[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