[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