[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 24, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14308-14328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6815]



[[Page 14307]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Commerce





_______________________________________________________________________



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Parts 223 and 224



Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for Three Chinook 
Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units in Washington and Oregon, and 
Endangered Status of One Chinook Salmon ESU in Washington; Final Rule



Partial 6-Month Extension on Final Listing Determinations for Four 
Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Chinook Salmon; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 24, 1999 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 14308]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 990303060-9071-02; I.D. 022398C]
RIN 0648-AM54


Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Three 
Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in Washington 
and Oregon, and Endangered Status for One Chinook Salmon ESU in 
Washington

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing final determinations to list four ESUs of west 
coast chinook salmon as threatened or endangered species under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Previously, NMFS 
completed a comprehensive status review of west coast chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) which resulted in proposed listings for 
eight ESUs. After reviewing additional information, including 
biological data on the species' status and an assessment of protective 
efforts, NMFS now concludes that four chinook salmon ESUs warrant 
protection under the ESA. NMFS has determined that Puget Sound chinook 
salmon in Washington, Lower Columbia River chinook salmon in Washington 
and Oregon, and Upper Willamette spring-run chinook salmon in Oregon 
are at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future and will 
be listed as threatened species under the ESA. NMFS also has determined 
that Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon in Washington are 
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
their range and will be listed as an endangered species.
    With respect to the Central Valley spring-run, Central Valley fall/
late fall-run, and Southern Oregon and California Coastal chinook 
salmon ESUs proposed for listing, NMFS has found that substantial 
scientific disagreement precludes making final determinations and has 
extended the deadline for an additional 6 months to resolve these 
disagreements. Similarly, the proposed revision of the currently listed 
Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU to include fall-run chinook 
salmon in the Deschutes River, Oregon, is still under review in order 
to resolve substantial scientific disagreements about the information 
relevant to that determination. The findings regarding substantial 
scientific disagreement and extension of final determination for the 4 
chinook salmon ESUs published in the Proposed Rules section in this 
Federal Register issue.

DATES: Effective May 24, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Branch Chief, NMFS, Northwest Region, Protected Resources 
Division, 525 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737; 
Salmon Coordinator, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal Actions

    West coast chinook salmon have been the subject of many Federal ESA 
actions, which are summarized in the proposed rule (63 FR 11482, March 
9, 1998). NMFS initially announced its intention to conduct a coastwide 
review of chinook salmon status in response to a petition to list 
several Puget Sound chinook salmon stocks on September 12, 1994 (59 FR 
46808). After receiving a more comprehensive petition from the Oregon 
Natural Resources Council and Dr. Richard Nawa on February 1, 1995, 
NMFS reconfirmed its intention to conduct a coastwide review (60 FR 
30263, June 8, 1995). During that review, NMFS requested public comment 
and assessed the best available scientific and commercial data, 
including technical information from Pacific Salmon Biological 
Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and other interested parties. The PSBTCs 
consisted primarily of scientists (from Federal, state, and local 
resource agencies, Indian tribes, industries, universities, 
professional societies, and public interest groups) possessing 
technical expertise relevant to chinook salmon and their habitats. The 
NMFS Biological Review Team (BRT), composed of staff from NMFS' 
Northwest, Southwest, and Auke Bay Fisheries Science Centers, as well 
as from the National Biological Survey, reviewed and evaluated 
scientific information provided by the PSBTCs and other sources. Early 
drafts of the BRT review were distributed to state and tribal fisheries 
managers and peer reviewers who are experts in the field to ensure that 
NMFS' evaluation was accurate and complete. The BRT then incorporated 
tribal and state co-manager comments into the coastwide chinook salmon 
status review.
    Based on the results of the completed status report on west coast 
chinook salmon (Myers et al., 1998), NMFS has identified fifteen ESUs 
of chinook salmon from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, 
including 11 new ESUs, and one redefined ESU (63 FR 11482, March 9, 
1998). After assessing information concerning chinook salmon abundance, 
distribution, population trends, and risks, and after considering 
efforts being made to protect chinook salmon, NMFS determined that 
several chinook salmon ESUs did not warrant listing under the ESA. The 
chinook salmon ESUs not requiring ESA protection included the Upper 
Klamath and Trinity River ESU, Oregon Coast ESU, Washington Coast ESU, 
Middle Columbia River spring-run ESU, and Upper Columbia River summer/
fall-run ESU.
    Also based on this evaluation, and after considering efforts being 
made to protect chinook salmon, NMFS proposed that seven chinook salmon 
ESUs warranted listing as either endangered or threatened species under 
the ESA. The chinook salmon ESUs proposed as endangered species 
included California Central Valley spring-run and Washington's Upper 
Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon. The chinook salmon ESUs 
proposed as threatened species included California Central Valley fall/
late fall-run, Southern Oregon and California Coastal, Puget Sound, 
Lower Columbia River, and Upper Willamette River spring-run chinook 
salmon. Additionally, NMFS found that fall-run chinook salmon from the 
Deschutes River in Oregon shared a strong genetic and life history 
affinity to currently listed Snake River fall-run chinook. Based on 
this affinity, NMFS proposed to revise the existing listed Snake River 
fall-run ESU to include fall-run chinook salmon in the Deschutes River. 
The resulting revised ESU would be listed as threatened.
    During the year between the proposed rule and this final 
determination, NMFS conducted 21 public hearings within the range of 
the proposed chinook salmon ESUs in California, Oregon, Washington and 
Idaho. NMFS accepted and reviewed public comments solicited during a 
112-day public comment period. Based on these public hearings, 
comments, and additional technical meetings with Indian tribes and the 
states, NMFS has found that substantial scientific disagreements exist 
concerning the information relevant to making final determinations for 
California's Central Valley spring-run and Central Valley fall/late 
fall-run, Southern Oregon and California Coastal,

[[Page 14309]]

and Snake River fall-run ESUs. As a result, NMFS has extended the 
period for making final determinations for these ESUs by not more than 
6 additional months. The findings regarding substantial scientific 
disagreement and extension of final determination for the 4 chinook 
salmon ESUs published in the Proposed Rules section in this Federal 
Register issue.
    Also during the comment period, NMFS solicited peer and co-manager 
review of NMFS' proposal and received comments and new scientific 
information concerning the status of the chinook salmon ESUs proposed 
for listing. NMFS also received information regarding the relationship 
of existing hatchery stocks to native populations in each ESU. This new 
information was evaluated by NMFS' BRT and published in an updated 
status review for these chinook salmon entitled ``Status Review Update 
for West Coast Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from Puget 
Sound, Lower Columbia River, Upper Willamette River, and Upper Columbia 
River Spring-run ESUs.'' (NMFS, 1998a). This updated status review 
report draws conclusions about those specific ESU delineations and risk 
assessments. Based on the updated NMFS status review and other 
information, NMFS now issues its final listing determinations for those 
four proposed ESUs. Copies of NMFS' updated status review report and 
related documents are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Species Life History and Status

    Biological information for west coast chinook salmon can be found 
in species' status assessments by NMFS (Matthews and Waples, 1991; 
Waples et al., 1991; NMFS, 1995; Waknitz et al., 1995; Myers et al., 
1998; NMFS, 1998a), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW, 1991; 
Nickelson et al., 1992; Kostow et al., 1995), species life history 
summaries (Miller and Brannon, 1982; Healey, 1991), and in previous 
Federal Register documents (56 FR 29542, June 27, 1991; 63 FR 11482, 
March 9, 1998).

Summary of Comments and Information Received in Response to the 
Proposed Rule

    NMFS held 21 public hearings in California, Oregon, Idaho, and 
Washington to solicit comments on this and other salmonid listing 
proposals (63 FR 16955, April 7, 1998; 63 FR 30455, June 4, 1998). 
During the 112-day public comment period, NMFS received nearly 300 
written comments regarding the west coast chinook salmon proposed rule. 
A number of comments addressed issues pertaining to the proposed 
critical habitat designation for west coast chinook salmon. NMFS will 
address these comments in a forthcoming Federal Register document 
announcing the agency's conclusions about critical habitat for the 
listed ESUs.
    NMFS also sought new data and analyses from tribal, state, and 
Federal co-managers and met with them to formally discuss technical 
issues associated with the chinook salmon status review. This new 
information and analysis was considered by NMFS' BRT in its re-
evaluation of ESU boundaries and species' status; this information is 
discussed in an updated status review report for these chinook salmon, 
and a summary follows.
    In addition to soliciting and reviewing public comments, NMFS must 
seek peer review of its listing proposals. On July 1, 1994, NMFS, 
jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), published a 
series of policies regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy 
for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270). In accordance with 
this policy, NMFS solicited 13 individuals to take part in a peer 
review of its west coast chinook salmon proposed rule. All individuals 
solicited are recognized experts in the field of chinook salmon 
biology, and represent a broad range of interests, including Federal, 
state, and tribal resource managers, and academia. Four individuals 
took part in the peer review of this action; new information and 
comments provided by the public and comments from peer reviewers were 
considered by NMFS' BRT and are summarized in the updated status review 
document (NMFS, 1998a). Copies of these documents are available upon 
request (see ADDRESSES).
    A summary of comments received in response to the proposed rule 
follows.

Issue 1: Sufficiency and Accuracy of Scientific Information and 
Analysis

    Comment: Some commenters questioned the sufficiency and accuracy of 
data NMFS employed in the listing proposal. In contrast, peer reviewers 
commented that the agency's status review was both credible and 
comprehensive, even though they may not have concurred with NMFS' 
conclusions.
    Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires that NMFS make its 
listing determinations solely on the basis of the best available 
scientific and commercial data after reviewing the status of the 
species and taking into account any efforts being made to protect such 
species. NMFS believes that information contained in the agency's 
status review (Myers et al., 1998), together with more recent 
information obtained in response to the proposed rule (NMFS, 1998a), 
represent the best scientific information presently available for the 
chinook salmon ESUs addressed in this final rule. NMFS has made every 
effort to conduct an exhaustive review of all available information and 
has solicited information and opinion from all interested parties, 
including peer reviewers as described previously. If new data become 
available to change these conclusions, NMFS will act accordingly.
    Comment: Several of the comments received suggested that the ESA 
does not provide for the creation of ESUs, and that ESUs do not 
correspond to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments 
(DPSs) that are specifically identified in the ESA. Further, NMFS'' use 
of genetic information (allozyme- or DNA-derived) to determine ESU 
boundaries was criticized by several commenters. It was argued that 
allozyme-based electrophoretic data cannot be used to imply 
evolutionary significance, nor does it imply local adaptation. Other 
commenters indicated that NMFS used genetic distances inconsistently in 
determining the creation of ESUs. Several commenters argued that there 
was insufficient scientific information presented to justify the 
establishment of the chinook salmon ESUs discussed. Information was 
lacking concerning a number of ``key'' criteria for defining ESUs, such 
as phenotypic differences, evolutionary significance, or ecological 
significance of various chinook populations. Commenters contended that 
NMFS did not find any life history, habitat, or phenotypic 
characteristics that were unique to any of the ESUs discussed. 
Disagreement within the BRT regarding ESU delineations was also given 
as a reason for challenging the proposed listing decision.
    Response: General issues relating to ESUs, DPSs, and the ESA have 
been discussed extensively in past Federal Register documents as 
described in this paragraph. Regarding application of its ESU policy, 
NMFS relies on its policy describing how it will apply the ESA 
definition of ``species'' to anadromous salmonid species published in 
1991 (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). More recently, NMFS and FWS 
published a joint policy, which is consistent with NMFS'' policy, 
regarding the definition of ``distinct population segments'' (DPSs) (61 
FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The earlier policy is more detailed and 
applies specifically to Pacific salmonids and, therefore, was used for 
this determination. This policy indicates that one or more naturally 
reproducing salmonid populations will be

[[Page 14310]]

considered to be distinct and, hence, a species under the ESA, if they 
represent an ESU of the biological species. To be considered an ESU, a 
population must satisfy two criteria: (1) It must be reproductively 
isolated from other population units of the same species, and (2) it 
must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the 
biological species. The first criterion, reproductive isolation, need 
not be absolute but must have been strong enough to permit 
evolutionarily important differences to occur in different population 
units. The second criterion is met if the population contributes 
substantially to the ecological or genetic diversity of the species as 
a whole. Guidance on applying this policy is contained in a NOAA 
Technical Memorandum entitled ``Definition of `Species' Under the 
Endangered Species Act: Application to Pacific Salmon'' (Waples, 1991) 
and in a more recent scientific paper by Waples (1995).
    The National Research Council (NRC) has recently addressed the 
issue of defining species under the ESA (NRC, 1995). Their report found 
that protecting DPSs is soundly based on scientific evidence, and 
recommends applying an ``Evolutionary Unit'' (EU) approach in 
describing these segments. The NRC report describes the high degree of 
similarity between the EU and ESU approaches (differences being largely 
a matter of application between salmon and other vertebrates), and 
concluded that either approach would lead to similar DPS descriptions 
most of the time.
    ESUs were identified using the best available scientific 
information. As discussed in the status review, genetic data were used 
primarily to evaluate the criterion regarding reproductive isolation, 
not evolutionary significance. In some cases, there was a considerable 
degree of confidence in the ESU determinations; in other cases, more 
uncertainty was associated with this process. Similarly, the risk 
analysis necessarily involved a mixture of quantitative and qualitative 
information and scientific judgement. NMFS' process for conducting its 
risk assessment has evolved over time as the amount and complexity of 
information has changed, and NMFS continues to seek and incorporate 
comments and suggestions to improve this process. NMFS believes that 
there is evidence to support the identification of DPSs for chinook 
salmon. The chinook salmon status review describes a variety of 
characteristics that support the ESU delineations for this species, 
including ecological and life history parameters. NMFS also assessed 
available allozyme data for the proposed ESUs and concludes that 
sufficient genetic differences existed between these and adjacent ESUs 
to support separate delineations.

Issue 2: Description and Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs

    Comment: Some comments suggested that risk assessments were made in 
an arbitrary manner and that NMFS did not rely on the best available 
science. Several commenters questioned NMFS' methodology for 
determining whether a given chinook salmon ESU warranted listing. In 
some cases, such commenters also expressed opinions regarding whether 
listing was warranted for a particular chinook salmon ESU.
    Response: Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``endangered 
species'' as ``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened 
species'' is defined as ``any species which is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' NMFS has identified a number of 
factors that should be considered in evaluating the level of risk faced 
by an ESU, including: (1) Absolute numbers of fish and their spatial 
and temporal distribution; (2) current abundance in relation to 
historical abundance and current carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) 
trends in abundance; (4) natural and human-influenced factors that 
cause variability in survival and abundance; (5) possible threats to 
genetic integrity (e.g., from strays or outplants from hatchery 
programs); and (6) recent events (e.g., a drought or changes in harvest 
management) that have predictable short-term consequences for abundance 
of the ESU. A more detailed discussion of status of individual ESUs is 
provided later in this document under ``Status of Chinook Salmon 
ESUs.''

Issue 3: Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast Chinook 
Salmon

    Comment: Comments identified factors for decline that were either 
not identified in the status review or which they believed were not 
given sufficient weight in the risk analysis. For example, one 
commenter submitted a report to support their contention that NMFS had 
not addressed specific harvest regime effects on Puget Sound chinook 
salmon. This report (Mathews, 1997) noted that harvest of immature fish 
in non-terminal mixed stock fisheries results in a decrease in the 
average age of spawning, and causes substantial incidental mortalities 
in mixed stock fisheries. Other commenters contended that recent 
declines in chinook salmon abundance were related to natural factors 
such as predation and changes in ocean productivity. Furthermore, these 
commenters contend that NMFS did not show how the present declines were 
significantly different from natural variability in abundance, nor that 
abundances were below the current carrying capacity of the marine 
environment and freshwater habitat.
    Response: The status review did not attempt to comprehensively 
identify factors for decline, except insofar as they contributed 
directly to the risk analysis. Comments on these issues will be 
considered carefully in the recovery planning process. Nevertheless, 
NMFS agrees that a multitude of factors, past and present, have 
contributed to the decline of west coast chinook salmon. Many of the 
identified factors were specifically cited as risk agents in NMFS's 
status review (Myers et al., 1998) and listing proposal (63 FR 11482, 
March 9, 1998). NMFS recognizes that natural environmental fluctuations 
have likely played a role in the species' recent declines. However, 
NMFS believes other human-induced impacts (e.g., harvest in certain 
fisheries and widespread habitat modification) have played an equally 
significant role in the decline of these chinook salmon.
    NMFS' status review briefly addressed the impact of adverse marine 
conditions and climate change, but concluded that there is considerable 
uncertainty regarding the role of these factors in chinook salmon 
abundance. At this time, we do not know whether these climate 
conditions represent a long-term shift in conditions that will continue 
into the future or short-term environmental fluctuations that can be 
expected to reverse soon. A recent review by Hare et al. (1999) 
suggests that these conditions could be part of an alternating 20- to 
30-year long regime pattern. These authors concluded that, while at-
risk salmon stocks may benefit from a reversal in the current climate/
ocean regime, fisheries management should continue to focus on reducing 
impacts from harvest and artificial propagation and improving 
freshwater and estuarine habitats.
    NMFS believes there is ample evidence to suggest that degradation 
of freshwater habitats has contributed to the decline of these chinook 
salmon ESUs. The past destruction, modification, and curtailment of 
freshwater habitat was reviewed in a recent NMFS assessment for 
steelhead (NMFS, 1996), and, more recently, for chinook salmon (NMFS, 
1998b). Many of the identified risks and conclusions

[[Page 14311]]

apply specifically to these chinook salmon. Examples of habitat 
alterations affecting chinook salmon include: Water withdrawal, 
conveyance, storage, and flood control (resulting in insufficient 
flows, stranding, juvenile entrainment, and increased stream 
temperatures); logging and agriculture (resulting in loss of large 
woody debris, sedimentation, loss of riparian vegetation, and habitat 
simplification)( Spence et al., 1996; Myers et al., 1998). These human-
induced impacts in freshwater ecosystems have likely reduced the 
species' resiliency to natural factors for decline such as drought and 
poor ocean conditions. A critical next step in restoring listed chinook 
salmon will be identifying and ameliorating specific factors for 
decline at both the ESU and population level.
    With respect to predation issues raised by some commenters, NMFS 
has recently published reports describing the impacts of California sea 
lions and Pacific harbor seals upon salmonids and on the coastal 
ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California (NMFS, 1997 and 
1999a). These reports conclude that in certain cases where pinniped 
populations co-occur with depressed salmonid populations, salmon 
populations may experience severe impacts due to predation. An example 
of such a situation is at the Ballard Locks, Washington, where sea 
lions are known to consume significant numbers of adult winter 
steelhead. These reports further conclude that data regarding pinniped 
predation are quite limited, and that substantial additional research 
is needed to fully address this issue. Existing information on the 
seriously depressed status of many salmonid stocks is sufficient to 
warrant actions to remove pinnipeds in areas of co-occurrence where 
pinnipeds prey on depressed salmonid populations (NMFS, 1997 and 
1999a).
    A discussion of the relationship between various hatchery stocks 
and native chinook salmon, and their potential role for recovery of 
specific ESUs follows in ``Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs''.

Issue 4: ESU Delineation and Status of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon

    Comment: Some commented that chinook salmon within Puget Sound are 
too diverse to be combined into a single ESU. They urged that specific 
major river basins and life history types should be recognized as 
distinct chinook salmon ESUs. Conversely, other commenters believed 
that the Puget Sound ESU should include populations in southern British 
Columbia.
    Several commenters were unsure of the accuracy of historical and 
present estimates for Puget Sound abundances. Furthermore, they argued 
that the total abundance of Puget Sound chinook salmon was 
``relatively'' high, even with current harvest levels, and although 
there have been recent declines in escapement, these have been within 
levels of historical variation in abundance and did not warrant a 
threatened listing. It was unclear to the respondents why hatchery-
derived fish were not included in the risk determination, especially if 
the BRT noted that they could not differentiate between hatchery and 
naturally produced fish. Some comments stressed that the majority of 
the trends in Puget Sound were actually stable or upward, and this 
situation was compared to the Mid-Columbia River spring-run chinook 
salmon ESU, where there were an equal number of upward and downward 
trends and relatively low abundance, a situation where NMFS did not 
propose ESA listings. Some commenters provided further information on 
the interpretation of fish abundances, and they argued that many of the 
stock abundances and trends listed in the status review contain a high 
proportion of hatchery fish and should not be included. These sites 
include areas in south Puget Sound and the Kitsap Peninsula. Some 
abundances for rivers in this area are not based on spawning 
escapements, but on a proportion of neighboring river escapements. 
Additionally, Puyallup River estimates are of poor quality and based 
upon a single peak live and dead spawner count. One commenter expressed 
the opinion that none of the populations with a large hatchery stray 
component (e.g. Elwha, Nisqually, and Duwamish/Green Rivers) should be 
used in the risk analysis.
    Some comments suggested that the status review indicated that 
introductions from outside of the ESU (from Lower Columbia River 
hatcheries) may have had a considerable impact on the genetic 
characteristics of Puget Sound fish, and that this may have reduced the 
fitness of the genetics of Puget Sound stocks. Alternatively, another 
commenter accentuated the genetic diversity that exists in the Puget 
Sound ESU, arguing that the status review was misleading in the way 
that it emphasized the homogenizing effects of hatchery releases on the 
diversity of wild stock life history characteristics. The Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Northwest Indian Fish 
Commission (NWIFC) did not disagree with the risk conclusion made by 
the previous BRT that the Puget Sound ESU was likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future (B. Sanford, WDFW, 600 Capitol Way 
N, Olympia, WA 98501-1091 , and G. Graves, NWIFC, 6730 Martin Way E., 
Olympia, WA 98506. Pers. commun., November, 1998).
    Response: The distribution of positive and negative trends is very 
uneven in Puget Sound. The increasing trends are associated with 
populations having high hatchery influence, while downward trends are 
found in populations supported primarily by natural production. These 
data and others (e.g., declining recruit/spawner ratios in Skagit River 
populations) raise serious concerns about the sustainability of natural 
chinook salmon populations in Puget Sound. Since 1991 NMFS has made 
clear that although hatchery populations may be part of a salmon ESU, 
they are not a substitute for the conservation of natural populations 
in their native ecosystems. Therefore, risk analysis focuses on the 
health and sustainability of populations supported by natural 
production. This is consistent with the approach that FWS has taken 
under the ESA for terrestrial and freshwater species and is mandated by 
the ESA's focus on conserving species in their ecosystems.
    New information on these issues, and on the historical and current 
abundance of Puget Sound chinook salmon is discussed in further detail 
in ``Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs''.

Issue 5: ESU Delineation and Status of the Lower Columbia River Chinook 
Salmon

    Comment: Commenters argued that, in light of NMFS' prior 
determination that the Lower Columbia River coho salmon ESU did not 
represent a distinct species, a similar determination should have been 
made for Lower Columbia River chinook salmon. Other commenters 
concurred with NMFS' designation of the Lower Columbia River chinook 
salmon ESU.
    Response: Even though there are uncertainties concerning the 
delineation and status of chinook salmon in this ESU, NMFS concludes 
that the available information, presented by other co-managers, meets 
thresholds for determining distinctness and evolutionary significance 
of these chinook salmon. Since at least several demonstrably native, 
natural populations of chinook salmon remain in the Lower Columbia 
River, there is no basis for concluding that the ESU does not exist.
    Comment: A number of comments suggested that the abundance of some

[[Page 14312]]

hatchery stocks should be included in the risk determination, 
especially in light of the fact that many of these hatcheries contain 
the only representative populations from a number of river systems 
(which were blocked to migratory passage). A peer reviewer argued that 
although NMFS believes there is a potential for hatcheries to pose a 
risk to naturally spawning populations, there was no evidence for this 
to be the case. Finally, it was asserted that population abundances in 
this ESU are well above historical lows, and do not indicate that this 
ESU is in danger of extinction.
    ODFW (1998) recommended that this ESU be given candidate status 
rather than the proposed threatened listing. Specifically, they 
disputed NMFS's exclusion of spring-run chinook salmon in the Sandy and 
Clackamas Rivers. Although these systems have received substantial 
introductions of fish from the upper Willamette River, ODFW (1998) 
argued that there is no a priori reason to assume that the genetic 
resemblance between naturally spawning fish in the Sandy and Clackamas 
Rivers and hatchery fish from the upper Willamette River is due to 
these introductions. Additionally, they also consider the several 
thousand upriver bright fall chinook salmon that are spawning below 
Bonneville Dam as part of this ESU. This population was apparently 
founded by strays from the upriver bright fall-run chinook salmon 
program at Bonneville Hatchery and are viewed by ODFW as a source of 
new genetic diversity. ODFW also outlined efforts to reduce the 
straying of Rogue River fall-run chinook salmon from the Big Creek 
Hatchery program. New information was provided to document the 
abundance of naturally spawning populations in Oregon river basins in 
this ESU. In all, ODFW estimated that there are some 20,000 to 30,000 
natural spawners in the entire ESU.
    Response: The pattern of abundance and trends in this ESU depends 
heavily on which populations are considered. Since 1991 NMFS has made 
clear that, although hatchery populations may be part of a salmon ESU, 
they are not a substitute for the conservation of natural populations 
in their native ecosystems. Therefore, risk analysis focuses on the 
health and sustainability of populations supported by natural 
production. This is consistent with the approach that FWS has taken 
under the ESA for terrestrial and freshwater species and is mandated by 
the ESA's focus on conserving species in their ecosystems. These issues 
are further addressed in detail in ``Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs'.

Issue 6: ESU Delineation and Status of Upper Willamette River Chinook 
Salmon

    Comment: Commenters agreed with NMFS that an Upper Willamette River 
ESU should be defined, but argued that the hatchery populations should 
be included in the ESU and used in assessing the extinction risk. Given 
that NMFS had very little genetic or life history data from naturally 
spawning fish, and relied on information obtained from hatchery-
produced fish to describe the ESU, commenters argued that hatchery fish 
should be considered part of the ESU for the determination of risk 
status. Finally, ODFW (1998) and one peer reviewer argued that hatchery 
abundances should be considered in the risk determination, because 
without hatchery operations the ESU might fail to persist. They also 
contend that total adult abundance is well above historical lows. 
Furthermore, it was suggested that the proposed ODFW Willamette Basin 
Fish Management Plan (WBFMP) would provide additional spawning habitat 
for naturally spawning fish and modify hatchery operations to minimize 
hatchery/wild interactions and loss of genetic integrity.
    Information provided by ODFW (1998) indicated that the naturally 
spawning population in the McKenzie River Basin represents the last of 
five major populations in the ESU. Previously it had been suggested 
that a population in the North Santiam River existed; however, ODFW 
contended that the thermal profile of water releases from Detroit Dam 
significantly lowers the survival of any progeny from naturally 
spawning fish. ODFW concurred with the previous risk conclusion made by 
the BRT that the Upper Willamette River ESU is likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future (J. Martin, ODFW, 2501 SW First 
Avenue, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207. Pers. commun. November 1998).
    Response: If it is true that the ESU would fail to persist without 
the hatchery populations, that is a strong indication that the natural 
populations need protection under the ESA. Also, there is no indication 
that the WBFMP has alleviated the risks facing these chinook salmon. In 
fact, Oregon's Independent Multi-disciplinary Science Team's 
preliminary review of the WBFMP expressed concerns related to the 
WBFMP's framework, effectiveness, and accountability. NMFS believes 
that it is too early to assess the effectiveness of this plan in 
reducing risks faced by spring-run chinook salmon in this ESU.
    Other population-specific issues are further addressed in detail in 
``Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs''.

Issue 7: ESU Delineation and Status of the Upper Columbia River Spring-
Run Chinook Salmon

    Comment: Several respondents agreed with NMFS that chinook salmon 
stocks in this ESU represent an identifiable group that merits 
definition as a separate ESU. A commenter contended that there was no 
scientific basis to exclude spring-run chinook salmon from the Rock 
Island Fish Hatchery Complex and Methow Fish Hatchery Complex from 
consideration in the risk assessment. Furthermore, commenters estimate 
that the total escapement of naturally spawning fish in this ESU 
averages around 5,000 fish, and that given the historical importance of 
these fish and the current ``moderate'' abundance level, a listing of 
``threatened'' rather than endangered is warranted. A peer reviewer 
concurred with the proposed endangered listing, although he suggested 
that the impact of Carson National Fish Hatchery (NFH) spring-run 
introductions were much more limited than was indicated in the status 
review.
    Response: Although there have been strays from the Leavenworth, 
Entiat, and Winthrop NFHs observed spawning naturally near the 
hatcheries, there is little evidence these fish have strayed into the 
upper portions of the watersheds or hybridized extensively with the 
natural populations. Marked strays from other, out-of basin, programs 
(e.g., Dworshak NFH) have been found on the natural spawning grounds. 
These issues are further addressed in detail in the ``Status of Chinook 
Salmon ESUs''.

Issue 8: Consideration of Existing Conservation Measures

    Comment: Several comments expressed concerns about NMFS' reliance 
and characterization of the efficacy of the Northwest Forest Plan 
(NFP), citing significant differences in management practices between 
various Federal land management agencies.
    Response: In the listing proposal, NMFS noted that the NFP requires 
specific management actions on Federal lands, including actions in key 
watersheds in Puget Sound, the Lower Columbia, and Upper Willamette 
Rivers that comply with special standards and guidelines designed to 
preserve their refugia functions for at-risk salmonids (i.e., watershed 
analysis must be completed prior to timber harvests and other 
management actions, road miles should be reduced, no new roads can be 
built in roadless areas, and restoration

[[Page 14313]]

activities are prioritized). In addition, the most significant element 
of the NFP for anadromous fish is its Aquatic Conservation Strategy 
(ACS), a regional-scale aquatic ecosystem conservation strategy that 
includes: (1) Special land allocations (such as key watersheds, 
riparian reserves, and late-successional reserves) to provide aquatic 
habitat refugia; (2) special requirements for project planning and 
design in the form of standards and guidelines; and (3) new watershed 
analysis, watershed restoration, and monitoring processes. These ACS 
components collectively ensure that Federal land management actions 
achieve a set of nine ACS objectives that strive to maintain and 
restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape scales to protect 
habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent species and resources and 
to restore currently degraded habitats. NMFS will continue to support 
the NFP strategy and address Federal land management issues via ESA 
section 7 consultations in concert with this strategy.
    Comment: Several comments expressed concern over the need to list 
these chinook salmon ESUs and the effects of these listings on Indian 
resources, programs, land management, and associated Trust 
responsibilities. Particular concern was expressed about the effects of 
listing Puget Sound chinook salmon on tribal fishing for this and other 
species, and further noted that the tribes had foregone significant 
harvest opportunities in the interest of protecting at-risk salmon 
stocks.
    Response: NMFS believes that the best available scientific 
information supports listing these chinook salmon ESUs under the ESA. 
NMFS acknowledges that these listings may impact Indian resources, 
programs, land management and associated Trust responsibilities. NMFS 
will continue to work closely with affected Indian tribes as harvest 
and other management issues arise and will continue to support the 
development of strong and credible tribal and state conservation 
efforts to restore listed chinook salmon and other west coast salmon 
populations.

Summary of Chinook Salmon ESU Determinations

    The following is a summary of NMFS' ESU determinations for the 
species. A more detailed discussion of ESU determinations is presented 
in the chinook salmon status review (Myers et al., 1998) and the recent 
status review update (NMFS, 1998a). Copies of these documents are 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
    NMFS also evaluated the relationship between hatchery and natural 
populations of chinook salmon in these ESUs. In examining this 
relationship, NMFS scientists consulted with hatchery managers to 
determine whether any hatchery populations are similar enough to 
native, naturally spawned fish to be considered part of the biological 
ESU (NMFS, 1999b).

(1) Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU

    This ESU includes all naturally spawned chinook populations 
residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, 
natural waterfalls) in the Puget Sound region from the North Fork 
Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula, inclusive. 
NMFS reviewed, and reiterates, its previous conclusions that chinook 
salmon in the Elwha, North Fork Nooksack, and South Fork Nooksack 
Rivers are part of the Puget Sound ESU, while chinook salmon 
populations from Southern British Columbia are not. The Puget Sound 
chinook salmon ESU corresponds closely to the Puget Lowland Ecoregion. 
Although the Elwha River chinook salmon population does fall outside 
this Ecoregion, its genetic and life history attributes show it is a 
transitional population between Washington Coast and Puget Sound ESUs. 
NMFS did not receive any new information that suggests its proposed 
determination was inaccurate.
    As a result of the extensive history of artificial production in 
Puget Sound, it was difficult to clearly distinguish between some 
historic natural runs of chinook, and naturally spawning populations 
resulting from hatchery introductions. Based on comments received and 
technical meetings with co-managers, NMFS concludes that, unless there 
is sufficient evidence that they resulted from out-of-ESU 
introductions, naturally spawned populations within the geographic 
boundaries of the Puget Sound ESU generally should be considered part 
of the biological ESU. One exception is that naturally-spawning 
descendants from the spring-run chinook salmon program at the Quilcene 
National Fish Hatchery (Quilcene and Sol Duc stocks) and their progeny 
are not considered part of the Puget Sound ESU. NMFS believes that the 
inclusion of naturally spawning chinook populations founded by hatchery 
populations which originated from within the ESU (even if they may not 
be representative of the historical local stock or which may represent 
a mixture of within-ESU stocks) may play an important role in the 
recovery process. What role individual populations might play in 
recovery will be determined during the recovery process, taking into 
consideration the origin and status of the current population.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to the ESU

    NMFS identified 38 hatchery stocks associated with the Puget Sound 
ESU (NMFS, 1999b; Table 1).

                         Table 1.--Status of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Hatchery Stocks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Essential for
     Hatchery population                Run               In/out of ESU?           recovery?          Listed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Ck...................  Spring...............  In...................  Yes.................  Yes.
Kendall Ck./Samish R.........  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Clark Ck.....................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Marblemount (I)..............  Summer...............  In...................  No..................  No.
Marblemount (II).............  Summer...............  In...................  No..................  No.
Marblemount..................  Spring...............  In...................  No..................  No.
N. Fk. Stillaguamish R.......  Summer...............  In...................  Yes.................  Yes.
May Ck./Wallace R............  Summer...............  In...................  No..................  No.
Soos Ck......................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Tulalip Tribal...............  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Tulalip Tribal...............  Spring...............  In...................  No..................  No.
Puyallup.....................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Minter Ck....................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Coulter Ck...................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Keta Ck......................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Grover's Ck..................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.

[[Page 14314]]

 
Garrison Springs.............  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Kalama Ck....................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Nisqually (Clear Ck.)........  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
McAllister Ck................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Deschutes R. (WA)............  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Little Boston Ck.............  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
George Adams.................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Hoodsport....................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Skokomish (Enetai)...........  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Big Beef Ck..................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Samish R.....................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Lummi Sea Ponds..............  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Bellingham Heritage..........  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Glenwood Springs.............  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Univ. of Washington..........  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Issaquah Ck..................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
White R......................  Spring...............  In...................  Yes.................  Yes.
Sol Duc......................  Spring...............  Out..................  No..................  No.
Finch Ck.....................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Quilcene R...................  Spring...............  Out..................  No..................  No.
Dungeness R..................  Spring...............  In...................  Yes.................  Yes.
Elwha R......................  Fall.................  In...................  Yes.................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMFS has revised the criteria used by the BRTs to decide whether or 
not a hatchery population is part of the biological ESU. Details of 
these new criteria are discussed in the ``Evaluation of the Status of 
Chinook and Chum Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Populations for ESUs 
Identified in Final Listing Determinations'' memo (NMFS, 1999b). After 
reviewing the best available information regarding the relationship 
between hatchery and natural populations in this ESU, NMFS concludes 
that 36 hatchery stocks should be considered part of the ESU. The 
listing status of the hatchery stocks is described later in this 
document under ``Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs.''

(2) Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon ESU

    This ESU includes all naturally spawned chinook populations 
residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, 
natural waterfalls) from the mouth of the Columbia River to the crest 
of the Cascade Range just east of the Hood River in Oregon and the 
White Salmon River in Washington. This ESU excludes populations above 
Willamette Falls, and others as specifically noted in the discussion 
that follows. Within this ESU, there are historic runs of three 
different chinook salmon populations: spring-run, tule, and late-fall 
``bright'' chinook salmon.
    NMFS discussed at length the status of several chinook salmon 
populations in the Lower Columbia River. As discussed in the preceding 
ESU section, because of the extensive history of artificial production 
in the Lower Columbia River, it was difficult to clearly distinguish 
between historic natural runs of chinook, and naturally spawning 
populations resulting from hatchery introductions. Based on comments 
received and technical meetings with co-managers, NMFS concludes that, 
unless there is sufficient evidence that they resulted from out-of-ESU 
introductions, naturally spawned populations within the geographic 
boundaries of the Lower Columbia River ESU generally should be 
considered part of the biological ESU. NMFS believes that the inclusion 
of naturally spawned chinook populations founded by hatchery 
populations which originated from within the ESU (even if they may not 
be representative of the historical local stock or which may represent 
a mixture of within-ESU stocks) may play an important role in the 
recovery process. What role individual populations might play in 
recovery will be determined during the recovery process, taking into 
consideration the origin and status of the current population.
    NMFS concludes that, based on new information received since the 
proposed rule, although fish introduced from the Upper Willamette River 
ESU have probably interbred with indigenous spring-run chinook salmon 
in the Sandy River, this population still retains some genetic 
characteristics from the native population. In light of the extirpation 
of the majority of the spring-run populations in this ESU and despite 
the history of introductions from outside of the ESU, this population 
may be an important genetic resource and is considered part of the 
Lower Columbia River ESU. In contrast, naturally spawned Clackamas 
River spring-run chinook salmon are considered part of the Upper 
Willamette River ESU, and the fall-run fish, descended from Upper 
Columbia River Bright hatchery stocks, that spawn in the mainstem 
Columbia River below Bonneville Dam and in other Bonneville Pool 
tributaries (Lower River brights) are considered part of the Upper 
Columbia River summer- and fall-run ESU. Not included in this ESU are 
spring-run chinook salmon derived from the Round Butte Hatchery 
(Deschutes River, Oregon) (and their progeny) and spawning in the Hood 
River, spring-run chinook salmon derived from the Carson NFH (and their 
progeny) and spawning in the Wind River, and naturally spawning fish 
originating from the Rogue River fall chinook program (and their 
progeny).
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to the ESU
    NMFS identified 23 hatchery stocks associated with the Lower 
Columbia River ESU (NMFS, 1999b; Table 2).

[[Page 14315]]



                     Table 2.--Status of Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon Hatchery Stocks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Essential for
     Hatchery population                Run               In/out of ESU?           recovery?          Listed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Resources Net Pens.......  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Abernathy SCTC...............  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Grays R......................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Elochomin....................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Cowlitz R....................  Spring...............  In...................  Yes.................  No
Cowlitz R....................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Toutle R.....................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Kalama R.....................  Spring...............  In...................  No..................  No.
Kalama R.....................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Lewis R......................  Spring...............  In...................  No..................  No.
Washougal R..................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Carson NFH...................  Spring...............  Out..................  No..................  No.
Little White Salmon R........  Fall.................  Out..................  No..................  No.
Spring Ck. NFH...............  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Klickitat R..................  Fall.................  Out..................  No..................  No.
Youngs Bay...................  Spring...............  Out..................  No..................  No.
Big Ck. (13).................  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Rogue R (52).................  Fall.................  Out..................  No..................  No.
Klaskanine R.................  Spring...............  Out..................  No..................  No.
Klaskanine R (15)............  Fall.................  In...................  No..................  No.
Bonneville H. URB (95).......  Fall.................  Out..................  No..................  No.
Sandy R (Clackamas 19).......  Spring...............  Out..................  No..................  No.
Hood River (66)..............  Spring...............  Out..................  No..................  No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the best available information regarding the 
relationship between hatchery and natural populations in this ESU, NMFS 
concludes that 14 hatchery stocks should be considered part of the ESU 
and the remaining nine stocks not part of the ESU (Table 2). The 
listing status of the hatchery stocks is described later in this 
document under ``Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs.''

(3) Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon ESU

    NMFS reviewed its previous decision on the proposed designation of 
the Upper Willamette River ESU. Information provided by ODFW (1998) 
indicates that at present the only significant natural production of 
spring-run chinook salmon occurs in the McKenzie River Basin. 
Previously, Nicholas et al. (1995) had also suggested that a self-
sustaining population may exist in the North Santiam River Basin. In 
general, NMFS considers that naturally spawned spring-run chinook 
salmon are part of the ESU, unless it can be shown to have originated 
from outside of the ESU. NMFS specifically excludes fall-run chinook 
salmon from this ESU. Fall-run fish are not native to the basin, having 
been introduced above Willamette Falls on several occasions throughout 
this century and, therefore, are not part of this ESU. NMFS did not 
determine to which ESU, if any, these fall-run fish belong.
    As previously described, NMFS concludes that the presently 
naturally spawned population of spring-run chinook salmon in the 
Clackamas River derives from this ESU. NMFS could not determine, based 
on available information, whether this represents an historical 
affinity or a recent, human-mediated expansion into the Clackamas 
River. In any case, the current Clackamas River population represents a 
genetic resource that might be useful in the recovery of the Upper 
Willamette River ESU.
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to the ESU
    NMFS identified 6 hatchery stocks associated with the Upper 
Willamette River ESU (NMFS, 1999b; Table 3).

                    Table 3.--Status of Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon Hatchery Stocks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Essential for
     Hatchery population                Run               In/out of ESU?           recovery?          Listed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N. Fk. Santiam R. (21).......  Spring...............  In...................  No..................  No.
M. Fk. Willamette R. (22)....  Spring...............  In...................  No..................  No.
McKenzie R. (23).............  Spring...............  In...................  No..................  No.
S. Fk. Santiam R. (24).......  Spring...............  In...................  No..................  No.
Clackamas R. (19)............  Spring...............  In...................  No..................  No.
Stayton Ponds (14)...........  Fall.................  Out..................  No..................  No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the best available information regarding the 
relationship between hatchery and natural populations in this ESU, NMFS 
concludes that all but the Stayton Ponds hatchery stock should be 
considered part of the ESU (Table 3). The listing status of the 
hatchery stocks is described later in this document under ``Status of 
Chinook Salmon ESUs.''

(4) Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Salmon ESU

    Although the spring-run chinook salmon populations in this ESU were 
effectively homogenized during the implementation of the Grand Coulee 
Fish Management Program (GCFMP) (1939-1943), NMFS concurs with its 
previous conclusion that this ESU contains the only remaining genetic 
resources of those spring-run chinook

[[Page 14316]]

salmon that migrated into the upper Columbia River Basin (including 
fish that would have spawned in Canada) and is distinct from other 
stream-type chinook salmon ESUs. After considering information provided 
by co-managers, NMFS determined that naturally spawning spring-run 
chinook salmon (and their progeny) derived from Carson NFH are not part 
of this ESU. Hatchery Populations Pertaining to the ESU
    NMFS identified 10 hatchery stocks associated with the Upper 
Columbia River spring-run ESU (NMFS, 1999b; Table 4).

               Table 4.--Status of Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Salmon Hatchery Stocks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Essential for
     Hatchery population                Run               In/out of ESU?           recovery?          Listed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winthrop NFH.................  Spring...............  Out..................  No..................  No.
Entiat NFH...................  Spring...............  Out..................  No..................  No.
Leavenworth NFH..............  Spring...............  Out..................  No..................  No.
Chiwawa R....................  Spring...............  In...................  Yes.................  Yes.
Methow R.....................  Spring...............  In...................  Yes.................  Yes.
Twisp R......................  Spring...............  In...................  Yes.................  Yes.
Chewuch R....................  Spring...............  In...................  Yes.................  Yes.
White R......................  Spring...............  In...................  Yes.................  Yes.
Nason Cr.....................  Spring...............  In...................  Yes.................  Yes.
Ringold H....................  Spring...............  Out..................  No..................  No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the best available information regarding the 
relationship between hatchery and natural populations in this ESU, NMFS 
concludes that six hatchery stocks should be considered part of the ESU 
and the remaining four stocks not part of the ESU (Table 4). The 
listing status of the hatchery stocks is described later in this 
document under ``Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs.''

Summary of Factors Affecting Chinook Salmon

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS' listing regulations (50 CFR 
part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary of 
Commerce (Secretary) must determine, through the regulatory process, if 
a species is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a 
combination of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made 
factors affecting its continued existence.
    The factors threatening naturally spawned chinook salmon throughout 
its range are numerous and varied. The present depressed condition is 
the result of several long-standing, human-induced factors (e.g., 
habitat degradation, water diversions, harvest, and artificial 
propagation) that serve to exacerbate the adverse effects of natural 
environmental variability from such factors as drought, floods, and 
poor ocean conditions.
    As noted earlier, NMFS received numerous comments regarding the 
relative importance of various factors contributing to the decline of 
chinook salmon. A summary of various risk factors and their roles in 
the decline of west coast chinook salmon was presented in NMFS' March 
9, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 11482), as well as in several ``Factors 
for Decline'' reports published in conjunction with proposed rules for 
steelhead and for chinook (NMFS, Factors Contributing to the Decline of 
Chinook Salmon: An Addendum to the 1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors 
for Decline Report, June, 1998 (NMFS 1998b); NMFS, Factors for Decline: 
A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead 
Under the Endangered Species Act, 1996, NMFS, 1996).

Efforts Being Made To Protect West Coast Chinook Salmon

    Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is 
required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available and after taking into account 
efforts being made to protect a species. During the status review for 
west coast chinook salmon and for other salmonids, NMFS reviewed 
protective efforts ranging in scope from regional strategies to local 
watershed initiatives; some of the major efforts are summarized in the 
March 9, 1998, proposed rule (63 FR 11482). Since then, NMFS has 
received some new information regarding these and other efforts being 
made to protect chinook salmon. Notable efforts within the range of the 
chinook ESUs proposed for listing continue to be the NFP, PACFISH, 
Lower Columbia River National Estuary Program, Lower Columbia Steelhead 
Conservation Initiative, Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, 
Washington Wild Stock Restoration Initiative, and Washington Wild 
Salmonid Policy.
    An additional Federal effort affecting the Upper Columbia River 
spring-run chinook salmon ESU, the Interior Columbia Basin, Ecosystem 
Management Project (ICBEMP), was not addressed in the proposed rule. 
The ICBEMP addresses Federal lands in this region that are managed 
under U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) or Land Use Plans which are 
amended by PACFISH. PACFISH provides objectives, standards and 
guidelines that are applied to all Federal land management activities 
such as timber harvest, road construction, mining, grazing, and 
recreation. USFS and BLM implemented PACFISH in 1995 and intended it to 
provide interim protection to anadromous fish habitat while a longer 
term, basin scale aquatic conservation strategy was developed in the 
ICBEMP. It is intended that ICBEMP will have a Final Environmental 
Impact Statement and Record of Decision by early 2000.
    For other ESUs already listed in the Interior Columbia Basin (e.g., 
Snake River chinook, Snake River steelhead, Upper Columbia River 
steelhead), NMFS' ESA section 7 consultations have required several 
components that are in addition to the PACFISH strategy (NMFS, 1995; 
NMFS, 1998c). NMFS, USFS, and BLM intend these additional components to 
bridge the gap between interim PACFISH direction and the longterm 
strategy envisioned for ICBEMP. NMFS anticipates that these components 
will also be carried forward in the ICBEMP direction. These components 
include (but are not limited to) implementation monitoring and

[[Page 14317]]

accountability, a system of watersheds that are prioritized for 
protection and restoration, improved and monitored grazing systems, 
road system evaluation and planning requirements, mapping and analysis 
of unroaded areas, multi-year restoration strategies, and batching and 
analyzing projects at the watershed scale. Given the timeframe for 
ICBEMP, NMFS will likely conduct similar additional section 7 
consultations for the LRMPs within the Upper Columbia River spring-run 
chinook salmon ESU and will then consult on ICBEMP when it is complete.
    In the range of the Lower Columbia and Willamette River ESUs, 
several notable efforts have recently been initiated. Harvest, 
hatchery, and habitat protections under state control are evolving 
under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Plan). The plan is a 
long-term effort to protect all at-risk wild salmonids through 
cooperation between state, local and Federal agencies, tribal 
governments, industry, private organizations and individuals. Parts of 
the Plan are already providing benefits including an aggressive program 
by the Oregon Department of Transportation to inventory, repair, and 
replace road culverts that block fish from reaching important spawning 
and rearing areas. The Plan also encourages efforts to improve 
conditions for salmon through non-regulatory means, including 
significant efforts by local watershed councils. An Independent Multi 
disciplinary Science Team provides scientific oversight to plan 
components and outcomes. A recent Executive Order from Governor 
Kitzhaber reinforced his expectation that all state agencies will make 
improved environmental health and salmon recovery part of their 
mission.
    Protecting and restoring fish and wildlife habitat and population 
levels in the Willamette River Basin, promoting proper floodplain 
management, and enhancing water quality is the focus of the recently 
formed Willamette Restoration Initiative (WRI). The WRI creates a 
mechanism through which residents of the basin are mounting a 
concerted, collaborative effort to restore watershed health. In 
addition, habitat protection and improved water quality in the 
Portland/Vancouver metropolitan areas are getting unprecedented 
attention from local jurisdictions. The regional government, Metro, 
recently adopted an aggressive stream and floodplain protection 
ordinance designed to protect functions and values of floodplains, and 
natural stream and adjacent vegetated corridors. All jurisdictions in 
the region must amend their land use plans and implementing ordinances 
to comply with the Metro ordinance within 18 months. Metro also has a 
Green spaces acquisition program that addresses regional biodiversity, 
and is giving protection to significant amounts of land, some of it on 
the Sandy River or on tributaries to the Willamette River. The City of 
Portland has identified those activities which impact salmonids and is 
now using that information to reduce impacts of existing programs and 
to identify potential enhancement actions. The City will shortly be 
making significant improvements in its storm water management program, 
a key to reducing impacts on salmonid habitat.
    Across the Columbia River in Washington State, critical riparian 
areas are being acquired and preserved under Clark County's 
Conservation Futures Open Space Program. This program is entirely 
locally funded and has already acquired more than 2,000 acres of 
habitat critical to numerous fish and wildlife species. Improvements to 
the county's Critical Areas Ordinance are also under consideration and 
an 18 member task force has been formed to develop a salmonid recovery 
plan. Also, an inventory of factors limiting salmonid survival is being 
compiled for individual lower Columbia River watersheds in Washington 
State by the Lower Columbia River Fish Recovery Board. Established by 
the State Legislature, the Board will begin using this information 
later this year to help prioritize and implement improved land-use 
regulations and habitat restoration activities over a five-county area.
    In the lower Columbia River, salmonid populations were seriously 
depleted long before increasing predator populations posed any 
significant threat to their long-term survival. Various development and 
management actions have interrupted the natural balance between 
predator and prey populations, and this situation now poses a risk to 
struggling salmonid populations. For example, steps have already been 
taken this year by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), FWS, Oregon 
and Washington Fish and Wildlife agencies and NMFS to relocate at least 
90 percent of a Caspian tern colony away from areas in the lower 
Columbia where their primary food is juvenile salmonids.
    NMFS and FWS are also engaged in an ongoing effort to assist in the 
development of multiple species Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) for 
state and privately owned lands in Oregon and Washington. While section 
7 of the ESA addresses species protection associated with Federal 
actions and lands, Habitat Conservation Planning under section 10 of 
the ESA addresses species protection on private (non-Federal) lands. 
HCPs are particularly important since well over half of the habitat in 
the range of the Puget Sound, Lower Columbia River, and Upper 
Willamette spring-run chinook ESUs is in non-Federal ownership. The 
intent of the HCP process is to ensure that any incidental taking of 
listed species will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival 
of the species, reduce conflicts between listed species and economic 
development activities, and to provide a framework that would encourage 
``creative partnerships'' between the public and private sectors and 
state, municipal, and Federal agencies in the interests of endangered 
and threatened species and habitat conservation.
    NMFS will continue to evaluate state, tribal, and non-Federal 
efforts to develop and implement measures to protect and begin the 
recovery of chinook salmon populations within these ESUs. Because a 
substantial portion of land in these ESUs is in state or private 
ownership, conservation measures on these lands will be key to 
protecting and recovering chinook salmon populations in these ESUs. 
NMFS recognizes that strong conservation benefits will accrue from 
specific components of many non-Federal conservation efforts.
    While NMFS acknowledges that many of the ongoing protective efforts 
are likely to promote the conservation of chinook salmon and other 
salmonids, some are very recent and few address salmon conservation at 
a scale that is adequate to protect and conserve entire ESUs. NMFS 
concludes that existing protective efforts are inadequate to preclude a 
listing for the Puget Sound, Upper Columbia River spring-run, Lower 
Columbia River, and Upper Willamette River ESUs. However, NMFS will 
continue to encourage these and future protective efforts and will work 
with Federal, state, and tribal fisheries managers to evaluate, 
promote, and improve efforts to conserve chinook salmon populations.

Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs

    Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as 
``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is 
defined as ``any species which is likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' Thompson (1991) suggested that conventional 
rules of thumb, analytical

[[Page 14318]]

approaches, and simulations may all be useful in making this 
determination. In previous status reviews (e.g., Weitkamp et al., 
1995), NMFS has identified a number of factors that should be 
considered in evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU, including: 
(1) absolute numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal 
distribution; (2) current abundance in relation to historical abundance 
and current carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in abundance; 
(4) natural and human-influenced factors that cause variability in 
survival and abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity 
(e.g., from strays or outplants from hatchery programs); and (6) recent 
events (e.g., a drought or changes in harvest management) that have 
predictable short-term consequences for abundance of the ESU.
    During the coastwide status review for chinook salmon, NMFS 
evaluated both quantitative and qualitative information to determine 
whether any proposed ESU is threatened or endangered according to the 
ESA. The types of information used in these assessments are described 
in the proposed rule, published March 9, 1998 (63 FR 11482). The 
assessments also considered whether any of the hatchery populations 
identified in ``Summary of Chinook Salmon ESU Determinations'' should 
be considered essential for the recovery of a listed ESU. The following 
summaries draw on these quantitative and qualitative assessments to 
describe NMFS' conclusions regarding the status of each chinook salmon 
ESU. A more detailed discussion of the status of these chinook salmon 
ESUs is presented in the updated status review (NMFS, 1998a).

(1) Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU

    Updated abundance information through 1997-98 was obtained for 
almost all streams in the Puget Sound ESU. Recent estimated escapements 
of chinook salmon to rivers in this ESU ranged from 38 spring/summer-
run chinook salmon in the Dungeness River to almost 7,000 summer/fall 
chinook salmon in the Skagit River Basin. Most of the 36 streams with 
data available continue to exhibit declines in estimated abundance. 
Seven of the 10 streams with positive trends in abundance are 
considered to be influenced by hatchery fish. Both long- and short-term 
trends for natural chinook salmon runs in North Puget Sound were 
negative, with few exceptions. In South Puget Sound, both long- and 
short-term trends in abundance were predominantly positive (NMFS, 
1998a).
    Estimating historic abundance is difficult. Bledsoe et al. (1989) 
estimated that the total Puget Sound catch in 1908 was approximately 
670,000 fish (based on a catch of 2.1 million kg.), at a time when both 
ocean harvest and hatchery production were negligible. This estimate, 
as with other historical estimates, should be viewed cautiously. Puget 
Sound cannery pack probably included a portion of fish landed at Puget 
Sound ports but originating in adjacent areas, and cannery pack 
represents only a portion of the total catch. Also, the estimates of 
exploitation rates used in run-size expansions are not based on precise 
data. Recent mean spawning escapements totaling 71,000 correspond to a 
naturally spawning escapement entering Puget Sound of approximately 
160,000 fish based on run reconstruction of escapement and commercial 
landings within Puget Sound (Big Eagle and LGL, 1995). Expanding this 
estimate by the fraction of 1982-1989 average total harvest mortalities 
of Puget Sound chinook salmon stocks in intercepting ocean fisheries 
(exclusive of U.S. net fisheries) and U.S. recreational fisheries would 
yield a recent average potential run size of 426,000 chinook salmon 
(both hatchery and wild adults) into Puget Sound (Pacific Salmon 
Commission (PSC) 1994, appendices F and G).
    Currently, escapement to rivers in Puget Sound and Hood Canal is 
monitored by WDFW and the Northwest Indian tribes. The Nooksack River 
has spring/summer-runs in the north and south forks. Escapement to the 
South Fork is monitored by redd counts, and the stock is believed to 
have little hatchery influence. Both stocks were rated as ``critical'' 
by WDFW because of chronically low spawning escapements. The Skagit 
River supports three spring-runs, two summer-runs and a fall-run. Mean 
spawning escapement of the summer/fall-run has been almost 7,000 fish 
and has been declining (NMFS, 1998a). Of the six stocks in the Skagit 
River Basin identified by WDF et al. (1993), two are rated healthy, 
three depressed, and one of unknown status. On the Stillaguamish River, 
the combined escapement goal has been met only twice since 1978, and 
the most recent mean abundance consisted of just over 1,000 fish (NMFS, 
1998a). Both runs were rated as ``depressed'' by WDFW (WDF et al., 
1993). Of four runs identified in the Snohomish River system, two are 
rated depressed, one unknown, and one as healthy. Although estimating 
Puget Sound chinook escapement is complicated by large numbers of 
naturally spawning hatchery fish, populations least affected by 
hatcheries are in the northern part of the sound in the Nooksack, 
Skagit, Stillaguamish, and Snohomish River systems.
    In Hood Canal, summer/fall-run chinook salmon spawn in the 
Skokomish, Union, Tahuya, Duckabush, Dosewallips and Hamma Hamma 
Rivers. Because of transfers of hatchery fish, these spawning 
populations are considered to be a single stock (WDF et al., 1993). 
Fisheries in the area are managed primarily for hatchery production and 
secondarily for natural escapement; high harvest rates directed at 
hatchery stocks have resulted in failure to meet natural escapement 
goals in most years (FWS, 1997). The 5-year geometric mean natural 
spawning escapement has been just over 1,000 (NMFS, 1998a), with 
negative short- and long-term trends.
    The ESU also includes the Dungeness and Elwha Rivers, which have 
natural chinook salmon runs as well as hatcheries. The Dungeness River 
has a run of spring/summer-run chinook salmon with a 5-year geometric 
mean natural escapement of only 38 fish (NMFS, 1998a). WDFW maintains a 
captive broodstock program using offspring from local redds on the 
Dungeness River because of the severely depressed numbers (Crawford, 
1998). The Elwha River has a 5-year geometric mean escapement of just 
over 1,500 fish (NMFS 1998a), but it contains two hatcheries, both 
lacking adequate adult recovery facilities. Egg take at the hatcheries 
is augmented from natural spawners, and hatchery fish are known to 
spawn in the wild. Consequently, hatchery and natural spawners are not 
considered discrete stocks (WDF et al., 1993). Both the Dungeness and 
Elwha River populations exhibit severely declining recent trends in 
abundance (NMFS, 1998a). Furthermore, only limited accessible spawning 
habitat remains in the Elwha River Basin, and it is uncertain whether 
the existing population could persist without hatchery intervention.
    As reported in the status review (Myers et al., 1998), a 
substantial amount of habitat throughout the Puget Sound region has 
been degraded or blocked by dams and other barriers. In general, upper 
tributaries have been negatively affected by forest practices and lower 
tributaries and mainstem rivers have been impacted by agriculture and/
or urbanization. Diking for flood control, draining and filling of 
freshwater and estuarine wetlands, and sedimentation due to forest 
practices and urban development are cited as problems throughout the 
ESU (WDF et

[[Page 14319]]

al., 1993). Blockages by dams, water diversions, and shifts in flow 
regime due to hydroelectric development and flood control projects are 
major habitat problems in several basins (Bishop and Morgan, 1996; 
Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group, 1997). Increasing percentages of 
land in the Puget Sound area are composed of impermeable surfaces, and 
the reductions in habitat quality due to point-and non-point source 
pollutants have been widespread (McCain et al., 1988; Puget Sound Water 
Quality Authority, 1988; Palmisano et al., 1993), and the direct and 
indirect impacts of the reduction in habitat quality on chinook salmon 
have just begun to be explored. For example, recent research has shown 
that juvenile chinook salmon from a contaminated estuary in Puget Sound 
are more susceptible to disease pathogens than are juvenile chinook 
salmon from a non-urban estuary (Arkoosh et al., 1998a and 1998b).
    Harvest impacts on Puget Sound chinook salmon stocks have been 
quite high in the past. Ocean exploitation rates on natural stocks 
averaged 56-59 percent; total exploitation rates on some stocks have 
exceeded 90 percent (PSC, 1994). Although total exploitation rates 
averaged 68-83 percent for the 1982-89 brood years (PSC, 1994), there 
is some evidence they have decreased in the past 3 to 4 years (Peter 
Dygert, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E. Seattle, WA 98115-0070. Pers. 
comm., February 18, 1998). Recent changes in hatchery management 
practices may include a program to mass mark hatchery chinook salmon 
with adipose fin clips (Bruce Sanford, WDFW, 600 Capitol Way N, 
Olympia, WA 98501-1091. Pers. comm., November, 1998). The mass marking 
program is designed to assist managers in implementing selective 
fisheries. The enhanced ability to visually identify chinook salmon of 
hatchery origin in fisheries and for spawning ground surveys may be a 
positive outcome of the mass marking program. However, there are 
questions about our ability to accurately measure hooking mortality of 
natural spawners in multiple hook and release fisheries.
    Moreover, as a byproduct of a proposed mass-marking strategy, a 
small fraction of hatchery-origin chinook salmon would receive coded-
wire tags but would not have their adipose fins removed, in order to 
estimate the behavior of naturally produced chinook salmon in selective 
fisheries. Therefore, NMFS believes that technical difficulties may 
increase in detecting coded-wire tagged chinook salmon as a result of 
changes in the adipose marking program. In addition, valuable stock-
specific abundance and mortality schedule information for chinook 
salmon may be more difficult to obtain if recovery of coded-wire tags 
is compromised under the new management practices.
    NMFS' concerns about the status of this ESU are related to risks 
associated with population trends and productivity. NMFS believes that 
widespread declines and outright losses of the spring- and summer-run 
chinook populations represent a significant reduction in the life 
history diversity of this ESU. Additionally, NMFS is concerned about 
the significant declines in abundance from historical levels in many 
streams in Puget Sound. The population sizes in many streams are small 
enough that stochastic genetic and demographic processes are important 
risk factors. Two of the three largest remaining chinook salmon runs in 
this ESU that are not heavily influenced by hatchery fish (Skagit and 
Snohomish Rivers) are declining in abundance. Indeed, in most streams 
for which abundance data are available, both long-and short-term trends 
in abundance are declining.
    Degradation and loss of freshwater and estuarine habitat throughout 
the range of the ESU were additional sources of risk to chinook salmon 
in Puget Sound identified by NMFS. Furthermore, recent studies suggest 
that effects of pollutants on early life history stages of chinook 
salmon also contribute to the stress on fish in this ESU. Historically 
high harvest rates in ocean and Puget Sound fisheries were likely to be 
a significant source of risk in the past; NMFS is hopeful that recently 
established lower harvest targets for Puget Sound stocks will reduce 
threats to the persistence of the ESU due to reductions in direct 
mortality and size-selective fisheries.
    Hatchery chinook salmon are widespread in the Puget Sound ESU, 
although there are no precise estimates of the proportion of natural 
spawners of hatchery origin. NMFS found that although chinook salmon 
are relatively well-distributed geographically in the Puget Sound 
region, the extensive transplanting of hatchery fish throughout the 
area makes identifying native, naturally self-sustaining runs 
difficult. Recent proposals to mass mark hatchery fish may be helpful 
in assessing the status and managing abundance of fish in this ESU. 
However, the resulting technical difficulties associated with detecting 
coded-wire tagged fish under the new marking design may hinder 
collection efforts for that important data base and compromise the 
management tools currently used to manage chinook salmon in Canadian 
and U. S. fisheries.
Listing Determination
    Based on available information, NMFS concludes that chinook salmon 
in the Puget Sound ESU are not presently in danger of extinction, but 
they are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, NMFS determines that Puget Sound chinook salmon warrant 
listing as a threatened species under the ESA. In this ESU, all 
naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon residing below 
impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, natural waterfalls) 
are listed. This ESU does not include naturally spawning descendants 
from the spring-run chinook salmon program at the Quilcene National 
Fish Hatchery (Quilcene and Sol Duc stocks) and their progeny.
Status of Hatchery Populations
    NMFS concludes that five of the hatchery chinook salmon stocks 
identified as part of this ESU (see ``Summary of Chinook Salmon ESU 
Determinations'') should be listed (as well as their progeny) since 
they are currently essential for the its recovery (NMFS, 1999b; Table 
1). The listed hatchery stocks are: Kendall Creek (spring run); North 
Fork Stillaguamish River (summer run); White River (spring run); 
Dungeness River (spring run); and Elwha River (fall run).

(2) Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon

    Updated abundance information through 1997-98 was obtained for many 
streams in the Lower Columbia River ESU. Smaller tributary streams in 
the lower reaches of the Columbia River (e.g., Big, Skamokawa and Gnat 
Creeks, and Elochoman, Youngs, Klaskanine, and Grays Rivers) support 
naturally-spawning chinook salmon runs numbering in the hundreds of 
fish. The larger tributaries, such as the Cowlitz River Basin streams, 
contain natural runs of chinook salmon ranging in size from 100 to 
almost 1,000 fish (NMFS, 1998a). It is difficult to obtain precise 
estimates of natural escapements in many streams within the lower 
Columbia River Basin because of the presence of hatchery chinook salmon 
in many areas. Almost all of the streams with data available are 
exhibiting declines in estimated abundance. All of the streams 
considered to be influenced by hatchery fish in this ESU are declining 
in abundance.
    Estimates of historic abundance are available for only a few 
streams in this ESU, but there is widespread agreement

[[Page 14320]]

that natural production has been substantially reduced over the last 
century. In addition to fall-run chinook salmon, this ESU also includes 
spring-run chinook salmon in the Cowlitz, Lewis, Kalama, and Sandy 
Rivers. Historical estimates of spring-run chinook salmon escapement 
into the Cowlitz River Basin are available for the early 1950s (WDF, 
1951; Fulton, 1968). The estimated total escapement of spring-run 
chinook salmon was 10,400 to the Cowlitz River, and this total was 
distributed as 1,700 spring-run chinook salmon into the mainstem 
Cowlitz River, 8,100 into the Cispus River, and 200 and 400 fish into 
the Tilton and Toutle Rivers, respectively (WDF, 1951). The historical 
estimate of spring-run chinook salmon escaping into the Sandy River in 
the 1950s was 1,000 fish (Fulton, 1968), although it may have been as 
high as 12,000 fish historically (Mattson, 1955). Recent abundance of 
spawners through 1996-97 includes a 5-year geometric mean natural 
spawning escapement of only 3,600 spring-run fish in the entire ESU 
(NMFS, 1998a).
    Historical estimates of fall-run chinook salmon in the Lower 
Columbia River ESU also are available for the early 1950s in the 
Cowlitz River Basin (WDF, 1951; Fulton, 1968). The estimated total 
escapement of fall-run chinook salmon to the Cowlitz River was 31,000 
fish, of which 10,900 were estimated to escape to the mainstem Cowlitz 
River, 8,100 to the Cispus River, 6,500 to the Toutle River, 5,000 to 
the Coweeman River, and 500 to the Tilton River (WDF, 1951). In 
addition, estimates of fall-run chinook salmon into the smaller 
tributaries in the lower Columbia River (i.e., Klaskanine, Elochoman, 
Clatskanie Rivers and Big and Gnat Creeks) was a total of 4,000 fish 
(Fulton, 1968). Fulton (1968) also provided estimates of escapement of 
fall-run chinook into the Lewis (n=5,000), Washougal (n=3,000) and the 
Kalama (n=20,000) Rivers for the 1950s. Based on these reports, it is 
possible to estimate historical abundance in the ESU of at least 63,000 
fall-run chinook salmon escaping to spawn in the lower Columbia River 
region in the 1950s. It is important to note that by the 1950s the 
Lower Columbia River chinook salmon stocks had already declined 
considerably from pre-European settlement levels, and hatchery 
production was already substantial.
    Currently, spawning escapement to populations on the Washington 
side of the Columbia River are monitored primarily by peak fish counts 
in index areas (WDF et al., 1993). Estimates of spring- and fall-runs 
to the mainstem Columbia River tributaries are routinely reported by 
fishery management agencies (WDFW and ODFW, 1994; (Pacific Fisheries 
Management Council (PFMC), 1996). Peak index area spawning counts are 
expanded to estimate total spawning escapement. In most lower Columbia 
River tributaries in Oregon, foot surveys are conducted and escapement 
estimates are based on peak spawner counts or redd counts (Theis and 
Melcher, 1995), and dam counts are available for the Sandy River. Data 
through 1996-97 indicate that the lower Columbia River fall-run 
currently includes 34,000 natural spawners (NMFS, 1998a), but according 
to the PFMC (1996b), approximately 68% of the natural spawners are 
first-generation hatchery strays. Long-term trends in escapement for 
the fall- and spring-run are mixed, with most larger stocks showing 
positive trends (NMFS, 1998a). Short-term trends in abundance for both 
runs are more negative. The only remaining spring-run chinook salmon 
populations that are not showing severe declines in abundance are those 
on the Sandy and Hood Rivers (NMFS, 1998a), and these are both heavily 
influenced by hatchery fish; in addition, the spring-run in the Hood 
River may not be representative of the native stock (Kostow et al., 
1995).
    All basins are affected to varying degrees by habitat degradation. 
Major habitat problems are related primarily to blockages, forest 
practices, urbanization in the Portland and Vancouver areas, and 
agriculture in floodplains and low-gradient tributaries.
    Hatchery programs to enhance chinook salmon fisheries in the lower 
Columbia River began in the 1870s, expanded rapidly, and have continued 
throughout this century. Although the majority of the stocks have come 
from within this ESU, over 200 million fish from outside the ESU have 
been released since 1930 (Myers et al., 1998). Available evidence 
indicates a pervasive influence of hatchery fish on natural populations 
throughout this ESU, including both spring- and fall-run populations 
(Howell et al., 1985; Marshall et al., 1995). In addition, the exchange 
of eggs among hatcheries in this ESU apparently has led to extensive 
genetic homogenization of hatchery stocks (Utter et al., 1989). A 
particular concern at the time the status review was prepared is the 
straying by Rogue River fall-run chinook salmon, large numbers of which 
are released into the lower Columbia River to augment harvest 
opportunities (Myers et al., 1998). Beginning in 1997, ODFW began 
restricting the release sites of the Rogue River hatchery fall-run 
chinook salmon to Youngs Bay in the Lower Columbia River, where an 
intensive chinook salmon fishery occurs (ODFW, 1998). ODFW hopes that 
reducing the number of sites where the Rogue River fish are released 
and targeting those hatchery fish in an active chinook salmon fishery 
will reduce the incidence of straying of non-ESU fish into lower 
Columbia River tributaries (ODFW, 1998). There are no indications of 
the success of this mitigation at this time.
    ODFW provided NMFS with an overview of the conservation status of 
Lower Columbia River chinook salmon stocks (ODFW, 1998). ODFW 
identified the chinook salmon populations in the Lower Columbia River 
ESU that were naturally self-sustaining and provided their best 
estimate of the conservation status of each population and the 
percentage of hatchery fish in natural spawning escapements. The list 
of populations included fall-run chinook salmon on the Sandy, 
Clackamas, White Salmon, Wind, North Fork Lewis, East Fork Lewis, 
Coweeman and mainstem Columbia Rivers. Estimated average minimum 
escapements over the last 5 years for fall-runs ranged from 100 to 
11,600, and the estimated percentages of hatchery fish in natural 
spawning escapements ranged from 0 to 8 percent (ODFW, 1998). Spring-
run chinook salmon populations identified were those in the Sandy and 
Clackamas Rivers. Estimated escapements ranged from 3,000 to 3,700 
fish, and the estimated percentage of spawners of hatchery origin 
ranged from 10-50 percent (ODFW, 1998).
    NMFS' concerns regarding the status of this ESU were evenly divided 
among the abundance/distribution, trends/productivity and genetic 
integrity risk categories. NMFS was concerned that there are very few 
naturally self-sustaining populations of native chinook salmon 
remaining in the lower Columbia River ESU. With input from co-managers, 
NMFS identified a list of streams containing primarily native runs of 
chinook salmon with minimal influence from hatchery fish to get a 
better understanding of the present distribution and population sizes 
of potentially self-sustaining chinook salmon runs in the lower 
Columbia River ESU (ODFW, 1998). Populations of ``bright'' fall-run 
chinook salmon identified included those on the North Fork and East 
Fork of the Lewis River and the Sandy River; ``tule'' fall-run chinook 
salmon populations identified as naturally reproducing were those on 
the Clackamas, East Fork of the Lewis and Coweeman Rivers. Estimated 
average escapements over the past 5-10 years for these populations 
ranged from 300 (tule fall-run chinook on the East

[[Page 14321]]

Fork of the Lewis River) to over 11,000 (fall-run chinook on the North 
Fork Lewis River). These are the only fall-run chinook salmon 
populations in the ESU with relatively high abundance and low hatchery 
influence. The populations identified by NMFS do not include some 
populations that ODFW suggested should be considered for risk 
evaluations. Some of the populations of fall-run chinook salmon 
suggested by ODFW as naturally self-sustaining are smaller, have 
extensive hatchery components, or were determined by NMFS to be in a 
different ESU (see ``Status of Chinook Salmon ESUs''). NMFS discussed 
the likely possibility that smaller streams draining into the Columbia 
River below the Cowlitz River historically had small populations of 
tule fall-run chinook salmon. It was not clear to NMFS whether these 
small populations of tule fall-run chinook historically were self-
sustaining; the widespread presence of tule hatchery fish in this area 
makes their present status difficult to evaluate.
    The few remaining populations of spring chinook salmon in the ESU 
were not considered to be naturally self-sustaining because of either 
small size, extensive hatchery influence, or both. NMFS felt that the 
dramatic declines and losses of spring run chinook salmon populations 
in the Lower Columbia River ESU represent a serious reduction in life-
history diversity in the region.
    Long-term trends in chinook salmon abundance are mixed in this ESU, 
but NMFS was concerned that short-term trends are predominantly 
downward, some strongly so. It is difficult to predict whether the high 
variability in abundance estimates for chinook salmon in many streams 
in this ESU reflect natural fluctuations in the numbers of wild fish or 
periodic influences from hatchery fish. Exceptions are the Coweeman and 
Green River (Cowlitz River tributary) tule fall-runs, where short-term 
trends in abundance are positive.
    The presence of hatchery chinook salmon in this ESU poses an 
important threat to the persistence of the ESU and also obscures trends 
in abundance of native fish. At the time of the status review, 
approximately 68 percent of the naturally spawning chinook salmon in 
the lower Columbia River ESU were estimated to be first-generation 
hatchery fish; no new information was available to suggest that this 
percentage has appreciably changed. NMFS discussed the difficulty in 
ascribing ``native, naturally self-sustaining'' status to tule fall-run 
chinook salmon runs because of the extensive within-ESU transfers of 
these fish. Recent changes in hatchery release practices adopted by 
ODFW designed to reduce straying of introduced Rogue River fall-run 
chinook salmon into lower Columbia River streams are encouraging 
changes. Nevertheless, NMFS noted that straying of these out-of-ESU 
fish still could occur into lower Columbia River streams.
    In summary, habitat degradation and loss due to extensive 
hydropower development projects, urbanization, logging and agriculture 
continue to threaten the chinook salmon spawning and rearing habitat in 
the lower Columbia River. Recent harvest levels in the mainstem 
Columbia River and tributary fisheries are reduced over historic 
practices. Nevertheless, NMFS concludes that documented extinctions in 
fall- and spring-run chinook salmon populations, the near complete 
demise of the spring-run life history form, extensive mixing of fall-
run tule chinook salmon populations within the ESU and the widespread 
occurrence of hatchery fish have combined to pose significant threats 
to the persistence of chinook salmon in the lower Columbia River ESU.
Listing Determination
    Based on available information, NMFS concludes that chinook salmon 
in the Lower Columbia River ESU are not presently in danger of 
extinction, but they are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future. Therefore, NMFS determines that Lower Columbia River chinook 
salmon warrant listing as a threatened species under the ESA. In this 
ESU, all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon residing below 
impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, natural waterfalls) 
are listed. This ESU does not include spring-run chinook salmon derived 
from the Round Butte Hatchery (Deschutes River, Oregon) (and their 
progeny) and spawning in the Hood River, spring-run chinook salmon 
derived from the Carson NFH (and their progeny) and spawning in the 
Wind River, fall-run fish (and their progeny) that originated from the 
Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU and spawning the mainstem 
Columbia River below Bonneville Dam and in other Bonneville Pool 
tributaries, and naturally spawning fish originating from the Rogue 
River fall chinook program (and their progeny).
Status of Hatchery Populations
    The BRT concluded that one of the hatchery chinook salmon stocks 
identified as part of this ESU (Cowlitz River Hatchery spring-run; see 
Summary of Chinook Salmon ESU Determinations) was essential for the 
recovery of the ESU (NMFS, 1999b; Table 2). Like the natural population 
in the Cowlitz River, the hatchery stock has declined steadily for the 
past two decades and appeared to stabilize at depressed levels during 
the past five years. However, the hatchery run is still an order of 
magnitude greater than the natural run, averaging about 2,000 hatchery 
returnees during the past 5 years, (which is approximately double the 
number needed to maintain the hatchery run). NMFS has reviewed the 
state's hatchery and harvest efforts pertaining to the Cowlitz River 
Hatchery stock and determined that they are sufficiently protective of 
this stock and likely to continue producing surplus non-listed fish 
that could be made available for harvest in most years (NMFS, 1999c). 
In addition, supplementation and re-introduction efforts using this 
hatchery stock are already underway and will likely contribute to the 
recovery of the ESU. Therefore, NMFS has determined that listing the 
Cowlitz River Hatchery stock is not warranted because their future 
existence and value for recovery are not at risk (NMFS, 1999c). If new 
information indicates that the hatchery stock is at risk of extinction, 
NMFS will revise its listing status accordingly. NMFS has reviewed the 
state's hatchery and harvest efforts pertaining to the Cowlitz River 
hatchery stock and determined that they are sufficiently protective of 
this stock and likely to continue producing surplus non-listed fish 
that could be made available for harvest in most years (NMFS, 1999c). 
In addition, supplementation and re-introduction efforts using this 
hatchery stock are already underway and will likely contribute to the 
recovery of the ESU.

(3) Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon

    NMFS received updated abundance information for chinook salmon in 
the Upper Willamette River ESU through 1997-98, including total 
abundance estimates of spring chinook salmon at Willamette Falls and 
counts at Leaburg Dam on the McKenzie River (NMFS, 1998a). Spring 
chinook salmon runs at both sites continue to exhibit declines in 
estimated abundance. For fishery monitoring purposes, the Clackamas 
River spring-run chinook salmon are included with the Willamette River 
(ODFW, 1994). Consistent with ODFW's approach, NMFS concluded that the 
spring-run chinook salmon in the Clackamas River should be considered 
part of the Upper Willamette River ESU (see ``Status of Chinook Salmon 
ESUs''). Historical estimates of chinook salmon

[[Page 14322]]

abundance in the Clackamas River are available for the late-1800s. At 
least 100 tons of chinook salmon were harvested from the Clackamas 
River in both 1893 and 1894. Given an average of 22.8 pounds (10.3 kgs) 
per fish, an estimated 12,000 and 8,000 chinook salmon were caught in 
those 2 years (ODFW, 1992). ODFW (1992) reported that most of the 
chinook salmon caught in the Clackamas River fisheries were spring-run. 
Updated dam counts for spring-run chinook salmon on the Clackamas River 
were obtained by NMFS through 1997, and the resulting 5-year geometric 
mean estimate of naturally spawning spring-run chinook salmon is just 
over 6,000 fish (Streamnet, 1998). Because of the heavy influence of 
spring-chinook salmon of hatchery origin in the Clackamas River, NMFS 
did not weigh Clackamas River abundance estimates heavily in their risk 
determinations for the Upper Willamette River ESU.
    The spring-run has been counted at Willamette Falls since 1946 
(ODFW and WDFW, 1995), but counts were not differentiated into adults 
and jacks until 1952. In the first 5 years (1946-50), the geometric 
mean of the counts for adults and jacks combined was 31,000 fish. The 
most recent 5-year (1993-97) geometric mean escapement above Willamette 
Falls was 24,000 adults (NMFS, 1998a). Willamette River spring-run 
chinook salmon are targeted by commercial and recreational fisheries in 
the lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers. During the 5-year period from 
1992-1996, the geometric mean of the run-size to the mouth of the 
Columbia River was 48,000 fish (PFMC, 1997b). Long-term trends in 
escapement of spring-run chinook salmon to the Upper Willamette River 
ESU are mixed, ranging from slightly upward to moderately downward 
(NMFS, 1998a). Short-term trends in abundance are all strongly 
downward.
    Estimates of the naturally produced run have been made only for the 
McKenzie River from 1994 to 1998 (Nicholas, 1995; ODFW, 1998). Nicholas 
(1995) estimated the escapement of naturally produced spring-run 
chinook salmon in the McKenzie River to be approximately 1,000 
spawners. Updated information using an estimation from counts at 
Leaburg Dam suggest that the most recent 5-year geometric mean 
escapement of naturally-spawning spring-run chinook salmon in the 
McKenzie River was 1,500 fish (ODFW, 1998; NMFS, 1998a). Until the 
1940s, as many as 11 million chinook salmon fry and fingerlings were 
released into the McKenzie River and tributaries annually (Wallis, 
1961; Howell et al., 1988). Although returns from these releases were 
poor, they may have influenced the shift in the spawn timing in the 
McKenzie River Basin from historical times. In the early 1900s, peak 
spawning occurred during early September, and now peak spawning occurs 
during late September/early October (Wallis, 1961; Howell et al., 
1988). It is possible that the shift in spawn timing of chinook salmon 
in the McKenzie River Basin is due in part to influences from hatchery-
derived fish. Alternatively, alterations in the thermal regime due to 
dam projects may have caused the shift in spawn timing.
    Habitat blockage and degradation are significant problems in this 
ESU. Available habitat has been reduced by construction of dams in the 
Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette River Basins, and these 
dams have probably adversely affected remaining production via thermal 
effects. Agricultural development and urbanization are the main 
activities that have adversely affected habitat throughout the basin 
(Bottom et al., 1985; Kostow, 1995).
    Historically, only spring-run fish were able to ascend Willamette 
Falls to access the upper Willamette River (Fulton, 1968). Following 
improvements in the fish ladder at Willamette Falls, some 200 million 
fall-run chinook salmon have been introduced into this ESU since the 
1950s. In contrast, the upper Willamette River has received relatively 
few introductions of non-native spring-run fish from outside this ESU 
(Myers et al., 1998). Artificial propagation efforts have been 
undertaken by a limited number of large facilities (McKenzie, Marion 
Forks, South Santiam, and Willamette (Dexter) Fish Hatcheries). These 
hatcheries have exchanged millions of eggs from various populations in 
the upper Willamette River Basin. The result of these transfers has 
been the loss of local genetic diversity and the formation of a single 
breeding unit in the Willamette River Basin (Kostow, 1995). 
Considerable numbers of hatchery spring-run strays have been recovered 
from natural spawning grounds, and an estimated two-thirds of natural 
spawners are of hatchery origin (Nicholas, 1995). There is also 
evidence that introduced fall-run chinook salmon have successfully 
spawned in the upper Willamette River (Howell et al., 1985). Whether 
hybridization has occurred between native spring-run and introduced 
fall-run fish is not known. The majority of the Willamette River fish 
are hatchery produced.
    Total harvest rates on stocks in this ESU are moderately high, with 
the average total harvest mortality rate estimated to be 72 percent in 
1982-89, and a corresponding ocean exploitation rate of 24 percent 
(PSC, 1994). This estimate does not fully account for escapement, and 
ODFW is in the process of revising harvest rate estimates for this 
stock; revised estimates may average 57 percent total harvest rate, 
with 16 percent ocean and 48 percent freshwater components (Kostow, 
1995). The in-river recreational harvest rate (Willamette River sport 
catch/estimated run size) for the period from 1991 through 1995 was 33 
percent (PFMC, 1996). ODFW (1998) provided information indicating that 
total (marine and freshwater) harvest rates on upper Willamette River 
spring-run stocks have been reduced considerably for the 1991-93 
broodyears to an average 21 percent.
    NMFS' primary concerns regarding the status of the Upper Willamette 
River ESU focused on risks associated with low abundance and reduced 
distribution. NMFS was concerned about the few remaining populations of 
spring chinook salmon in the Upper Willamette River ESU, and the high 
proportion of hatchery fish in the remaining runs. The recent average 
total abundance of spring chinook salmon in this ESU has been 24,000 
fish, of which only 4,000 are believed to be spawning naturally. In 
addition, it is estimated that two-thirds of the naturally spawning 
spring chinook salmon are first generation hatchery fish. In other 
words, the high proportion of hatchery fish in the total return and on 
spawning grounds indicate that populations of chinook salmon in this 
ESU are not self sustaining. ODFW was able to identify only one 
remaining naturally reproducing population in this ESU, spring chinook 
salmon in the McKenzie River. Severe declines in short-term abundance 
have occurred throughout the ESU, and the McKenzie River population 
declined precipitously until 1994. Since 1994, adult returns of 
naturally spawning spring-run chinook have increased slowly, although 
it is believed that a large portion of these chinook salmon are first 
generation hatchery fish.
    As stated in the status review (Myers et al., 1998), the potential 
for interactions between native spring-run and introduced fall-run 
chinook salmon has increased relative to historical times due to fall-
run chinook salmon hatchery programs and the laddering of Willamette 
Falls. There is no direct evidence of interbreeding between the two 
forms, but they do exhibit overlap in spawning times and locations. No 
new evidence was presented indicating significant changes in the 
conditions that affect the potential for negative

[[Page 14323]]

interactions between native and hatchery spring-run chinook salmon in 
this ESU.
    The declines in spring chinook salmon in the Upper Willamette River 
ESU can be attributed in large part to the extensive habitat blockages 
caused by dam construction. The overall reduction in available spawning 
and rearing habitat, combined with altered water flow and temperature 
regimes, have probably had a major deleterious effect on spring chinook 
salmon abundance in this ESU. Furthermore, historically high harvest 
levels have occurred on chinook salmon in this ESU in ocean and lower 
Columbia River fisheries. Recent efforts to reduce harvest of naturally 
produced spring chinook salmon in Upper Willamette River tributaries, 
and the increase in selective fisheries should help managers targeting 
specific populations of wild or hatchery chinook salmon.
Listing Determination
    Based on available information, NMFS concludes that chinook salmon 
in the Upper Willamette River ESU are not presently in danger of 
extinction, but they are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future. Therefore, NMFS determines that Upper Willamette River chinook 
salmon warrant listing as a threatened species under the ESA. In this 
ESU, all naturally spawned populations of spring-run chinook salmon 
residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, 
natural waterfalls) are listed. This ESU does not include fall-run 
chinook salmon.
Status of Hatchery Populations
    NMFS concludes that none of the hatchery chinook salmon stocks 
identified as part of this ESU (``Summary of Chinook Salmon ESU 
Determinations'') should be listed since none are currently essential 
for the recovery of the ESU (NMFS, 1999b; Table 3).

(4) Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Salmon

    There are no estimates of historical abundance specific to this 
ESU. WDFW monitors nine spring-run chinook salmon stocks geographically 
located within this ESU. Escapements to most tributaries are monitored 
by redd counts, which are expanded to total live fish based on counts 
at mainstem dams. Updated abundance information for spring-run chinook 
salmon in the Upper Columbia River ESU through 1997-98 was obtained for 
redd counts on all streams monitored in this ESU (NMFS, 1998a). 
Escapements continue to be critically low in all rivers, and the redd 
counts are still declining severely. Individual populations within the 
ESU are all quite small, with none averaging over 150 adults annually 
in recent years (NMFS, 1998a). Long-term trends in estimated abundance 
are mostly downward, with annual rates of change ranging from -6 
percent to +1 percent over the full data set. All ten short-term trends 
were downward, with five populations exhibiting rates of decline 
exceeding 20 percent per year (NMFS, 1998a). Harvest rates have been 
declining recently, and currently they are less than 10 percent (ODFW 
and WDFW, 1995).
    Artificial propagation efforts have had a significant impact on 
spring-run populations in this ESU. Artificial propagation recently has 
focused on supplementing naturally spawning populations in this ESU 
(Bugert, 1996), although it should be emphasized that these naturally 
spawning populations were founded by the same GCFMP homogenized stock. 
Furthermore, the potential for hatchery-derived non-native stocks to 
adversely affect naturally spawning populations, especially given the 
recent low numbers of fish returning to rivers in this ESU. The 
hatchery contribution to escapement may be moderated by the homing 
fidelity of spring-run fish that could reduce the potential for 
hybridization (Chapman et al., 1995). For example, the hatchery 
contribution to naturally spawning escapement was recently estimated as 
39 percent in the mainstem Methow River (where the hatcheries are 
located), but averaged only 10 percent in the tributaries--Chewuch, 
Lost, and Twisp Rivers--that are upstream of the hatcheries (Spotts, 
1995). In contrast, WDFW (1997) reported that in 1996 the Chewuch and 
Twisp runs were 62 percent and 72 percent hatchery fish, respectively. 
Utter et al. (1995) found that spring-run hatchery stocks from 
Leavenworth and Winthrop hatcheries were genetically indistinguishable 
from the Carson hatchery stock, but distinct from naturally spawning 
populations in the White and Chiwawa Rivers and Nason Creek. In 2 
recent years (in 1996 and 1998), 100 percent of the production in the 
Methow River Basin has come from hatchery-reared fish. The returns to 
Methow River tributaries were so low in those years that all adults 
returning to Wells Dam were intercepted for emergency artificial 
propagation at the Methow Fish Hatchery and the Winthrop NFH (L. Brown, 
WDFW, 3860 Chelan Highway, Wenatchee, WA 98801. Pers. comm., November, 
1998). In addition, captive broodstock programs are underway on the 
Twisp River and are just beginning on the White River and Nason Creek 
(NMFS et al., 1998). Production of the non-native Carson hatchery stock 
will be discontinued at the Winthrop NFH (NMFS et al., 1998).
    Howell et al. (1985), Chapman et al. (1991), Mullan et al. (1992), 
and Chapman et al. (1995) have suggested that the prevalence of 
bacterial kidney disease (BKD) in upper Columbia and Snake River 
hatcheries is directly responsible for the low survival of hatchery 
stocks. These authors also suggest that the high incidence of BKD in 
hatcheries impacts wild populations, and reduces the survival of 
hatchery fish to such an extent that naturally spawning adults are 
``mined'' to perpetuate hatchery stocks (Chapman et al., 1991). There 
may also be direct horizontal transmission of BKD between hatchery and 
wild juveniles during downstream migration (specifically, in smolt 
collection and transportation facilities) or vertical transmission from 
hatchery-reared females on the spawning grounds.
    Another recent risk evaluation for chinook salmon in this ESU was 
conducted by an interagency working group as part of the Mid-Columbia 
River HCP development (NMFS et al., 1998). To determine the need for 
hatchery supplementation programs in the HCP region (an area including 
the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow River Basins), a panel of experts was 
asked to estimate (using best professional judgement) the probability 
that the spring-run chinook salmon populations in those 3 river basins 
would have a certain status (extinct, nearly extinct, <100 fish/year, 
100-500 fish/year, and >500 fish/year) after 10-50 years under current 
conditions and without hatchery supplementation. In all river basins 
within this Upper Columbia River Spring-Run ESU geographic area, the 
experts estimated that there was a greater than 50 percent chance that 
the chinook salmon would be nearly extinct or extinct within 50 years, 
assuming current conditions continue into the future. Furthermore, the 
experts predicted that there was only a 4 to 17 percent chance that 
after 50 years there would be more than 100 spring-run chinook salmon 
in any river (NMFS et al., 1998).
    NMFS' primary concerns centered on very low abundance and 
distribution and strongly negative trends and stock productivity for 
this ESU. The average recent escapement to the ESU has been less than 
5,000 hatchery and wild chinook salmon combined; all

[[Page 14324]]

individual populations consist of less than 100 fish. At these 
population sizes, negative effects of demographic and genetic 
stochastic processes are very likely to occur. Furthermore, both long-
and short-term trends in abundance are declining, many strongly so. The 
abundance of the spring chinook salmon returning to the Methow River 
Basin has been so low that all fish returning in 1996 and 1998 were 
intercepted at Wells Dam and were incorporated into artificial 
propagation programs at Methow fish hatchery. In addition, the captive 
broodstock programs underway on the Twisp and White Rivers and Nason 
Creek indicate the severity of the population declines.
    Plans to discontinue production of the non-native Carson hatchery 
stock at the Winthrop NFH are encouraging. Nevertheless, the extensive 
introductions of spring-run chinook salmon from outside the ESU and 
within-ESU egg transfers that occurred in the past have left their mark 
on the genetic legacy of the fish remaining in the ESU. Furthermore, as 
mentioned above, because of the extremely low population sizes in some 
streams in some years, 100 percent of the offspring for an entire basin 
were produced in a hatchery from a mixture of populations. That such 
extreme measures have been considered necessary speaks to the 
seriousness of the risks faced by the natural populations.
    Habitat degradation, blockages and hydroelectric power system 
passage mortality all have contributed to the significant declines in 
spring chinook salmon production in this ESU. In addition to at least 
six known extinctions, all remaining populations are small and 
declining in number. Recently, a panel of fisheries experts convened to 
evaluate a management plan for a HCP in this region and concluded in 
their risk evaluations that the probability of extinction for spring-
run chinook salmon was high. NMFS discussed the possible significance 
of a noted increase in non-migratory jacks in some areas, and was not 
able to conclude whether their presence represented a permanent change 
in age structure or merely a facultative shift in life history strategy 
due to changes in the selective environment. Finally, due to near 
elimination of in-river harvest during the last two decades and the 
absence of a significant marine harvest on these populations, NMFS is 
concerned that the remaining avenues for recovery would take years to 
implement and that the ESU may go extinct before any improvements could 
take effect.

Listing Determination

    Based on available information, NMFS concludes that the Upper 
Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon ESU is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, NMFS 
determines that Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon warrant 
listing as an endangered species under the ESA. In this ESU, all 
naturally spawned populations of spring-run chinook salmon residing 
below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, natural 
waterfalls) are listed. This ESU does not include naturally spawning 
spring-run chinook salmon derived from the Carson NFH spring-run 
chinook salmon stock, or other hatchery stocks derived from the Carson 
spring-run stock and their progeny.

Status of Hatchery Populations

    NMFS concludes that 6 of the hatchery chinook salmon stocks 
identified as part of this ESU (see ``Summary of Chinook Salmon ESU 
Determinations'') should be listed (as well as their progeny) since 
they are currently essential for the recovery of the ESU (NMFS, 1999b; 
Table 4). The listed hatchery stocks are: Chiwawa River (spring run); 
Methow River (spring run); Twisp River (spring run); Chewuch River 
(spring run); White River (spring run); and Nason Creek (spring run).

Determinations

    After reviewing the best available information, including general 
public and peer review comments, and biological data on the species' 
status and an assessment of protective efforts, as described in the 
previous sections of this document, NMFS has concluded that four 
chinook salmon ESUs warrant protection under the ESA. With respect to 
the four chinook salmon ESUs that are the subject of this rule, NMFS 
has determined that three ESUs are at risk of becoming endangered in 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a portion of their range. The 
threatened chinook salmon ESUs are Puget Sound chinook salmon in 
Washington, Lower Columbia River chinook salmon in Washington and 
Oregon, and Upper Willamette spring-run chinook salmon in Oregon. NMFS 
also has determined that Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon 
in Washington are in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of their range.
    In all four ESUs, only naturally spawned populations of chinook 
salmon residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, 
natural waterfalls) are listed. Naturally spawning fish (and their 
progeny) from the following populations are not considered part of the 
specified ESUs and are not intended to receive ESA protection: (1) 
Naturally spawning descendants from the spring-run chinook salmon 
program at the Quilcene NFH (Quilcene and Sol Duc stocks) and their 
progeny are not considered part of the Puget Sound ESU; (2) spring-run 
chinook salmon derived from the Round Butte Hatchery (Deschutes, 
Oregon) (and their progeny) and spawning in the Hood River, spring-run 
chinook salmon derived from the Carson NFH (and their progeny) and 
spawning in the Wind River, fall-run fish (and their progeny) that 
originated from the Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run ESU and spawn 
in the mainstem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam and in other 
Bonneville Pool tributaries, and naturally spawning fish originating 
from the Rogue River fall chinook program (and their progeny) are not 
considered part of the Lower Columbia River ESU; (3) fall-run chinook 
salmon are not considered part of the Upper Willamette River ESU; and 
(4) naturally spawning spring-run chinook salmon derived from the 
Carson NFH (and their progeny) are not considered part of the Upper 
Columbia River spring-run ESU.
    NMFS' intent in listing only ``naturally spawned'' populations is 
to protect chinook salmon stocks that are indigenous to (i.e., part of) 
the ESU. In this listing determination NMFS has identified various non-
indigenous populations that co-occur with fish in the listed ESUs. NMFS 
recognizes the difficulty of differentiating between indigenous and 
non-indigenous fish, especially when the latter are not readily 
distinguishable with a mark (e.g., fin clip). Also, matings in the wild 
of either type would generally result in progeny that would be treated 
as listed fish (i.e., they would have been naturally spawned in the 
geographic range of the listed ESU and have no distinguishing mark). 
Therefore, to reduce confusion regarding which chinook salmon are 
considered listed within an ESU, NMFS will treat all naturally spawned 
fish as listed for purposes of the ESA. Efforts to determine the 
conservation status of an ESU would focus on the contribution of 
indigenous fish to the listed ESU. It should be noted that NMFS will 
take actions necessary to minimize or prevent non-indigenous chinook 
salmon from spawning in the wild unless the fish are specifically part 
of a recovery effort.

[[Page 14325]]

    NMFS has evaluated the relationship between hatchery and natural 
populations of chinook salmon in these ESUs (described previously in 
``Summary of Chinook Salmon ESU Determinations'' and ``Status of 
Chinook Salmon ESUs''). In the Puget Sound ESU, chinook salmon (and 
their progeny) from the following hatchery stocks are considered part 
of the ESU and listed: Kendall Creek (spring run); North Fork 
Stillaguamish River (summer run); White River (spring run); Dungeness 
River (spring run); and Elwha River (fall run). In the Lower Columbia 
and Upper Willamette River ESUs, none of the chinook salmon hatchery 
stocks considered part of the ESUs are being listed. Finally, in the 
Upper Columbia River spring-run ESU, chinook salmon (and their progeny) 
from the following hatchery stocks are considered part of the ESU and 
listed: Chiwawa River (spring run); Methow River (spring run); Twisp 
River (spring run); Chewuch River (spring run); White River (spring 
run); and Nason Creek (spring run). Other hatchery stocks identified as 
part of these four ESUs are not considered to be essential for their 
recovery; hence, they are not listed at this time.
    The determination that a hatchery stock is not ``essential'' for 
recovery does not preclude it from playing a role in recovery. Any 
hatchery population that is part of the ESU is available for use in 
recovery if conditions warrant. In this context, an ``essential'' 
hatchery population is one that is vital to incorporate into recovery 
efforts (for example, if the associated natural population(s) were 
extinct or at high risk of extinction). Under such circumstances, NMFS 
would consider taking the administrative action of listing existing 
hatchery fish.
    NMFS' ``Interim Policy on Artificial Propagation of Pacific Salmon 
Under the Endangered Species Act'' (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993) 
provides guidance on the treatment of hatchery stocks in the event of a 
listing. Under this policy, ``progeny of fish from the listed species 
that are propagated artificially are considered part of the listed 
species and are protected under the ESA.'' In the case of hatchery 
chinook populations considered to be part of the Puget Sound ESU, Lower 
Columbia River ESU, Upper Willamette River spring-run ESU, or Upper 
Columbia River spring-run ESU, NMFS protective regulations may except 
take of naturally spawned listed fish for use as broodstock as part of 
an overall conservation program. According to the interim policy, the 
progeny of these hatchery-wild or wild-wild crosses would also be 
listed. Given the requirement for an acceptable conservation plan as a 
prerequisite for collecting broodstock, NMFS determines that it is not 
necessary to consider the progeny of intentional hatchery-wild or wild-
wild crosses as listed (except in cases where NMFS has listed the 
hatchery population as well).
    In addition, NMFS believes it is desirable to incorporate naturally 
spawned fish into these unlisted hatchery populations to ensure that 
their genetic and life history characteristics do not diverge 
significantly from the natural populations. NMFS therefore concludes 
that it is not inconsistent with NMFS'' interim policy, nor with the 
policy and purposes of the ESA, to consider these progeny as part of 
the ESU but not listed.
    NMFS is not now issuing protective regulations under section 4(d) 
of the ESA for this species. NMFS will propose such protective measures 
it considers necessary for the conservation of chinook salmon ESUs 
listed as threatened in a forthcoming Federal Register document. Even 
though NMFS does not now issue protective regulations for this ESU, 
Federal agencies possess a duty under section 7 of the ESA to consult 
with NMFS if any activity they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect 
listed chinook salmon ESUs. The effective date for this requirement is 
May 24, 1999.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or 
indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all 
individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. 
Section 9 prohibitions apply automatically to endangered species, and 
will become effective for the Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook 
ESU 60 days after publication of this final rule.
    Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary to implement 
regulations ``to provide for the conservation of [threatened] 
species,'' that may include extending any or all of the prohibitions of 
section 9 to threatened species. Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits 
violations of protective regulations for threatened species implemented 
under section 4(d). NMFS will soon issue protective regulations 
pursuant to section 4(d) for the Puget Sound, Lower Columbia River, and 
Upper Willamette River chinook salmon ESUs.
    In the case of threatened species, NMFS also has flexibility under 
section 4(d) of the ESA to tailor the protective regulations based on 
the contents of adequate available conservation measures. Even though 
existing conservation efforts and plans are not sufficient to preclude 
the need for listings at this time, they are nevertheless valuable for 
improving watershed health and restoring salmon populations. In those 
cases where well-developed and reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS 
may choose to incorporate them into the recovery planning process 
starting with protective regulations. NMFS has already adopted 4(d) 
protective regulations that except a limited range of activities from 
section 9 take prohibitions. For example, the interim 4(d) rule for 
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts coho salmon (62 FR 38479, 
July 18, 1997) excepts 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 such activities as 
forestry, agriculture, and road construction when such activities are 
conducted in accordance with approved conservation plans.
    These are all examples where NMFS may apply modified section 9 
prohibitions in light of the protections provided in a conservation 
plan that is adequately protective. There may be other circumstances as 
well in which NMFS would use the flexibility of section 4(d). For 
example, in some cases there may be a healthy population within an 
overall ESU that is listed. In such a case, it may not be necessary to 
apply the full range of prohibitions available in section 9. NMFS 
intends to use the flexibility of the ESA to respond appropriately to 
the biological condition of each ESU and to the strength of efforts to 
protect them.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult 
with NMFS on any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a species proposed for listing and on actions likely to result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. 
For listed species, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure 
that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into consultation with NMFS.
    Examples of Federal actions likely to affect chinook salmon in the 
listed ESUs include authorized land management activities of the USFS 
and BLM, as well as operation of hydroelectric and storage

[[Page 14326]]

projects of the Bureau of Reclamation and COE. Such activities include 
timber sales and harvest, hydroelectric power generation, and flood 
control. Federal actions, including the COE section 404 permitting 
activities under the Clean Water Act, COE permitting activities under 
the River and Harbors Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination 
System permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, highway 
projects authorized by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission licenses for non-Federal development and 
operation of hydropower, and Federal salmon hatcheries, may also 
require consultation. These actions will likely be subject to ESA 
section 7 consultation requirements that may result in conditions 
designed to achieve the intended purpose of the project and avoid or 
reduce impacts to chinook salmon and its habitat within the range of 
the listed ESUs.
    There are likely to be Federal actions ongoing in the range of the 
listed ESUs at the time these listings become effective. Therefore, 
NMFS will review all ongoing actions that may affect the listed species 
with Federal agencies and will complete formal or informal 
consultations, where requested or necessary, for such actions pursuant 
to ESA section 7(a)(2).
    Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with 
authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions. 
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be 
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that 
involves a directed take of listed species.
    NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research or enhancement permits 
for other listed species (e.g., Snake River chinook salmon, Sacramento 
River winter-run chinook salmon) for a number of activities, including 
trapping and tagging to determine population distribution and 
abundance, and collection of adult fish for artificial propagation 
programs. NMFS is aware of many sampling efforts for chinook salmon 
within these listed chinook salmon ESUs, including efforts by Federal 
and state fisheries agencies, and private landowners. These and other 
research efforts could provide critical information regarding chinook 
salmon distribution and population abundance.
    ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to 
nonfederal entities performing activities that may incidentally take 
listed species. The types of activities potentially requiring a section 
10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the release of artificially 
propagated fish by state or privately operated and funded hatcheries, 
state or university research on other species, not receiving Federal 
authorization or funding, the implementation of state fishing 
regulations, and timber harvest activities on nonfederal lands.

Take Guidance

    On July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272) NMFS and FWS published a policy 
committing the Services to identify, to the maximum extent practicable 
at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would 
not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on 
proposed and on-going activities within the species' range. NMFS 
believes that, based on the best available information, the following 
actions will not result in a violation of section 9: (1) Possession of 
chinook salmon from the listed ESUs acquired lawfully by permit issued 
by NMFS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the terms of an 
incidental take statement pursuant to section 7 of the ESA; and (2) 
federally funded or approved projects that involve activities such as 
silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam construction and 
operation, discharge of fill material, stream channelization or 
diversion for which a section 7 consultation has been completed, and 
when such an activity is conducted in accordance with any terms and 
conditions provided by NMFS in an incidental take statement accompanied 
by a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. As described 
previously in this notice, NMFS may adopt 4(d) protective regulations 
that except other activities from section 9 take prohibitions for 
threatened species.
    Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm, injure or 
kill chinook salmon in the listed ESUs and result in a violation of 
section 9 of the ESA include, but are not limited to: (1) land-use 
activities that adversely affect chinook salmon habitat in this ESU 
(e.g., logging, grazing, farming, road construction in riparian areas, 
and areas susceptible to mass wasting and surface erosion); (2) 
destruction or alteration of chinook salmon habitat in the listed ESUs, 
such as removal of large woody debris and ``sinker logs'' or riparian 
shade canopy, dredging, discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, 
diverting, blocking, or altering stream channels or surface or ground 
water flow; (3) discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other 
pollutants (e.g., sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas 
supporting listed chinook salmon; (4) violation of discharge permits; 
(5) pesticide and herbicide applications; (6) interstate and foreign 
commerce of chinook salmon from the listed ESUs and import/export of 
chinook salmon from listed ESUs without an ESA permit, unless the fish 
were harvested pursuant to legal exception; (7) collecting or handling 
of chinook salmon from listed ESUs (permits to conduct these activities 
are available for purposes of scientific research or to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species); and (8) introduction of non-
native species likely to prey on chinook salmon in these ESUs or 
displace them from their habitat. This list is not exhaustive. It is 
intended to provide some examples of the types of activities that might 
or might not be considered by NMFS as constituting a take of listed 
chinook salmon under the ESA and its regulations. Questions regarding 
whether specific activities will constitute a violation of this rule, 
and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits, should be 
directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Effective Date of Final Listing

    Given the cultural, scientific, and recreational importance of 
chinook salmon, and the broad geographic range of these chinook salmon 
ESUs, NMFS recognizes that numerous parties may be affected by this 
listing. Therefore, to permit an orderly implementation of the 
consultation requirements and take prohibitions associated with this 
action, this final listing will take effect on May 24, 1999.

Conservation Measures

    Conservation benefits are provided to species listed as endangered 
or threatened under the ESA through increased recognition, recovery 
actions, Federal agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on 
taking. Increased recognition through listing promotes public awareness 
and conservation actions by Federal, state, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals.
    Several conservation efforts are underway that may reverse the 
decline of west coast chinook salmon and other salmonids. NMFS is 
encouraged by these significant efforts, which could provide all 
stakeholders with 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 chinook salmon and other salmonids.

[[Page 14327]]

    To succeed, protective regulations and recovery programs for 
chinook salmon will need to focus on conserving aquatic ecosystem 
health. NMFS intends that Federal lands and Federal activities play a 
primary role in preserving listed populations and the ecosystems upon 
which they depend. However, throughout the range of the listed ESUs, 
chinook salmon habitat occurs and can be affected by activities on 
state, tribal or private land.
    Conservation measures that could be implemented to help conserve 
the species are listed here (the list is generalized and does not 
constitute NMFS' interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) 
of the ESA). Progress on some of these is being made to differing 
degrees in specific areas.
    1. Measures could be taken to promote practices that are more 
protective of (or restore) chinook salmon habitat across a variety of 
land and water management activities. Activities affecting this habitat 
include timber harvest; agriculture; livestock grazing and operations; 
pesticide and herbicide applications; construction and urban 
development; road building and maintenance; sand and gravel mining; 
stream channelization; dredging and dredged spoil disposal; dock and 
marina construction; diking and bank stabilization; dam construction/
operation; irrigation withdrawal, storage, and management; mineral 
mining; wastewater/pollutant discharge; wetland and floodplain 
alteration; habitat restoration projects; and woody debris/structure 
removal from rivers and estuaries. Each of these activities could be 
modified to ensure that watersheds and specific river reaches are 
adequately protected in the short-and long-terms.
    2. Fish passage could be restored at barriers to migration through 
the installation or modification of fish ladders, upgrade of culverts, 
or removal of barriers.
    3. Harvest regulations could be modified to protect listed chinook 
salmon populations affected by both directed harvest and incidental 
take in other fisheries.
    4. Artificial propagation programs could be modified to minimize 
negative impacts (e.g., genetic introgression, competition, disease, 
etc.) upon native populations of chinook salmon.
    5. Predator control/relocation programs could be implemented in 
areas where predators pose a significant threat to chinook salmon.
    6. Measures could be taken to improve monitoring of chinook salmon 
populations and their habitat.
    7. Federal agencies such as the USFS, BLM, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, COE, U.S. Department of Transportation, and U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation could review their management programs and use 
their discretionary authorities to formulate conservation plans 
pursuant to section 7(a)(1) of the ESA.
    NMFS encourages non-Federal landowners to assess the impacts of 
their actions on threatened or endangered salmonids. In particular, 
NMFS encourages state and local governments to use their existing 
authorities and programs, and encourages the formation of watershed 
partnerships to promote conservation in accordance with ecosystem 
principles. These partnerships will be successful only if state, 
tribal, and local governments, landowner representatives, and Federal 
and non-Federal biologists all participate and share the goal of 
restoring salmon to the watersheds.

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent 
and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the 
listing of a species. Section 4(b)(6)(C)(ii) provides that, where 
critical habitat is not determinable at the time of final listing, NMFS 
may extend the period for designating critical habitat by not more than 
one additional year.
    In the proposed rule (63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998), NMFS described 
the areas that may constitute critical habitat for the proposed chinook 
salmon ESUs. Since then, NMFS has received numerous comments from the 
public concerning the process and definition of critical habitat for 
chinook salmon and other salmonids. Also, due to statutory time 
limitations, NMFS has not yet consulted with affected Indian tribes 
regarding the designation of critical habitat in areas that may affect 
tribal trust resources, tribally owned fee lands, or the exercise of 
tribal rights.
    Given these remaining unresolved issues, NMFS determines at this 
time that a final critical habitat designation is not determinable for 
these ESUs since additional time is required to complete the needed 
biological assessments and evaluate special management considerations 
affecting critical habitat. NMFS, therefore, extends the deadline for 
designating critical habitat for 1 year until such assessments can be 
made and after appropriate consultations are completed.

Classification

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the 
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. 
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the 
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F.2d 825 (6th Cir., 
1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from the 
environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.
    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the 
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of 
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are not applicable to the listing 
process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under E.O. 
12866.
    This rule has been determined to be major under the Congressional 
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.)
    At this time NMFS is not promulgating protective regulations 
pursuant to ESA section 4(d). In the future, prior to finalizing its 
4(d) regulations for the threatened chinook salmon ESUs, NMFS will 
comply with all relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.

References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request (see ADDRESSES). Reference materials regarding this listing 
determination can also be obtained from the internet at 
www.nwr.noaa.gov.

Change in Enumeration of Threatened and Endangered Species

    In the proposed rule issued on March 9, 1998 (63 FR 11482), Upper 
Columbia river spring-run chinook salmon was added to paragraph (a) in 
Sec. 222.23 and Puget Sound, Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette 
spring-run chinook salmon were designated as paragraphs (s), (t) and 
(u) respectively in Sec. 227.4. Since March 9, 1998, NMFS has issued a 
final rule consolidating and reorganizing existing regulations 
regarding implementation of the ESA. In this reorganization, 
Sec. 222.23 has been redesignated as Sec. 224.101, therefore, Upper 
Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon has been added in this final 
rule to paragraph (a) in Sec. 224.101. Also in this reorganization, 
Sec. 227.4 has been redesignated as Sec. 223.102; therefore, Puget 
Sound, Lower Columbia River and Upper Willamette spring-run chinook 
salmon have been added in this final rule to paragraph (a) in 
Sec. 223.102 as (16), (17), and (18), respectively.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 223

    Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened

[[Page 14328]]

species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Transportation.

50 CFR Part 224

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

    Dated: March 15, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 
are amended as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.; 31 
U.S.C. 9701.

    2. In Sec. 223.102, paragraphs (a)(16), (a)(17) and (a)(18) are 
added to read as follows:


Sec. 223.102  Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (16) Puget sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). 
Includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook salmon from 
rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound including the Straits of 
Juan De Fuca from the Elwha River eastward, including rivers and 
streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound and the 
Strait of Georgia in Washington.
    (17) Lower Columbia River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha). Includes all naturally spawned populations of chinook 
salmon from the Columbia River and its tributaries from its mouth at 
the Pacific Ocean upstream to a transitional point between Washington 
and Oregon east of the Hood River and the White Salmon River, and 
includes the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, exclusive of 
spring-run chinook salmon in the Clackamas River.
    (18) Upper Willamette River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 
tshawytscha). Includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run 
chinook salmon in the Clackamas River and in the Willamette River, and 
its tributaries, above Willamette Falls, Oregon.
* * * * *

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

    3. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    4. In Sec. 224.101, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 224.101  Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
    (a) Marine and anadromous fish. Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 
brevirostrum); Totoaba (Cynoscian macdonaldi), Snake River sockeye 
salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), Umpqua River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 
clarki clarki); Southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), 
including all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their 
progeny) in streams from the Santa Maria River, San Luis Obispo County, 
California (inclusive) to Malibu Creek, Los Angeles County, California 
(inclusive); Upper Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), 
including the Wells Hatchery stock and all naturally spawned 
populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in streams in the Columbia 
River Basin upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the United 
States--Canada Border; Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), including all naturally spawned populations 
of chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock 
Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in Washington (excluding 
the Okanogan River), the Columbia River from a straight line connecting 
the west end of the Clatsop jetty (south jetty, Oregon side) and the 
west end of the Peacock jetty (north jetty, Washington side) upstream 
to Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, and the Chiwawa River (spring run), 
Methow River (spring run), Twisp River (spring run), Chewuch River 
(spring run), White River (spring run), and Nason Creek (spring run) 
hatchery stocks (and their progeny); Sacramento River winter-run 
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-6815 Filed 3-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P