W. Kendra, D. 
Ortmann, C. Neff, C. Petrosky, and R. Thurow. 1985. Stock assessment 
of Columbia River anadromous salmonids. Volume I: Chinook, coho, 
chum, and sockeye stock summaries. Report to Bonneville Power 
Administration, Contract DE-A179-84BP12737, Project 83-335, 585 p. 
Available Bonneville Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Potland, 
OR 97208.
Marshall, A. 1993. Upper Columbia spring and summer chinook--genetic 
analysis. Memorandum to Bob Bugert, Washington Department of 
Fisheries, Salmon Culture, 7 July 1993.
Matthews, G.M., and R.S. Waples. 1991. Status review for Snake River 
spring and summer chinook salmon. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. 
Memo. NMFS F/NWC-200, 75 p.
Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific 
salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, 
Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16(2):4-21.
Northwest Fisheries Science Center Biological Review Team (BRT). 
1994. Conclusions of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center's review 
of a petition to list mid-Columbia River summer chinook salmon under 
the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 
2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112. 14 p.
Waples, R.S., R.P. Jones, Jr., B.R. Beckman, and G.A. Swan. 1991. 
Status review for Snake River fall chinook salmon. U.S. Dep. 
Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-201, 73 p.
Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Washington Department of 
Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 
Washington State salmon and steekhead stock inventory (SASSI). 
Olympia.

    Dated: September 19, 1994.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-M

TN23SE94.000


[FR Doc. 94-23549 Filed 9-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C