[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 24, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14329-14333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6816]



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

[[Page 14329]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 990303060-9060-01; I.D.022398C]
RIN 0648-AM54


Endangered and Threatened Species: Notice of Partial 6-Month 
Extension on Final Listing Determinations for Four Evolutionarily 
Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Chinook Salmon

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; partial extension of deadline for final 
determination.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that substantial scientific disagreements 
exist regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to final 
listing determinations for the California Central Valley spring-run and 
Central Valley fall/late fall-run, Southern Oregon and California 
Coastal, and Snake River fall-run ESUs of chinook salmon.
    By this publication, NMFS intends to extend the deadline for a 
final listing determination for these four ESUs for 6 months to collect 
and analyze specific additional information from co-managing agency 
scientists and other scientific experts on this species that will 
enable NMFS to make a final listing determination based on the best 
available scientific information. NMFS has also issued final listing 
determinations for Puget Sound chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River 
chinook salmon, Upper Willamette spring-run chinook salmon and Upper 
Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon which published elsewhere in 
the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register issue.

DATES: Comments must be received by April 23, 1999. The new deadline 
for final action on the four ESUs of west coast chinook salmon is 
extended from March 9, 1999, to September 9, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Chief, Protected 
Resources Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 
500, Portland, OR 97232-2737; or to Chief, Protected Resources 
Division, NMFS, Southwest Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, 
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; or to Chief, Endangered Species Division, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, 503-231-2005, Craig 
Wingert, 310-980-4021, or Christopher Mobley, 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Historically, chinook salmon inhabited most coastal streams in 
Washington, Oregon, and California, as well as many inland streams in 
these states and in Idaho. However, during this century, over 50 
indigenous, naturally reproducing stocks of chinook salmon are believed 
to have been extirpated, and many more have been identified as being at 
moderate or high risk of extinction in numerous coastal and inland 
streams in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California (Nehlsen et al., 
1991; Higgins et al., 1992).
    The history of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing petitions 
received regarding west coast chinook salmon is summarized in the 
proposed listings rule published on March 9, 1998 (63 FR 11482). The 
most recent and comprehensive petition was submitted by Oregon Natural 
Resources Council and Siskiyou Project Staff Ecologist Dr. Rich Nawa on 
February 1, 1995. In response to this petition, as well as to earlier 
petitions, NMFS collected and assessed the best available scientific 
and commercial data, including technical information compiled from the 
Pacific Salmon Biological Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and from 
interested parties in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. 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.
    NMFS also established a Biological Review Team (BRT) that was 
composed of staff from NMFS' Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science 
Centers and Southwest Regional Office, as well as a representative of 
the National Biological Survey. The BRT conducted a coastwide status 
review for west coast chinook salmon (Myers et al., 1998) and 
identified 15 ESUs in the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 
California. These ESUs included two Snake River ESUs already listed 
under the ESA, one previously identified ESU (mid-Columbia River 
summer/fall run) for which no listing was proposed and one population 
(Sacramento River winter-run) that was listed as a ``distinct 
population segment'' prior to the formulation of the NMFS ESU policy. 
Based on the results of the BRT report and after considering other 
information and efforts being made to protect chinook salmon, NMFS 
proposed (1) Listing two ESUs as endangered; (2) listing five ESUs as 
threatened; and (3) redefining the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon 
ESU (previously listed as a threatened species under the ESA in 1992 
(57 FR 14653)) to include fall chinook salmon populations in the 
Deschutes River, and listing the redefined ESU as a threatened species 
(63 FR 11482, March 9, 1998). NMFS also concluded that at the time four 
ESUs did not warrant protection under the ESA.

Finding

    Within 1 year from the date of a proposed listing, section 4(b)(6) 
of the ESA requires NMFS to take one of three actions: (1) Finalize the 
proposed listing; (2) withdraw the proposed listing; or (3) extend the 
1-year period for not more than 6 months pursuant to section 
4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA. Section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA allows NMFS 
to extend the deadline for a final listing determination for not more 
than 6 months for the purpose of soliciting additional data. NMFS' ESA 
implementing regulations condition such an extension on the finding of 
``substantial disagreement among scientists knowledgeable about the 
species concerned regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the 
available data relevant to the determination.'' (50 CFR 
424.17(a)(1)(iv)).
    NMFS has analyzed new information and public comments received in 
response to the March 9, 1998, proposed rule. As a result of the new 
information and comments, NMFS has determined that substantial 
scientific disagreements exist regarding the sufficiency and accuracy 
of data relevant to final listing determinations for California's 
Central Valley spring-run and fall/late fall-run and for Southern 
Oregon and California Coastal and for Snake River fall-run chinook 
salmon ESUs (Memorandum from U. Varanasi and M. Tillman to W. Stelle 
and W. Hogarth, October 30, 1998). These scientific disagreements 
concern the consistency of analysis used to identify temporal runs of 
chinook salmon in the same basin, the data needed to determine the 
geographic boundaries of certain ESUs, and information related to the 
risk assessment for some chinook salmon ESUs. Therefore, NMFS extends 
the final listing determination deadline for these four ESUs for 6 
months to collect and analyze these additional data.
    Several efforts are underway that may resolve the scientific 
disagreements relevant to these ESUs. These efforts include (1) 
analysis of tissue samples of

[[Page 14330]]

Central Valley, Southern Oregon and California Coastal, and Upper 
Klamath and Trinity River spring- and fall-run chinook salmon that have 
been and will be collected this summer and fall by various parties, 
including the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and NMFS, 
to help determine the genetic relationship between conspecific temporal 
runs of chinook salmon in these ESUs; (2) collection of Deschutes River 
fall-run chinook salmon samples by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm 
Springs Reservation (CTWSR) which will be genetically analyzed by the 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and used by NMFS to 
determine the genetic makeup of these chinook salmon in relationship to 
the genetic structure of listed Snake River fall-run chinook salmon; 
and (3) analysis of additional genetic and abundance data regarding the 
ratio of hatchery-to-natural fall-run chinook salmon in California's 
Central Valley. A more detailed discussion of the areas of substantial 
scientific disagreement and of the efforts to resolve it follows.

Points of Substantial Scientific Disagreement

    Knowledgeable scientists from state fish and wildlife agencies, 
tribes, the public, and some peer reviewers dispute the sufficiency and 
accuracy of data employed by NMFS in its proposed listing of west coast 
chinook salmon ESUs in California, Oregon, and Washington. The primary 
areas of dispute fell into two broad categories: issues relating to ESU 
definitions and issues relating to risk assessment. The following 
sections briefly discuss the types of data that are subject to 
disagreement within each category.

Issues Relating to ESU Definitions

    Two points of scientific disagreement may affect chinook salmon ESU 
boundaries. One area of disagreement concerns NMFS' treatment of 
diverse life history forms within the individual ESUs, specifically the 
relationship between spring and fall chinook salmon in the same river 
basins. Comments received focused on NMFS' use of primarily genetic 
data in making its determination to combine spring and fall chinook 
salmon into a single ESU. Some commenters argued that not all relevant 
life history characteristics are apparent through an analysis of 
discrete genetic markers.
    CDFG, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hoopa Valley Tribal Council 
(HVTC), Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program (YTFP), and several of the peer-
reviewers, as well as a number of local government agencies, 
conservation groups, and private citizens, all felt that in a number of 
cases where spring- and fall-run chinook salmon were included in the 
same ESU, separate ESUs should have been established. These 
recommendations were supported with information on ecological 
differences in spring and fall-run spawning and juvenile rearing 
habitat. Furthermore, it was argued that separation in spawning time 
and location provided a significant amount of reproductive isolation, 
even in those systems where dams had restricted access to historical 
spring-run spawning habitat. Several of the commenters highlighted 
these ecological and life history differences in those ESUs where 
genetic data were limited or lacking. Furthermore, the commenters 
stated that the lumping of spring and fall runs in the Klamath River 
ESU and in coastal ESUs was inconsistent with the recognition of 
separate fall- and spring-run ESUs in California's Central Valley and 
the upper Columbia River Basin.
    However, another point of disagreement concerns whether there is 
significant reproductive isolation between spring and fall chinook 
salmon to warrant their designation as separate ESUs. One peer reviewer 
indicated that the genetic differences observed between the Central 
Valley fall/late fall- and Central Valley spring-run ESU were not 
compelling enough to justify their separation into two ESUs. NMFS will 
receive new samples of spring and fall chinook salmon from CDFG and 
CTWSR at the conclusion of the run year early in 1999 and will need 
time to analyze these additional data.
    The relationship between different chinook salmon temporal runs 
within the same geographic areas varies by region. For example, in 
Puget Sound and in the Columbia River, considerable information is 
available on the relationship between spring- and fall-run populations. 
The two runs are well differentiated by both genetic and life history 
traits in the upper Columbia and Snake Rivers, whereas the same 
characters show only modest differences between runs in Puget Sound. 
These patterns are well established and are not likely to change if 
additional information were gathered.
    The relationship of different temporal runs in some other areas, 
especially those south of Cape Blanco, Oregon, are much less clear. 
NMFS had limited genetic information on the relationship between spring 
and fall runs in California's Central Valley and in the Klamath River 
Basin. The only allozyme information available for spring-run chinook 
salmon in both of these regions is from hatchery broodstocks. 
Furthermore, available information suggests that these ``spring-run'' 
broodstocks have undergone significant hybridization with fall-run 
chinook salmon returning to the Feather River Hatchery in the Central 
Valley. In the Upper Klamath and Trinity River ESU, there was no 
genetic information available for naturally-spawning populations. NMFS 
concluded that the case for separating the spring and fall runs in this 
ESU on an ecologic and life-history basis alone was not as compelling 
as was the case in the Central Valley. However, NMFS will review this 
decision if new genetic information on naturally-spawning spring-run 
populations becomes available to NMFS.
    Another scientific disagreement concerning California's Central 
Valley spring-run chinook salmon ESU concerns the origins of some 
spring-run chinook salmon populations. Disagreements have arisen 
concerning the origin of the recently increasing number of spring-run 
chinook salmon in Butte Creek, a tributary of the Sacramento River. The 
California Department of Water Resources and CDFG presented genetic 
information which indicates that the spring-run chinook salmon 
population in Butte Creek is not the result of Feather River Hatchery 
stray chinook salmon, as NMFS suggested might be the case. New DNA data 
suggests that Butte Creek spring-run chinook salmon may be more closely 
related to spring-run fish in Deer and Mill Creeks than to fall or 
late-fall run stocks. NMFS was unable to positively ascertain the 
origin of spring-run chinook salmon in Butte Creek at the time of the 
proposed listing and is curently analyzing new genetic samples of Butte 
Creek spring-run chinook salmon provided by CDFG so that it can more 
accurately address questions concerning ESU configurations and 
abundance within the Central Valley.
    Scientific disagreement was also raised by the Oregon Department of 
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), CDFG, and a number of other commenters who 
disputed the geographic boundaries of the Southern Oregon and 
California Coastal chinook salmon ESU. Comments focused on two issues: 
(1) Splitting the ESU just south of the Klamath River; and (2) revising 
the southern boundary to the Russian River or north of the Russian 
River. Genetic data presented in the status review indicate that within 
this ESU there are two somewhat distinct subgroups (the first group 
includes populations from Cape Blanco to the Klamath River Basin, 
inclusive, and the second group includes populations south of the 
Klamath

[[Page 14331]]

River). These commenters argued that the genetic distance separating 
these groups is comparable to the distance between other ESUs 
recognized by NMFS (e.g., between Upper Columbia summer and fall-run 
and Snake River fall-run ESUs, and Oregon Coast and Washington Coast 
ESUs). Furthermore, these commenters argued that there are considerable 
ecological differences between the northern and southern populations 
within this large ESU. These geological and environmental differences 
had been used by NMFS, in part, to separate coho salmon and steelhead 
from this large geographic area into two separate ESUs. ODFW further 
contended that the depressed status of chinook salmon in the southern 
portion of this ESU was dramatically different from that found in the 
northern part, and that the causal factor(s) for this difference may be 
related to environmental and management differences between the regions 
of this ESU.
    The second geographic boundary issue that was presented by 
reviewers was the boundary of the southern border of the Southern 
Oregon and California Coastal ESU. Several citations were given to 
substantiate claims that self-sustaining chinook salmon populations do 
not presently, and did not historically, exist in river basins south of 
the Russian River or in San Francisco Bay. Additionally, some 
commenters contended that chinook salmon native to the Russian River 
are extinct, and that the historical abundance of the population was 
never very large and may have been intermittent. Part of the rationale 
for not dividing the Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU was 
based on the absence of biological information on populations in the 
southern portion of the ESU. Although genetic information was available 
for these southern stocks, the differences observed were not consistent 
with the genetic differences used to distinguish other ESUs.
    Information on the historical distribution of chinook salmon south 
of the Mattole River is very limited. Historical records from the turn 
of the century indicate that the southernmost population was in the 
Ventura River. The only extant coastal populations south of the Mattole 
River are a fall-run population(s) in the Ten-Mile River (Mendocino 
County) and possibly the Russian River. CDFG and other reviewers 
concluded that the native run in the Russian River was extirpated early 
in this century, and genetic information and hatchery transfer records 
indicate that the current population is composed of a myriad of 
introduced stocks. Chinook salmon have also been observed spawning in 
the Guadalupe River (south San Francisco Bay) and have been recently 
observed in several other tributaries in San Francisco Bay (Coyote 
Creek), San Pablo Bay (Sonoma Creek, Napa River), and Suisun Bay 
(Walnut Creek) (SOE, 1996), but NMFS was unable to resolve the origin 
of these populations.
    Regarding the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU, ODFW, CTWSR, 
the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), and other 
reviewers disagreed with the inclusion of the Deschutes River fall-run 
chinook salmon in this ESU. They argued that the Deschutes River and 
Snake River Basins are ecologically distinct. Furthermore, the 
geographic distance between these basins would preclude any significant 
genetic exchange, especially if one considers the historical spawning 
distribution of the Snake River chinook salmon. A number of scenarios 
were suggested that might explain the genetic similarity between the 
Deschutes River and Snake River fall-run populations. One scenario 
presented by ODFW suggested that, after the loss of the majority of 
their historical spawning habitat, the remaining Snake River fall-run 
populations no longer represent the genetic characteristics of the 
historical ESU. They stressed that the existing allozyme information 
NMFS analyzed was acquired after the Columbia River Basin had undergone 
considerable alterations (mainstem dam construction) and many of the 
native populations had been extirpated. An alternative view is that 
because the genetic differences between all ocean-type chinook salmon 
above the Dalles Dam are relatively small, the clustering of 
populations is subject to uncertainty and possible bias, depending on 
the procedures used. The commenters also suggested that the marine 
coded-wire tag recovery information for the Deschutes River fall-run 
populations may be biased due to the limited number of tags recovered 
and the limited number of brood years that were tagged. CTWSR asserted 
that an ocean-type summer-run existed (and may still exist) in the 
Deschutes River, and this would evolutionarily link the Deschutes River 
ocean-type fish more with ocean-type fish in the Upper Columbia summer/
fall-run ESU, which (unlike the Snake River fall-run ESU) also includes 
summer-run populations.
    Some reviewers suggested that all ocean-type chinook salmon above 
the historical location of Celilo Falls should be considered a single 
ESU. The most commonly suggested alternative ESU configuration was for 
a separate ESU that would include the Deschutes River, and the now 
extinct populations that once spawned in the John Day, Umatilla, and 
Walla Walla Rivers.
    Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the Snake River fall-run 
chinook salmon ESU configuration, and none of the alternatives 
considered (including the configuration in the proposed rule) for these 
chinook salmon populations can be convincingly substantiated by the 
existing scientific evidence.

Issues Related to Risk Assessment

    Risk assessment involves the collection and analysis of data on the 
abundance and status of west coast chinook salmon and the threats 
presented by various human activities and natural occurrences. In its 
``Factors for Decline'' report for west coast chinook salmon, NMFS 
identified the principal threats to chinook as past and present harvest 
and hatchery practices, habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, 
as well as adverse ocean conditions (NMFS, 1998).
    With respect to abundance data, several commenters argued that NMFS 
lacked sufficient and accurate data to estimate current chinook salmon 
abundance. These commenters argued that NMFS failed to accurately 
estimate the number and effects of hatchery fish spawning in the wild, 
and that NMFS' analysis upwardly biased its assessment of the risks 
facing chinook salmon in those instances.
    The Association of California Water Agencies and other resources 
agencies disagreed with NMFS' conclusion that a considerable portion of 
the naturally-spawning population in the Central Valley were hatchery 
strays. They argued that in the absence of definitive information 
regarding the proportion of strays spawning naturally that NMFS could 
not adequately define risks. Additionally, they argued that if hatchery 
and natural populations were indistinguishable (due to the use of 
broodstocks from within the ESU) and hatcheries are needed to mitigate 
lost habitat, then hatchery abundance should be included in the risk 
determination. Furthermore, one estimate of the hatchery stray rate (20 
percent) is much lower than that found in other ESUs that were not 
recommended for listing.
    NMFS considered several different estimates of hatchery 
contribution to naturally spawning chinook salmon populations in the 
Central Valley. The estimates of stray rates varied from 20 to over 50 
percent. Additionally, NMFS inferred the status of naturally-spawning 
populations by comparing the

[[Page 14332]]

abundance trends for populations that were near hatchery release sites 
relative to those more distantly situated. Recent information indicates 
that stray rates for many basins, especially those in the San Joaquin 
River Basin, are well in excess of 50 percent, but may be quite low for 
selected basins in the upper Sacramento River. Additional spawner 
survey, smolt sampling, and coded-wire-tag recovery data have been 
received from CDFG, the water resource agencies, and other comanagers. 
This information begins to fill an important void in NMFS' 
understanding of the relationship between hatchery and spawning fish. 
There are still a number of major basins for which there is limited, 
dated information on spawner strays. NMFS and CDFG staff are currently 
collecting additional information and data to help resolve these 
substantial scientific disagreements.
    In the case of Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon, spawner 
abundance in Butte Creek increased from less than a hundred to several 
thousand in a few years; the 1998 abundance estimate for the Butte 
Creek spring run is approximately 19,000 spawners. This increase was so 
abrupt that it caused some speculation that it was not due to natural 
production. Furthermore, water from the Feather River had been diverted 
into Butte Creek to improve flows, and it was suggested that this may 
have attracted Feather River Hatchery fish. If these fish are included 
in the total abundance estimate for the Central Valley spring-run 
chinook salmon ESU, it represents a several fold increase in total 
spring-run chinook salmon abundance and this new information may affect 
NMFS' determination. NMFS was unable to positively ascertain the origin 
of spring-run chinook salmon in Butte Creek at the time of the proposed 
listing, and our recently collected genetic samples have yet to be 
fully analyzed.

Prospects for Resolving Existing Disagreements

    Several efforts are underway that may resolve scientific 
disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to 
these listings. Currently, NMFS is obtaining genetic samples from 
naturally-spawning spring- and fall-run populations in the Central 
Valley and the upper Klamath and Trinity River Basins. Furthermore, a 
number of co-managing agencies (U.S. Forest Service, CDFG, the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, HVTC, and YTFP) in the Upper Klamath 
and Trinity Rivers and Southern Oregon and Coastal California ESUs have 
collected samples for microsatellite DNA analysis from both spring and 
fall runs. These samples would be very useful in determining the 
relationship between conspecific temporal chinook salmon runs within an 
ESU, as currently defined, and would provide a wider geographic context 
for the DNA data that were utilized in determining the configuration of 
the California chinook salmon stocks. Additionally, DNA information has 
been made available from California State agencies for an additional 
naturally-spawning spring run in California's Central Valley (Butte 
Creek). Over the next few months the analysis of this genetic 
information will be completed at the Bodega Bay Marine Laboratory and 
Hopkins Marine Station Laboratory (DNA samples) and by NMFS (allozyme 
samples). The results will provide a more complete picture of the 
genetic relationship between conspecific temporal runs and may 
significantly alter the configuration of the proposed ESUs.
    Presently, there are reports of chinook salmon (of unknown run size 
and origin) spawning in a number of tributaries to Suisun Bay, San 
Pablo Bay, and San Francisco Bay. New information is being gathered by 
NMFS to document the occurrence of spawning chinook salmon throughout 
San Francisco Bay and the lower Delta region.
    Regarding the Snake River fall-run chinook salmon ESU, ODFW and 
CTWSR are currently collecting new genetic samples from fish spawning 
in the Deschutes River. Samples are being taken from above and below 
Sherars Falls to establish whether multiple populations exist within 
the Deschutes River. The CTWSR is also reviewing historical 
environmental data for the Deschutes and Snake River Basins. CTWSR and 
CRITFC will prepare a report of the results of their studies for NMFS 
to review by late spring 1999.
    For California's Central Valley ESUs, NMFS will receive and analyze 
additional spring- and fall-run genetic samples as well as rigorously 
evaluate ecological characteristics to determine if further subdivision 
of these ESUs are warranted. Currently, NMFS is obtaining tissue 
samples for allozyme analysis from Butte Creek, Deer Creek, and 
possibly Mill Creek (the latter two sites contain what are generally 
thought to be the native spring runs). The inclusion of these samples 
in the NMFS allozyme database should help resolve the origin of the 
Butte Creek fish, and evaluate the reproductive isolation of 
conspecific temporal relationships between spring- and fall-run chinook 
salmon in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

Determination

    NMFS expects that information that has just become (or will soon 
become) available will, when fully analyzed, significantly help to 
resolve scientific uncertainties associated with ESU determinations 
and/or extinction risk analysis for the chinook salmon ESUs discussed 
earlier in this document. Four of these chinook salmon ESUs were 
proposed for listing in 1998: Central Valley spring- and fall/late 
fall-run, Southern Oregon and California Coastal, and Snake River fall-
run chinook salmon. This information should also help clarify the ESU 
configuration and status of populations in the Upper Klamath and 
Trinity Rivers ESU (an ESU that was not proposed for listing), thus 
providing greater certainty and consistency in ESU determinations 
coastwide.
    With respect to the other ESUs of chinook salmon that were proposed 
for listing on March 9, 1998 (Puget Sound, Lower Columbia River, Upper 
Willamette River, and Upper Columbia River spring-run), NMFS has made 
final listing determinations published elsewhere in the Rules and 
Regulations section of this Federal Register issue.
    The scientific disagreements concerning data and analyses discussed 
earlier are substantial and may alter NMFS' assessment of the status of 
California's Central Valley spring-run and Central Valley fall/late 
fall-run, Southern Oregon and California Coastal, and Snake River fall 
chinook salmon ESUs. In light of these disagreements and the fact that 
more data are forthcoming on risk assessment and ESU boundaries, NMFS 
extends the final determination deadline for California's Central 
Valley spring-run and Central Valley fall/late fall-run, Southern 
Oregon and California Coastal, and Snake River fall-run chinook salmon 
ESUs for 6 months from the 1-year decision deadline, until September 9, 
1999. During this period, NMFS will analyze new information aimed at 
resolving these disagreements. New information or analyses may indicate 
that changing the proposed status of one or more of these ESUs of west 
coast chinook salmon is warranted, and NMFS will either finalize, 
withdraw, or modify the proposed rule accordingly.

Request for Comments

    In addition to collecting and analyzing data received, NMFS seeks 
additional comments on the information presented in this Federal 
Register document. Comments must be received by April 23, 1999.

[[Page 14333]]

References

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 742a et. seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 16 U.S.C. 31 U.S.c. 9701.

    Dated: March 15, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-6816 Filed 3-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F