[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11774-11795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5472]


      

[[Page 11773]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Commerce





_______________________________________________________________________



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Parts 226 and 227



Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Threatened Status and 
Designated Critical Habitat for Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon and 
Columbia River Chum Salmon; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 11774]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 226 and 227

[Docket No. 980219043-8043-01; I.D. No. 011498B]
RIN 0648-AK53


Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened Status and 
Designated Critical Habitat for Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon and 
Columbia River Chum Salmon

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has completed a comprehensive status review of chum 
salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) populations in Washington, Oregon, and 
California and has identified four Evolutionarily Significant Units 
(ESUs) within this range. NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to list 
two ESUs as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): the Hood 
Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU, which spawns in tributaries to Hood 
Canal, Discovery Bay, and Sequim Bay, Washington and the Columbia River 
chum salmon ESU, which spawns in tributaries to the lower Columbia 
River in Washington and Oregon. NMFS has also determined that listing 
is not warranted for two additional chum salmon ESUs (Puget Sound/
Strait of Georgia and Pacific Coast ESUs).
    In both ESUs identified as threatened, only naturally spawned chum 
salmon are being proposed for listing. Critical habitat for each ESU is 
being proposed as the species' current freshwater and estuarine range 
and includes all waterways, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones 
below longstanding, naturally impassable barriers.
    NMFS is requesting public comments and input on the issues 
pertaining to this proposed rule. NMFS is also soliciting suggestions 
and comments on integrated local/state/Federal conservation measures 
that might best achieve the purposes of the ESA relative to recovering 
the health of chum salmon populations and the ecosystems upon which 
they depend. Should the proposed listings be made final, protective 
regulations under the ESA would be put into effect and a recovery plan 
would be adopted and implemented.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 1998. The dates 
and locations of public hearings regarding this proposal will be 
published in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Chief, Protected Resources 
Division, NMFS, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin at (503) 231-2005, or 
Joe Blum at (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petition Background

    On March 14, 1994, NMFS was petitioned by the Professional 
Resources Organization-Salmon (PRO-Salmon) to list Washington's Hood 
Canal, Discovery Bay, and Sequim Bay summer-run chum salmon 
(Oncorhynchus keta) as threatened or endangered species under the ESA 
(PRO-Salmon, 1994). A second petition, received April 4, 1994, from the 
Save Allison Springs Citizens Committee (Save Allison Springs Citizens 
Committee, 1994), requested listing of fall chum salmon found in the 
following southern Puget Sound streams or bays: Allison Springs, McLane 
Creek, tributaries of McLane Creek (Swift Creek and Beatty Creek), 
Perry Creek, and the southern section of Mud Bay/Eld Inlet. A third 
petition, received by NMFS on May 20, 1994, was submitted by Trout 
Unlimited (Trout Unlimited, 1994). This petition requested listing for 
summer chum salmon that spawn in 12 tributaries of Hood Canal.
    In response to these petitions and to the more general concerns 
about the status of Pacific salmon throughout the region, NMFS 
published on September 12, 1994, a notice in the Federal Register (59 
FR 46808) announcing that the petitions presented substantial 
scientific information indicating that a listing may be warranted and 
that the agency would initiate ESA status reviews for chum and other 
species of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. These 
comprehensive reviews considered all populations in the States of 
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. Hence, the status review for 
chum salmon encompasses, but is not restricted to, the populations 
identified in the petitions described. This Federal Register notice 
will focus on populations in the contiguous United States; however, 
information from Asia, Alaska, and British Columbia was also considered 
to provide a broader context for interpreting status review results.
    During the coastwide chum salmon status review, NMFS assessed the 
best available scientific and commercial data, including technical 
information from Pacific Salmon Biological Technical Committees 
(PSBTCs) and other interested parties. The PSBTCs consisted primarily 
of scientists (from Federal, state, and local resource agencies, Indian 
tribes, industries, universities, professional societies, and public 
interest groups) possessing technical expertise relevant to chum salmon 
and their habitats. The NMFS Biological Review Team (BRT), composed of 
staff from NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center, reviewed and 
evaluated scientific information provided by the PSBTCs and other 
sources and completed a coastwide status review for chum salmon (NMFS, 
1996a) which was subsequently augmented with additional information 
regarding Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, also considered by NMFS in 
this proposed designation (NMFS, 1996b). Copies of these documents are 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES). A complete status review of 
west coast chum salmon will be published in a forthcoming NMFS 
technical memorandum. Early drafts of the BRT review were distributed 
to state and tribal fisheries managers and peer reviewers who are 
experts in the field to ensure that NMFS' evaluation was accurate and 
complete. The review, summarized below, identifies four ESUs of chum 
salmon in Washington, Oregon, and California, and describes the basis 
for the BRT's conclusions regarding the proposed ESA status of each 
ESU.
    Use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this document refers 
to critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be confused 
with the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish Habitat 
(EFH) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Chum Salmon Life History

    Chum salmon belong to the family Salmonidae and are one of eight 
species of Pacific salmonids in the genus Oncorhynchus. Chum salmon are 
semelparous (spawn only once then die), spawn primarily in fresh water, 
and apparently exhibit obligatory anadromy, as there are no recorded 
landlocked or naturalized freshwater populations (Randall et al., 
1987). The species is best known for the enormous canine-like fangs and 
striking body color (a calico pattern, with the anterior two-thirds of 
the flank marked by a bold, jagged, reddish line and the posterior 
third by a jagged black line) of spawning males. Females are less

[[Page 11775]]

flamboyantly colored and lack the extreme dentition of the males.
    The species has the widest natural geographic and spawning 
distribution of any Pacific salmonid, primarily because its range 
extends farther along the shores of the Arctic Ocean than that of the 
other salmonids (Groot and Margolis, 1991). Chum salmon have been 
documented to spawn from Korea and the Japanese island of Honshu, east, 
around the rim of the North Pacific Ocean, to Monterey Bay in southern 
California. The species' range in the Arctic Ocean extends from the 
Laptev Sea in Russia to the Mackenzie River in Canada (Bakkala, 1970; 
Fredin et al., 1977). Historically, chum salmon were distributed 
throughout the coastal regions of western Canada and the United States, 
as far south as Monterey, California. Presently, major spawning 
populations are found only as far south as Tillamook Bay on the 
northern Oregon coast.
    Chum salmon may historically have been the most abundant of all 
salmonids. Neave (1961) estimated that, prior to the 1940s, chum salmon 
contributed almost 50 percent of the total biomass of all salmonids in 
the Pacific Ocean. Chum salmon also grow to be among the largest of 
Pacific salmon, second only to chinook salmon in adult size, with 
individuals reported up to 108.9 cm in length and 20.8 kg in weight 
(Pacific Fisherman, 1928). Average size for the species is around 3.6 
to 6.8 kg (Salo, 1991).
    Chum salmon usually spawn in coastal areas, and juveniles 
outmigrate to seawater almost immediately after emerging from the 
gravel that covers their redds (Salo, 1991). This ocean-type migratory 
behavior contrasts with the stream-type behavior of some other species 
in the genus Oncorhynchus (e.g., coastal cutthroat trout, steelhead, 
coho salmon, and most types of chinook and sockeye salmon), which 
usually migrate to sea at a larger size, after months or years of 
freshwater rearing. This means that survival and growth in juvenile 
chum salmon depend less on freshwater conditions (unlike stream-type 
salmonids which depend heavily on freshwater habitats) than on 
favorable estuarine and marine conditions. Another behavioral 
difference between chum salmon and most species that rear extensively 
in fresh water is that chum salmon form schools, presumably to reduce 
predation (Pitcher, 1986), especially if their movements are 
synchronized to swamp predators (Miller and Brannon, 1982).
    Age at maturity appears to follow a latitudinal trend in which a 
greater number of older fish occur in the northern portion of the 
species' range. Age at maturity has been investigated in many studies, 
and in both Asia and North America, it appears that most chum salmon 
(95 percent) mature between 3 and 5 years of age, with 60 to 90 percent 
of the fish maturing at 4 years of age. However, a higher proportion of 
5-year-old fish occurs in the north, and a higher proportion of 3-year-
old fish occurs in the south (southern British Columbia, Washington, 
Oregon) (Gilbert, 1922; Marr, 1943; Pritchard, 1943; Kobayashi, 1961; 
Oakley, 1966; Sano, 1966). Helle (1979) has shown that the average age 
at maturity in Alaska is negatively correlated with growth during the 
second year of marine life, but not with growth in the first year, and 
that age at maturity is negatively correlated with year-class strength. 
A few populations of chum salmon also show an alternation of dominance 
between 3 to 4 year-old fish, usually in the presence of dominant year 
classes of pink salmon (Gallagher, 1979).
    Chum salmon usually spawn in the lower reaches of rivers typically 
within 100 km of the ocean. Redds are usually dug in the mainstem or in 
side channels of rivers. In some areas (particularly in Alaska and 
northern Asia), they typically spawn where upwelled groundwater 
percolates through the redds (Bakkala, 1970; Salo, 1991).
    Chum salmon are believed to spawn primarily in the lower reaches of 
rivers because they usually show little persistence in surmounting 
river blockages and falls. However, in some systems, such as the Skagit 
River, Washington, chum salmon routinely migrate over long distances 
upstream (at least 170 km in the Skagit River) (Hendrick, 1996). In two 
other rivers, the species swims a much greater distance. In the Yukon 
River, Alaska, and the Amur River, between China and Russia, chum 
salmon migrate more than 2,500 km inland. Although these distances are 
impressive, both rivers have low gradients and are without extensive 
falls or other blockages to migration. In the Columbia River Basin, 
there are reports that chum salmon may historically have spawned in the 
Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers, more than 500 km from the sea (Nehlsen 
et al., 1991). However, these fish would have had to pass Celilo Falls, 
a web of rapids and cascades, which presumably were passable by chum 
salmon only at high water flows.
    During the spawning migration, adult chum salmon enter natal river 
systems from June to March, depending on characteristics of the 
population or geographic location. Groups of fish entering a river 
system at particular times or seasons are often called ``runs'', and 
run timing has long been used by the fishing community to distinguish 
anadromous populations of salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat 
trout. Run timing designations (e.g., summer versus fall or early-fall 
versus late-fall) are important in this status review because two of 
the ESA petitions for chum salmon (PRO-Salmon, 1994; Trout Unlimited, 
1994) used run timing as evidence supporting population distinction. In 
Washington, a variety of seasonal runs are recognized, including 
summer, fall, and winter populations. Fall-run fish predominate, but 
summer runs are found in Hood Canal, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and in 
southern Puget Sound (Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) et al., 
1993). Only two rivers have fish returning so late in the season that 
the fish are designated as winter-run fish, and both of these are in 
southern Puget Sound.

Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA

    To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, the 
identified populations of chum salmon must be considered ``species'' 
under the ESA. The ESA defines a ``species'' to include ``any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds 
when mature.'' On November 20, 1991, NMFS published a policy describing 
how the agency will apply the ESA definition of ``species'' to 
anadromous salmonid species (56 FR 58612). This policy provides that a 
salmonid population will be considered distinct, and hence a species 
under the ESA, if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit 
(ESU) of the biological species. A 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 evolutionarily 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. Guidance on the 
application of this policy is contained in a scientific paper ``Pacific 
Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition of `Species' under the 
Endangered Species Act'' and a NOAA Technical Memorandum ``Definition 
of `Species' Under the Endangered Species

[[Page 11776]]

Act: Application to Pacific Salmon,'' which are available upon request 
(see ADDRESSES).

ESU Determinations

    The proposed ESU determinations described here represent a 
synthesis of a large amount of diverse information. In general, the 
proposed geographic boundaries for each ESU (i.e., the watersheds 
within which the members of the ESU are typically found) are supported 
by several lines of evidence that show similar patterns. However, the 
diverse data sets are not always entirely congruent (nor would they be 
expected to be), and the proposed boundaries are not necessarily the 
only ones possible. In some cases environmental changes occur over a 
transition zone rather than abruptly. In addition, as ESU boundaries 
are based on biological and environmental information, they do not 
necessarily conform to state or national boundaries, such as the U.S./
Canada border.
    Major types of information evaluated by the NMFS BRT include the 
following: (1) Physical features, such as physiography, geology, 
hydrology, and oceanic and climatic conditions; (2) biological 
features, including vegetation, zoogeography, and ``ecoregions'' 
identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Omernik and 
Gallant, 1986; Omernik, 1987); (3) life history information such as 
patterns and timing of spawning and migration (adult and juvenile), 
fecundity and egg size, and growth and age characteristics; and (4) 
genetic evidence for reproductive isolation between populations or 
groups of populations. Genetic data (from protein electrophoresis and 
DNA markers) were the primary evidence considered for reproductive 
isolation criterion. This evidence was supplemented by inferences about 
barriers to migration created by natural geographic features. Data 
considered important in evaluations of ecological/genetic diversity 
included distributions, migrational and spawning timing, life history, 
ichthyogeography, hydrology, and other environmental features of the 
habitat.
    Based on a review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information pertaining to chum salmon, the BRT identified four ESUs for 
the species in the Pacific Northwest. Each of the ESUs include multiple 
spawning populations of chum salmon, and most ESUs also extend over a 
considerable geographic area. This result is consistent with NMFS 
species definition policy, which states that, in general, ``ESUs should 
correspond to more comprehensive units unless there is clear evidence 
that evolutionarily important differences exist between smaller 
population segments'' (Waples, 1991). However, considerable diversity 
in genetic or life-history traits or habitat features may exist within 
a single complex ESU. The descriptions below briefly summarize the 
proposed chum salmon ESUs and some of the notable types of diversity 
within each ESU:

(1) Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU

    The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU includes most U.S. 
populations of chum salmon outside Alaska and includes all chum salmon 
populations from Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca as far west 
as the Elwha River, with the exception of summer-run populations in 
Hood Canal and along the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. The BRT 
concluded that this ESU also includes Canadian populations from streams 
draining into the Strait of Georgia. A northern boundary for this ESU 
was tentatively identified as Johnstone Strait, but this determination 
was hampered by a lack of information on populations in the central and 
northern regions of the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Chum 
salmon from the west coast of Vancouver Island are not considered part 
of this ESU, in part because available genetic information suggests 
these fish are distinct from Puget Sound or Strait of Georgia fish.
    Genetic, ecological, and life-history information were the primary 
factors used to identify this ESU. Environmental characteristics that 
may be important to chum salmon (e.g., water temperature, and amount 
and timing of precipitation) generally show a strong north-south trend, 
but no important differences were identified between Washington and 
British Columbia populations. An east-west gradient separating Olympic 
Peninsula populations from those to the east was considered to be more 
important for evaluating chum salmon populations.
    Chum salmon populations within this ESU exhibit considerable 
diversity in life-history features. For example, although the majority 
of populations in this ESU are considered to be fall-run stocks 
(spawning from October to January), four summer-run (spawning from 
September to November) and two winter-run (spawning from January to 
March) stocks are recognized by state and tribal biologists in southern 
Puget Sound. Summer chum salmon in southern Puget Sound are genetically 
much more similar to Puget Sound fall chum salmon than to any other 
summer-run populations in Hood Canal and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 
These data suggest relatively weak isolation between summer- and fall-
run chum salmon in southern Puget Sound and/or a relatively recent 
divergence of the two forms. Reproductive isolation of the Nisqually 
River and Chambers Creek winter-run populations, which are the only 
populations in the ESU whose spawning continues past January, may be 
somewhat stronger.
    The Nisqually and Puyallup Rivers are also unique in southern Puget 
Sound because their headwaters are fed by glaciers on Mount Rainier, 
giving the rivers different characteristics than other regional river 
systems. The Nisqually population is also one of the more genetically 
distinctive chum salmon populations in Puget Sound. However, the 
genetic differences are not large in an absolute sense, and the 
majority of the BRT felt that the distinctiveness of the winter-run 
populations was not sufficient to designate these populations a 
separate ESU. Rather, the team concluded that these populations, along 
with the summer-run populations in southern Puget Sound, reflect 
patterns of diversity within a relatively large and complex ESU.

(2) Hood Canal Summer-Run ESU

    This ESU includes summer-run chum salmon populations in Hood Canal 
in Puget Sound and in Discovery and Sequim Bays on the Strait of Juan 
de Fuca. It may also include summer-run fish in the Dungeness River, 
but the existence of that run is uncertain. Distinctive life-history 
and genetic traits were the most important factors in identifying this 
ESU.
    Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon are defined in the Salmon and 
Steelhead Stock Inventory or ``SASSI'' (WDF et al., 1993) as fish that 
spawn from mid-September to mid-October. Fall-run chum salmon are 
defined as fish that spawn from November through December or January. 
Run timing data from as early as 1913 indicated temporal separation 
between summer and fall chum salmon in Hood Canal, and recent spawning 
surveys show that this temporal separation still exists. Genetic data 
indicate strong and long-standing reproductive isolation between chum 
salmon in this ESU and other chum salmon populations in the United 
States and British Columbia. Hood Canal is also geographically 
separated from other areas of Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and 
the Pacific Coast.
    In general, summer-run chum salmon are most abundant in the 
northern part of the species' range, where they spawn in the mainstems 
of rivers. Farther south, water temperatures and stream flows during 
late summer and early fall

[[Page 11777]]

become unfavorable for salmonids. These conditions do not improve until 
the arrival of fall rains in late October/November. Presumably for 
these reasons, few summer chum populations are recognized south of 
northern British Columbia. Ecologically, summer-run chum salmon 
populations from Washington must return to fresh water and spawn during 
periods of peak high water temperature, suggesting an adaptation to 
specialized environmental conditions that allow this life-history 
strategy to persist in an otherwise inhospitable environment. The BRT 
concluded, therefore, that these populations contribute substantially 
to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a whole.
    Some chum salmon populations in the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia 
ESU, which has four recognized summer-run populations and two 
recognized winter-run populations, also exhibit unusual run timing. 
However, allozyme data indicate that these populations are genetically 
closely linked to nearby fall-run populations. Therefore, variation in 
run timing has presumably evolved more than once in the southern part 
of the species' range. Genetic data indicate that summer-run 
populations from Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca are part of 
a much more ancient lineage than summer-run chum salmon in southern 
Puget Sound.

(3) Pacific Coast ESU

    This ESU includes all natural chum salmon populations from the 
Pacific coasts of Washington and Oregon, as well as populations in the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca west of the Elwha River. This ESU is defined 
primarily on the basis of life-history and genetic information. 
Allozyme data show that coastal populations form a coherent group that 
show consistent differences between other fall-run populations in 
Washington and British Columbia. Geographically, populations in this 
ESU are also isolated from most populations in the Puget Sound/Strait 
of Georgia and Columbia River ESUs.
    Ecologically, the western Olympic Peninsula and coastal areas 
inhabited by chum salmon from this ESU experience a more severe drought 
in late summer and are far wetter during the winter than areas in the 
Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia region. All chum salmon populations in 
this ESU are considered to include fall-run fish. Some Oregon 
populations are the only known locations to which 2-year-old adult fall 
chum salmon consistently return with any appreciable frequency.
    Chum salmon from this ESU cover a large and diverse geographic area 
(from the Strait of Juan de Fuca to at least southern Oregon), and the 
historical ESU may have extended to the recorded extreme limit of the 
species' distribution near Monterey, California. Many BRT members 
thought that multiple ESUs of chum salmon may exist in this area, but a 
more detailed evaluation was hampered by a scarcity of biological 
information of all types. It is possible that many reports of chum 
salmon in California and southern Oregon do not represent permanent 
spawning populations, but rather episodic colonization from northern 
populations. Even if this is the case, however, it is not clear where 
the southern limit for permanent natural populations occurs.
    There was considerable discussion by the BRT regarding the boundary 
between this ESU and the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU, 
particularly with respect to fall chum salmon in the Dungeness and 
Elwha Rivers. Genetic data for these two populations are ambiguous 
(Elwha--because of hatchery stocking) or nonexistent (Dungeness), and 
run timing is also largely uninformative regarding the affinities of 
these two populations. Although coastal populations generally return 
and spawn slightly earlier than those in Puget Sound, there is little 
difference in run timing between Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca 
populations. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 
(Phelps et al., 1995) considers the Dungeness and Elwha River 
populations to be affiliated with Strait of Juan de Fuca populations to 
the west, primarily because of their geographic separation from inner 
Puget Sound fall-run populations. However, the transition to the 
wetter, coastal climate occurs west of the Elwha and Dungeness Rivers 
on the Olympic Peninsula. After careful consideration of these factors, 
the BRT concluded that, based on available information, fall chum 
salmon from the Dungeness and Elwha Rivers should be considered part of 
the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU.

(4) Columbia River ESU

    The BRT concluded that, historically, at least one ESU of chum 
salmon occurred in the Columbia River. Ecologically, Columbia River 
tributaries differ in several respects from most coastal drainages. 
Genetic data are available only for two small Columbia River 
populations, which differ substantially from each other as well as from 
all other samples examined to date.
    Historically, chum salmon were abundant in the lower reaches of the 
Columbia River and may have spawned as far upstream as the Walla Walla 
River (over 500 km inland). Today only remnant chum salmon populations 
exist, all in the lower Columbia River. They are few in number, low in 
abundance, and of uncertain stocking history.
    The question of the extent of the Columbia River ESU along the 
Washington and Oregon coasts prompted considerable debate within the 
BRT. The BRT concluded that, based upon the genetic and ecological data 
available, chum salmon in the Columbia River were different enough from 
other populations in nearby coastal river systems (e.g., Willapa Bay, 
Grays Harbor, Nehalem River, and Tillamook River) that the Columbia 
River ESU should extend only to the mouth of the river.

Status of Chum Salmon ESUs

    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 considers a variety of information in evaluating the 
level of risk faced by an ESU. Important considerations include the 
following: (1) Absolute numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal 
distributions; (2) current abundance in relation to historical 
abundance and carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in 
abundance, based on indices such as dam or redd counts or on estimates 
of spawner-recruit ratios; (4) natural and human-influenced factors 
that cause variability in survival and abundance; (5) possible threats 
to genetic integrity (e.g., selective fisheries and interactions 
between hatchery and natural fish); and (6) recent events (e.g., a 
drought or a change in management) that have predictable short-term 
consequences for abundance of the ESU. Additional risk factors, such as 
disease prevalence or changes in life-history traits, may also be 
considered in evaluating risk to populations. Aspects of several of 
these risk considerations are common to all four chum salmon ESUs and 
described in greater detail in NMFS' status review. After evaluating 
patterns of abundance and other risk factors for chum salmon from these 
four ESUs, the BRT reached the following conclusions:

(1) Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU

    The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU of chum salmon encompasses

[[Page 11778]]

much diversity in life history and includes summer, fall, and winter 
runs of chum salmon. WDF et al. (1993) identified 38 stocks with 
sufficient data to calculate trends in escapement within the area 
encompassed by this ESU: 10 had negative trends and 23 had positive 
trends. All of the statistically significant trends (P < 0.05) were 
positive, and the slopes of many negative trends were close to zero. 
The sum of the recent 5-year geometric means of these escapement 
trends, which are not exhaustive, indicate a recent average escapement 
of more than 300,000 natural spawners for the ESU as a whole.
    Commercial harvest of chum salmon has been increasing since the 
early 1970s throughout the State of Washington, and the majority of 
this harvest has been from the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU. The 
recent average chum salmon harvest from Puget Sound (1988-1992) was 
1.185 million fish (WDFW, 1995). This suggests a total abundance of 
about 1.5 million adult chum salmon. This increasing harvest, coupled 
with generally increasing trends in spawning escapement, provides 
compelling evidence that chum salmon are abundant and have been 
increasing in abundance in recent years within this ESU.
    While most populations in this ESU appear to be healthy and 
increasing in abundance, there appears to be a potential for loss of 
genetic diversity within this ESU, especially in populations that 
display the most unique life histories. For example, four summer-run 
stocks were identified by WDF et al. (1993). Of these four, one was 
classified as extinct, two were of mixed production, and all were 
relatively small. Of the three extant stocks, Blackjack Creek has a 5-
year geometric mean spawning escapement of 524; Case Inlet has 4,570; 
and Hammersley Inlet has 7,728, with about 40,000 total summer chum 
salmon spawners in southern Puget Sound estimated in 1994. The latter 
two stocks had hatchery supplementation programs that were major 
contributors to the runs until they were discontinued in 1992 (WDF et 
al., 1993). The last brood year produced by these hatchery programs 
(1991 brood year) returned as adults at age 4 in 1995 and age 5 in 
1996. While all three populations appear to be stable or increasing, 
they represent a small fraction of the ESU. The winter-run life history 
is represented by only two stocks. The Chambers Creek stock is 
increasing in abundance, and the Nisqually River stock is a relatively 
large run with a 5-year geometric mean escapement of more than 16,000 
spawners. Both stocks are classified as wild production.
    The BRT concluded that this ESU is not presently at risk of 
extinction nor is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Current abundance 
is at or near historical levels, with a total run size averaging more 
than one million fish annually in the past 5 years. The majority of 
populations within this ESU have stable or increasing population 
trends, and all populations with statistically significant trends are 
increasing. However, the BRT expressed concern that the summer-run 
populations in this ESU spawn in relatively small, localized areas and, 
therefore, are intrinsically vulnerable to habitat degradation and 
demographic or environmental fluctuations. Concern was also expressed 
about effects on natural populations of the high level of hatchery 
production of fall chum salmon in the southern part of Puget Sound and 
Hood Canal and about the high representation of non-native stocks in 
the ancestry of hatchery stocks throughout this ESU. The BRT was also 
concerned that, although the Nisqually River winter-run population is 
fairly large and apparently stable, the Chambers Creek population is 
much smaller and spawns in a restricted area. Conservation of 
populations with all three recognized run timing characteristics is 
important to maintaining diversity within this ESU.

(2) Hood Canal Summer-Run ESU

    Analysis of biological information for the Hood Canal summer-run 
chum salmon ESU was more extensive than that for other ESUs. This 
extended analysis reflects the deliberations of the BRT in considering 
the dynamic changes in summer-run chum salmon abundance that have 
occurred in this ESU over the past several years.
    Although summer-run chum salmon in this ESU have experienced a 
steady decline over the past 30 years, escapement in 1995-96 increased 
dramatically in some streams. Spawning escapement of summer-run chum 
salmon in Hood Canal (excluding the Union River) numbered over 40,000 
fish in 1968, but was reduced to only 173 fish in 1989 (WDF et al., 
1993). In 1991, only 7 of 12 streams that historically contained 
spawning runs of summer chum salmon still had escapements (Cook-Tabor, 
1994; WDFW, 1996). Then in 1995-96, escapement increased to more than 
21,000 fish in northern Hood Canal, the largest return in more than 20 
years (WDFW, 1996). These increases in escapement were observed 
primarily in rivers on the west side of Hood Canal, with the largest 
increase occurring in the Big Quilcene River where the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been conducting an enhancement program 
starting with the 1992 brood year. Streams on the east side of Hood 
Canal continued to have either no returning adults (Big Beef Creek, 
Anderson Creek, and the Dewatto River) or no increases in escapement 
(Tahuya and Union Rivers).
    Summer runs of chum salmon in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Snow and 
Salmon Creeks in Discovery Bay and Jimmycomelately Creek in Sequim Bay) 
are also part of this ESU. While these populations did not demonstrate 
the marked declining trend that has characterized the summer-run 
populations in Hood Canal in recent years, they are at very low 
population levels. Further, though escapement of summer-run chum salmon 
to Salmon Creek increased in 1996, the other two populations in the 
Strait of Juan de Fuca did not show similar increases, and the overall 
trend in the Strait populations was one of continued decline. WDF et 
al. (1993) considered the Discovery Bay population to be critical and 
the Sequim Bay population to be depressed.
    In 1994, when petitions were filed with NMFS to list summer chum 
salmon in Hood Canal, of 12 streams in Hood Canal identified by the 
petitioners as recently supporting spawning populations of summer chum 
salmon, 5 may already have become extinct, 6 of the remaining 7 showed 
strong downward trends in abundance, and all were at low levels of 
abundance. The populations in Discovery Bay and Sequim Bay were also at 
low levels of abundance, with declining trends. Threats to the 
continued existence of these populations include degradation of 
spawning habitat, low water flows, and incidental harvest in salmon 
fisheries in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and coho salmon fisheries in 
Hood Canal.
    In 1995 and 1996, new information was supplied by the WDFW (1996) 
and by USFWS (1996) that demonstrated substantial increases of 
returning summer chum to some streams. Several factors may have 
contributed to the dramatic increase in abundance. These include 
hatchery supplementation, reduction in harvest rate, increase in marine 
survival, and improvements in freshwater habitat. Information relevant 
to these factors were critically reviewed by the BRT and are discussed 
in detail in the status review.
    A hatchery program initiated in 1992 at the Quilcene National Fish 
Hatchery was at least partially responsible for

[[Page 11779]]

adult returns to the Quilcene River system, but it appears that 1996 
spawners returning to other streams in Hood Canal were primarily (and 
perhaps entirely) the result of natural production. These streams 
(e.g., the Duckabush, Hamma Hamma, and Dosewallips) have thus 
demonstrated considerable resilience in rebounding dramatically from 
very depressed levels of abundance in recent years.
    The rapid increase of summer-run populations in northern Hood Canal 
following the reduction in incidental harvest in 1991 and 1992 is 
considerably more encouraging than the lack of response of Columbia 
River and Tillamook Bay populations even though directed fisheries were 
eliminated in those areas many years ago.
    Concerns remain, however, about the overall health of this ESU. 
First, the population increases were limited in geographic extent, 
occurring only in streams on the west side of Hood Canal. Several 
streams on the eastern side of Hood Canal continue to have no spawners 
at all, and even returns to the Union River were down in 1996. Union 
River, located at the southeastern end of the Canal, was classified as 
a healthy stock by WDFW in the SASSI report. In the Strait of Juan de 
Fuca portion of this ESU, only one of three creeks that have recently 
contained summer chum salmon runs showed an increase in adult returns 
in 1996.
    Second, the strong returns to the west-side streams were the result 
of a single strong year class (1992), which returned as 3-year-old fish 
in 1995 and as 4-year-old fish in 1996. In contrast, the declines in 
most of these populations have been severe and have spanned two 
decades. Coastwide, many chum salmon populations had unusually large 
returns in 1995 and 1996, but there is no indication from the 
historical record to suggest that such high productivity can be 
sustained. In addition, in this ESU, summer chum salmon populations 
have shown a great deal of variability in productivity and run size in 
recent years, and this extreme variability can itself be a significant 
risk factor.
    Third, greatly reduced incidental harvest rates in recent years 
probably contributed to the increased abundance in west-side Hood Canal 
streams. However, these reductions have been implemented because of 
greatly reduced abundances of the target species (coho salmon), rather 
than as a conservation measure for summer chum salmon. If coho salmon 
in the area rebound and fishery management policies are not implemented 
to protect summer-run chum salmon, these populations would again face 
high levels of incidental harvest.
    Although the BRT agreed that the 1995-96 data on summer chum salmon 
from this ESU provide a more encouraging picture than was the case in 
1994, most members thought that this ESU was still at significant risk 
of extinction. A major factor in this conclusion was that, in spite of 
strong returns to some streams, summer chum salmon were either extinct 
or at very low abundance in more than half of the streams in this ESU 
that historically supported summer-run populations. A minority of the 
BRT thought that the new data indicated somewhat less risk of 
extinction but that the ESU was still likely to become endangered in 
the foreseeable future. Only one member thought that the large returns 
to some Hood Canal streams indicated that this ESU as a whole was not 
at significant extinction risk.
    Subsequent to the BRT's assessment, WDFW submitted additional 
escapement data for this ESU. Although the BRT was unable to formally 
evaluate this information, NMFS did consider it an important factor in 
discerning the level of risk faced by this ESU. These data indicate 
that 1997 returns of Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon numbered 
approximately 9,500 fish and that pre-season estimates for 1998 could 
be even greater (WDFW, 1997). While this information is preliminary, it 
indicates that some populations in this ESU have seen a significant and 
continued rebound from historic lows while others (notably streams from 
eastern Hood Canal) remain seriously depressed or extinct.

(3) Pacific Coast ESU

    The Pacific Coast ESU of chum salmon includes a broad geographic 
range over the coastal regions of three states, and data on chum salmon 
in the ESU have been collected from several tribal, state, and Federal 
agencies. Consequently, the types of data collected vary considerably. 
On the Strait of Juan de Fuca, spawning escapement estimates are 
available only for Deep Creek and the Pysht River. Tribal harvest data 
are the only data available for coastal rivers on the Olympic 
Peninsula. Tribal harvests of chum salmon on the coast of the Olympic 
Peninsula generally declined prior to the mid-1960s and have been 
relatively stable at lower levels since then. On the Quinault River, 
these estimates of tribal chum salmon harvest have been converted to 
run size and escapement, using information from the hatchery coho 
salmon fishery on the Quinault River. Escapement estimates in Grays 
Harbor and Willapa Bay are available for individual stocks. The 
spawning escapements for these populations show no strong recent trends 
in the more abundant populations but generally appear to be increasing. 
These trend data are far from exhaustive, but indicate about 35,000 
spawners as a lower bound on the escapement of chum salmon on the 
Washington coast. The harvest of chum salmon from coastal fisheries 
combined has averaged 96,000 fish per year from 1988 to 1992 (WDFW, 
1995). This suggests an abundance level that is an order of magnitude 
smaller for the Washington coastal portion of this ESU than it is for 
the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU, but is still on the order of 
150,000 adults.
    Few data are available on chum salmon south of the Columbia River. 
Tillamook Bay is the southernmost location that supported substantial 
chum salmon harvests in recent times. Intermittent historical landing 
data are available for Oregon rivers farther south. In response to 
declines of the runs in Tillamook Bay, Oregon closed the commercial 
fishery for chum salmon in 1962. Though the connection between 
estimates of abundance from spawner surveys and actual spawner 
abundance is somewhat tenuous, there has been no substantial increase 
in the number of spawners in stream surveys since the halt of 
commercial fishing. Spawner surveys in the Tillamook District show 
substantial year-to-year variability with little correspondence of the 
variability among individual spawner surveys. Estimates of total 
escapement to the Tillamook Bay have been relatively stable since the 
end of the commercial fishery in 1962, with a geometric mean of 12,500 
spawners for the period from 1987 to 1991. Whiskey Creek in Netarts Bay 
also shows no clear trend in spawner counts, although this population 
is supplemented with hatchery fish.
    The BRT concluded that this ESU is not presently at risk of 
extinction nor is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An important 
factor in this conclusion was the abundance of natural populations in 
Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, which presently have escapements of tens 
of thousands of adults per year. Elsewhere on the Olympic Peninsula, 
available data suggest that populations are depressed from historic 
levels but relatively stable. Populations in the Tillamook District, 
the major chum salmon-producing area on the Oregon coast, are also at 
much lower abundance than they were historically, with no

[[Page 11780]]

apparent trends in abundance. The primary cause of the depressed status 
of Oregon coastal populations appears to be habitat degradation.
    Although there has been considerable hatchery enhancement in some 
areas and some transfer of stocks within this ESU, overall hatchery 
production has been relatively minor compared with natural production, 
and hatchery programs have primarily used fish from local populations. 
On the Oregon coast, both public and private chum salmon hatcheries 
were phased out by 1990, and all current chum salmon production in this 
area is natural.
    The BRT identified some areas of concern for the status of this 
ESU. Neither the historical nor the present southern limit of 
distribution and spawning of chum salmon is known with certainty. Thus, 
it is unclear whether the geographic range has been reduced. Tillamook 
Bay populations appear to be stable at low abundance. The Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has recently increased 
monitoring efforts for chum salmon on the remainder of the Oregon 
coast, but at present the time series is too short to provide much 
insight into trends in abundance. Although populations from the 
northern Washington coast and the Strait of Juan de Fuca do not appear 
to be at critically low levels, their generally depressed status is 
also a concern and should be monitored. Finally, more definitive 
information about the relationship between hatchery and natural fish in 
Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor tributaries would allow a more 
comprehensive evaluation of the viability of natural populations in 
these areas.

(4) Columbia River ESU

    The Columbia River historically contained large runs of chum salmon 
that supported a substantial commercial fishery in the first half of 
this century. These landings represented a harvest of more than 500,000 
chum salmon in some years. There are presently neither recreational nor 
directed commercial fisheries for chum salmon in the Columbia River, 
although some chum salmon are taken incidentally in the gill-net 
fisheries for coho and chinook salmon, and there has been minor 
recreational harvest in some tributaries (WDF et al., 1993). WDF et al. 
(1993) monitored returns of chum salmon to three streams in the 
Columbia River and suggested that there may be a few thousand, perhaps 
up to 10,000, chum salmon spawning annually in the Columbia River 
basin. Kostow (1995) identified 23 spawning populations on the Oregon 
side of the Columbia River but provided no estimates of the number of 
spawners in these populations.
    An estimate of the minimal run size for chum salmon returning to 
both the Oregon and Washington sides of the Columbia River has been 
calculated by summing harvest, spawner surveys, Bonneville Dam counts, 
and returns to the Sea Resources Hatchery on the Chinook River in 
Washington (ODFW and WDFW, 1995). This suggests that the chum salmon 
run size in the Columbia River has been relatively stable since the run 
collapsed in the mid-1950s. The minimal run size in 1995 was 1,500 
adult fish.
    The BRT concluded that the Columbia River ESU was presently at 
significant risk, but team members were divided in their opinions of 
the severity of that risk. Historically, the Columbia River contained 
chum salmon populations that supported annual harvests of hundreds of 
thousands of fish. Current abundance is probably less than 1 percent of 
historical levels, and the ESU has undoubtedly lost some (perhaps much) 
of its original genetic diversity. Presently, only three chum salmon 
populations, all relatively small and all in Washington, are recognized 
and monitored in the Columbia River (Grays River, Hardy and Hamilton 
Creeks). Each of these populations may have been influenced by hatchery 
programs and/or by introduced stocks, but information on hatchery-wild 
interactions is unavailable.
    Although current abundance is only a small fraction of historical 
levels, and much of the original inter-populational diversity has 
presumably been lost, the total spawning run of chum salmon to the 
Columbia River has been relatively stable since the mid 1950s, and 
total natural escapement for the ESU is probably at least several 
thousand fish per year. Taking all of these factors into consideration, 
about half of the BRT members concluded that this ESU was at 
significant risk of extinction; the remainder concluded that the short-
term extinction risk was not as high, but that the ESU was at risk of 
becoming endangered.

Existing Protective Efforts

    Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is 
required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available and after taking into account 
efforts being made to protect a species. Under section 4(a)(1)(D) of 
the ESA, the Secretary must also evaluate, among other things, existing 
regulatory mechanisms. During the status review for west coast chum 
salmon and for other salmonids, NMFS reviewed protective efforts 
ranging in scope from regional strategies to local watershed 
initiatives. NMFS has summarized some of the major efforts in a 
document entitled ``Steelhead Conservation Efforts: A Supplement to the 
Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead under the Endangered 
Species Act.'' Many of these efforts also have significant potential 
for promoting the conservation of west coast chum salmon. This document 
is available upon request (see ADDRESSES). Some of the principal 
efforts within the range of ESUs considered ``at risk'' by the NMFS BRT 
(i.e., Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River ESUs) are described 
briefly below.
    Northwest Forest Plan--The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a Federal 
interagency cooperative program, documented in the Record of Decision 
for Amendments to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) Planning Documents Within the Range of the Spotted 
Owl, which was signed and implemented in April 1994. The NFP represents 
a coordinated ecosystem management strategy for Federal lands 
administered by the USFS and BLM within the range of the Northern 
spotted owl (which overlaps considerably with the range of chum 
salmon). The NFP region-wide management direction either amended or was 
incorporated into approximately 26 land and resource management plans 
(LRMPs) and two regional guides.
    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. In recognition of 
over 300 ``at-risk'' Pacific salmonid stocks within the NFP area 
(Nehlsen et al., 1991), the ACS was developed by aquatic scientists, 
with NMFS participation, to restore and maintain the ecological health 
of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems on public lands. The approach 
seeks to

[[Page 11781]]

prevent further degradation and to restore habitat on Federal lands 
over broad landscapes.
    The NFP identifies five key watersheds within the range of the Hood 
Canal summer-run ESU. These key watersheds have been identified as both 
``Tier 1'' (identified as critical for conservation of at-risk 
salmonids and other fishes) and ``Tier 2'' (selected principally for 
their importance as sources for high quality water) watersheds and are 
located principally on the west side of Hood Canal on lands managed by 
the Olympic National Forest. Principal chum salmon streams within the 
range of these key watersheds include the Quilcene, Dosewallips, and 
Duckabush Rivers. Management actions on Federal lands within key 
watersheds must 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).
    Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative--In 1991, the 
Washington treaty tribes, Washington Department of Fisheries, and 
Washington Department of Wildlife created this initiative to address 
wild stock status and recovery. The first step in this initiative was 
to develop an inventory of the status of all salmon and steelhead 
stocks which was completed in 1993 with publication of the SASSI 
report. Based on this report, the state and tribes have identified 
several salmon stocks in ``critical'' condition (including populations 
in the Hood Canal summer-run ESU) and have prioritized the development 
of recovery and management plans for them. The final stage of 
implementing the policy will be plans to monitor and evaluate the 
success of individual recovery efforts.
    Washington Wild Salmonid Policy--The Washington State Legislature 
passed a bill in June of 1993, (ESHB 1309) which required WDFW to 
develop wild salmonid policies that ``ensure that department actions 
and programs are consistent with the goals of rebuilding wild stock 
populations to levels that permit commercial and recreational fishing 
opportunities.'' The policy will provide broad management principles 
and guidelines for habitat protection, escapement objectives, harvest 
management, genetic conservation, and other management issues related 
to both anadromous and resident salmonids. The policy will be used as 
the basis to review and modify current management goals, objectives, 
and strategies related to wild stocks. A final Environmental Impact 
Statement, which analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed 
policy, has been developed, and the Washington Fish and Wildlife 
Commission is scheduled to consider action on the policy in the near 
future. Once the policy is adopted, full reviews of hatchery and 
harvest programs are planned to ensure consistency with the policy.
    Hood Canal/Strait of Juan de Fuca Chum Salmon Conservation Plan--
Notable among the recent efforts is a draft plan by WDFW entitled 
``Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Conservation Plan 
for Interim and Long Term Stock Rehabilitation, Management, and 
Production'' (WDFW, 1997). The plan describes an adaptive approach for 
rebuilding summer chum salmon populations with the stated goal to 
``protect and restore run sizes of Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de 
Fuca summer chum salmon to levels that will perpetuate genetically 
viable populations and allow for harvest opportunities.'' NMFS has 
reviewed a working draft of this plan and provided comments on ways to 
improve the state's efforts. NMFS is encouraged by the substantial 
progress made toward addressing the problems of the Hood Canal summer-
run chum ESU; however, the draft plan in its current form requires 
further development before it can be expected to affect significantly 
the recovery of Hood Canal summer chum. Concerns identified by NMFS 
includes the following: (1) Uncertainty regarding substantive changes 
in habitat quality and quantity that will result from eventual 
implementation of measures that might be developed under the Plan, (2) 
lack of a conservation/protection strategy for critical ``core'' river 
reaches or watersheds, (3) uncertainty that fishery management actions 
as effective as those that have been employed in recent years will 
continue in the future (particularly in the event coho and/or chinook 
stocks rebound to levels that support increased fisheries in Hood 
Canal), and (4) uncertainty that requisite funding will be available, 
both for the substantive measures and the monitoring program.
    NMFS recognizes that the ultimate stability of chum salmon 
populations will depend significantly on the initiative taken at state, 
tribal, local, and private levels involved in preparing and 
implementing this plan and will continue to encourage and support this 
initiative.
    Hatchery Supplementation and Reintroduction Efforts--Due to the 
critical status of Hood Canal summer chum salmon populations, 
supplementation programs were recently implemented by WDFW, western 
Washington tribes, volunteer groups, and USFWS on several rivers within 
the range of this ESU. Also, experimental reintroduction projects have 
begun on Big Beef and Chimacum Creeks. These efforts are part of the 
Hood Canal/Strait of Juan de Fuca Chum Salmon Conservation Plan 
described above. The supplementation programs, now underway at Quilcene 
National Fish Hatchery and facilities on Lilliwaup and Salmon Creeks, 
have undoubtedly contributed to the recent dramatic increases in 
escapement observed in some streams during the past 3 years. While NMFS 
remains concerned about the potential negative impacts from artificial 
propagation on natural chum salmon populations, the agency recognizes 
that these and future supplementation and reintroduction efforts could 
play a key role in the recovery of this ESU.
    Harvest Restrictions--Exploitation rates on summer-run chum salmon 
in Hood Canal have been greatly reduced since 1991 as a result of 
closures of the coho salmon fishery and of efforts to reduce the 
harvest of summer chum salmon (WDFW, 1996). Between 1991 and 1996, 
harvests removed an average of 2.5 percent of the summer-run chum 
salmon returning to Hood Canal, compared with an average of 71 percent 
in the period from 1980 to 1989. The harvest restrictions have included 
an array of specific measures endorsed by both state and tribal 
fisheries managers, including area closures, restrictions in the 
duration and timing of chinook and coho salmon fisheries, mesh size 
restrictions and live-release requirements in net fisheries, catch and 
release requirements for recreational fisheries, and selective gear 
fisheries that should minimize impacts to summer chum salmon. These 
restrictions are significant, and NMFS will encourage their continued 
implementation to alleviate a serious risk factor facing the Hood Canal 
summer-run ESU.
    As noted previously, neither recreational nor directed commercial 
fisheries are allowed for chum salmon in the Columbia River ESU.
    Other Efforts--Restoration plans for steelhead in the lower 
Columbia River are being developed by the States of Washington (Lower 
Columbia Steelhead Conservation Initiative, or LCSCI) and Oregon 
(Oregon Steelhead Restoration Plan, or OSRP). Development and 
implementation of the LCSCI will be closely tied to guidance provided 
by the

[[Page 11782]]

Washington Wild Salmonid Policy, which itself is still under 
development. The OSRP, an outgrowth of the Oregon Coastal Salmon 
Restoration Initiative (OCSRI, 1997), is expected to complement the 
Washington effort. While focussed on steelhead, NMFS recognizes there 
is a considerable potential for these plans to also promote the 
conservation of chum salmon and other salmonids. Both efforts are in 
the formative stage at this time and will require more development and 
NMFS review before they can be judged for their benefits to steelhead, 
chum salmon, or to other species.
    In addition to monitoring escapement in several Washington 
tributaries to the Columbia River, WDFW and USFWS have undertaken 
several habitat enhancement projects aimed at restoring Washington 
populations of chum salmon (e.g., populations in Hamilton and Hardy 
Creeks). In contrast, there appears to be little or no effort (aside 
from harvest restrictions) focussed on protecting remaining chum salmon 
in Oregon tributaries of the Columbia River. According to the ODFW 
biennial report on the status of wild fish, Oregon has placed all chum 
salmon populations on the state's list of Sensitive Fish Species 
(Kostow, 1995). However, this designation does not provide substantial 
protection for the species nor does the ODFW report identify any 
specific actions underway to benefit Columbia River chum salmon 
(although reference is made to efforts for coastal chum salmon 
populations). Furthermore, NMFS has recently received comments from 
ODFW (ODFW, 1997) suggesting that the state may attempt to reclassify 
Columbia River populations of this species as ``extirpated.''
    While NMFS recognizes that many of the ongoing protective efforts 
are likely to promote the conservation of chum salmon and other 
salmonids, some are very recent and few address chum salmon 
conservation at a scale that is adequate to protect and conserve entire 
ESUs. NMFS believes that most existing efforts lack some of the 
critical elements needed to provide a high degree of certainty that the 
efforts will be successful. These elements include (1) identification 
of specific factors for decline, (2) immediate measures required to 
protect the best remaining populations and habitats and priorities for 
restoration activities, (3) explicit and quantifiable objectives and 
timelines, and (4) monitoring programs to determine the effectiveness 
of actions, including methods to measure whether recovery objectives 
are being met.
    NMFS concludes that existing protective efforts are inadequate to 
preclude a proposed listing determination for the ESUs considered ``at-
risk'' by the NMFS BRT. However, NMFS will continue to solicit 
information regarding protective efforts (see Public Comments 
Solicited) and will work with Federal, state, and tribal fisheries 
managers to evaluate, promote, and improve efforts to conserve chum 
salmon populations.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 2(a) of the ESA states that various species of fish, 
wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as 
a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate 
concern and conservation. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. 
NMFS 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 education 
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 reproducing chum salmon 
throughout its range are numerous and varied. The present depressed 
condition of many populations is the result of several long-standing, 
human-induced factors (e.g., habitat degradation, water diversions, 
harvest, and artificial propagation) that serve to exacerbate the 
adverse effects of natural factors (e.g., competition and predation) or 
environmental variability from such factors as drought and poor ocean 
conditions. The following sections provide a general treatment of 
threats facing chum salmon, with emphasis on factors known to affect 
chum salmon ESUs considered ``at risk'' by the NMFS BRT.

The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Its Habitat or Range

    Chum salmon may depend less on freshwater habitats than some other 
Pacific salmonids, but their spawning areas still extend up to 80 km 
upstream in many rivers, and their requirements for successful spawning 
and rearing, such as cold, clean water and relatively sediment-free 
spawning gravel, are similar to other Pacific salmon.
    Alterations and loss of freshwater habitat for salmonids have been 
extensively documented in many regions, especially in urban areas or 
habitat associated with construction of large dams. In the last 25 
years, a major issue in ``stream restoration'' has been the role that 
large woody debris (LWD) plays in creating and maintaining Pacific 
salmon spawning and rearing habitat. Descriptions of pre-development 
conditions of rivers in Washington and Oregon that had abundant 
salmonid populations suggest that even big rivers had large amounts of 
instream LWD, which not only completely blocked most rivers to 
navigation but also contributed significantly to trapping sediments and 
nutrients, impounding water, and creating many side channels and 
sloughs (Sedell and Luchessa, 1982; Sedell and Froggatt, 1984). Many 
streams consisted of a network of sloughs, islands, and beaver ponds 
with no main channel. For example, portions of the Willamette River 
reportedly flowed in five separate channels, and many coastal Oregon 
rivers were so filled with log jams and snags they could not be 
ascended by early explorers. Most rivers in coastal Washington and 
Puget Sound were similarly blocked by LWD, snags, and instream 
vegetation. Sedell and Luchessa (1982) compiled a partial list of major 
rivers that were impassable for navigation in the mid-1800s because of 
large (100-1500 m-long) log jams; this list included 11 rivers in 
Oregon and 16 in Washington. However, until recently, up to 90 percent 
of the funds for fish-habitat enhancement went for removal of wood 
debris in streams (Sedell and Luchessa, 1982).
    Besides clearing rivers for navigation, extensive stream 
improvements were accomplished to facilitate log drives. Simenstad et 
al. (1982) reported that historically some of the more adverse impacts 
on the estuarine and freshwater habitats used by chum salmon resulted 
from stream improvements in the 1800s and early 1900s, when logs were 
transported down streams and stored in mainstems of rivers, lakes and 
estuaries. These activities included blocking off sloughs and swamps to 
keep logs in the mainstream and clearing boulders, trees, logs, and 
snags from the main channel. Smaller streams required the building of 
splash dams to provide sufficient water to carry logs. Scouring, 
widening, and unloading of main-channel gravel during the log drive may 
have caused as much damage as the initial stream cleaning. In 
tributaries to Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, over 120 logging dams were 
identified by Wendler and Deschamps (1955). Stream cleaning

[[Page 11783]]

continued through the mid-1970s in many areas not only for flood 
control and navigation, but also as a fisheries enhancement tool. 
Debris in streams was viewed as something that would either impede or 
block fish passage and as a source of channel destruction by scour 
during storm-induced log jam failures.
    The past destruction, modification, and curtailment of freshwater 
habitat for steelhead was reviewed in the ``Factors for Decline'' 
document published as a supplement to the notice of determination for 
West Coast Steelhead under the ESA (NMFS, 1996). Although chum salmon, 
in general, spawn lower in river systems than do steelhead and rear 
primarily in estuarine areas, this document still serves as a catalog 
of past habitat modification within the range of chum salmon. Among 
habitat losses documented by NMFS (1996), the following are those with 
the most impact on chum salmon: (1) Water withdrawal, conveyance, 
storage, and flood control (resulting in insufficient flows, stranding, 
juvenile entrainment, and instream temperature increases); (2) logging 
and agriculture (loss of LWD, sedimentation, loss of riparian 
vegetation, habitat simplification); (3) mining (especially gravel 
removal, dredging, pollution); and (4) urbanization (stream 
channelization, increased runoff, pollution, habitat simplification). 
Hydropower development was considered a major factor in habitat loss 
for steelhead (NMFS, 1996), but is probably less significant for chum 
salmon (due to chum salmon's use of lower river areas for spawning). 
However, many spill dams and other small hydropower facilities were 
constructed in lower river areas, and Bonneville Dam presumably 
continues to impede recovery of upriver populations. Substantial 
habitat loss in the Columbia River estuary and associated areas 
presumably was an important factor in the decline and also represents a 
significant continuing risk for this ESU. Lichatowich (1989) also 
identified habitat loss as a significant contributor to the decline of 
Pacific salmon in Oregon's coastal streams.
    A number of authors have attempted to quantify overall anadromous 
fish habitat losses in areas within the range of chum salmon. Gregory 
and Bisson (1997) stated that habitat degradation has been associated 
with greater than 90 percent of documented extinctions or declines of 
Pacific salmon populations. It has been reported that up to 75 percent 
and 96 percent of the original coastal temperate rainforest in 
Washington and Oregon, respectively, has been logged (Kellogg, 1992) 
and that only 10 to 17 percent of old-growth forests in Douglas-fir 
regions of Washington and Oregon remain (Norse, 1990; Speis and 
Franklin, 1988). Approximately 80 to 90 percent of the original 
riparian habitat in most western states has been eliminated (NMFS, 
1996). For example, Edwards et al. (1992) reported that 55 percent of 
the 43,000 stream kilometers in Oregon were moderately or severely 
affected by non-point source pollution.
    Specific quantitative assessment of habitat degradation or attempts 
to evaluate the response of fish populations to specific changes in 
habitat are rare (Reeves et al., 1991). For coho salmon, Beechie et al. 
(1994) estimated a 24-percent and 34-percent loss since European 
settlement in the capacity for smolt production in summer and winter 
rearing habitats, respectively, in the Skagit River. Beechie et al. 
(1994) identified the three major causes for these habitat losses, in 
order of importance, as hydromodification, blocking culverts, and 
forest practices. Similarly, McHenry (1996) estimated that, since 
European settlement, Chimacum Creek, Washington (northwest Puget Sound) 
had lost 12 percent, 94 percent, and 97 percent of its spawning, summer 
rearing, and winter rearing habitats for coho salmon, respectively. 
McHenry (1996) stated that these habitat losses were due to logging, 
agricultural clearing, channelization, drainage ditching, groundwater 
withdrawal, and lack of woody debris.
    Chum salmon generally spend only a short time relative to other 
salmonids in streams and rivers before migrating downstream to 
estuarine and nearshore marine habitats. Because of this, the survival 
of early life history stages depends more on the health and ecological 
integrity of estuaries and nearshore environments than it does for most 
other Pacific salmon. Habitat loss in the estuarine or nearshore marine 
environment is difficult to quantify since there are few historical 
studies that include baseline information and since these studies 
encompass a variety of classification methods and several time 
intervals to measure change (Levings and Thom, 1994). One of the first 
attempts to inventory estuarine areas in the Puget Sound region was a 
U.S. Department of Agriculture survey by Nesbit (1885). He surveyed 267 
km\2\ of tidal marshes and swamps in nine counties bordering Puget 
Sound and reported nearly 320 km of dikes enclosing 4.1 km\2\ of marsh. 
In Skagit and Stilliguamish River areas, Nesbit found that tidelands 
covered 520 km\2\ and extended 20 km inland from the present shoreline. 
Across the Puget Sound region in the 1880s, Nesbit found that the areas 
covered by tidal marshes greatly exceeded those covered by tidal flats 
and that the extents of non-tidal freshwater marshes were three to four 
times larger than tidal marshes. In contrast, by the 1980s, Boule et 
al. (1983) estimated that Puget Sound had only 54.6 km\2\ of intertidal 
marine or vegetated habitat in the entire basin and that this 
represented 58 percent of the state's total estuarine wetlands.
    More recently, Bortelson et al. (1980), Simenstad et al. (1982), 
Hutchinson (1988), and Levings and Thom (1994) have attempted to 
quantify changes in some Northwest estuaries. Bortelson et al. 
estimated historical changes in natural habitats in eleven major 
estuaries. They found on average, a decrease in the estimated 
(km2) size of subaerial wetland of 64 percent (Standard 
Deviation 35 percent) with losses in the Puyallup of 100 percent, the 
Duwamish of 99 percent, and the Samish of 96 percent. Only in the 
Nooksack had wetland area increased, and that was only by 0.2 percent. 
Simenstad et al. (1982) used similar methods to calculate losses of 
wetlands in Grays Harbor and found a decrease of 30.3 percent. They 
also reported that, as part of maintenance dredging operations, the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers removed 2.3 million m3 of 
sediments annually from estuaries in Washington State, nearly half of 
this in Grays Harbor. Hutchinson (1988) estimated change in the area of 
intertidal marshes around the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound at the 
time of European settlement to the present. He found overall losses to 
18 percent around the Strait of Georgia and 58 percent around Puget 
Sound. Dahl et al. (1990) reported that over 33 percent of total 
(freshwater and estuarine) wetland area in Washington and Oregon have 
been lost and that much of the remaining habitat is degraded.
    Levings and Thom (1994) also estimated changes in extent of habitat 
coverage in Puget Sound for the following habitat types: Marshes/
riparian, sandflats, mudflats, rock-gravel habitats, unvegetated 
subtidal, kelp beds, intertidal algae, and eelgrass. They were able to 
quantify change only in the marshes/riparian and kelp bed habitats. For 
all other areas, they could estimate change only as a loss or as an 
increase. However, for the marshes and riparian areas in the 11 major 
river deltas in Puget Sound, they estimated a loss of at least 76 
percent (from 732 km2 prior to the mid-1800s to 176.1 
km2 in the early 1990s), based upon the reports of Nesbit 
(1885), Boule et al. (1983), and others.

[[Page 11784]]

    Levings and Thom (1994) were also able to quantify a change in 
extent of kelp beds. They found that the locations of kelp beds have 
been relatively well documented as navigational aids, for marking the 
location of shallow rocky bottom areas, and as sources of kelp for 
potash. Based upon several comprehensive surveys (one dating back to 
the Wilkes expedition in 1841 (Thom and Hallum, 1990)), they estimated 
that the length of shore with kelp beds in Puget Sound has increased 
from 1912 to the present by as much as 53 percent (from 205.5 
km2 to 313.8 km2). The significance of kelp beds 
to chum salmon is undocumented, but presumably they would supply a 
refuge from waves, currents, and perhaps predators.
    Most regulatory reviews and environmental analysis of estuarine 
modification have been focused on major estuaries and at river mouths 
near high-intensity industrial and urban development, but this 
development affects only 2 percent of the approximately 3,620 km of 
Puget Sound shoreline (Canning, 1997). Perhaps a better estimate of 
overall historical changes in intertidal and nearshore habitats is the 
inventories of shoreline armoring (e.g., construction of rock, 
concrete, and timber bulkheads or retaining walls) as these habitat 
modifications occur primarily with residential development in 
relatively rural areas (Shipman, 1997). Armoring has a cumulative 
environmental impact that eventually results in loss of riparian 
vegetation, burial of the upper beach areas, altered wave interaction 
with the shoreline, and obstruction of sediment movement (Shipman, 
1997). Morrison et al. (1993) inventoried armoring in Thurston County, 
Washington, and compared this to 1977 studies. They found a more than 
100 percent increase in the length of armoring from 1977 to 1993. 
Kathey (1993) inventoried armoring along Bainbridge Island in Puget 
Sound and found that between 42 and 67 percent of the entire shoreline 
was armored.
    Although not all of the chum salmon stocks identified by WDF et al. 
(1993) had habitat factors listed for them; numerous habitat-or land-
use practices were identified as having a detrimental impact on chum 
salmon. The northern portion of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU 
was reported to incur its greatest impact from agricultural (diking) 
and logging practices (sedimentation). Habitat impacts in the southern 
portion of this ESU (excluding Hood Canal) were listed as loss of 
freshwater and estuarine wetlands due to diking and armoring (e.g., 
construction of bulkheads, piers, and docks), urbanization, degradation 
of water quality, and loss of spawning habitats. Habitat factors in 
Hood Canal were primarily identified for the Hood Canal summer-run chum 
salmon ESU and included gravel aggradation (due to logging in some 
areas), channel shifting, and diking. No chum salmon habitat factors 
were identified in the Washington portion of the Coastal ESU, but the 
greatest impacts to other species were reported to be from forest and 
agricultural practices. In the Lower Columbia River ESU, habitat 
``limiters'' associated with chum salmon included gravel quality and 
stability, availability to good quality nearshore mainstem freshwater 
and marine habitat, road building, timber harvest, diking, and 
industrialization (WDF et al., 1993).

Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Education 
Purposes

    Chum salmon have been targeted for commercial and recreational 
fisheries throughout their range. In Washington, commercial harvest has 
been increasing since the early 1970s with the majority of this harvest 
taken from the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU. While Washington chum 
salmon fisheries occur in several Puget Sound rivers, most chum salmon 
are harvested in salt water, as fish return to different spawning 
areas. The relative run size in terminal areas and genetic mixed-stock 
analysis (MSA) indicate that various stocks are included in these 
mixed-stock fisheries (Graves, 1989).
    As described previously, the NMFS BRT considered incidental harvest 
in salmon fisheries in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and coho salmon 
fisheries in Hood Canal to be a significant threat for the Hood Canal 
summer-run ESU. Historically, summer chum salmon have not been a 
primary fishery target in Hood Canal, as harvests have focused on 
chinook, coho, and fall chum salmon. Summer chum salmon have a run 
timing that overlaps with those of chinook and coho salmon, and they 
have been incidentally harvested in fisheries directed at those species 
(Tynan, 1992). Prior to the Boldt decision in 1974, Hood Canal was 
designated a commercial salmon fishing preserve, with the only net 
fisheries in Hood Canal occurring on the Skokomish Reservation (WDF et 
al., 1973). In 1974, commercial fisheries were opened in Hood Canal, 
and incidental harvest rates on summer chum salmon began to increase 
rapidly. By the late 1970s, incidental harvest rates had increased to 
50 to 80 percent in most of Hood Canal and exceeded 90 percent in Area 
12A during the 1980s. In 1991, coho salmon fishing in the main part of 
Hood Canal was closed to protect depressed natural coho salmon runs. 
Commercial fisheries, targeting hatchery-produced coho salmon, 
continued in Quilcene Bay. Beginning in 1992, fishing practices in this 
fishery, including changes in gear, seasons, and fishing locations, 
were modified to protect summer chum salmon (WDFW, 1996). Since then, 
the tribal and nontribal harvests of coho salmon during the summer chum 
migration have been by beach seine with the requirement that summer 
chum salmon be released or surrendered to the USFWS for broodstock in 
the interagency enhancement program at Quilcene National Fish Hatchery.
    Exploitation rates on summer-run chum salmon in Hood Canal have 
been greatly reduced since 1991 as a result of closures of the coho 
salmon fishery and of efforts to reduce the harvest of summer chum 
salmon (WDFW, 1996). Between 1991 and 1996, harvests removed an average 
of 2.5 percent of the summer-run chum salmon returning to Hood Canal, 
compared with an average of 71 percent in the period from 1980 to 1989. 
These harvest rates and the reconstructed run sizes on which they are 
based are imprecise and are probably overestimated in recent years, 
when summer-run chum salmon abundance has been depressed.
    Summer-run chum salmon are still harvested incidentally in British 
Columbia in pink and sockeye salmon fisheries in the Strait of Juan de 
Fuca (Area 20) and Johnstone and Georgia Straits (LeClair 1995, 1996; 
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) data 1995; Tynan, 
1996a). Summer-run chum salmon are also taken in troll fisheries off 
the west coast of Vancouver Island (PSMFC data 1995). Net and troll 
fisheries in these areas target Fraser River sockeye and coho salmon 
but incidentally harvest chum salmon. Bycatch of chum salmon in 
Canadian Area 20 in the period from 1968 to 1995 has been estimated at 
2,803 fish (Tynan, 1996b). These harvests have traditionally been 
allocated between U.S. and British Columbia populations using the 
proportions determined from genetic MSA estimates in samples of fall 
chum salmon caught in later fisheries that were directed at chum salmon 
(Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), Joint Chum Technical Committee, 
1995).
    Recently, fishery managers have begun to suspect that Hood Canal 
and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon may be the majority 
of chum salmon migrating through Area 20

[[Page 11785]]

in August and early September when Area 20 fisheries for sockeye and 
pink salmon occur (WDFW, 1996). Genetic MSA was used to estimate the 
proportion of Hood Canal summer chum salmon in the Area 20 catch 
(LeClair 1995, 1996). Estimates indicated that Hood Canal and Strait of 
Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon accounted for 31 percent of the 
Area 20 catch in 1995 and 68 percent of the catch in 1996 (WDFW, 1996). 
This corresponded to estimated harvest rates on Hood Canal fish of 
approximately 3 percent in 1995 and approximately 1.5 percent in 1996 
and, on Strait of Juan de Fuca fish of approximately 17 percent in 1995 
and approximately 2 percent in 1996.
    The Columbia River historically contained large runs of chum salmon 
that supported a substantial commercial fishery in the first half of 
this century. These landings represented a harvest of more than 500,000 
chum salmon in some years. There are presently neither recreational nor 
directed commercial fisheries for chum salmon in the Columbia River, 
although some chum salmon are taken incidentally in the gill-net 
fisheries for coho and chinook salmon and there has been minor 
recreational harvest in some tributaries (WDF et al., 1993).

Disease or Predation

    There is no clear evidence that diseases pose a risk factor for 
chum salmon in Washington and Oregon. However, predation has been 
identified as a risk factor for this species. Predation by juvenile 
coho salmon was the primary cause of mortality to chum salmon in all 
the freshwater studies reviewed by the NMFS BRT. In Big Beef Creek on 
Hood Canal, size selection of chum salmon juveniles by coho salmon was 
identified by Beall (1972), but, in a later study (Fresh and Schroder, 
1987), size selection by coho salmon and rainbow trout was not 
observed.
    Mortality of chum salmon juveniles, especially those from natural 
populations, is difficult to estimate in estuaries. In studies on 
fluorescently marked juvenile chum salmon released from the Enetai 
Hatchery in Hood Canal, Bax (1983a, b) estimated average daily 
mortalities between 31 and 46 percent over a 2- and 4-day period. In a 
study on releases of equal numbers of fish of two different sizes, 
Whitmus (1985) estimated that small fish suffered higher mortalities 
than did large fish. About 58 percent of the small fish died over 2 
days, and of the fish remaining after 10 days only 26 percent were 
small fish. This mortality appeared to be due to predation by cutthroat 
trout and marine birds, but predator selectivity on fish size may have 
been due to the distribution of the differently sized fish rather than 
to selective behavior (i.e., large fish avoided predation in the study 
area by emigrating out of the area sooner than small fish). Ames (1980) 
hypothesized that competition for food and predation between pink and 
chum salmon juveniles in estuary and nearshore marine habitats may 
cause distinct odd- and even-year cycles in natural chum salmon 
populations in Puget Sound. Estuarine predation on natural and hatchery 
pink and chum salmon by larger, piscivorous salmon, such as coho and 
chinook salmon smolts, may have caused declines in some Puget Sound 
pink and chum salmon populations (Johnson, 1973; Simenstad et al., 
1982).
    Adult chum salmon (more so than most other salmonids in Washington 
State) concentrate in large numbers in estuaries and off the mouths of 
small streams to such an extent that their dorsal fins break the 
water's surface. The cause of milling is unclear, but the behavior does 
make adults particularly vulnerable to fisheries and natural predation. 
For example, Evenson and Calambokidis (1993) found that the number of 
harbor seals at Dosewallips State Park in Hood Canal, Washington, was 
highest when adult chum salmon were present.

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Under the ESA, a determination to propose a species for listing as 
threatened or endangered requires considering the biological status of 
the species, as well as efforts being made to protect the species (see 
Existing Protective Efforts). Typically, regulatory mechanisms 
established by Federal, state, tribal, and local governments provide 
the most effective means to prevent a species from facing the peril of 
extinction. Unfortunately, the continued widespread decline of 
naturally spawning chum salmon and other salmonids in numerous West 
Coast streams suggests that existing regulations may not provide 
adequate protection for this species. Because many existing protective 
efforts are new or have uncertain regulatory mechanisms, it is not 
possible to determine if they will be adequate to reverse the declining 
trend in chum salmon abundance. During the period between this proposed 
rule and a final rule, NMFS will continue to evaluate the efficacy of 
existing efforts to protect and restore chum salmon populations (see 
Public Comments Solicited).

Other Natural or Human-Made Factors

Climatic and Ocean Factors
    Climatic conditions are known to have changed recently in the 
Pacific Northwest. Most Pacific salmonids south of British Columbia 
have been affected by changes in ocean production that occurred during 
the 1970s (Pearcy, 1992; Lawson, 1993). Changes in productivity in the 
nearshore marine environment have been implicated in declines in 
chinook and coho salmon abundance and productivity. Chum salmon tend to 
migrate farther offshore than chinook and coho salmon and are thought 
to have been less affected by changes in the nearshore environment. 
However, the chum salmon populations considered in the NMFS status 
review are from the southern end of the range of the species, and their 
migration patterns are poorly understood. Much of the Pacific coast has 
also been experiencing drought conditions in recent years, which may 
depress freshwater production, even of species such as chum salmon that 
spend only a brief time in fresh water. At this time, we do not know 
whether these climatic conditions represent a long-term shift in 
conditions that will continue to affect salmonids into the future or 
short-term environmental fluctuations that can be expected to be 
reversed in the near future.
Artificial Propagation
    For almost 100 years, hatcheries in the U.S. Pacific Northwest have 
produced chum salmon for the purpose of increasing harvest and 
rebuilding depleted runs. Potential problems associated with hatchery 
programs include genetic impacts on indigenous, naturally reproducing 
populations, disease transmission, predation of wild fish, difficulty 
in determining wild stock status due to incomplete marking of hatchery 
fish, depletion of wild stock to increase brood stock, and replacement 
rather than supplementation of wild stocks through competition and 
continued annual introduction of hatchery fish (Waples, 1991; Hindar et 
al., 1991; Stewart and Bjornn, 1990). All things being equal, the more 
hatchery fish that are released, the more likely natural populations 
are to be impacted by hatchery fish. Similarly, the more genetically 
similar hatchery fish are to natural populations they spawn with, the 
less change there will be in the genetic makeup of future generations 
in the natural population. The substantial influence of artificial 
propagation on genetic/ecological integrity of natural salmon and 
steelhead populations is discussed in

[[Page 11786]]

considerable detail in the NMFS status review.
    Although past hatchery practices may have substantially influenced 
some isolated chum salmon populations, the relatively small magnitude 
of most current hatchery programs and the predominant use of local 
broodstock argue that hatchery practices are unlikely to threaten the 
genetic integrity of most chum salmon populations considered in the 
NMFS status review. Large programs take place in Hood Canal and 
southern Puget Sound, and genetic concerns in these areas are 
proportionally greater. Small population effects (such as genetic 
drift, mutation, and introgression) are likely to influence summer-run 
chum in Hood Canal and populations spawning from the Columbia River 
south.

Proposed Determination

    The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the 
listing determination be based solely on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status of 
the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being 
made to protect such species.
    Based on results from its coastwide status review, NMFS has 
identified four ESUs of chum salmon on the west coast of the United 
States which constitute ``species'' under the ESA. NMFS has determined 
that listing is not warranted for two chum salmon ESUs (Puget Sound/
Strait of Georgia and Pacific Coast ESUs) and that two ESUs are 
currently threatened (Hood Canal summer-run and Columbia River ESUs) 
and proposes to list them as such at this time. The geographic 
boundaries for the ESUs proposed for listing are described under ``ESU 
Determinations'' and critical habitat is described below under 
``Critical Habitat of Chum Salmon ESUs Proposed for Listing.'' The best 
available scientific information, coupled with an assessment of 
existing protective efforts, supports a proposed listing of these two 
chum salmon ESUs under the ESA.
    While the majority of the BRT considered the Hood Canal summer-run 
ESU to meet the definition for an endangered species under the ESA, 
NMFS is proposing it as threatened due to continued improvements in 
spawning escapement (including very recent data not available for 
review by the BRT) and to the ongoing and expanding protective efforts 
being made throughout the range of the ESU. Due to uncertainties 
regarding the severity of risks facing Columbia River chum salmon 
populations, NMFS believes that it is appropriate to propose a 
threatened designation for this ESU. If new information indicates a 
substantial change in the biological status of either ESU or if 
protective efforts are judged to be inadequate, NMFS will alter this 
listing proposal.
    In both ESUs, only naturally spawned chum salmon are being proposed 
for listing. Prior to the final listing determination, NMFS will 
examine the relationship between hatchery and natural populations of 
chum salmon in these ESUs and assess whether any hatchery populations 
are essential for their recovery. This may result in the inclusion of 
specific hatchery populations as part of a listed ESU in NMFS' final 
determination.

Prohibitions and Protective Regulations

    Section 4(d) of the ESA requires NMFS to issue protective 
regulations that it finds necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of a threatened species. Section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits 
violations of protective regulations for threatened species promulgated 
under section 4(d). The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with 
respect to the threatened species, some or all of the acts which 
section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. 
These 9(a) prohibitions and 4(d) regulations apply to all individuals, 
organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. NMFS intends 
to have final 4(d) protective regulations in effect at the time of a 
final listing determination on the chum salmon ESUs proposed as 
threatened in the present notice. The process for completing the 4(d) 
rule will provide the opportunity for public comment on the proposed 
protective regulations.
    In the case of threatened species, NMFS also has flexibility under 
section 4(d) to tailor the protective regulations based on the contents 
of available conservation measures. Even though existing conservation 
efforts and plans are not sufficient to preclude the need for listings 
at this time, they are nevertheless valuable for improving watershed 
health and restoring fishery resources. In those cases where well-
developed and reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS may choose to 
incorporate them into the recovery planning process, starting with the 
protective regulations. NMFS has already adopted 4(d) protective 
regulations that exempt a limited range of activities from section 9 
take prohibitions. For example, the interim 4(d) rule for Southern 
Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997) 
exempts habitat restoration activities conducted in accordance with 
approved plans and fisheries conducted in accordance with an approved 
state management plan. In the future, 4(d) rules may contain limited 
take prohibitions applicable to activities such as forestry, 
agriculture, and road construction when such activities are conducted 
in accordance with approved conservation plans.
    These are all examples where NMFS may apply modified section 9 
prohibitions in light of the protections provided in a strong 
conservation plan. There may be other circumstances as well in which 
NMFS would use the flexibility of section 4(d). For example, in some 
cases there may be a healthy population of salmon or steelhead within 
an overall ESU that is listed. In such a case, it may not be necessary 
to apply the full range of prohibitions available in section 9. NMFS 
intends to use the flexibility of the ESA to respond appropriately to 
the biological condition of each ESU and to the strength of efforts to 
protect them.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies confer 
with NMFS on any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a species proposed for listing and on actions likely to result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. 
For listed species, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities 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 (see 
Activities That May Affect Chum Salmon or Critical Habitat).
    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 (see 
regulations at 50 CFR 222.22 through 222.24). 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, electroshocking to

[[Page 11787]]

determine population presence and abundance, removal of fish from 
irrigation ditches, and collection of adult fish for artificial 
propagation programs. NMFS is aware of several sampling efforts for 
chum salmon in the proposed ESUs, including efforts by Federal and 
state fishery management agencies. These and other research efforts 
could provide critical information regarding chum salmon distribution 
and population abundance.
    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 operation and release of 
artificially propagated fish by state or privately operated and funded 
hatcheries, state or university research on species other than chum 
salmon, not receiving Federal authorization or funding, the 
implementation of state fishing regulations, and timber harvest 
activities on non-Federal lands.

Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions, Federal 
agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on taking. 
Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation 
actions by Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals.
    Several conservation efforts are underway that may reverse the 
decline of west coast chum salmon and other salmonids (see Existing 
Protective Efforts). NMFS is encouraged by these significant efforts, 
which could provide all stakeholders with an approach to achieving the 
purposes of the ESA--protecting and restoring native fish populations 
and the ecosystems upon which they depend--that is less regulatory. 
NMFS will continue to encourage and support these initiatives as 
important components of recovery planning for chum salmon and other 
salmonids. Based on information presented in this proposed rule, 
general conservation measures that could be implemented to help 
conserve the species are listed below. This list does not constitute 
NMFS' interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) of the ESA.
    1. Measures could be taken to promote land management practices 
that protect and restore chum salmon habitat. Land management practices 
affecting chum salmon habitat include timber harvest, road building, 
agriculture, livestock grazing, and urban development.
    2. Evaluation of existing harvest regulations could identify any 
changes necessary to protect chum salmon populations.
    3. Artificial propagation programs could be modified to minimize 
impacts upon native populations of chum salmon.
    4. Water diversions could have adequate headgate and staff gauge 
structures installed to control and monitor water usage accurately. 
Water rights could be enforced to prevent irrigators from exceeding the 
amount of water to which they are legally entitled.
    5. Irrigation diversions affecting chum salmon could be screened. A 
thorough review of the impact of irrigation diversions on the species 
could be conducted.
    NMFS recognizes that, to be successful, protective regulations and 
recovery programs for chum salmon will need to be developed in the 
context of 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 ESUs proposed for listing, chum salmon 
habitat occurs and can be affected by activities on state, tribal or 
private land. Agricultural, timber, and urban management activities on 
nonfederal land could and should be conducted in a manner that avoids 
adverse effects to chum salmon habitat.
    NMFS encourages nonfederal landowners to assess the impacts of 
their actions on potentially threatened or endangered salmonids. In 
particular, NMFS encourages the formulation of watershed partnerships 
to promote conservation in accordance with ecosystem principles. These 
partnerships will be successful only if state, tribal, and local 
governments, landowner representatives, and Federal and nonfederal 
biologists all participate and share the goal of restoring salmon to 
the watersheds.

Definition of Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as

    (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by 
the species        * * * on which are found those physical or 
biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species 
and (II) which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species * * * upon a determination by the Secretary 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

    The term ``conservation,'' as defined in section 3(3) of the ESA, 
means ``* * * to use and the use of all methods and procedures which 
are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to 
the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no 
longer necessary.''
    In designating critical habitat, NMFS considers the following 
requirements of the species: (1) Space for individual and population 
growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, 
or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or 
shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring; 
and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of this species (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)). In addition to 
these factors, NMFS also focuses on the known physical and biological 
features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and may require 
special management considerations or protection. These essential 
features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food 
resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation (see 50 
CFR 424.12(b)).

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

    The economic and other impacts of a critical habitat designation 
have been considered and evaluated in this proposed rulemaking. NMFS 
identified present and anticipated activities that may adversely modify 
the area(s) being considered or be affected by a designation. An area 
may be excluded from a critical habitat designation if NMFS determines 
that the overall benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
designation, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the 
species (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
    The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental 
impacts specifically resulting from a critical habitat designation, 
above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the 
species or resulting from other authorities. Since listing a species 
under the ESA provides significant protection to a species' habitat, in 
many cases, the economic and other impacts resulting from the critical 
habitat designation, over and above the impacts of the listing itself, 
are minimal (see Significance of Designating Critical Habitat). In 
general, the designation of critical habitat highlights geographical

[[Page 11788]]

areas of concern and reinforces the substantive protection resulting 
from the listing itself.
    Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the 
take prohibitions contained in section 9 of the ESA and associated 
regulations. ``Take'', as defined in the ESA means to harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to 
attempt to engage in any such conduct (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Harm 
can occur through destruction or modification of habitat (whether or 
not designated as critical habitat) that significantly impairs 
essential behaviors, including breeding, feeding, rearing or migration.

Significance of Designating Critical Habitat

    The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself, 
restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific 
management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation 
contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important 
areas and by describing the features within those areas that are 
essential to the species, thus alerting public and private entities to 
the area's importance. Under the ESA, the only regulatory impact of a 
critical habitat designation is through the provisions of section 7 of 
the ESA. Section 7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement 
(e.g., authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency) and does 
not affect exclusively state or private activities.
    Under the section 7 provisions, a designation of critical habitat 
would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or adversely 
modify designated critical habitat. Activities that destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are defined as those actions that 
``appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the 
survival and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Regardless 
of a critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
the listed species. Activities that jeopardize a species are defined as 
those actions that ``reasonably would be expected, directly or 
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival 
and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Using these 
definitions, activities that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat would also be likely to jeopardize the species. Therefore, the 
protection provided by a critical habitat designation generally 
duplicates the protection provided under the section 7 jeopardy 
provision. Critical habitat may provide additional benefits to a 
species in cases where areas outside the species' current range have 
been designated. When actions may affect these areas, Federal agencies 
are required to consult with NMFS under section 7 (see 50 CFR 
402.14(a)), which may not have been recognized but for the critical 
habitat designation.
    A designation of critical habitat provides a clear indication to 
Federal agencies as to when section 7 consultation is required, 
particularly in cases where the action would not result in immediate 
mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a listed species (e.g., an 
action occurring within the critical area when a migratory species is 
not present). The critical habitat designation, describing the 
essential features of the habitat, also assists in determining which 
activities conducted outside the designated area are subject to section 
7 (i.e., activities that may affect essential features of the 
designated area).
    A critical habitat designation will also assist Federal agencies in 
planning future actions, since the designation establishes, in advance, 
those habitats that will be given special consideration in section 7 
consultations. With a designation of critical habitat, potential 
conflicts between Federal actions and endangered or threatened species 
can be identified and possibly avoided early in the agency's planning 
process.
    Another indirect benefit of a critical habitat designation is that 
it helps focus Federal, tribal, state, and private conservation and 
management efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address 
special considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including 
conservation regulations to restrict private as well as Federal 
activities. The economic and other impacts of these actions would be 
considered at the time of those proposed regulations and, therefore, 
are not considered in the critical habitat designation process. Other 
Federal, tribal, state, and local management programs, such as zoning 
or wetlands and riparian lands protection, may also provide special 
protection for critical habitat areas.

Process for Designating Critical Habitat

    Developing a proposed critical habitat designation involves three 
main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species are 
evaluated, and essential habitat areas and features are identified. If 
alternative areas exist that would provide for the conservation of the 
species, such alternatives are also identified. Second, the need for 
special management considerations or protection of the area(s) or 
features are evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and other 
impacts of designating these essential areas as critical habitat are 
evaluated. After considering the requirements of the species, the need 
for special management, and the impacts of the designation, the 
proposed critical habitat is published in the Federal Register for 
comment. The final critical habitat designation, considering comments 
on the proposal and impacts assessment, is typically published within 1 
year of the proposed rule. Final critical habitat designations may be 
revised, using the same process, as new information becomes available.
    A description of the essential habitat, need for special 
management, impacts of designating critical habitat, and the proposed 
action are described in the following sections.

Critical Habitat of Chum Salmon ESUs Proposed for Listing

    The following is a brief overview of distribution and habitat 
utilization information for chum salmon in the Pacific Northwest; more 
detailed information can be found in the previous section of this 
Federal Register proposed rule on ``Chum Salmon Life History'' and 
species reviews by NMFS (1996a and 1996b), Pauley et al. (1988), Salo 
(1991), and Pearcy (1992). The current geographic range of chum salmon 
from the Pacific Northwest includes vast areas of the North Pacific 
ocean, nearshore marine zone, and extensive estuarine and riverine 
areas. Historically, chum salmon were distributed throughout the 
coastal regions of western Canada and the United States, as far south 
as Monterey, California. Presently, major spawning populations are 
found only as far south as Tillamook Bay on the northern Oregon coast. 
Any attempt to describe the current distribution of chum salmon must 
take into account the fact that extant populations and densities are a 
small fraction of historical levels. Hence, some populations that are 
considered extinct could in fact exist but are represented by only a 
few individuals that could escape detection during surveys.
    In the Hood Canal summer-run ESU, chum salmon are currently present 
throughout much of their historical range. Spawning populations 
recognized by WDF et al. (1993) include the Quilcene, Dosewallips, 
Duckabush, Hamma, Dewatto, Tahuya, and Union Rivers and three streams 
along the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Snow and Salmon Creeks in Discovery 
Bay and Jimmycomelately Creek in Sequim Bay)

[[Page 11789]]

(WDF et al., 1993). Some populations on the east side of Hood Canal 
(Big Beef Creek, Anderson Creek, and the Dewatto River) are severely 
depressed and have recently had no returning adults.
    In the Columbia River ESU, chum salmon occupy a small remnant of 
their historic range. Presently, on the Washington side of the lower 
Columbia River, only three streams are recognized as containing native 
chum salmon: Hamilton and Hardy Creeks near Bonneville Dam at river km 
235 and Grays River (river km 34) (WDF et al., 1993). Oregon currently 
recognizes 23 ``provisional'' populations in the Columbia River Basin, 
ranging from the Lewis and Clark River (river km 13) to Milton Creek 
(river km 144) near St. Helens, Oregon (Kostow, 1995). ODFW considers 
these populations as provisional because ``very few chum are observed 
in spawning ground surveys, hatchery rack counts, or as incidental 
catch in adjacent fisheries'' and further adds that the few fish 
observed are probably strays from Washington populations (ODFW, 1997). 
Although it is uncertain whether they would be considered part of the 
extant ESU, there are reports that some extinct runs of chum salmon may 
historically have spawned in the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers, more 
than 500 km from the sea (Nehlsen et al., 1991).
    Chum salmon typically spawn in the lower reaches of rivers, with 
redds usually dug in the mainstem or in side channels of rivers from 
just above tidal influence to nearly 100 km from the sea. Populations 
in both ESUs proposed for listing appear to spawn within approximately 
16 km of the river mouths (WDF et al., 1993). After hatching, juvenile 
chum salmon spend a very limited amount of time in fresh water and 
typically migrate to estuarine and marine areas soon after emergence.
    Essential features of chum salmon critical habitat include 
adequate: (1) Substrate; (2) water quality; (3) water quantity; (4) 
water temperature; (5) water velocity; (6) cover/shelter; (7) food; (8) 
riparian vegetation; (9) space; and (10) safe passage conditions. Given 
the vast geographic range occupied by each of these chum salmon ESUs, 
and the diverse habitat types used by the various life stages, it is 
not practical to describe specific values or conditions for each of 
these essential habitat features. However, good summaries of these 
environmental parameters and freshwater factors that have contributed 
to the decline of this and other salmonids can be found in reviews by 
Pauley et al. (1988), Bjornn and Reiser (1991), Nehlsen et al. (1991), 
WDF et al. (1993), Botkin et al. (1995), NMFS (1996) and Spence et al. 
(1996).
    NMFS believes that the current freshwater and estuarine range of 
the species encompasses all essential habitat features and is adequate 
to ensure the species' conservation. Therefore, designation of habitat 
areas outside the species' current range is not necessary. For the Hood 
Canal ESU, these areas include all river reaches accessible to listed 
chum salmon (including estuarine areas and tributaries) draining into 
Hood Canal as well as Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and 
Sequim Bay, Washington. Also included is the Hood Canal waterway, from 
its southern terminus at the Union River north to its confluence with 
Admiralty Inlet near Port Ludlow, Washington. Critical habitat for the 
Columbia River ESU encompasses accessible reaches of the Columbia River 
(including estuarine areas and tributaries) downstream from Bonneville 
Dam, excluding Oregon tributaries upstream of Milton Creek at river km 
144 near the town of St. Helens.
    It is important to note that habitat quality in this current range 
is intrinsically related to the quality of upland areas and upstream 
areas (including headwater or intermittent streams) which provide key 
habitat elements (e.g., LWD, gravel, water quality) crucial for chum 
salmon in downstream reaches. NMFS recognizes that estuarine habitats 
are critical for chum salmon and has included them in this designation. 
This definition of estuarine habitat includes the mixing and seawater 
portions of Hood Canal defined in NOAA's National Estuarine Inventory 
(NOAA, 1985). Marine habitats (i.e., oceanic or nearshore areas seaward 
of the mouth of coastal rivers or Hood Canal) are also vital to the 
species and ocean conditions may have a major influence on chum salmon 
survival. However, there does not appear to be a need for special 
management consideration or protection of this habitat. Therefore, NMFS 
is not proposing to designate critical habitat in marine areas at this 
time. If additional information becomes available that supports the 
inclusion of such areas, NMFS may revise this designation.
    Based on consideration of the best available information regarding 
the species' current distribution, NMFS believes that the preferred 
approach to identifying critical habitat for chum salmon is to 
designate all areas (and their adjacent riparian zones) accessible to 
the species within the range of each ESU. NMFS believes that adopting a 
more inclusive, watershed-based description of critical habitat is 
appropriate because it: (1) Recognizes the species' use of diverse 
habitats and underscores the need to account for all of the habitat 
types supporting the species' freshwater and estuarine life stages; (2) 
takes into account the natural variability in habitat use; and (3) 
reinforces the important linkage between aquatic areas and adjacent 
riparian/upslope areas.
    An array of management issues encompasses these habitats and 
special management considerations will be needed, especially on lands 
and streams under Federal ownership (see sections below describing 
Activities that May Affect Critical Habitat and Need for Special 
Management Considerations or Protection). While marine areas are also a 
critical link in this cycle, NMFS does not believe that special 
management considerations are needed to conserve the habitat features 
in these areas. Hence, only the freshwater and estuarine areas are 
being proposed for critical habitat at this time.

Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection

    In order to assure that the essential areas and features are 
maintained or restored, special management may be needed. Activities 
that may require special management considerations for freshwater and 
estuarine life stages of listed chum salmon include, but are not 
limited to: (1) Land management; (2) timber harvest; (3) point and non-
point water pollution; (4) livestock grazing; (5) habitat restoration; 
(6) irrigation water withdrawals and returns; (7) mining; (8) road 
construction; (9) dam operation and maintenance; and (10) dredge and 
fill activities. Not all of these activities are necessarily of current 
concern within every watershed; however, they indicate the potential 
types of activities that will require consultation in the future. No 
special habitat management considerations have been identified for 
listed chum salmon while they are residing in the ocean environment.

Activities That May Affect Chum Salmon or Critical Habitat

    A wide range of activities may affect the essential habitat 
requirements of listed chum salmon. These activities include water and 
land management actions of Federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS), U.S. National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (COE), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Federal 
Highways Administration (FHA), and related or similar activities of 
other Federally-regulated projects and lands including; (1)Timber sales 
and

[[Page 11790]]

harvest conducted by USFS; (2) road building activities authorized by 
FHA, USFS, and NPS; (3) hydropower sites licensed by FERC; (4) dams 
built or operated by COE; (5) dredge and fill, mining, and bank 
stabilization activities authorized or conducted by COE; and (6) mining 
and road building activities authorized by the states of Washington and 
Oregon.
    This proposed designation will provide clear notification to these 
agencies, private entities, and the public of critical habitat 
designated for listed chum salmon and the boundaries of the habitat and 
protection provided for that habitat by the section 7 consultation 
process. This proposed designation will also assist these agencies and 
others in evaluating the potential effects of their activities on 
listed chum salmon and their critical habitat and in determining when 
consultation with NMFS is appropriate. Consultation may result in 
specific conditions designed to achieve the intended purpose of the 
project and avoid or reduce impacts to chum salmon and its habitat 
within the range of the listed ESUs.

Expected Economic Impacts of Critical Habitat Designation

    The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat 
designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation 
above the economic impacts attributable to listing or attributable to 
authorities other than the ESA (see Consideration of Economic and Other 
Factors). Incremental impacts result from special management activities 
in areas outside the present distribution of the listed species that 
have been determined to be essential to the conservation of the 
species. However, NMFS has determined that the species' present 
freshwater and estuarine range contains sufficient habitat for 
conservation of the species. Therefore, the economic impacts associated 
with this critical habitat designation are expected to be minimal.
    USFS and NPS manage areas of proposed critical habitat for the 
listed chum salmon ESUs. COE, FERC, FHA, and other Federal agencies 
that may be involved with funding or permits for projects in critical 
habitat areas may also be affected by a designation. Because NMFS 
believes that virtually all ``adverse modification'' determinations 
pertaining to critical habitat would also result in ``jeopardy'' 
conclusions, designation of critical habitat is not expected to result 
in significant incremental restrictions on Federal agency activities. 
Critical habitat designation will, therefore, result in few if any 
additional economic effects beyond those that may have been caused by 
listing and by other statutes.

NMFS Policies on Endangered and Threatened Fish and Wildlife

    On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with USFWS, published a series of 
new policies regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy for 
peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270) and a policy to identify, 
to the maximum extent possible, those activities that would or would 
not constitute a violation of Sec. 9 of the ESA (59 FR 34272).
    Role of peer review: The intent of the peer review policy is to 
ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial 
data available. Prior to a final listing, NMFS will solicit the expert 
opinions of three qualified specialists. Independent peer reviewers 
will be selected from the academic and scientific community, tribal and 
other native American groups, Federal and state agencies, and the 
private sector.
    Identification of those activities that would constitute a 
violation of Sec. 9 of the ESA: The intent of this policy is to 
increase public awareness of the effect of this listing on proposed and 
ongoing activities within the species' range. NMFS will identify, to 
the extent known at the time of the final rule, specific activities 
that will not be considered likely to result in violation of Sec. 9, as 
well as activities that will be considered likely to result in 
violation. For those activities whose likelihood of violation is 
uncertain, a contact will be identified in the final listing document 
to assist the public in determining whether a particular activity would 
constitute a prohibited act under Sec. 9.

Public Comments Solicited

    To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and effective as possible, NMFS is soliciting comments 
and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. 
Public hearings will be held in several locations in Oregon and 
Washington in proximity to the range of the proposed ESUs (see Public 
Hearings). In particular, NMFS is requesting information regarding: (1) 
Biological or other relevant data concerning any threat to chum salmon; 
(2) current or planned activities in the subject areas and their 
possible impact on this species; (3) efforts being made to protect 
naturally spawned populations of chum salmon in Washington and Oregon; 
(4) relationship of hatchery chum salmon and naturally-reproducing chum 
salmon; and (5) suggestions for specific regulations under Sec. 4(d) of 
the ESA that should apply to threatened chum salmon. Suggested 
regulations should address activities, plans, or guidelines that, 
despite their potential to result in the incidental take of listed 
fish, will ultimately promote the conservation of threatened chum 
salmon.
    NMFS is also requesting quantitative evaluations describing the 
quality and extent of freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats for 
juvenile and adult chum salmon as well as information on areas that may 
qualify as critical habitat within the range of ESUs proposed for 
listing. Areas that include the physical and biological features 
essential to the recovery of the species should be identified. NMFS 
recognizes that there are areas within the proposed boundaries of these 
ESUs that historically constituted chum salmon habitat, but may not be 
currently occupied. NMFS is requesting information about chum salmon in 
these currently unoccupied areas and whether these habitats should be 
considered essential to the recovery of the species or excluded from 
designation. Essential features should include, but are not limited to: 
(1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal 
behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional 
or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for 
reproduction and rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that are 
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic 
geographical and ecological distributions of the species.
    For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is 
requesting information describing: (1) The activities that affect the 
area or could be affected by the designation; and (2) the economic 
costs and benefits of additional requirements of management measures 
likely to result from the designation.
    The economic cost to be considered in the critical habitat 
designation under the ESA is the probable economic impact ``of the 
[critical habitat] designation upon proposed or ongoing activities'' 
(50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider the incremental costs specifically 
resulting from a critical habitat designation that are above the 
economic effects attributable to listing the species. Economic effects 
attributable to listing include actions resulting from section 7 
consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy to the species and from 
the taking prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA. Comments concerning 
economic impacts should distinguish the costs of listing from the

[[Page 11791]]

incremental costs that can be directly attributed to the designation of 
specific areas as critical habitat.
    NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information 
regarding the status of the chum salmon ESUs described herein and, as 
required under the ESA, will complete a final rule within one year of 
this proposed rule. The availability of new information may cause NMFS 
to re-assess the status of these ESUs or the geographic extent of 
critical habitat.
    Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the 
Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person 
so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to 
list a species or to designate critical habitat (See 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3)). In a forthcoming Federal Register notice, NMFS will 
announce the dates and locations of public hearings on this proposed 
rule to provide the opportunity for the public to give comments and to 
permit an exchange of information and opinion among interested parties. 
NMFS encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (see ADDRESSES).

Compliance With Existing Statutes

    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 under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.
    In addition, NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments and 
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for 
this critical habitat designation made pursuant to the ESA. See Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. 
Ct. 698 (1996).

Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has 
determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O. 
12866.
    NMFS proposes to designate only the current range of these chum 
salmon ESUs as critical habitat. Areas excluded from this proposed 
designation include marine habitats in the Pacific Ocean and any 
historically-occupied areas above impassable natural barriers (e.g., 
long-standing, natural waterfalls). NMFS has concluded that currently 
inhabited areas within the range of each ESU are the minimum habitat 
necessary to ensure their conservation and recovery.
    Since NMFS is designating the current range of the listed species 
as critical habitat, this designation will not impose any additional 
requirements or economic effects upon small entities, beyond those 
which may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires Federal 
agencies to insure that any action they carry out, authorize, or fund 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat (ESA Sec. 7(a)(2)). The consultation requirements of 
Sec. 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the time of species' 
listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with NMFS and ensure 
their actions do not jeopardize a listed species, regardless of whether 
critical habitat is designated.
    In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat 
areas outside the species' current range is necessary for conservation 
and recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of that action 
and assess its potential impacts on small entities, as required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Until that time, a more detailed analysis 
would be premature and would not reflect the true economic impacts of 
the proposed action on local businesses, organizations, and 
governments.
    Accordingly, the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and 
Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the 
proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact 
of a substantial number of small entities, as described in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    This rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement 
for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    The AA has determined that the proposed designation is consistent 
to the maximum extent practicable with the approved Coastal Zone 
Management Program of the states of Washington and Oregon. This 
determination will be submitted for review by the responsible state 
agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
    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 these threatened ESUs, NMFS will comply with all 
relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 226

    Endangered and threatened species.

50 CFR Part 227

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine 
mammals, Transportation.

    Dated: February 26, 1998.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 226 and 227 
are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

    1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

    2. Section 226.26 is added to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec. 226.26  Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), 
Columbia River chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta).

    Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent 
riparian zone of estuarine and riverine reaches in hydrologic units and 
counties identified in Tables 7 and 8 for Hood Canal summer-run chum 
salmon and Columbia River chum salmon, respectively. Accessible reaches 
are those within the historical range of the ESUs that can still be 
occupied by any life stage of chum salmon. Inaccessible reaches are 
those above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural 
waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years). Adjacent 
riparian zones are defined as those areas within a slope distance of 
300 ft (91.4 m) from the normal line of high water of a stream channel 
or adjacent off-channel habitats (600 ft or 182.8 m, when both sides of 
the channel are included). Figures 12 and 13 to part 226 identify the 
general geographic extent of larger rivers and streams within 
hydrologic units designated as critical habitat for Hood Canal summer-
run chum salmon and Columbia River chum salmon, respectively. Note that 
Figures 12 and 13 to part 226 do not constitute the definition of 
critical habitat but, instead, are provided as a general reference to 
guide Federal agencies and interested parties in locating the 
boundaries of critical habitat for listed

[[Page 11792]]

Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon and Columbia River chum salmon. 
Hydrologic units are those defined by the Department of the Interior 
(DOI), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publication, ``Hydrologic Unit 
Maps, Water Supply Paper 2294, 1986, and the following DOI, USGS, 
1:500,000 scale hydrologic unit maps: State of Oregon (1974) and State 
of Washington (1974) which are incorporated by reference. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
of the USGS publication and maps may be obtained from the USGS, Map 
Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Copies may be inspected at NMFS, 
Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, 
OR 97232-2737, or NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or at the Office of the Federal 
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (a) Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) 
geographic boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all 
river reaches accessible to listed chum salmon (including estuarine 
areas and tributaries) draining into Hood Canal as well as Olympic 
Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and Sequim Bay, Washington. Also 
included is the Hood Canal waterway, from its southern terminus at the 
Union River north to its confluence with Admiralty Inlet near Port 
Ludlow, Washington.
    (b) Columbia River chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) geographic 
boundaries. Critical habitat is designated to include all river reaches 
accessible to listed chum salmon (including estuarine areas and 
tributaries) in the Columbia River downstream from Bonneville Dam, 
excluding Oregon tributaries upstream of Milton Creek at river km 144 
near the town of St. Helens.
    3. Table 7 to part 226 is added to read as follows: Table 7 to Part 
226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for Hood 
Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Counties contained in 
      Hydrologic unit name         Hydrologic      hydrologic unit and  
                                   unit number   within range of ESU \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skokomish......................        17110017  Mason (WA), Jefferson  
                                                  (WA).                 
Hood Canal.....................        17110018  Mason (WA), Jefferson  
                                                  (WA), Kitsap (WA),    
                                                  Clallam (WA).         
Puget Sound....................        17110019  Jefferson (WA).        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or
  riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult
  USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific 
  county and basin boundaries.                                          

    4. Table 8 to part 226 is added to read as follows: Table 8 to Part 
226--Hydrologic Units and Counties Containing Critical Habitat for 
Columbia River Chum Salmon

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Counties contained in 
      Hydrologic unit name         Hydrologic      hydrologic unit and  
                                   unit number   within range of ESU \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Columbia.................        17080006  Pacific (WA), Wahkiakum
                                                  (WA), Lewis (WA),     
                                                  Clatsop (OR).         
Lower Cowlitz..................        17080005  Cowlitz (WA), Lewis    
                                                  (WA), Skamania (WA).  
Lower Columbia--Clatskanie.....        17080003  Wahkiakum (WA), Lewis  
                                                  (WA), Cowlitz (WA),   
                                                  Clark (WA), Skamania  
                                                  (WA), Clatsop (OR),   
                                                  Columbia (OR).        
Lewis..........................        17080002  Cowlitz (WA), Clark    
                                                  (WA), Skamania (WA)   
Lower Columbia--Sandy..........        17080001  Clark (WA), Skamania   
                                                  (WA), Multnomah (OR). 
Lower Willamette...............        17090012  Columbia (OR),         
                                                  Multnomah (OR),       
                                                  Washington (OR).      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some counties have very limited overlap with estuarine, riverine, or
  riparian habitats identified as critical habitat for this ESU. Consult
  USGS hydrologic unit maps (available from USGS) to determine specific 
  county and basin boundaries.                                          


BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 11793]]

    5. Figure 12 to part 226 is added to read as follows:

Figure 12 to Part 226--Critical Habitat for Hood Canal Summer-run 
Chum Salmon
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR98.013


[[Page 11794]]


    6. Figure 13 to Part 226 is added to read as follows:

Figure 13 to Part 226--Critical Habitat for Columbia River Chum 
Salmon
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10MR98.014


BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 11795]]

PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE

    7. The authority citation for part 227 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 and 1531-1543.

    8. In Sec. 227.4, paragraphs (m) and (n) are added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 227.4  Enumeration of threatened species.

* * * * *
    (m) Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Includes 
all naturally spawned populations of summer-run chum salmon (and their 
progeny) in Hood Canal and its tributaries as well as populations in 
Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and Sequim Bay, Washington; 
and
    (n) Columbia River chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). Includes all 
naturally spawned populations of chum salmon (and their progeny) in the 
Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon.

[FR Doc. 98-5472 Filed 3-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P