[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43937-43954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21661]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 222 and 227
[Docket No. 960730210-7193-02; I.D. 050294D]
RIN 0648-XX65
Endangered and Threatened Species: Listing of Several
Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Steelhead
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 9, 1996, NMFS completed a comprehensive status
review of west coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss, or O. mykiss)
populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, and
identified 15 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) within this
range. NMFS is now issuing a final rule to list two ESUs as endangered
and three ESUs as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The endangered steelhead ESUs are located in California (Southern
California) and Washington (Upper Columbia River). The threatened
steelhead ESUs are located in California (Central California Coast and
South-Central California Coast) and Idaho, Washington, and Oregon
(Snake River Basin). For the endangered ESUs, section 9(a) prohibitions
will be effective 60 days from the publication of this final rule. For
the threatened ESUs, NMFS will issue shortly protective regulations
under section 4(d) of the ESA, which will apply section 9(a)
prohibitions with certain exceptions.
NMFS has examined the relationship between hatchery and natural
populations of steelhead in these ESUs, and has assessed whether any
hatchery
[[Page 43938]]
populations are essential for their recovery. Only the Wells Hatchery
stock in the Upper Columbia River ESU is essential for recovery and
included in this listing. Aside from the Wells Hatchery stock, only
naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) residing
below long-term, naturally and man-made impassable barriers (i.e.,
dams) are listed in all five ESUs identified as threatened or
endangered.
At this time, NMFS is listing only anadromous life forms of O.
mykiss.
DATES: Effective October 17, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 NE
Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, 503-231-2005, Craig
Wingert, 562-980-4021, or Joe Blum, 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Species Background
Oncorhynchus mykiss exhibit one of the most complex suites of life
history traits of any salmonid species. Oncorhynchus mykiss may exhibit
anadromy (meaning they migrate as juveniles from fresh water to the
ocean, and then return to spawn in fresh water) or freshwater residency
(meaning they reside their entire life in fresh water). Resident forms
are usually referred to as ``rainbow'' or ``redband'' trout, while
anadromous life forms are termed ``steelhead.'' Few detailed studies
have been conducted regarding the relationship between resident and
anadromous O. mykiss and as a result, the relationship between these
two life forms is poorly understood. Recently the scientific name for
the biological species that includes both steelhead and rainbow trout
was changed from Salmo gairdneri to O. mykiss. This change reflects the
premise that all trouts from western North America share a common
lineage with Pacific salmon.
Steelhead typically migrate to marine waters after spending 2 years
in fresh water. They then reside in marine waters for typically 2 or 3
years prior to returning to their natal stream to spawn as 4-or 5-year-
olds. Unlike Pacific salmon, steelhead are iteroparous, meaning they
are capable of spawning more than once before they die. However, it is
rare for steelhead to spawn more than twice before dying; most that do
so are females. Steelhead adults typically spawn between December and
June (Bell, 1990; Busby et al., 1996). Depending on water temperature,
steelhead eggs may incubate in ``redds'' (nesting gravels) for 1.5 to 4
months before hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval life stage dependent on
food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac absorption, young
juveniles or ``fry'' emerge from the gravel and begin actively feeding.
Juveniles rear in fresh water from 1 to 4 years, then migrate to the
ocean as ``smolts.''
Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two reproductive
ecotypes, based on their state of sexual maturity at the time of river
entry and the duration of their spawning migration. These two ecotypes
are termed ``stream maturing'' and ``ocean maturing.'' Stream maturing
steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition and
require several months to mature and spawn. Ocean maturing steelhead
enter fresh water with well-developed gonads and spawn shortly after
river entry. These two reproductive ecotypes are more commonly referred
to by their season of freshwater entry (e.g., summer and winter
steelhead).
Two major genetic groups or ``subspecies'' of steelhead occur on
the west coast of the United States: a coastal group and an inland
group, separated in the Fraser and Columbia River Basins approximately
by the Cascade crest (Huzyk & Tsuyuki, 1974; Allendorf, 1975; Utter &
Allendorf, 1977; Okazaki, 1984; Parkinson, 1984; Schreck et al., 1986;
Reisenbichler et al., 1992). Behnke (1992) proposed to classify the
coastal subspecies as O. m. irideus and the inland subspecies as O. m.
gairdneri. These genetic groupings apply to both anadromous and non-
anadromous forms of O. mykiss. Both coastal and inland steelhead occur
in Washington and Oregon. California is thought to have only coastal
steelhead while Idaho has only inland steelhead.
Historically, steelhead were distributed throughout the North
Pacific Ocean from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asia to the northern Baja
Peninsula. Presently, the species distribution extends from the
Kamchatka Peninsula, east and south along the Pacific coast of North
America, to at least Malibu Creek in southern California. There are
infrequent anecdotal reports of steelhead occurring as far south as the
Santa Margarita River in San Diego County (McEwan & Jackson, 1996).
Historically, steelhead likely inhabited most coastal streams in
Washington, Oregon, and California as well as many inland streams in
these states and Idaho. However, during this century, over 23
indigenous, naturally-reproducing stocks of steelhead are believed to
have been extirpated, and many more are thought to be in decline in
numerous coastal and inland streams in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California. Forty-three stocks have been identified by Nehlsen et al.
(1991) as being at moderate or high risk of extinction.
Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Steelhead
The history of petitions received regarding west coast steelhead is
summarized in the proposed rule published on August 9, 1996 (61 FR
56138). The most comprehensive petition was submitted by Oregon Natural
Resources Council and 15 co-petitioners on February 16, 1994. In
response to this petition, NMFS assessed the best available scientific
and commercial data, including technical information from Pacific
Salmon Biological Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and 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 steelhead and their habitats. A total of seven PSBTC
meetings were held in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California during the course of the west coast steelhead status review.
NMFS also established a Biological Review Team (BRT), composed of staff
from NMFS' Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers and
Southwest Regional Office, as well as a representative of the National
Biological Service, which conducted a coastwide status review for west
coast steelhead (Busby et al., 1996).
Based on the results of the BRT report, and after considering other
information and existing conservation measures, NMFS published a
proposed listing determination (61 FR 56138, August 9, 1996) that
identified 15 ESUs of steelhead in the states of Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and California. Ten of these ESUs were proposed for listing as
threatened or endangered species, four were found not warranted for
listing, and one was identified as a candidate for listing.
NMFS has now analyzed new information and public comments received
in response to the August 9, 1996, proposed rule. NMFS' BRT has
likewise analyzed this new information and has updated its conclusions
accordingly (NMFS, 1997a). Copies of the BRT's updated conclusions,
entitled ``Status Review Update for West Coast Steelhead from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California,'' are available upon request
(see ADDRESSEES). This final rule identifies five ESUs of west
[[Page 43939]]
coast steelhead in the four states that currently warrant listing as
threatened or endangered species under the ESA.
Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule
NMFS held 16 public hearings in California, Oregon, Idaho, and
Washington to solicit comments on the proposed rule. One hundred and
eighty-eight individuals presented testimony at the public hearings.
During the 90-day public comment period, NMFS received 939 written
comments on the proposed rule from Federal, state, and local government
agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations, the scientific
community, and other individuals. A number of comments addressed
specific technical issues pertaining to a particular geographic region
or O. mykiss population. These technical comments were considered by
NMFS' BRT in its re-evaluation of ESU boundaries and status and are
discussed in the updated Status Review document (NMFS, 1997a).
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with 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 22 individuals to take part
in a peer review of its west coast steelhead proposed rule. All
individuals solicited are recognized experts in the field of steelhead
biology and represent a broad range of interests, including Federal,
state, and tribal resource managers, private industry consultants, and
academia. Eight individuals took part in the peer review of this
action; comments from peer reviewers were considered by NMFS' BRT and
are summarized in the updated Status Review document (NMFS, 1997a).
A summary of comments received in response to the proposed rule is
presented below.
Issue 1: Sufficiency and Accuracy of Scientific Information and
Analysis
Comment: Numerous commenters disputed the sufficiency and accuracy
of data which NMFS employed in its proposed rule to list ten steelhead
ESUs as either threatened or endangered under the ESA. Several
commenters urged NMFS to delay any ESA listing decisions for steelhead
until additional scientific information is available concerning this
species.
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. NMFS believes that information contained in the agency's
status review (Busby et al., 1996), together with more recent
information obtained in response to the proposed rule (NMFS, 1997a),
represent the best scientific information presently available for the
steelhead ESUs addressed in this final rule. NMFS has conducted an
exhaustive review of all available information relevant to the status
of this species. NMFS has also solicited information and opinion from
all interested parties, including peer reviewers as described above. If
in the future new data become available to change these conclusions,
NMFS will act accordingly.
Section 4(b)(6) of the ESA requires NMFS to publish a final
determination whether a species warrants listing as threatened or
endangered within 1 year from publishing a proposed determination. If
such a final listing is not warranted, NMFS must withdraw the proposed
regulation. In certain cases where NMFS concludes that substantial
disagreement exists regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of available
data relevant to its determinations, NMFS may extend this 1-year period
by not more than 6 months for the purposes of soliciting additional
data. (ESA Sec. 4(b)(6)(B)(i)).
With respect to those steelhead ESUs addressed in this final rule,
NMFS concludes no basis exists to delay final ESA listings. State
resource agencies, peer reviewers, and other knowledgeable parties are
in general agreement that steelhead stocks in these areas are at risk.
As described in a separate Federal Register notice, however, NMFS has
determined a 6-month extension is warranted for five remaining ESUs of
west coast steelhead. These ESUs include the following: Lower Columbia
River, Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountains Province, Northern California,
and the Central Valley of California. For these particular ESUs, NMFS
concludes that substantial disagreement exists regarding the
sufficiency and accuracy of the data. Several efforts are underway that
may resolve scientific disagreement regarding the sufficiency and
accuracy of data relevant to these ESUs. NMFS has undertaken an
intensive effort to analyze the data received during and after the
comment period on the proposed ESUs from the States of Washington,
Oregon, and California, as well as from peer reviewers. This work will
include evaluating the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
models, analyzing population abundance trends where new data are
available, and examining new genetic data relative to the relationship
between winter and summer steelhead and between hatchery and wild fish.
In light of these disagreements and the fact that more data are
forthcoming, NMFS extends the final determination deadline for these
ESUs for 6 months, until February 9, 1998.
Issue 2: Description and Status of Steelhead ESUs
Comment: A few commenters disputed NMFS' conclusions regarding the
geographic boundaries for some of the ESUs and questioned NMFS' basis
for determining these boundaries. Most of these comments pertained to
the ESUs south of San Francisco Bay, suggesting particular river
systems be excluded from listing due to historical or occasional
absence of steelhead or rainbow trout.
Response: NMFS has published a policy describing how it will apply
the ESA definition of ``species'' to anadromous salmonid species (56 FR
58612, November 20, 1991). More recently, NMFS and FWS published a
joint policy, consistent with NMFS' policy, regarding the definition of
``distinct population segments'' (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 considered to be distinct and, hence, 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 scientific paper entitled: ``Pacific Salmon
(Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition of `Species' under the
Endangered Species Act.'' It is also found in a NOAA Technical
Memorandum: ``Definition of `Species' Under the Endangered Species Act:
Application to Pacific Salmon'' (Waples, 1991). A more detailed
discussion of individual ESU boundaries is provided below under
``Summary of Conclusions Regarding Listed ESUs.''
[[Page 43940]]
Comment: Several commenters questioned NMFS' methodology for
determining whether a given steelhead ESU warranted listing. In most
cases, such commenters also expressed opinions regarding whether
listing was warranted for a particular steelhead ESU. A few commenters
provided substantive new information relevant to making risk
assessments.
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 below under ``Summary of Conclusions Regarding Listed ESUs.''
Issue 3: Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast Steelhead
Comment: Many commenters identified factors they believe have
contributed to the decline of west coast steelhead. Factors identified
include overharvest by recreational fisheries, predation by pinnipeds
and piscivorous fish species, effects of artificial propagation, and
the deterioration or loss of freshwater and marine habitats.
Response: NMFS agrees that many factors, past and present, have
contributed to the decline of west coast steelhead. NMFS also
recognizes that natural environmental fluctuations have likely played a
role in the species' recent declines. However, NMFS believes other
human-induced impacts (e.g., incidental catch in certain fisheries,
hatchery practices, and habitat modification) have played an equally
significant role in this species' decline. Moreover, these human-
induced impacts have likely reduced the species' resiliency to natural
factors for decline such as drought, poor ocean conditions, and
predation (NMFS, 1996a).
Since the time of this proposed listing, NMFS has published a
report describing the impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific
Harbor Seals upon salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of
Washington, Oregon, and California (NMFS, 1997b). This report concludes
that in certain cases where pinniped populations co-exist with
depressed salmonid populations, salmon populations may experience
severe impacts due to predation. An example of such a situation is
Ballard Locks, WA, where sea lions are known to consume significant
numbers of adult winter steelhead. This study further concludes that
data regarding pinniped predation is quite limited and that substantial
additional research is needed to fully address this issue. For
additional information on this issue see the ``Summary of Factors
Affecting Steelhead'' below.
Comment: One peer reviewer and several commenters stated that NMFS'
assessment underestimated the significant influence of natural
environmental fluctuations on salmonid populations. Several commenters
stated that ocean conditions are one of the primary factors for
decline. These commenters suggested that any listing activity should be
postponed until the complete oceanographic cycle can be observed.
Response: Environmental changes in both marine and freshwater
habitats can have important impacts on steelhead abundance. For
example, a pattern of relatively high abundance in the mid-1980s
followed by (often sharp) declines over the next decade occurred in
steelhead populations from most geographic regions of the Pacific
Northwest. This result is most plausibly explained by broad-scale
changes in ocean productivity. Similarly, 6 to 8 years of drought in
the late 1980s and early 1990s adversely affected many freshwater
habitats for steelhead throughout the region. These natural phenomena
put increasing pressure on natural populations already stressed by
anthropogenic factors such as habitat degradation, blockage of
migratory routes, and harvest (NMFS, 1996a).
Improvement of cyclic or episodic environmental conditions (for
example, increases in ocean productivity or shifts from drought to
wetter conditions) can help alleviate extinction risk to steelhead
populations. However, NMFS cannot reliably predict future environmental
conditions, making it unreasonable to assume improvements in abundance
as a result of improvements in such conditions. Furthermore, steelhead
and other species of Pacific salmon have evolved over the centuries
with such cyclical environmental stresses. This species has persisted
through time in the face of these conditions largely due to the
presence of freshwater and estuarine refugia. As these refugia are
altered and degraded, Pacific salmon species are more vulnerable to
episodic events such as shifts in ocean productivity and drought cycles
(NMFS, 1996a).
Issue 4: Consideration of Existing Conservation Measures
Comment: Several commenters argued that NMFS had not considered
existing conservation programs designed to enhance steelhead stocks
within a particular ESU. Some commenters provided specific information
on some of these programs to NMFS concerning the efficacy of existing
conservation plans.
Response: NMFS has reviewed existing conservation plans and
measures relevant to the five ESUs addressed in this final rule and
concludes that existing conservation efforts in these areas are not
sufficient to preclude listing of individual ESUs at this time. Several
of the plans addressed in comments show promise of ameliorating the
risks facing steelhead. However, in most cases, measures described in
comments have not been implemented or are in their early stages of
implementation and have not yet demonstrated success. Some of these
measures are also geographically limited to individual river basins or
political subdivisions, thereby improving conditions for only a small
portion of the entire ESU.
While existing conservation efforts and plans are not sufficient to
preclude the need for listings at this time, they are nevertheless
valuable for improving watershed health and restoring fishery
resources. In those cases where well developed, reliable conservation
plans exist, NMFS may choose to incorporate them into the recovery
planning process. In the case of threatened species, NMFS also has
flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor section 9 take regulations
based on the contents of available conservation measures. NMFS fully
intends to recognize local conservation efforts to the fullest extent
possible. Endangered Species Act listing should not be viewed as the
failure of such plans; rather, it should be viewed as a challenge to
better coordinate existing conservation efforts to address the
underlying problems of watershed degradation and species health.
[[Page 43941]]
Issue 5: Steelhead Biology and Ecology
Comment: Several commenters and a peer reviewer asserted that
resident rainbow trout should be included in listed steelhead ESUs.
Several commenters also stated that NMFS and FWS should address how the
presence of rainbow trout populations may ameliorate risks facing
anadromous populations within listed ESUs.
Response: In its August 9, 1996, proposed rule, NMFS stated that
based on available genetic information, it was the consensus of NMFS
scientists, as well as regional fishery biologists, that resident fish
should generally be considered part of the steelhead ESUs. However,
NMFS concluded that available data were inconclusive regarding the
relationship of resident rainbow trout and steelhead. NMFS requested
additional data in the proposed rule to clarify this relationship and
determine if resident rainbow trout should be included in listed
steelhead ESUs.
In response to this request for additional information, many groups
and individuals expressed opinions regarding this issue. In most cases
these opinions were not supported by new information that resolves
existing uncertainty. Two state fishery management agencies (California
Department of Fish and Game and Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife) and one peer reviewer provided comments and information
supporting the inclusion of resident rainbow trout in listed steelhead
ESUs. In general, these parties also felt that rainbow trout may serve
as an important reservoir of genetic material for at risk steelhead
stocks.
While conclusive evidence does not yet exist regarding the
relationship of resident and anadromous O. mykiss, NMFS believes
available evidence suggests that resident rainbow trout should be
included in listed steelhead ESUs in certain cases. Such cases include:
(1) Where resident O. mykiss have the opportunity to interbreed with
anadromous fish below natural or man-made barriers; or (2) where
resident fish of native lineage once had the ability to interbreed with
anadromous fish but no longer do because they are currently above
human-made barriers, and they are considered essential for recovery of
the ESU. Whether resident fish that exist above any particular man-made
barrier meet these criteria, must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis
by NMFS. NMFS recognizes that there may be many such cases in
California alone. Resident fish above long-standing natural barriers,
and those that are derived from the introduction of non-native rainbow
trout, would not be considered part of any ESU.
Several lines of evidence exist to support this conclusion. Under
certain conditions, anadromous and resident O. mykiss are apparently
capable not only of interbreeding, but also of having offspring that
express the alternate life history form, that is, anadromous fish can
produce nonanadromous offspring, and vice versa (Shapovalov and Taft,
1954; Burgner et al., 1992). Mullan et al. (1992) found evidence that
in very cold streams, juvenile steelhead had difficulty attaining
``mean threshold size for smoltification'' and concluded that ``[m]ost
fish here [Methow River, WA] that do not emigrate downstream early in
life are thermally-fated to a resident life history regardless of
whether they were the progeny of anadromous or resident parents.''
Additionally, Shapovalov and Taft (1954) reported evidence of O. mykiss
maturing in fresh water and spawning prior to their first ocean
migration; this life history variation has also been found in cutthroat
trout (O. clarki) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).
NMFS believes resident fish can help buffer extinction risks to an
anadromous population by mitigating depensatory effects in spawning
populations (e.g., inability of spawning adults to find mates due to
low population sizes), by providing offspring that migrate to the ocean
and enter the breeding population of steelhead, and by providing a
``reserve'' gene pool in freshwater that may persist through times of
unfavorable conditions for anadromous fish. In spite of these potential
benefits, presence of resident populations is not a substitute for
conservation of anadromous populations. A particular concern is
isolation of resident populations by human-caused barriers to
migration. This interrupts normal population dynamics and population
genetic processes and can lead to loss of a genetically based trait
(anadromy). As discussed in NMFS' ``species identification'' paper
(Waples 1991), the potential loss of anadromy in distinct population
segments may in and of itself warrant listing the species as a whole.
On February 7, 1996, FWS and NMFS adopted a joint policy to clarify
their interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment (DPS)
of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife'' for the purposes of
listing, delisting, and reclassifying species under the ESA (61 FR
4722). DPSs are ``species'' pursuant to section 3(15) of the ESA.
Previously, NMFS had developed a policy for stocks of Pacific salmon
where an ESU of a biological species is considered ``distinct'' (and
hence a species) if it is substantially reproductively isolated from
other conspecific population units, and it represents an important
component in the evolutionary legacy of the species (November 20, 1991,
56 FR 58612). NMFS believes available data suggest that resident
rainbow trout are in many cases part of steelhead ESUs. However, the
FWS, which has ESA authority for resident fish, maintains that
behavioral forms can be regarded as separate DPSs (e.g., western snowy
plover) and that absent evidence suggesting resident rainbow trout need
ESA protection, the FWS concludes that only the anadromous forms of
each ESU should be listed under the ESA (DOI, 1997; FWS, 1997).
In its review of west coast steelhead, the NMFS BRT stated that
rainbow trout and steelhead in the same area may share a common gene
pool, at least over evolutionary time periods (NMFS, 1997a). The
importance of any recovery action is measured in terms of its ability
to recover the listed species in the foreseeable future. The FWS
believes that steelhead recovery will not rely on the intermittent
exchange of genetic material between resident and anadromous forms
(FWS, 1997). As a result, without a clear demonstration of any risks to
resident rainbow trout or the need to protect rainbow trout to recover
steelhead in the foreseeable future, the FWS concludes that only the
anadromous forms of O. mykiss should be included in the listed
steelhead ESUs at this time (FWS 1997). Moreover, including resident
forms of O. mykiss in any future listing action under the ESA would
necessitate that the two forms combined meet the definition of an
endangered or threatened species (FWS, 1997).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the 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.
As noted earlier, NMFS received numerous comments regarding the
relative importance of various factors contributing to the decline of
west coast
[[Page 43942]]
steelhead. Several recent documents describe in more detail the impacts
of various factors contributing to the decline of steelhead and other
salmonids (e.g., NMFS, 1997c). Relative to west coast steelhead, NMFS
has prepared a supporting document that addresses the factors leading
to the decline of this species entitled ``Factors for Decline: A
supplement to the notice of determination for west coast steelhead''
(NMFS, 1996a). This report, available upon request (see ADDRESSES),
concludes that all of the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA have played a role in the decline of the species. The report
identifies destruction and modification of habitat, overutilization for
recreational purposes, and natural and human-made factors as being the
primary reasons for the decline of west coast steelhead. The following
discussion briefly summarizes findings regarding factors for decline
across the range of west coast steelhead. While these factors have been
treated here in general terms, it is important to underscore that
impacts from certain factors are more acute for specific ESUs. For
example, impacts from hydropower development are more pervasive for
ESUs in the Upper Columbia River and Snake River ESUs than for some
coastal ESUs.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Steelhead on the west coast of the United States have experienced
declines in abundance in the past several decades as a result of
natural and human factors. Forestry, agriculture, mining, and
urbanization have degraded, simplified, and fragmented habitat. Water
diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower
purposes (especially in the Columbia River and Sacramento-San Joaquin
Basins) have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible
habitat. Studies estimate that during the last 200 years, the lower 48
states have lost approximately 53 percent of all wetlands and the
majority of the rest are severely degraded (Dahl, 1990; Tiner, 1991).
Washington and Oregon's wetlands are estimated to have diminished by
one-third, while California has experienced a 91-percent loss of its
wetland habitat (Dahl, 1990; Jensen et al., 1990; Barbour et al., 1991;
Reynolds et al., 1993). Loss of habitat complexity has also contributed
to the decline of steelhead. For example, in national forests in
Washington, there has been a 58-percent reduction in large, deep pools
due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures such as
boulders and large wood (FEMAT, 1993). Similarly, in Oregon, the
abundance of large, deep pools on private coastal lands has decreased
by as much as 80 percent (FEMAT, 1993). Sedimentation from land use
activities is recognized as a primary cause of habitat degradation in
the range of west coast steelhead.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Steelhead support an important recreational fishery throughout
their range. During periods of decreased habitat availability (e.g.,
drought conditions or summer low flow when fish are concentrated), the
impacts of recreational fishing on native anadromous stocks may be
heightened. NMFS has reviewed and evaluated the impacts of recreational
fishing on west coast steelhead populations (NMFS, 1996a). Steelhead
are not generally targeted in commercial fisheries. High seas driftnet
fisheries in the past may have contributed slightly to a decline of
this species in local areas, but could not be solely responsible for
the large declines in abundance observed along most of the Pacific
coast over the past several decades.
A particular problem occurs in the main stem of the Columbia River
where listed steelhead from the Upper Columbia and Snake River Basin
ESUs migrate at the same time and are subject to the same fisheries as
unlisted, hatchery-produced steelhead, chinook and coho salmon.
Incidental harvest mortality in mixed-stock sport and commercial
fisheries may exceed 30 percent of listed populations.
C. Disease or Predation
Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult
and juvenile steelhead survival. Steelhead are exposed to numerous
bacterial, protozoan, viral, and parasitic organisms in spawning and
rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and the marine
environments. Specific diseases such as bacterial kidney disease (BKD),
ceratomyxosis, columnaris, Furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic
necrosis (IHNV), redmouth and black spot disease, Erythrocytic
Inclusion Body Syndrome (EIBS), and whirling disease among others are
present and are known to affect steelhead and salmon (Rucker et al.,
1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Foott et al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer,
undated). Very little current or historical information exists to
quantify changes in infection levels and mortality rates attributable
to these diseases for steelhead. However, studies have shown that
native fish tend to be less susceptible to pathogens than hatchery-
reared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et al., 1992).
Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have
resulted in increased predator populations in numerous river systems,
thereby increasing the level of predation experienced by salmonids.
Predation by pinnipeds is also of concern in areas experiencing
dwindling steelhead run sizes. However, salmon and marine mammals have
coexisted for thousands of years and most investigators consider
predation an insignificant contributing factor to the large declines
observed in west coast steelhead populations.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
1. Federal and State Forest Practices
The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a Federal management policy with
important benefits for steelhead. While the NFP covers a very large
area, the overall effectiveness of the NFP in conserving steelhead is
limited by the extent of Federal lands and the fact that Federal land
ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within the
affected ESUs. The extent and distribution of Federal lands limits the
NFP's ability to achieve its aquatic habitat restoration objectives at
watershed and river basin scales and highlights the importance of
complementary salmon habitat conservation measures on non-Federal lands
within the subject ESUs. For example, there are no Federal lands
managed under the NFP within the Central California, South-Central
California, or Southern California ESUs.
On February 25, 1995, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management adopted Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing
Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington,
Idaho, and portions of California (known as PACFISH). The strategy was
developed in response to significant declines in naturally-reproducing
salmonid stocks, including steelhead, and widespread degradation of
anadromous fish habitat throughout public lands in Idaho, Washington,
Oregon, and California outside the range of the northern spotted owl.
Like the NFP, PACFISH is an attempt to provide a consistent approach
for maintaining and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat conditions
which, in turn, are expected to promote the sustained natural
production of anadromous fish. However, as with the NFP, PACFISH is
[[Page 43943]]
limited by the extent of Federal lands and the fact that Federal land
ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within the
affected ESUs. In the South-Central California and Southern California
ESU, for example, Federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service
represent less than 15-25 percent of each ESU. Moreover, much of these
Federal lands are located in upper elevation areas above currently
impassible barriers. Furthermore, PACFISH was designed to be a short-
term land management/anadromous fish conservation strategy to halt
habitat degradation and begin the restoration process until a long-term
strategy could be adopted. Interagency PACFISH implementation reports
from 1995 and 1996 indicate PACFISH has not been consistently
implemented and has not achieved the level of conservation anticipated
for the short-term. Additionally, because PACFISH was expected to be
replaced within 18 months, it required only minimal levels of watershed
analysis and restoration. The interim PACFISH strategy could be
effective until summer 1998, when the Interior Columbia River basin
Environmental Impact Statements replace it. In total, PACFISH would be
in place for a period of approximately 42 months and its long-term
limitations have already resulted in lost conservation opportunities
for threatened and proposed anadromous fishes.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)
enforces the State of California's forest practice rules (CFPRs) that
are promulgated through the Board of Forestry (BOF). The CFPRs contain
provisions that can be protective of steelhead if fully implemented.
However, NMFS believes the CFPRs do not secure properly functioning
riparian habitat. Specifically, the CFPRs do not adequately address
large woody debris recruitment, streamside tree retention to maintain
bank stability, and canopy retention standards that assure stream
temperatures are properly functioning for all life stages of steelhead.
The current process for approving Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) under the
CFPRs does not include monitoring of timber harvest operations to
determine whether a particular operation damaged habitat and, if so,
how it might be mitigated in future THPs. The CFPR rule that permits
salvage logging is also an area where better environmental review and
monitoring could ensure better protection for steelhead. For these
reasons, NMFS is working to improve the condition of riparian buffers
in ongoing habitat conservation plan negotiations with private
landowners.
The Washington Department of Natural Resources implements and
enforces the State of Washington's forest practice rules (WFPRs) which
are promulgated through the Forest Practices Board. These WFPRs contain
provisions that can be protective of steelhead if fully implemented.
This is possible given that the WFPR's are based on adaptive management
of forest lands through watershed analysis, development of site-
specific land management prescriptions, and monitoring. Watershed
Analysis prescriptions can exceed WFPR minima for stream and riparian
protection. However, NMFS believes the WFPRs, including watershed
analysis, do not provide properly functioning riparian and instream
habitats. Specifically, the base WFPRs do not adequately address large
woody debris recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream bank
integrity and channel networks within floodplains, and chronic and
episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that maintain habitats that
are properly functioning for all life stages of steelhead.
The majority of land area within the Snake River ESU (about 70
percent) is under Federal management; therefore, in most watersheds the
State of Idaho's forest practice rules play a lesser role in forest
management relative to Federal measures (i.e., PACFISH). Even so, NMFS
believes that certain aspects of the State's forest practice rules do
not avoid adverse effects to anadromous fish populations or their
habitat. Specifically, current riparian buffer width requirements are
inadequate, as well as rules which do not prohibit logging on unstable
hillsides and landslide prone areas.
2. Dredge, Fill, and Inwater Construction Programs
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates removal/fill activities
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which requires that the
COE not permit a discharge that would ``cause or contribute to
significant degradation of the waters of the United States.'' One of
the factors that must be considered in this determination is cumulative
effects. However, the COE guidelines do not specify a methodology for
assessing cumulative impacts or how much weight to assign them in
decision-making. Furthermore, the COE does not have in place any
process to address the additive effects of the continued development of
waterfront, riverine, coastal, and wetland properties.
3. Water Quality Programs
The Federal CWA is intended to protect beneficial uses, including
fishery resources. To date, implementation has not been effective in
adequately protecting fishery resources, particularly with respect to
non-point sources of pollution.
Section 303(d)(1) (C) and (D) of the CWA requires states to prepare
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all water bodies that do not meet
State water quality standards. TMDLs are a method for quantitative
assessment of environmental problems in a watershed and identifying
pollution reductions needed to protect drinking water, aquatic life,
recreation, and other use of rivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs may
address all pollution sources including point sources such as sewage or
industrial plant discharges, and non-point discharges such as runoff
from roads, farm fields, and forests.
The CWA gives state governments the primary responsibility for
establishing TMDLs. However, EPA is required to do so if a state does
not meet this responsibility. In California, as a result of recent
litigation, the EPA has made a legal commitment guaranteeing that
either EPA or the State of California will establish TMDLs, that
identify pollution reduction targets, for 18 impaired river basins in
northern California by the year 2007. The State of California has made
a commitment to establish TMDLs for approximately half the 18 river
basins by 2007. The EPA will develop TMDLs for the remaining basins and
has also agreed to complete all TMDLs if the State fails to meet its
commitment within the agreed upon time frame.
State agencies in Oregon are committed to completing TMDLs for
coastal drainages within 4 years, and all impaired waters within 10
years. Similarly ambitious schedules are in place, or being developed
for Washington and Idaho.
The ability of these TMDLs to protect steelhead should be
significant in the long term; however, it will be difficult to develop
them quickly in the short term and their efficacy in protecting
steelhead habitat will be unknown for years to come.
4. Hatchery and Harvest Management
In the past, non-native steelhead stocks have been introduced as
broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal rivers
and streams in California (Bryant, 1994; Busby et al., 1996; NMFS,
1997a). Because of problems associated with this practice, California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) developed its
[[Page 43944]]
Salmon and Steelhead Stock Management Policy. This policy recognizes
that such stock mixing is detrimental and seeks to maintain the genetic
integrity of all identifiable stocks of salmon and steelhead in
California, as well as minimize interactions between hatchery and
natural populations. To protect the genetic integrity of salmon and
steelhead stocks, this policy directs CDFG to evaluate each salmon and
steelhead stream and classify it according to its probable genetic
source and degree of integrity. This has not yet been accomplished by
the State.
California's Steelhead Management Plan [or plan] was adopted and
published in February 1996. The plan recognizes that restoration of
California's steelhead populations requires a broad approach that
emphasizes ecosystem restoration. The plan focuses on restoration of
native and naturally produced steelhead stocks because of their
importance in maintaining genetic and biological diversity and for
their aesthetic values. The Steelhead Plan presents a historical
account of the decline of California's steelhead populations, and
identifies needed restoration measures both on a broad, programmatic
scale and on a stream-specific scale. The Steelhead Plan identifies
recent changes in the State's steelhead fishery management and
regulations (e.g., steelhead trout catch report--restoration card [AB
2187], seasonal closures and zero bag limits for nearly all coastal
streams from Santa Barbara County southward) and also identifies
recommendations for further management changes to protect and conserve
steelhead populations. These recommended changes include marking of all
hatchery-produced steelhead in the State, implementation of an 8-inch
minimum size limit for all anadromous waters in the State, and a
reduction in the State-wide bag limit to one steelhead per day. CDFG
has just recently begun implementation of some of the measures
identified in this plan.
Hatchery programs and harvest management have strongly influenced
steelhead populations in the Upper Columbia and Snake River Basin ESUs.
Hatchery programs intended to compensate for habitat losses have masked
declines in natural stocks and have created unrealistic expectations
for fisheries. Collection of natural steelhead for broodstock and
transfers of stocks within and between ESUs has detrimentally impacted
some populations.
The three state agencies (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington Department of Fish and Game, and Idaho Department of Fish
and Game) have adopted and are implementing natural salmonid policies
designed to limit hatchery influences on natural, indigenous steelhead.
Sport fisheries are based on marked, hatchery-produced steelhead, and
sport fishing regulations are designed to protect wild fish. While some
limits have been placed on hatchery production of anadromous salmonids,
more careful management of current programs and scrutiny of proposed
programs is necessary in order to minimize impacts on listed species.
E. Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Natural climatic conditions have exacerbated the problems
associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats.
Persistent drought conditions have reduced already limited spawning,
rearing and migration habitat. Climatic conditions appear to have
resulted in decreased ocean productivity which, during more productive
periods, may help offset degraded freshwater habitat conditions (NMFS,
1996a).
In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat, extensive hatchery
programs have been implemented throughout the range of steelhead on the
West Coast. While some of these programs have succeeded in providing
fishing opportunities, the impacts of these programs on native,
naturally-reproducing stocks are not well understood. Competition,
genetic introgression, and disease transmission resulting from hatchery
introductions may significantly reduce the production and survival of
native, naturally-reproducing steelhead. Collection of native steelhead
for hatchery broodstock purposes often harms small or dwindling natural
populations. Artificial propagation can play an important role in
steelhead recovery through carefully controlled supplementation
programs.
Summary of ESU Determinations
Below follows a summary of NMFS' ESU determinations for these
species. A more detailed discussion of ESU determinations is presented
in the ``Status Review Update for West Coast Steelhead from Washington,
Idaho, Oregon, and California'' (NMFS, 1997a). Copies of this document
are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
(1) Central California Coast ESU
This coastal steelhead ESU occupies river basins from the Russian
River, Sonoma County, CA, (inclusive) to Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz
County, CA, (inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco and San
Pablo Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), Napa County, CA. The
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin of the Central Valley of California
is excluded. Environmental features show a transition in this region
from the northern redwood forest ecosystem to the more xeric southern
chaparral and coastal scrub ecosystems. This area is characterized by
very erosive soils in the coast range mountains; redwood forest is the
dominant coastal vegetation for these drainages. Precipitation is lower
here than in areas to the north, and elevated stream temperatures
(greater than 20 deg. C) are common in the summer. Coastal upwelling in
this region is strong and consistent, resulting in a relatively
productive nearshore marine environment.
NMFS has determined that no changes in the proposed boundaries of
the Central California Coast ESU are warranted; however, the original
written description of this ESU inadvertently left a gap between Soquel
Creek and the Pajaro River. This ESU includes steelhead occupying the
Russian River and all basins south to Aptos Creek but not including the
Pajaro River Basin.
One peer reviewer questioned the basis for the location of the
boundary between this ESU and the South-Central California Coast,
effectively splitting the basins that flow into Monterey Bay. The ESU
break between Aptos Creek and the Pajaro River is largely based on
ecological differences of the river basins. The Pajaro River and river
basins south of there drain an arid interior and end in broad coastal
plains, whereas north of the Pajaro River, the river basins largely
drain coastal mountains at the southern end of the natural range of the
redwood forest. This boundary is also consistent with the southern
limit of coho salmon, further suggesting a natural ecological break.
NMFS finds no biological basis to exclude steelhead from the basins
of either San Francisco or San Pablo Bays from this ESU, as some
commenters have suggested. The characteristics of hydrology, geology,
and upper basin vegetation in the basins draining into San Francisco
Bay and San Pablo Bay are more similar to those attributes of the
coastal portion of this ESU than to the Central Valley ESU, although
resource management activities and urbanization have altered much of
the habitat. Life history characteristics of steelhead, such as period
of emigration and spawning, are also consistent within this ESU.
[[Page 43945]]
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU
Hatchery populations considered part of this ESU include Big Creek
Hatchery stock and San Lorenzo River Hatchery stock which is reared at
the Big Creek hatchery. The basis for this conclusion is the minimal
influence of releases of fish from outside of the ESU and the genetic
similarity between these and other regional stocks. Furthermore, adult
collection and spawning procedures practiced by the hatcheries (which
include using naturally produced fish) have helped reduce selection for
domestication and small population effects during the course of
hatchery operations.
Hatchery populations not included in the listed ESU at this time
include the Dry Creek stock at the Warm Springs hatchery. Information
concerning this stock is sparse and therefore this stock's relationship
to the entire ESU is uncertain. NMFS will continue to evaluate any new
information concerning this stock in the future to determine if its
inclusion is warranted.
(2) South-Central California Coast ESU
This coastal steelhead ESU occupies rivers from the Pajaro River,
located in Santa Cruz County, CA, (inclusive) to (but not including)
the Santa Maria River, San Luis Obispo County, CA. Most rivers in this
ESU drain the Santa Lucia Mountain Range, the southernmost unit of the
California Coast Ranges. The climate is drier and warmer than in the
north, which is reflected in the vegetational change from coniferous
forest to chaparral and coastal scrub. Another biological transition at
the north of this area is the southern limit of the distribution of
coho salmon (O. kisutch). The mouths of many of the rivers and streams
in this area are seasonally closed by sand berms that form during
periods of low flow in the summer. The southern boundary of this ESU is
near Point Conception, a well-known transition area for the
distribution and abundance of marine flora and fauna.
NMFS has determined that no changes in the proposed boundaries of
the South-Central California Coast ESU are warranted. See discussion of
the Central California Coast ESU, above, regarding the break between
Aptos Creek and the Pajaro River.
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU
Hatchery populations considered part of this ESU include Whale Rock
Reservoir stock. Although this stock was established from a steelhead
population that was trapped behind the Whale Rock Dam in the 1950s, it
apparently retains an anadromous component. Juvenile steelhead are able
to emigrate from Whale Rock Reservoir during high spill years, and
anecdotal information indicates that some of these juveniles return as
adults to the base of the dam 2 years later.
(3) Southern California ESU
This coastal steelhead ESU occupies rivers from the Santa Maria
River, San Luis Obispo County, CA (inclusive) to the southern extent of
the species' range. Available data indicate that Malibu Creek, Los
Angeles County is the southernmost stream generally recognized as
supporting a persistent, naturally spawning population of anadromous O.
mykiss (Behnke, 1992; Burgner et al., 1992).
Migration and life history patterns of southern California
steelhead depend more strongly on rainfall and streamflow than is the
case for steelhead populations farther north (Moore, 1980; Titus et
al., in press). River entry ranges from early November through June,
with peaks in January and February. Spawning primarily begins in
January and continues through early June, with peak spawning in
February and March. Average rainfall is substantially lower and more
variable in this ESU than regions to the north, resulting in increased
duration of sand berms across the mouths of streams and rivers and, in
some cases, complete dewatering of the marginal habitats. Environmental
conditions in marginal habitats may be extreme (e.g., elevated water
temperatures, droughts, floods, and fires) and presumably impose
selective pressures on steelhead populations. Steelhead use of southern
California streams and rivers with elevated temperatures suggests that
populations within this ESU are able to withstand higher temperatures
than those to the north. The relatively warm and productive waters of
the Ventura River resulted in more rapid growth of juvenile steelhead
than occurred in northerly populations (Moore, 1980; McEwan & Jackson,
1996). However, relatively little life history information exists for
steelhead from this ESU.
In the proposed rule NMFS stated that this ESU presently extends to
the southern extent of the species range which is currently thought to
be Malibu Creek, Los Angeles County. Many comments were received
regarding this issue; most supported placing the southern boundary of
this ESU further south. NMFS has reviewed numerous references to
steelhead occurring historically and recently in streams as far south
as the U.S.-Mexico border. While available data indicate that steelhead
may occasionally occur as far south as the Santa Margarita River, the
relationship of these individuals to those populations occurring
further north is poorly understood.
Based on available data, NMFS concludes that insufficient
information exists to justify revision of the proposed southern
boundary of this ESU.
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU
No hatchery production of steelhead currently occurs in this ESU.
(4) Upper Columbia River Basin ESU
This inland steelhead ESU occupies the Columbia River Basin
upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the United States-Canada
border. The geographic area occupied by this ESU forms part of the
larger Columbia Basin Ecoregion (Omernik, 1987). The Wenatchee and
Entiat Rivers are in the Northern Cascades Physiographic Province, and
the Okanogan and Methow Rivers are in the Okanogan Highlands
Physiographic Province. The geology of these provinces is somewhat
similar and very complex, developed from marine invasions, volcanic
deposits, and glaciation (Franklin & Dyrness, 1973). The river valleys
in this region are deeply dissected and maintain low gradients except
in extreme headwaters. The climate in this area includes extremes in
temperatures and precipitation, with most precipitation falling in the
mountains as snow. Streamflow in this area is provided by melting
snowpack, groundwater, and runoff from alpine glaciers. Mullan et al.
(1992) described this area as a harsh environment for fish and stated
that ``it should not be confused with more studied, benign, coastal
streams of the Pacific Northwest.''
Life history characteristics for Upper Columbia River Basin
steelhead are similar to those of other inland steelhead ESUs; however,
some of the oldest smolt ages for steelhead, up to 7 years, are
reported from this ESU. This may be associated with the cold stream
temperatures (Mullan et al., 1992). Based on limited data available
from adult fish, smolt age in this ESU is dominated by 2-year-olds.
Steelhead from the Wenatchee and Entiat Rivers return to fresh water
after 1 year in salt water, whereas Methow River steelhead are
primarily two-ocean resident (Howell et al., 1985).
In 1939, the construction of Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River
blocked over 1,800 kilometers of river
[[Page 43946]]
from access by anadromous fish (Mullan et al., 1992). In an effort to
preserve fish runs affected by Grand Coulee Dam, all anadromous fish
migrating upstream were trapped at Rock Island Dam from 1939 through
1943 and either released to spawn in tributaries between Rock Island
and Grand Coulee Dams or spawned in hatcheries and the offspring
released in that area (Peven, 1990; Mullan et al., 1992; Chapman et
al., 1994). Through this process, stocks of all anadromous salmonids,
including steelhead, which were historically native to several separate
subbasins above Rock Island Dam, were redistributed among tributaries
in the Rock Island-Grand Coulee reach without regard to their origin.
Exactly how this has affected stock composition of steelhead is
unknown.
NMFS has determined that no changes in the boundaries of the Upper
Columbia River ESU are warranted. No new information was received from
peer reviewers or other commenters regarding the boundaries of this
ESU.
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU
Hatchery populations considered part of this ESU include the Wells
Hatchery stock of steelhead (Summer run). Although this stock
represents a mixture of native populations, it probably retains the
genetic resources of steelhead populations above Grand Coulee Dam that
are now extinct from those native habitats. Operations at the Wells
Hatchery have utilized large numbers of spawning adults
(500) and have incorporated some naturally
spawning adults (10 percent of the total) into the broodstock each
year, procedures which should help minimize the negative genetic
effects of artificial propagation. Because of the incorporation of
naturally-spawning adults into the hatchery broodstock and the large
number of hatchery-propagated fish that spawn naturally, there is a
close genetic resemblance between naturally spawning populations in the
ESU and the Wells Hatchery stock that could be used for recovery
purposes.
Hatchery populations not considered part of this ESU include the
Skamania Hatchery stock (Summer run) because of its non-native
heritage.
(5) Snake River Basin ESU
This inland steelhead ESU occupies the Snake River Basin of
southeast Washington, northeast Oregon and Idaho. The Snake River flows
through terrain that is warmer and drier on an annual basis than the
upper Columbia Basin or other drainages to the north. Geologically, the
land forms are older and much more eroded than most other steelhead
habitat. The eastern portion of the basin flows out of the granitic
geological unit known as the Idaho Batholith. The western Snake River
Basin drains sedimentary and volcanic soils of the Blue Mountains
complex. Collectively, the environmental factors of the Snake River
Basin result in a river that is warmer and more turbid, with higher pH
and alkalinity, than is found elsewhere in the range of inland
steelhead.
Snake River Basin steelhead are summer steelhead, as are most
inland steelhead, and have been classified into two groups, A-run and
B-run, based on migration timing, ocean-age, and adult size. Snake
River Basin steelhead enter fresh water from June to October and spawn
in the following spring from March to May. A-run steelhead are thought
to be predominately one-ocean, while B-run steelhead are thought to be
two-ocean (IDFG, 1994). Snake River Basin steelhead usually smolt at
age-2 or -3 years (Whitt, 1954; BPA, 1992; Hassemer, 1992).
NMFS concludes that no changes in the proposed boundaries of the
Snake River Basin ESU are warranted. While several commenters stated
that A- and B-run steelhead are distinctive and therefore warrant
consideration as separate ESUs, no new scientific evidence was provided
to support this. As one peer reviewer noted, the distinction between A-
and B-run fish currently is made using either timing-based or length-
based divisions of steelhead passing Bonneville Dam, on the mainstem
Columbia River. Above Bonneville dam, run-timing separation is not
observed, and the groups are separated based on ocean age and body size
(IDFG, 1994). It is unclear if the life history and body size
differences observed upstream are correlated with groups forming the
bimodal migration observed at Bonneville dam. Furthermore, the
relationship between patterns observed at the dams and the distribution
of adults in spawning areas through the Snake River basin is not well
understood. Based on the inability to clearly distinguish between A-
and B-run steelhead once above Bonneville, NMFS concludes their
division into separate ESUs is not warranted.
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU
Hatchery populations considered part of this ESU include Dworshak
National Fish Hatchery (NFH) stock (Summer run); Imnaha River stock
(Summer run); and Oxbow Hatchery stock (Summer run). Although the
historical spawning and rearing habitat for the Dworshack Hatchery
stock is not available to anadromous migrants (due to the construction
of Dworshak Dam), this stock represents the only source of a
genetically distinct component of the ESU. Furthermore, due to the
absence of any introgression from other populations, the purity of this
stock likely has been maintained. While some concern exists for
potential domestication or genetic founder effects, hatchery records
indicate that a minimum of a thousand adults have been used annually to
perpetuate the stock, which would reduce the possibility of genetic
drift leading to reduced genetic variation within the stock.
NMFS concludes that the Imnaha River Hatchery stock is part of the
Snake River ESU. This stock was recently founded from an undiluted
stock (with no previous history of non-native hatchery releases) for
the purpose of preserving the native genetic resources of this area.
Therefore, this stock represents an important component of the
evolutionary legacy of this ESU.
Finally, NMFS concludes that the Oxbow Hatchery stock is part of
the Snake River ESU. Although this stock has been under artificial
propagation for several generations and has been propagated almost
entirely from hatchery-derived adults, NMFS believes this stock
represents the only source of a unique genetic resource and as such is
important to preserve as part of the ESU.
Hatchery populations not considered part of the Snake River ESU
include the Lyons Ferry stock (Summer run), Pahsimeroi Hatchery stock
(Summer run), East Fork Salmon River Trap (Summer run), and Wallowa
Hatchery stock (Summer run). The Lyons Ferry Hatchery stock is excluded
primarily based on the use of steelhead from stocks that originated
outside of this ESU. The Pahsimeroi Hatchery stock consists of a
mixture of populations, all of which originate within the ESU; however,
NMFS believes that because these populations came from ecologically-
distinct regions throughout the Snake River Basin, the assemblage of
these populations does not closely resemble any naturally spawning
counterpart. In recent years, hatchery practices have focused on
propagating this stock solely from hatchery derived adults. The East
Fork Salmon River Trap consists of a mixture of Pahsimeroi and Dworshak
Hatchery stocks which are not included in the ESU.
NMFS concludes that the Wallowa Hatchery stock is not included in
this ESU. This stock was founded by collections of adults from lower
Snake
[[Page 43947]]
River mainstem dams, and there was no clear consensus on which
populations within the Snake River Basin were represented in the
mixture. Also, populations not native to the Snake River (e.g.,
Skamania stock) have been incorporated into Wallowa Hatchery
broodstock. Many of the reasons for not including this stock are
similar to those given for the Pahsimeroi Hatchery stock.
Existing Conservation Efforts
Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is
required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available and after taking into account
efforts being made to protect a species. During the status review for
west coast steelhead, NMFS reviewed an array of protective efforts for
steelhead and other salmonids, ranging in scope from regional
strategies to local watershed initiatives. NMFS has summarized some of
the major efforts in a document entitled ``Steelhead Conservation
Efforts: A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast
Steelhead under the Endangered Species Act'' (NMFS, 1996b). In
addition, NMFS has compiled inventories of locally based, watershed
conservation planning and restoration efforts for steelhead in the
Central California, South-Central, and Southern California ESUs (NMFS,
1997d). These documents are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Despite numerous efforts to halt and reverse declining trends in
west coast steelhead, it is clear that the status of many native,
naturally-reproducing populations has continued to deteriorate. NMFS
therefore believes it highly likely that past efforts and programs to
address the conservation needs of these stocks are inadequate,
including efforts to reduce mortalities and improve the survival of
these stocks through all stages of their life cycle. Important factors
include the loss of habitat, continued decline in the productivity of
freshwater habitat for a wide variety of reasons, significant potential
negative impacts from interactions with hatchery stocks, overfishing,
and natural environmental variability.
NMFS recognizes that many of the ongoing Federal, state, and local
protective efforts are likely to promote the conservation of steelhead
and other salmonids. However, NMFS has also determined that,
collectively, these efforts are not sufficient to achieve long-term
conservation and recovery of steelhead at the scale of individual ESUs.
There have been significant improvements in migration conditions in the
Columbia River Basin as a result of NMFS' 1995 Biological Opinion on
the operation of the Federal hydropower system. However, mainstem
passage conditions are only one of many threats facing the species.
NMFS believes most existing efforts lack some of the critical elements
needed to provide a high degree of certainty that the efforts will be
successful.
The best available scientific information on the biological status
of the species supports a final listing of five steelhead ESUs under
the ESA at this time. NMFS concludes that existing protective efforts
are inadequate to alter the proposed determination of threatened or
endangered for these five steelhead ESUs.
Status of Steelhead 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 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 steelhead, 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 below,
followed by a summary of results for each ESU.
Quantitative Assessments
A significant component of NMFS' status determination was analyses
of abundance trend data. Principal data sources for these analyses were
historical and recent run size estimates derived from dam and weir
counts, stream surveys, and angler catch estimates. Of the 160
steelhead stocks on the west coast of the United States for which
sufficient data existed, 118 (74 percent) exhibited declining trends in
abundance, while the remaining 42 (26 percent) exhibited increasing
trends in abundance. Sixty-five of the stock abundance trends analyzed
were statistically significant. Of these, 57 (88 percent) indicated
declining trends in abundance and the remaining 8 (12 percent)
indicated increasing trends in abundance. NMFS' analysis assumes that
catch trends reflect trends in overall population abundance. NMFS
recognizes there are many problems with this assumption and, therefore,
the index may not represent trends in the total population in a river
basin. However, angler catch is the only information available for many
steelhead populations, and changes in catch still provide a useful
indication of trends in total population abundance. Furthermore, where
alternate abundance data existed, NMFS used them in its risk analyses.
Analyses of steelhead abundance indicate that across the species'
range, the majority of naturally reproducing steelhead stocks have
exhibited long-term declines in abundance. The severity of declines in
abundance tends to vary by geographic region. Based on historical and
recent abundance estimates, stocks in the southern extent of the
coastal steelhead range (i.e., California's Central Valley, South-
Central and Southern California ESUs) appear to have declined
significantly, with widespread stock extirpations. In several areas, a
lack of accurate run size and trend data make estimating abundance
difficult.
Qualitative Assessments
Although numerous studies have attempted to classify the status of
steelhead populations on the west coast of the United States, problems
exist in applying results of these studies to NMFS' ESA evaluations. A
significant problem is that the definition of ``stock'' or
``population'' varies considerably in scale among studies, and
sometimes among regions within a study. In several studies, identified
units range in size from large river basins, to minor coastal streams
and tributaries. Only two studies (Nehlsen et al., 1991; Higgins et
al., 1992) used categories that relate to the ESA ``threatened'' or
``endangered'' status. Even these studies applied their own
interpretations of these terms to individual stocks, not to broader
[[Page 43948]]
geographic units such as those discussed here. Another significant
problem in applying previously published studies to this evaluation is
the manner in which stocks or populations were selected to be included
in the review. Several studies did not evaluate stocks that were not
perceived to be at risk, making it difficult to determine the
proportion of stocks they considered to be at risk in any given area.
Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered salmon and steelhead stocks
throughout Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California and enumerated all
stocks they found to be extinct or at risk of extinction. They
considered 23 steelhead stocks to be extinct, one possibly extinct, 27
at high risk of extinction, 18 at moderate risk of extinction, and 30
of special concern. Steelhead stocks that do not appear in their
summary were either not at risk of extinction or there was insufficient
information to classify them. Washington Department of Fisheries et al.
(1993) categorized all salmon and steelhead stocks in Washington on the
basis of stock origin (``native,'' ``non-native,'' ``mixed,'' or
``unknown''), production type (``wild,'' ``composite,'' or ``unknown'')
and status (``healthy,'' ``depressed,'' ``critical,'' or ``unknown'').
Of the 141 steelhead stocks identified in Washington, 36 were
classified as healthy, 44 as critical, 10 as depressed, and 60 as
unknown.
The following summaries draw on these quantitative and qualitative
assessments to describe NMFS' conclusions regarding the status of each
steelhead ESU. Furthermore, in these summaries, NMFS identifies those
hatchery populations that are essential for the recovery of the ESU. An
``essential'' hatchery population is one that is currently vital to the
success of recovery efforts for the ESU within which it occurs. In
evaluating the importance of hatchery stocks for recovery, NMFS
considers the relationship between the natural and hatchery populations
and the degree of risk faced by the natural populations. A more
detailed discussion of the status of these steelhead ESUs is presented
in the ``Status Review Update for West Coast Steelhead from Washington,
Idaho, Oregon, and California'' (NMFS, 1997a). Copies of this document
are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
(1) Central California Coast ESU
Only two estimates of historical (pre-1960s) abundance specific to
this ESU are available: an average of about 500 adults in Waddell Creek
in the 1930s and early 1940s (Shapovalov & Taft, 1954), and an estimate
of 20,000 steelhead in the San Lorenzo River before 1965 (Johnson,
1964). In the mid-1960s, CDFG (1965) estimated 94,000 steelhead
spawning in many rivers of this ESU, including 50,000 and 19,000 fish
in the Russian and San Lorenzo Rivers, respectively. NMFS has
comparable recent estimates for only the Russian (approximately 7,000
fish) and San Lorenzo (approximately 500 fish) Rivers. These estimates
indicate that recent total abundance of steelhead in these two rivers
is less than 15 percent of their abundance 30 years ago. Additional
recent estimates for several other streams (Lagunitas Creek, Waddell
Creek, Scott Creek, San Vincente Creek, Soquel Creek, and Aptos Creek)
indicate individual run sizes are 500 fish or less. No recent estimates
of total run size exist for this ESU. McEwan and Jackson (1996) noted
that steelhead in most tributary streams in San Francisco and San Pablo
Bays have been extirpated.
Additional information received in response to the proposed rule
suggests that steelhead in this ESU may be exhibiting slight increases
in abundance in recent years (NMFS, 1997a). Updated abundance data for
the Russian and San Lorenzo Rivers indicate increasing run sizes over
the past 2-3 years, but it is not possible to distinguish the relative
proportions of hatchery and natural steelhead in those estimates.
Additional data from a few smaller streams in the region also show
general increases in juvenile abundance in recent years.
Presence/absence data available since the proposed rule show that
in a subset of streams sampled in the central California coast region,
most contain steelhead. This is in contrast to the pattern exhibited by
coho, which are absent from many of those same streams. Those streams
in which steelhead were not present are concentrated in the highly
urbanized San Francisco Bay region. While there are several concerns
with these data (e.g., uncertainty regarding origin of juveniles), NMFS
believes it is generally a positive indicator that there is a
relatively broad distribution of steelhead in smaller streams
throughout the region.
In evaluating trends in productivity throughout the ESU, NMFS
considered difficulties arising from the inability to separate out the
effects of hatchery productivity from overall run size increases in
recent years. The Russian and San Lorenzo Rivers have the highest
steelhead productivity in the ESU, but it is likely that many of the
fish are of hatchery origin (estimates in both streams range from 40-60
percent over the last 5 years).
After considering available information, NMFS concludes that
steelhead in the Central California Coast ESU warrant listing as a
threatened species--a change from its proposed status as endangered.
Factors contributing to the present conclusion include new evidence for
greater absolute numbers of steelhead in the larger rivers of the
central California coast region and the possible increases in juvenile
abundance over the last few years. In addition, the broad geographic
distribution of steelhead throughout the region, as indicated by the
presence/absence data, also convinced NMFS this ESU does not warrant an
endangered listing at this time.
Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU
NMFS concludes that the Big Creek and San Lorenzo River Hatchery
stocks are not essential for recovery of this ESU. Current information
indicates sufficient naturally spawning populations exist for recovery
efforts. The significant degree of hatchery contribution to steelhead
runs in the San Lorenzo River may require the use of this stock in
recovery efforts in the future.
(2) South-Central California Coast ESU
Historical estimates of steelhead abundance are available for a few
rivers in this region. In the mid-1960s, CDFG (1965) estimated a total
of 27,750 steelhead spawning in this ESU. Recent estimates for those
rivers where comparative abundance information is available show a
substantial decline during the past 30 years. In contrast to the CDFG
(1965) estimates, McEwan and Jackson (1996) reported runs ranging from
1,000 to 2,000 in the Pajaro River in the early 1960s, and Snider
(1983) estimated escapement of about 3,200 steelhead for the Carmel
River for the 1964-1975 period. No recent estimates for total run size
exist for this ESU; however, recent run-size estimates are available
for five rivers (Pajaro River, Salinas River, Carmel River, Little Sur
River, and Big Sur River). The total of these estimates is less than
500 fish, compared with a total of 4,750 for the same rivers in 1965,
which suggests a substantial decline for the entire ESU from 1965
levels.
Updated data on abundance and trends for steelhead in this ESU
indicate slight increases in recent years. New data from the Carmel
River show increases in adult and juvenile steelhead abundance over the
past 2 to 5 years.
After weighing this new information, NMFS concludes that steelhead
in the
[[Page 43949]]
South-Central California Coast ESU warrant listing as a threatened
species--a change from its proposed status as endangered. Reasons for
this slightly more optimistic assessment include new abundance data
indicating recent increases in adult and juvenile abundance in the
Carmel River and several small coastal tributaries in the southern part
of the region. In addition, risks to genetic integrity to steelhead in
this ESU are relatively low because of low levels of hatchery stocking.
(There are a few scattered reports of rainbow trout introductions from
rivers outside the central California coast region.)
Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU
NMFS concludes that the Whale Rock Reservoir Hatchery stock is not
essential for recovery of this ESU. Current information indicates
sufficient naturally spawning populations exist for recovery efforts.
If in the future the status of steelhead in this ESU worsens, this
stock may become essential for recovery efforts.
(3) Southern California ESU
Historically, steelhead occurred naturally south into Baja
California. Estimates of historical (pre-1960s) abundance for several
rivers in this ESU are available: Santa Ynez River, before 1950, 20,000
to 30,000 (Shapovalov & Taft, 1954; CDFG, 1982; Reavis, 1991; Titus et
al., in press); Ventura River, pre-1960, 4,000 to 6,000 (Clanton &
Jarvis, 1946; CDFG, 1982; AFS, 1991; Hunt et al., 1992; Henke, 1994;
Titus et al., in press); Santa Clara River, pre-1960, 7,000 to 9,000
(Moore, 1980; Comstock, 1992; Henke, 1994); Malibu Creek, pre-1960,
1,000 (Nehlsen et al., 1991; Reavis, 1991). In the mid-1960s, CDFG
(1965) estimated steelhead spawning populations for smaller tributaries
in San Luis Obispo County as 20,000 fish; however, no estimates for
streams further south were provided.
The present estimated total run size for 6 streams (Santa Ynez
River, Gaviota Creek, Ventura River, Matilija Creek, Santa Clara River,
Malibu Creek) in this ESU are summarized in Titus et al., and each is
less than 200 adults. Titus et al. concluded that populations have been
extirpated from all streams south of Ventura County, with the exception
of Malibu Creek in Los Angeles County. While there are no comprehensive
stream surveys conducted for steelhead trout occurring in streams south
of Malibu Creek, there continue to be anecdotal observations of
steelhead in rivers as far south as the Santa Margarita River, San
Diego County, in years of substantial rainfall (Barnhart, 1986,
Higgins, 1991, McEwan & Jackson, 1996). Titus et al. (in press) cited
extensive loss of steelhead habitat due to water development, including
impassable dams and dewatering.
No time series of data are available within this ESU to estimate
population trends. Titus et al. summarized information for steelhead
populations based on historical and recent survey information. Of the
populations south of San Francisco Bay (including part of the Central
California Coast ESU) for which past and recent information was
available, 20 percent had no discernable change, 45 percent had
declined, and 35 percent were extinct. Percentages for the counties
comprising this ESU show a very high percentage of declining and
extinct populations.
The sustainability of steelhead populations in the Southern
California ESU continues to be a major concern, evidenced by
consistently low abundance estimates in all river basins. There are
fairly good qualitative accounts of historical abundances of steelhead
in this ESU, and recent adult counts are severely depressed relative to
the past. The few new data that have become available since the
proposed rule do not suggest any consistent pattern of change in
steelhead abundance in this region.
NMFS concludes that the Southern California ESU is, as proposed,
endangered. The primary reasons for concern about steelhead in this ESU
are the widespread, dramatic declines in abundance relative to
historical levels. Low abundance leads to increased risks due to
demographic and genetic variability in small populations. In addition,
NMFS believes the restricted spatial distribution of remaining
populations places the ESU as a whole at risk because of reduced
opportunities for recolonization of streams suffering local population
extinctions. The main sources of the extensive population declines in
steelhead in this ESU are similar to those described in the South-
Central California Coast ESU. In addition, because of fire suppression
practiced throughout the area, NMFS believes the effects of increased
fire intensity and duration is likely to be a significant risk to the
steelhead in this ESU.
Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU
No hatchery production of steelhead currently occurs in this ESU.
(4) Upper Columbia River Basin ESU
Estimates of historical (pre-1960s) abundance specific to this ESU
are available from fish counts at dams. Counts at Rock Island Dam from
1933 to 1959 averaged 2,600 to 3,700, suggesting a pre-fishery run size
in excess of 5,000 adults for tributaries above Rock Island Dam
(Chapman et al., 1994). Runs may already have been depressed by lower
Columbia River fisheries at this time. Recent five-year (1989-93)
average natural escapements are available for two stock units:
Wenatchee River, 800 steelhead, and Methow and Okanogan Rivers, 450
steelhead. Recent average total escapements for these stocks were 2,500
and 2,400, respectively. Average total run size at Priest Rapids Dam
for the same period was approximately 9,600 adult steelhead.
Trends in total (natural and hatchery) adult escapement are
available for the Wenatchee River (2.6 percent annual increase, 1962-
1993) and the Methow and Okanogan Rivers combined (12 percent annual
decline, 1982-93). These two stocks represent most of the escapement to
natural spawning habitat within the range of the ESU; the Entiat River
also has a small spawning run (WDF et al., 1993).
Steelhead in the Upper Columbia River ESU continue to exhibit low
abundances, both in absolute numbers and in relation to numbers of
hatchery fish throughout the region. Data from this ESU include
separate total and natural run sizes, allowing the separation of
hatchery and natural fish abundance estimates for at least some areas
in some years. Review of the most recent data indicates that natural
steelhead abundance has declined or remained low and relatively
constant in the major river basins in this ESU (Wenatchee, Methow,
Okanogan) since the early 1990s. Estimates of natural production of
steelhead in the ESU are well below replacement (approximately 0.3:1
adult replacement ratios estimated in the Wenatchee and Entiat Rivers.)
These data indicate that natural steelhead populations in the Upper
Columbia River Basin are not self-sustaining at the present time. The
BRT also discussed anecdotal evidence that resident rainbow trout,
which are in numerous streams throughout the region, contribute to
anadromous run abundance. This phenomenon would reduce estimates of the
natural steelhead replacement ratio.
The proportion of hatchery fish is high in these rivers (65-80
percent). In addition, substantial genetic mixing of populations within
this ESU has occurred, both historically (as a result of the Grand
Coulee Fish Maintenance Project) and more recently as a result of the
Wells Hatchery program. Extensive mixing of hatchery stocks throughout
this ESU, along with the reduced
[[Page 43950]]
opportunity for maintenance of locally adapted genetic lineages among
different drainages, represents a considerable threat to steelhead in
this region.
Based on the considerations above, NMFS concludes the Upper
Columbia ESU is endangered, as proposed. In their comments on the
proposed rule, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife states its
general concurrence with this conclusion (WDFW, 1997). The primary
cause for concern for steelhead in this ESU are the extremely low
estimates of adult replacement ratios. The dramatic declines in natural
run sizes and the inability of naturally spawning steelhead adults to
replace themselves suggest that if present trends continue, this ESU
will not be viable. Habitat degradation, juvenile and adult mortality
in the hydrosystem, and unfavorable environmental conditions in both
marine and freshwater habitats have contributed to the declines and
represent risk factors for the future. Harvest in lower river fisheries
and genetic homogenization from composite broodstock collections are
other factors that may contribute significantly to risk to the Upper
Columbia ESU.
Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU
NMFS concludes the Wells Hatchery stock including progeny is
essential for recovery efforts in this ESU, and therefore should be
listed. This conclusion is primarily based on very low estimates of the
recruits per spawner ratio, which indicate that productivity of
naturally spawning steelhead in this ESU is far below the replacement
rate.
(5) Snake River Basin ESU
Prior to Ice Harbor Dam completion in 1962, there were no counts of
Snake River Basin naturally spawned steelhead. However, Lewiston Dam
counts during the period from 1949 to 1971 averaged about 40,000
steelhead per year in the Clearwater River, while the Ice Harbor Dam
count in 1962 was 108,000, and averaged approximately 70,000 until
1970.
All steelhead in the Snake River Basin are summer steelhead, which
for management purposes are divided into ``A-run'' and ``B-run''
steelhead. Each has several life history differences including spawning
size, run timing, and habitat type. Although there is little
information for most stocks within this ESU, there are recent run-size
and/or escapement estimates for several stocks. Total recent-year
average (1990-1994) escapement above Lower Granite Dam was
approximately 71,000, with a natural component of 9,400 (7,000 A-run
and 2,400 B-run). Run size estimates are available for only a few
tributaries within the ESU, all with small populations.
Snake River Basin steelhead recently have suffered severe declines
in abundance relative to historical levels. Low run sizes over the last
ten years are most pronounced for naturally produced steelhead. In
addition, average parr densities recently have dropped for both A-and
B-run steelhead, resulting in many river basins in this region being
characterized as critically underseeded relative to the carrying
capacity of streams. Declines in abundance have been particularly
serious for B-run steelhead, increasing the risk that some of the life
history diversity may be lost from steelhead in this ESU. Recently
obtained information indicates a record low smolt survival and ocean
production for Snake River steelhead in 1992-94.
The proportion of hatchery steelhead in the Snake River Basin is
very high for the ESU as a whole (over 80 percent hatchery fish passing
Lower Granite Dam), yet hatchery fish are rare to nonexistent in
several drainages in the region. In places where hatchery release sites
are interspersed with naturally-spawning reaches, the potential for
straying and introgression is high, resulting in a risk to the genetic
integrity of some steelhead populations in this ESU. Hatchery/natural
interactions that do occur for Snake River steelhead are of particular
concern because many of the hatcheries use composite stocks that have
been domesticated over a long period of time.
Based on this information, NMFS concludes that the Snake River ESU
is threatened, as proposed. The primary indicator of risk to the ESU is
declining abundance throughout the region. Demographic and genetic
risks from small population sizes are likely to be important, because
few natural steelhead are spread over a wide geographic area. In their
comments on the proposed rule, the State of Idaho concurred with NMFS'
assessment that steelhead stocks in this ESU are imperiled (State of
Idaho, 1997). Steelhead in this ESU face risks similar to those in the
Upper Columbia River ESU: Widespread habitat blockage from hydrosystem
management and potentially deleterious genetic effects from straying
and introgression from hatchery fish. The reduction in habitat capacity
resulting from large dams such as the Hells Canyon dam complex and
Dworshak Dam is somewhat mitigated by several river basins with fairly
good production of natural steelhead runs.
Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU
NMFS concludes that the hatchery stocks considered part of this ESU
(Dworshak NFH stock, Imnaha Hatchery stock, and Oxbow Hatchery stock)
are not currently essential for the recovery of the ESU. The Dworshak
NFH stock and Oxbow Hatchery stock both represent the remnants of
population(s) of steelhead that have been excluded from their
historical spawning and rearing habitat by impassable dams. These
stocks represent the only legacy for the reintroduction of native
populations into these areas. If such reintroduction programs are
undertaken, these stocks will likely be essential to the recovery of
steelhead in these areas. Currently, naturally spawning steelhead
populations in the Imnaha River are relatively healthy; however, if
naturally spawning populations decline considerably in the future, this
stock may become essential for recovery.
Listing Determination
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as any species
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a threatened species as any species likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires
that the listing determination be based solely on the best scientific
and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status
of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any,
being made to protect such species.
Based on results from its coastwide assessment, NMFS has determined
that on the west coast of the United States, there are fifteen ESUs of
steelhead that constitute ``species'' under the ESA. NMFS has
determined that two ESUs of steelhead are currently endangered
(Southern California and Upper Columbia River ESUs) and three ESUs are
currently threatened (Central California Coast, South-Central
California Coast, and Snake River Basin ESUs). The geographic
boundaries (i.e., the watersheds within which the members of the ESU
spend their freshwater residence) for these ESUs are described under
``Summary of ESUs Determinations.''
NMFS has examined the relationship between hatchery and natural
populations of steelhead in these ESUs and has assessed whether any
hatchery populations are essential for their recovery. While NMFS has
concluded that several hatchery stocks are part of the ESU in which
they occur, only the
[[Page 43951]]
Wells Hatchery stock in the Upper Columbia River ESU is deemed
essential for recovery at this time and therefore, included in this
listing. Aside from the Wells Hatchery stock, only naturally spawned
populations of steelhead (and their progeny) which are part of the
biological ESU residing below long-term, naturally and man-made
impassable barriers (i.e., dams) are listed in all five ESUs identified
as threatened or endangered.
In some cases unlisted hatchery fish that are part of the ESU may
not return to the hatchery but instead spawn naturally. In that event,
the progeny of that naturally spawning hatchery fish is considered
listed. This final rule includes in the listing determination those
naturally spawned fish that have at least one parent that was derived
from current ESU hatchery broodstock. In some cases these fish may be
hybrids; that is, they may have one parent that is part of the
biological ESU and one that is not. By listing these fish and extending
to them the protections of the ESA, NMFS does not mean to imply that
these hybrids are suitable for use in conservation. That decision would
need to be made on a case-by-case basis.
NMFS' ``Interim Policy on Artificial Propagation of Pacific Salmon
Under the Endangered Species Act'' (April 5, 1993, 58 FR 17573)
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 accordance with this
interim NMFS policy, all progeny of listed steelhead are themselves
considered part of the listed species. Such progeny include those
resulting from the mating of listed steelhead with non-listed hatchery
stocks.
At this time, NMFS is listing only anadromous life forms of O.
mykiss.
NMFS concludes the Wells Hatchery stock including progeny is
essential for recovery efforts in this ESU, and therefore should be
listed. This conclusion is primarily based on very low estimates of the
recruits per spawner ratio, which indicate that productivity of
naturally spawning steelhead in this ESU is far below the replacement
rate. It is possible that in some years returns to this hatchery may
exceed the number of returns necessary to produce the number of
offspring NMFS considers advisable for release into this ESU. This
surplus may therefore be, by definition, not essential for recovery
efforts. In that case, hatchery operators may be faced with a choice
between destroying the excess returns or using them for some other
purpose. In making its decision today to include the Wells Hatchery
stock as part of the listed population, NMFS does not intend to
foreclose the possibility of using such excess returns to provide
limited harvest opportunities consistent with the conservation of this
ESU.
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; as
described below, this is not the case for threatened species.
Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary to implement
regulations ``to provide for the conservation of [threatened]
species,'' which 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 issue shortly protective regulations
pursuant to section 4(d) for the Central California Coast, South-
Central California Coast, and Snake River ESUs.
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 steelhead in the
listed ESUs include authorized land management activities of the U.S.
Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management, as well as operation
of hydroelectric and storage projects of the Bureau of Reclamation and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (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 CWA, 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 steelhead and its habitat
within the range of the listed ESU. It is important to note that the
current listing applies only to the anadromous form of O. mykiss;
therefore, section 7 consultations will not address resident forms of
O. mykiss at this time.
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 (see
regulations at 50 CFR 222.22 through 222.24). Section 10(a)(1)(A)
scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued to entities
(Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that involves a directed
take of listed species.
NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research or enhancement of
survival permits for other listed species (e.g., Snake River chinook
salmon and Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon) for a number of
activities, including trapping and tagging, electroshocking to
determine population presence and abundance, removal of fish from
irrigation ditches, and collection of adult fish for artificial
propagation programs. NMFS is aware of several sampling efforts for
steelhead in the listed ESUs, including efforts by Federal and state
fishery management agencies. These and other research efforts could
provide critical information regarding steelhead distribution and
population abundance.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-
Federal entities performing activities that may incidentally take
listed species. The types of activities potentially requiring a section
10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the operation and release of
artificially propagated fish by state or privately operated and funded
hatcheries, state or university research on species other than
steelhead, not
[[Page 43952]]
receiving Federal authorization or funding, the implementation of state
fishing regulations, and timber harvest activities on non-Federal
lands.
Take Guidance
NMFS and the FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34272), a policy that NMFS shall 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 steelhead 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.
Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm, injure or
kill steelhead in the endangered listed ESUs and result in a violation
of section 9 include, but are not limited to: (1) Land-use activities
that adversely affect steelhead 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 steelhead 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
steelhead; (4) violation of discharge permits; (5) pesticide
applications; (6) interstate and foreign commerce of steelhead from the
listed ESUs and import/export of steelhead from listed ESUs without an
ESA permit, unless the fish were harvested pursuant to legal exception;
(7) collecting or handling of steelhead 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 steelhead in
these ESUs or displace them from their habitat. These lists are not
exhaustive. They are intended to provide some examples of the types of
activities that might or might not be considered by NMFS as
constituting a take of west coast steelhead 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 this
species, and the broad geographic range of these listings, 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 October 17, 1997.
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions, Federal
agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on taking.
Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation
actions by Federal, state, and local agencies, private organizations,
and individuals.
Several conservation efforts are underway that may help reverse the
decline of west coast steelhead and other salmonids. These include the
Northwest Forest Plan (on Federal lands within the range of the
northern spotted owl), PACFISH (on all additional Federal lands with
anadromous salmonid populations), Oregon's Coastal Salmon Restoration
Initiative, Washington's Wild Stock Restoration Initiative, overlapping
protections from California's listing of coho salmon stocks in
California under both the Federal and State ESAs, implementation of
California's Steelhead Management Plan, and NMFS' Proposed Recovery
Plan for Snake River Salmon. NMFS is very encouraged by a number of
these efforts and believes they have or may constitute significant
strides in the efforts in the region to develop a scientifically well
grounded conservation plan for these stocks. Other efforts, such as the
Middle Columbia River Habitat Conservation Plan, are at various stages
of development, but show promise of ameliorating risks facing listed
steelhead ESUs. NMFS intends to support and work closely with these
efforts--staff and resources permitting--in the belief that they can
play an important role in the recovery planning process.
Based on information presented in this final rule, general
conservation measures that could be implemented to help conserve the
species are listed below. This list does not constitute NMFS'
interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) of the ESA.
1. Measures could be taken to promote land management practices
that protect and restore steelhead habitat. Land management practices
affecting steelhead habitat include timber harvest, road building,
agriculture, livestock grazing, and urban development.
2. Evaluation of existing harvest regulations could identify any
changes necessary to protect steelhead populations.
3. Artificial propagation programs could be required to incorporate
practices that minimize impacts upon natural populations of steelhead.
4. Efforts could be made to ensure that existing and proposed dam
facilities are designed and operated in a manner that will less
adversely affect steelhead populations.
5. Water diversions could have adequate headgate and staff gauge
structures installed to control and monitor water usage accurately.
Water rights could be enforced to prevent irrigators from exceeding the
amount of water to which they are legally entitled.
6. Irrigation diversions affecting downstream migrating steelhead
trout could be screened. A thorough review of the impact of irrigation
diversions on steelhead could be conducted.
NMFS recognizes that, to be successful, protective regulations and
recovery programs for steelhead will need to be developed in the
context of conserving aquatic ecosystem health. NMFS intends that
Federal lands and Federal activities play a primary role in preserving
listed populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. However,
throughout the range of all five ESUs listed, steelhead habitat occurs
and can be affected by activities on state, tribal, or private land.
Agricultural, timber, and urban management activities on nonFederal
land could and should be conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse
effects to steelhead habitat.
[[Page 43953]]
NMFS encourages nonfederal landowners to assess the impacts of
their actions on potentially threatened or endangered salmonids. In
particular, NMFS encourages the establishment of watershed partnerships
to promote conservation in accordance with ecosystem principles. These
partnerships will be successful only if state, tribal, and local
governments, landowner representatives, and Federal and nonFederal
biologists all participate and share the goal of restoring steelhead to
the watersheds.
Critical Habitat
Section 4(b)(6)(C) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent,
critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a
species unless such critical habitat is not determinable at that time.
While NMFS has completed its initial analysis of the biological status
of steelhead populations from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California, it has not completed the analyses necessary for designating
critical habitat. Therefore, critical habitat is not now determinable
for these five listed steelhead ESUs. NMFS intends to develop and
publish a critical habitat determination for west coast steelhead
within one year from the publication of this notice.
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
environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.
As noted in Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA,
economic considerations have no relevance to determinations regarding
the status of species. Therefore, the analytical requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not
required. Similarly, this final rule is exempt from review under E.O.
12866.
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 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).
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 222
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
50 CFR Part 227
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine
mammals, Transportation.
Dated: August 11, 1997.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 222 and 227
are amended as follows:
PART 222--ENDANGERED FISH OR WILDLIFE
1. The authority citation of part 222 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart D, Sec. 222.32 also
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. In Sec. 222.23, paragraph (a) is amended by revising the second
sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 222.23 Permits for scientific purposes or to enhance the
propagation or survival of the affected endangered species.
(a) * * * The species listed as endangered under either the
Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 or the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 and currently under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Commerce are: Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum); Totoaba
(Cynoscian macdonaldi), Snake River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchusnerka),
Umpqua River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki); Southern
California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which includes 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),
which includes 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; Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); Western North Pacific (Korean) gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus), Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Humpback
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Bowhead whale (Balaenamysticetus),
Right whales (Eubalaena spp.), Fin or finback whale (Balaenoptera
physalus), Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), Sperm whale (Physeter
catodon); Cochito (Phocoena Sinus), Chinese river dolphin (Lipotes
vexillifer); Indus River dolphin (Platanista minor); Caribean monk seal
(Monachus tropicalis) Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi);
Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus); Saimaa seal (Phoca hispida
saimensis); Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), western population,
which consists of Steller sea lions from breeding colonies located west
of 144 deg. W. long.; Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea),
Pacific hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata bissa), Atlantic
hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata imbricata), Atlantic
ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). * * *
* * * * *
PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE
1. The authority citation for part 227 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 227.12 also
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. In Sec. 227.4, paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 227.4 Enumeration of threatened species.
* * * * *
(j) Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their
progeny) in streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz
County, California (inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco and
San Pablo Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), Napa County,
California. Excludes the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin of the
Central Valley of California;
(k) South-Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their
progeny) in streams from the Pajaro River (inclusive), located in Santa
Cruz County, California, to (but not including) the Santa Maria River;
(l) Snake River Basin steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Includes all
naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in
streams
[[Page 43954]]
in the Snake River Basin of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and
Idaho.
[FR Doc. 97-21661 Filed 8-13-97; 9:14 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P