[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