[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11798-11809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5473]
[[Page 11797]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 227
Endangered Species: Proposed Threatened Status for Two ESUs of
Steelhead in Washington and Oregon; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 11798]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 227
[Docket No. 980225046-8046-01 ; I.D. No. 021098B]
RIN 0648-AK54
Endangered Species: Proposed Threatened Status for Two ESUs of
Steelhead in Washington and Oregon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has completed a comprehensive status review of West Coast
steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss, or O. mykiss) populations in Washington
and Oregon and has identified 15 Evolutionarily Significant Units
(ESUs) within this range. NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to list
two steelhead ESUs as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). The proposed ESUs include the Middle Columbia River ESU located
in Washington and Oregon, and the Upper Willamette River ESU located in
Oregon.
In both ESUs, only naturally spawned steelhead are proposed for
listing. Prior to the final listing determination, NMFS will examine
the relationship between hatchery and naturally spawned populations of
steelhead in these ESUs and assess whether any hatchery populations are
essential for the recovery of the naturally spawned populations. This
may result in the inclusion of specific hatchery populations as part of
a listed ESU in NMFS' final determination.
NMFS requests public comments on the issues pertaining to this
proposed rule. NMFS also requests suggestions and comments on
integrated local/state/tribal/Federal conservation measures that will
achieve the purposes of the ESA to recover the health of steelhead
populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. NMFS strongly
supports current efforts by the states of Oregon and Washington to
develop effective and scientifically based conservation measures to
address at-risk salmon and steelhead stocks. NMFS believes these
efforts, if successful, could serve as the central components of a
broad conservation program that would provide a steady, predictable,
and well grounded road to recovery and rebuilding of these stocks. NMFS
intends to work closely with these efforts and those of local and
regional watershed groups, as well as other involved Federal agencies,
and hopes that this proposal will add greater impetus to those efforts.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 8, 1998. NMFS will announce
the dates and locations of public hearings in Washington and Oregon in
a separate Federal Register notice. Requests for additional public
hearings must be received by April 24, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule should be sent to Chief,
Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 NE Oregon
Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737. Comments may not be
submitted electronically.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, 503-231-2005, or Joe
Blum, 301-713-1401. Requests for public hearings or reference materials
should be sent to Jim Lynch via the Internet at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 20, 1993, NMFS announced its intent to conduct a status
review to identify all coastal steelhead ESU(s) within California,
Oregon, and Washington, and to determine whether any identified ESU(s)
warranted listing under the ESA. Subsequently, on February 16, 1994,
NMFS received a petition from the Oregon Natural Resources Council and
15 co-petitioners to list all steelhead (or specific ESUs, races, or
stocks) within the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.
In response to this petition, NMFS announced the expansion of its
status review to include inland steelhead populations occurring in
eastern Washington and Oregon and the State of Idaho (59 FR 27527, May
27, 1994).
On August 9, 1996, NMFS published a proposed rule to list 10 ESUs
of west coast steelhead as threatened and endangered under the ESA;
NMFS solicited comments on the proposal (61 FR 41541). In this notice,
NMFS concluded that the Middle Columbia River ESU warranted
classification as a candidate species since NMFS was concerned about
the status of steelhead in this area, but lacked sufficient information
to merit a proposed listing. In this notice NMFS also concluded that
the Upper Willamette River steelhead ESU did not warrant listing based
on available scientific information.
On August 18, 1997, NMFS published a final rule listing five ESUs
as threatened and endangered under the ESA (62 FR 43937). In a separate
notice published on the same day, NMFS determined substantial
scientific disagreement remained for five proposed ESUs (62 FR 43974,
August 18, 1997). In accordance with section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA,
NMFS deferred its decision on these remaining steelhead ESUs for six
months, until February 9, 1998, for the purpose of soliciting
additional data. By court order the deadline for these final
determinations was extended to March 13, 1998.
During the 6-month period of deferral, NMFS received new scientific
information concerning the status of the Upper Willamette River and
Middle Columbia River ESUs. This new information was considered by
NMFS' Biological Review Team, a team composed of staff from NMFS'
Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Southwest Regional Office, as
well as a representative of the U.S. Geological Survey Biological
Resources Division (formerly the National Biological Service). NMFS has
now completed an updated status review for steelhead that analyzes this
new information [Memorandum to William Stelle and William Hogarth from
M. Schiewe, December 18, 1997, Status of Deferred and Candidate ESUs of
West Coast Steelhead]. Copies of this memorandum are available upon
request (see ADDRESSES). Based on this updated review and other
information, NMFS now proposes to list the Upper Willamette River and
Middle Columbia River steelhead ESUs as threatened species under the
ESA.
Given the complicated background of this proposed rule, it is
important to understand how information is presented in this notice.
First, we discuss the life history and ESA policies applicable to
steelhead in general. Second, we describe NMFS' findings concerning the
geographic extent of the Upper Willamette and Middle Columbia River
ESUs. Third, we discuss the factors that have led to the decline of
these two ESUs, as well as existing conservation efforts that may
ameliorate risks to these species. Finally, we describe NMFS'
conclusions regarding the status of these two ESUs, along with
potential regulatory implications of a final listing.
Steelhead Life History
Steelhead exhibit one of the most complex suite of life history
traits of any salmonid species. Steelhead may exhibit anadromy (meaning
that they migrate as juveniles from fresh water to the ocean, and then
return to spawn in fresh water) or freshwater residency (meaning that
[[Page 11799]]
they reside their entire lives 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 however, 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 that
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). 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, alevins
emerge from the gravel as young juveniles or ``fry'' 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-run
steelhead, respectively).
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 by the Cascade
crest aproximately (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
nonanadromous 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 as far as Malibu Creek in southern California.
There are infrequent anecdotal reports of steelhead continuing to occur
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 were identified by Nehlsen et al., 1991
as at moderate to high risk of extinction.
Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA
To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, the
identified populations of steelhead must be considered ``species''
under the ESA. The ESA defines a species to include ``any subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature''.
NMFS published a policy describing the agency's application of the ESA
definition of ``species'' to anadromous Pacific salmonid species (56 FR
58612, November 20, 1991). NMFS's policy provides that a Pacific
salmonid population will be considered distinct and, hence, a species
under the ESA if it represents an ESU of the biological species. A
population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) It
must be reproductively isolated from other conspecific population
units, 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 be strong enough
to permit evolutionarily important differences to accrue in different
population units. The second criterion is met if the population
contributes substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the
species as a whole. Guidance on the application of this policy is
contained in a NOAA Technical Memorandum ``Definition of 'Species''
Under the Endangered Species Act: Application to Pacific Salmon,'' that
is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Reproductive Isolation
Genetic data provide useful indirect information on reproductive
isolation because they integrate information about migration and gene
flow over evolutionarily important time frames. During the status
review, NMFS worked in cooperation with the States of California,
Oregon, Idaho, and Washington to develop a genetic stock identification
database for steelhead. Natural and hatchery steelhead were collected
by NMFS, California Department of Fish and Game, Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG),
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) for protein electrophoretic analysis by NMFS and
WDFW. Existing NMFS data for Columbia and Snake River Basin steelhead
were also included in the database.
In addition to the new studies, published results from numerous
studies of genetic characteristics of steelhead populations were
considered. These included studies based on protein electrophoresis
(Huzyk & Tsuyuki, 1974; Allendorf, 1975; Utter & Allendorf, 1977;
Okazaki, 1984; Parkinson, 1984; Campton & Johnson, 1985; Milner & Teel,
1985; Schreck et al., 1986; Hershberger & Dole, 1987; Berg & Gall,
1988; Reisenbichler & Phelps, 1989; Reisenbichler et al., 1992; Currens
& Schreck, 1993; Waples et al., 1993; Phelps et al., 1994; Leider et
al., 1995). Supplementing these protein electrophoretic studies were
two studies based on mitochondrial DNA (Buroker, unpublished; Nielsen
1994) and chromosomal karyotyping studies conducted by Thorgard (1977
and 1983) and Ostberg and Thorgard, 1994.
Genetic information obtained from allozyme, DNA, and chromosomal
sampling indicate a strong differentiation between coastal and inland
subspecies of steelhead. Several studies have identified coastal and
inland forms of O. mykiss as distinct genetic life forms. Allendorf,
1975 first identified coastal and inland steelhead life forms in
Washington, Oregon, and
[[Page 11800]]
Idaho based on large and consistent allele frequency differences that
applied to both anadromous and resident O. mykiss. In the Columbia
River, it was determined that the geographic boundary of these life
forms occurs at or near the Cascade crest. Subsequent studies have
supported this finding (Utter & Allendorf, 1977; Okazaki, 1984; Schreck
et al., 1986; Reisenbichler et al., 1992). Recent genetic data from
WDFW further supports the major differentiation between coastal and
inland steelhead forms.
Few detailed studies have explored the relationship between
resident and anadromous O. mykiss residing in the same location.
Genetic studies generally show that, in the same geographic area,
resident and anadromous life forms are more similar to each other than
either is to the same form from a different geographic area. Recently,
Leider et al., 1995 found that results from comparisons of rainbow
trout in the Elwha and Cedar Rivers and Washington steelhead indicate
that the two forms are not reproductively isolated. Further, Leider et
al., 1995 also concluded that, based on preliminary analyses of data
from the Yakima and Big White Salmon Rivers, resident trout would be
genetically indistinguishable from steelhead. Based on these studies,
it appears that resident and anadromous O. mykiss from the same
geographic area may share a common gene pool, at least over
evolutionary time periods.
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 (1) it is substantially reproductively isolated
from other conspecific population units, and (2) it represents an
important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species (56 FR
58612, November 20, 1991). 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 response to earlier listing proposals, NMFS received numerous
comments on the inclusion of summer and winter steelhead within the
same steelhead ESUs. In addition to the comments received, additional
genetic data has become available since the original status review.
NMFS' assessment of this new information follows.
While NMFS considers both life history forms (summer and winter
steelhead) to be important components of diversity within the species,
new genetic data reinforces previous conclusions that within a
geographic area, summer and winter steelhead typically are more
genetically similar to one another than either is to populations with
similar run timing in different geographic areas. This indicates that a
conservation unit that included summer-run populations from different
geographic areas but excluded winter-run populations (or vice-versa)
would be an inappropriate unit. The only biologically meaningful way to
have summer and winter steelhead populations in separate ESUs would be
to have a very large number of ESUs, most consisting of just one or a
very few populations. This would be inconsistent with the approach NMFS
has taken in defining ESUs in other anadromous Pacific salmonids.
Taking these factors into consideration, NMFS concludes that summer and
winter steelhead should be considered part of the same ESU in
geographic areas where they co-occur.
Summary of Proposed ESU Determinations
A summary of NMFS' ESU determinations for these species follows. A
more detailed discussion of ESU determinations is presented in the
``Status Review of West Coast Steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon,
and California'' and ``Status Review Update for Deferred and Candidate
ESUs of West Coast Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996a; NMFS, 1997a). Copies of
these documents are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
(1) Upper Willamette River ESU
This coastal steelhead ESU occupies the Willamette River and its
tributaries, upstream from Willamette Falls. The Willamette River Basin
is zoogeographically complex. In addition to its connection to the
Columbia River, the Willamette River historically has had connections
with coastal basins through stream capture and headwater transfer
events (Minckley et al., 1986).
Steelhead from the upper Willamette River are genetically distinct
from those in the lower river. Reproductive isolation from lower river
populations may have been facilitated by Willamette Falls, which is
known to be a migration barrier to some anadromous salmonids. For
example, winter steelhead and spring chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha)
occurred historically above the falls, but summer steelhead, fall
chinook salmon, and coho salmon did not (Pacific Gas and Electric
(PGE), 1994).
The native steelhead of this basin are late-migrating winter
steelhead, entering fresh water primarily in March and April (Howell et
al., 1985), whereas most other populations of west coast winter
steelhead enter fresh water beginning in November or December. As early
as 1885, fish ladders were constructed at Willamette Falls to aid the
passage of anadromous fish. The ladders have been modified and rebuilt,
most recently in 1971, as technology has improved (Bennett, 1987; PGE,
1994). These fishways facilitated successful introduction of Skamania
stock summer steelhead and early-migrating Big Creek stock winter
steelhead to the upper basin. Another effort to expand the steelhead
production in the upper Willamette River was the stocking of native
steelhead in tributaries not historically used by that species. Native
steelhead primarily used tributaries on the east side of the basin,
with cutthroat trout predominating in streams draining the west side of
the basin.
Nonanadromous O. mykiss are known to occupy the Upper Willamette
River Basin; however, most of these nonanadromous populations occur
above natural and manmade barriers (Kostow, 1995). Historically,
spawning by Upper Willamette River steelhead was concentrated in the
North and Middle Santiam River Basins (Fulton, 1970). These areas are
now largely blocked to fish passage by dams, and steelhead spawning is
now distributed throughout more of the Upper Willamette River Basin
than in the past (Fulton, 1970). Due to introductions of non-native
steelhead stocks and transplantation of native stocks within the basin,
it is difficult to formulate a clear picture of the present
distribution of native Upper Willamette River steelhead, and their
relationship to nonanadromous and possibly residualized O. mykiss
within the basin.
(2) Middle Columbia River ESU
This inland steelhead ESU occupies the Columbia River Basin and
tributaries from above (and excluding) the Wind River in Washington and
the Hood River in Oregon, upstream to, and including, the Yakima River,
in Washington. Steelhead of the Snake
[[Page 11801]]
River Basin are excluded. Franklin and Dyrness (1973) placed the Yakima
River Basin in the Columbia Basin Physiographic Province, along with
the Deschutes, John Day, Walla Walla, and lower Snake River Basins.
Geology within this province is dominated by the Columbia River Basalt
formation, stemming from lava deposition in the Miocene epoch, overlain
by plio-Pleistocene deposits of glaciolacustrine origin (Franklin &
Dyrness, 1973). This intermontane region includes some of the driest
areas of the Pacific Northwest, generally receiving less than 40 cm of
rainfall annually (Jackson, 1993). Vegetation is of the shrub-steppe
province, reflecting the dry climate and harsh temperature extremes.
Genetic differences between inland and coastal steelhead are well
established, although some uncertainty remains about the exact
geographic boundaries of the two forms in the Columbia River.
Electrophoretic and meristic data show consistent differences between
steelhead from the middle Columbia and Snake Rivers. No recent genetic
data exist for natural steelhead populations in the upper Columbia
River, but recent WDFW data show that the Wells Hatchery stock from the
upper Columbia River does not have a close genetic affinity to sampled
populations from the middle Columbia River.
All steelhead in the Columbia River Basin upstream from The Dalles
Dam are summer-run, inland steelhead (Schreck et al., 1986;
Reisenbichler et al., 1992; Chapman et al., 1994). Steelhead in Fifteen
Mile Creek, OR, are genetically allied with inland O. mykiss, but are
winter-run. Winter steelhead are also found in the Klickitat and White
Salmon Rivers, WA.
Life history information for steelhead of this ESU indicates that
most middle Columbia River steelhead smolt at 2 years and spend 1 to 2
years in salt water (i.e., 1-ocean and 2-ocean fish, respectively)
prior to re-entering fresh water, where they may remain up to a year
prior to spawning (Howell et al., 1985; Bonneville Power Association
(BPA), 1992). Within this ESU, the Klickitat River is unusual in that
it produces both summer and winter steelhead, and the summer steelhead
are dominated by 2-ocean steelhead, whereas most other rivers in this
region produce about equal numbers of both 1-and 2-ocean steelhead.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS implementing 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.
Several recent documents describe in more detail the impacts of
various factors contributing to the decline of steelhead and other
salmonids (e.g., NMFS, 1997b). 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, 1996b). 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.
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 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 (Federal Ecosystem Management Assessment Team
(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, 1996b). 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 Middle Columbia River ESU 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 marine environments.
Specific diseases such as bacterial kidney disease, ceratomyxosis,
columnaris, Furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic necrosis, redmouth
and black spot disease, Erythrocytic Inclusion Body Syndrome, 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 & Wedemeyer, undated). Very little current or
[[Page 11802]]
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 marine mammals is also of concern in areas experiencing
dwindling steelhead run sizes. NMFS recently 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 1997c). This report concludes that in certain cases
where pinniped populations co-occur with depressed salmonid
populations, salmon populations may experience severe impacts due to
predation. An example of such a situation is Ballard Locks, Washington,
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. Existing information on
the seriously depressed status of many salmonid stocks is sufficient to
warrant actions to remove pinnipeds in areas of co-occurrence where
pinnipeds prey on depressed salmonid populations (NMFS, 1997c).
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
1. Federal Land Management 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.
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 spawned
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
limited by the extent of Federal lands and the fact that Federal land
ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within the
affected ESUs.
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 will be effective until a
long-term land management strategy is implemented. The Interior
Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) was intended
to be in place by the end of the 18-month PACFISH period. Current
projections indicate ICBEMP its implementation date will be delayed
until late 1998 or 1999. In effect, PACFISH will have been in place 2.5
times longer than designed and its long-term limitations have already
resulted in lost conservation opportunities for threatened and proposed
anadromous fishes.
2. State Land Management Practices
The Washington Department of Natural Resources implements and
enforces the State of Washington's forest practice rules (WFPRs) that
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 Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA), while modified in 1995 and
improved over the previous OFPA, does not have implementing rules that
adequately protect salmonid habitat. In particular, the current OFPA
does not provide adequate protection for the production and
introduction of large woody debris (LWD) to medium, small and non-fish
bearing streams. Small non-fish bearing streams are vitally important
to the quality of downstream habitats. These streams carry water,
sediment, nutrients, and LWD from upper portions of the watershed. The
quality of downstream habitats is determined, in part, by the timing
and amount of organic and inorganic materials provided by these small
streams (Chamberlin et al. in Meehan, 1991). Given the existing
depleted condition of most riparian forests on non-Federal lands, the
time needed to attain mature forest conditions, the lack of adequate
protection for non-riparian LWD sources in landslide-prone areas and
small headwater streams (which account for about half the wood found
naturally in stream channels) (Burnett and Reeves, 1997, citing Van
Sickle and Gregory, 1990; McDade et al., 1990; and McGreary, 1994) and
current rotation schedules (approximately 50 years), there is a low
probability that adequate LWD recruitment could be achieved under the
current requirements of the OFPA. Also, the OFPA does not adequately
consider and manage timber harvest and road construction on sensitive,
unstable slopes subject to mass wasting, nor does it address cumulative
effects.
Agricultural activity has had multiple and often severe impacts on
salmonid habitat. These include depletion of needed flows by irrigation
withdrawals, blocking of fish passage by diversion or other structures,
destruction of riparian vegetation and bank stability by grazing or
cultivation practices, and channelization resulting in loss of side
channel and wetland-related habitat (NMFS, 1996b).
Historically, the impacts to fish habitat from agricultural
practices have not been closely regulated. The Oregon Department of
Agriculture has recently completed guidance for development of
agricultural water quality management
[[Page 11803]]
plans (AWQMPs) (as enacted by State Senate Bill 1010). Plans that are
consistent with this guidance are likely to achieve state water quality
standards. It is open to question, however, whether they will
adequately address salmonid habitat factors, such as properly
functioning riparian conditions. Their ability to address all relevant
factors will depend on the manner in which they are implemented. AWQMPs
are anticipated to be developed at a basin scale and will include
regulatory authority and enforcement provisions. The Healthy Streams
Partnership schedules adoption of AWQMPs for all impaired waters by
2001.
Washington also has not historically regulated impacts of
agricultural activity on fish habitat overall, although there are some
special requirements in the Puget Sound area, and Department of Ecology
is currently giving close attention to impacts from dairy operations.
As in Oregon, development of TMDLs should over the long term improve
water quality; the extent to which other habitat impacts will be
ameliorated is unknown.
3. 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.
4. Water Quality Programs
The 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. State agencies in Oregon are committed to
completing TMDLs for coastal drainages within four years, and all
impaired waters within ten 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.
5. Hatchery and Harvest Management
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 naturally
spawned stocks are not well understood. Competition, genetic
introgression, and disease transmission resulting from hatchery
introductions may significantly reduce the production and survival of
naturally spawned 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.
Hatchery programs and harvest management have strongly influenced
steelhead populations in the Lower and Middle Columbia 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 two state agencies (ODFW and WDFW) 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,
1996b).
Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Steelhead
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce 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 the species. Therefore, in making its listing
determinations, NMFS first assesses the status of the species and
identifies factors that have lead to the decline of the species. NMFS
then assesses available conservation measures to determine if such
measures ameliorate risks to the species.
In judging the efficacy of existing conservation efforts, NMFS
considers the following: (1) The substantive, protective, and
conservation elements of such efforts; (2) the degree of certainty such
efforts will be reliably implemented; and (3) the presence of
monitoring provisions that permit adaptive management (NMFS, 1996c). In
some cases, conservation efforts may be relatively new and may not have
had time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases,
provisions for adequate monitoring and funding of conservation efforts
are essential to ensure intended conservation benefits are realized.
During its west coast steelhead status review, 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, 1996d). NMFS has identified additional conservation
measures in the
[[Page 11804]]
States of Washington, Oregon that are not specifically addressed in
this earlier report. We summarize these additional conservation
measures below.
State of Washington Conservation Measures
The State of Washington is currently in the process of developing a
statewide strategy to protect and restore wild steelhead and other
salmon and trout species. In May of 1997, Governor Gary Locke and other
state officials signed a Memorandum of Agreement creating the Joint
Natural Resources Cabinet (Joint Cabinet). This body is comprised of
State agency directors or their equivalents from a wide variety of
agencies whose activities and constituents influence Washington's
natural resources. The goal of the Joint Cabinet is to restore healthy
salmon, steelhead and trout populations by improving those habitats on
which the fish rely. The Joint Cabinet's current activities include
development of the Lower Columbia Steelhead Conservation Initiative
(LCSCI), which is intended to comprehensively address protection and
recovery of steelhead in the lower Columbia River area.
The scope of the LCSCI includes Washington's steelhead stocks in
two transboundary ESUs that are shared by both Washington and Oregon.
The initiative area includes all of Washington's stocks in the Lower
Columbia River ESU (Cowlitz to Wind rivers) and the portion of the
Southwest Washington ESU in the Columbia River (Grays River to Germany
Creek). When completed, conservation and restoration efforts in the
LCSCI area will form a comprehensive, coordinated, and timely
protection and rebuilding framework. Benefits to steelhead and other
fish species in the LCSCI area will also accrue due to the growing bi-
state partnership with Oregon.
Advance work on the initiative was performed by WDFW. That work
emphasized harvest and hatchery issues and related conservation
measures. Consistent with creation of the Joint Cabinet, conservation
planning has recently been expanded to include major involvement by
other state agencies and stakeholders, and to address habitat and
tributary dam/hydropower components.
The utility of the LCSCI is to provide a framework to describe
concepts, strategies, opportunities, and commitments that will be
critically needed to maintain the diversity and long term productivity
of steelhead in the lower Columbia River for future generations. The
initiative does not represent a formal watershed planning process;
rather, it is intended to be complementary to such processes as they
may occur in the future. The LCSCI details a range of concerns
including natural production and genetic conservation, recreational
harvest and opportunity, hatchery strategies, habitat protection and
restoration goals, monitoring of stock status and habitat health,
evaluation of the effectiveness of specific conservation actions, and
an adaptive management structure to implement and modify the plan's
trajectory as time progresses. It also addresses improved enforcement
of habitat and fishery regulations, and strategies for outreach and
education.
The LCSCI is currently a ``work-in-progress'' and will evolve and
change over time as new information becomes available. Input will be
obtained through continuing outreach efforts by local governments and
other stakeholders. Further refinements to strategies, actions, and
commitments will occur using public and stakeholder review and input,
and continued interaction with the State of Oregon, tribes, and other
government entities, including NMFS. The LCSCI will be subjected to
independent technical review. In sum, these input and coordination
processes will play a key role in determining the extent to which the
eventual conservation package will benefit wild steelhead.
NMFS intends to continue working with the State of Washington and
stakeholders involved in the formulation of the LCSCI. Ultimately, when
completed, this conservation effort may ameliorate risks facing many
salmonid species in this region.
State of Oregon Conservation Measures
In April 1996, the Governor of Oregon completed and submitted to
NMFS a comprehensive conservation plan directed specifically at coho
salmon stocks on the Coast of Oregon. This plan, termed the Oregon Plan
for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) (formerly known as the Oregon Coastal
Salmon Restoration Initiative) was later expanded to include
conservation measures for coastal steelhead stocks (Oregon, 1998). For
a detailed description of the OPSW, refer to the May 6, 1997, listing
determination for Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62
FR 24602-24606). The essential tenets of the OPSW include the
following:
1. The plan comprehensively addresses all factors for decline of
coastal coho and steelhead, most notably, those factors relating to
harvest, habitat, and hatchery activities.
2. Under this plan, all State agencies whose activities affect
salmon are held accountable for coordinating their programs in a manner
that conserves and restores the species and their habitat. This is
essential since salmon and steelhead have been affected by the actions
of many different state agencies.
3. The Plan includes a framework for prioritizing conservation and
restoration efforts.
4. The Plan includes a comprehensive monitoring plan that
coordinates Federal, state, and local efforts to improve our
understanding of freshwater and marine conditions, determine
populations trends, evaluate the effects of artificial propagation, and
rate the OPSW's success in restoring the salmon.
5. The Plan recognizes that actions to conserve and restore salmon
must be worked out by communities and landowners--those who possess
local knowledge of problems and who have a genuine stake in the
outcome. Watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, and
other grassroots efforts are the vehicles for getting this work done.
6. The Plan is based upon the principles of adaptive management.
Through this process, there is an explicit mechanism for learning from
experience, evaluating alternative approaches, and making needed
changes in the programs and measures.
7. The Plan includes an Independent Multi-disciplinary Science Team
(IMST). The IMST's purpose is to provide an independent audit of the
OPSW's strengths and weaknesses. They will aid the adaptive management
process by compiling new information into a yearly review of goals,
objectives, and strategies, and by recommending changes.
8. The Plan requires that a yearly report be made to the Governor,
the legislature, and the public. This will help the agencies make the
adjustments described for the adaptive management process.
To implement the various monitoring programs associated with the
steelhead portion of the OPSW, the State of Oregon Legislature
appropriated over $1 million in January, 1998. This funding commitment
is in addition to funds previously allocated for the coho portion of
the OPSW.
Tribal Conservation Measures
A comprehensive salmon restoration plan for Columbia Basin salmon
was prepared by the Nez Perce, Warm Springs, Umatilla and Yakama Indian
Nations. This plan, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (The Spirit of the
[[Page 11805]]
Salmon)(CRITFC 1996) is more comprehensive than past draft recovery
plans for Columbia River basin salmon in that it proposes actions to
protect salmon not currently listed under the ESA. The tribal plan sets
goals and objectives to meet the multiple needs of these sovereign
nations, and provides guidance for management of tribal lands. NMFS
will work closely with the four tribes as conservation measures related
to Columbia Basin salmonids, particularly those at-risk populations are
further developed and implemented.
Proposed 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, 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 here,
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 and stream surveys. 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.
Aside from analyzing these data, NMFS also considered recent risk
assessment modeling conducted by ODFW.
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 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
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 for inclusion
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. A more detailed discussion of status determinations is
presented in the ``Status Review of West Coast Steelhead from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California'' and ``Status Review Update
for Deferred and Candidate ESUs of West Coast Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996a;
NMFS, 1997a). Copies of these documents are available upon request (see
ADDRESSES).
Upper Willamette River ESU
Steelhead in the Upper Willamette River ESU are distributed in a
few, relatively small, natural populations. Over the past several
decades, total abundance of natural late-migrating winter steelhead
ascending the Willamette Falls fish ladder has fluctuated several times
over a range of approximately 5,000--20,000 spawners. However, the last
peak occurred in 1988, and this peak has been followed by a steep and
continuing decline. Abundance in each of the last 5 years has been
below 4,300 fish, and the run in 1995 was the lowest in 30 years.
Declines also have been observed in almost all natural populations,
including those with and without a substantial component of naturally
spawning hatchery fish. NMFS notes with concern the results from ODFW's
extinction assessment, which estimates that the Molalla River
population had a greater than 20 percent extinction probability in the
next 60 years, and that the upper South Santiam River population had a
greater than 5 percent extinction risk within the next 100 years
(Chilcote, 1997).
Steelhead native to the Upper Willamette River ESU are late-run
winter steelhead, but introduced hatchery stocks of summer and early-
run winter steelhead also occur in the upper Willamette River.
Estimates of the proportion of hatchery fish in natural
[[Page 11806]]
spawning escapements range from 5-25 percent. NMFS is concerned about
the potential risks associated with interactions between non-native
summer and wild winter steelhead, whose spawning areas are sympatric in
some rivers (especially in the Molalla and North and South Santiam
Rivers).
Listing Determination
Based on new information submitted by ODFW and others, NMFS
concludes Upper Willamette River steelhead warrant listing as a
threatened species. Recent abundance trends indicate naturally spawned
steelhead have declined to historically low levels in areas above
Willamette Falls. This low abundance, coupled with potential risks
associated with interactions between naturally spawned steelhead and
hatchery stocks is of great concern to NMFS.
Recent conservation planning efforts by the State of Oregon may
reduce risks faced by steelhead in this ESU in the future; however,
these efforts are still in their formative stages. Specifically, the
OPSW, while substantially implemented and funded on the Oregon Coast,
has not yet reached a similar level of development in inland areas.
Middle Columbia River Basin ESU
Current population sizes are substantially lower than historic
levels, especially in the rivers with the largest steelhead runs in the
ESU, the John Day, Deschutes, and Yakima Rivers. At least two
extinctions of native steelhead runs in the ESU have occurred (the
Crooked and Metolius Rivers, both in the Deschutes River Basin). In
addition, NMFS remains concerned about the widespread long- and short-
term downward trends in population abundance throughout the ESU. Trends
in natural escapement in the Yakima and Umatilla Rivers have been
highly variable since the mid to late 1970s, ranging from abundances
that indicate relatively healthy runs to those that are cause for
concern (i.e., from 2,000-3,000 steelhead during peaks to approximately
500 fish during the low points).
One of the most significant sources of risk to steelhead in the
Middle Columbia ESU is the recent and dramatic increase in the
percentage of hatchery fish in natural escapement in the Deschutes
River Basin. ODFW estimates that in recent years, the percentage of
hatchery strays in the Deschutes River has exceeded 70 percent, and
most of these are believed to be long-distance strays from outside the
ESU. Coincident with this increase in the percentage of strays has been
a decline in the abundance of native steelhead in the Deschutes River.
In combination with the trends in hatchery fish in the Deschutes River,
estimates of increased proportions of hatchery fish in the John Day and
Umatilla River Basins pose a risk to wild steelhead due to negative
effects of genetic and ecological interactions with hatchery fish. For
example, in recent years, most of the fish planted in the Touchet River
are from other ESU stocks. As a result, a recent analysis of this stock
by WDFW found that it was most similar genetically to Wells Hatchery
steelhead from the Upper Columbia River ESU.
Listing Determination
The new and updated information considered by NMFS suggest that
over the past 34 years, continued declines in steelhead abundance and
increases in the percentage of hatchery fish in natural escapements
indicate significantly higher risk than was apparent during the initial
status review. Taking this new information into consideration, NMFS
concludes that the Middle Columbia ESU warrants listing as a threatened
species. Recent conservation planning efforts by the States of
Washington and Oregon may reduce risks faced by steelhead in this ESU
in the future; however, these efforts are still in their formative
stages. Specifically, the State of Washington's LCSCI is still in a
developmental stage and various technical and financial aspects of the
plan need to be addressed (NMFS, 1998). Furthermore, this effort is
currently limited to lower Columbia River areas. The OPSW, while
substantially implemented and funded on the Oregon Coast, has not yet
reached a similar level of development in inland areas.
Proposed Determination
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 new information obtained from its coastwide assessment,
NMFS concludes that Upper Willamette River steelhead and Middle
Columbia River steelhead warrant listing as threatened species under
the ESA. The geographic boundaries (i.e., the watersheds within which
the members of the ESU spend their freshwater residence) for these ESUs
are described under ``ESU Determinations''.
In both proposed ESUs, only naturally spawned steelhead are
proposed for listing. Prior to the final listing determination, NMFS
will examine the relationship between hatchery and naturally spawned
populations of steelhead in these ESUs, and assess whether any hatchery
populations are essential for their recovery. This may result in the
inclusion of specific hatchery populations as part of a listed ESU in
NMFS' final determination.
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
the following discussion explains, 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,'' that may include extending any or all of the prohibitions of
section 9 to threatened species. Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits
violations of protective regulations for threatened species implemented
under section 4(d). Therefore, in the case of threatened species, NMFS
has discretion under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations
based on the contents of available conservation measures. NMFS has
already adopted 4(d) rules that exempt a limited range of activities
from take prohibitions. For example, the interim 4(d) rule for Southern
Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997)
excepts habitat restoration activities conducted in accordance with
approved plans and fisheries conducted in accordance with an approved
state management plan. In appropriate cases, 4(d) rules could contain a
narrower range of prohibitions applicable to activities such as
forestry, agriculture, and road construction when such activities are
conducted in accordance with approved state or tribal plans.
These examples show that NMFS may apply take prohibitions narrowly
in light of the strong protections provided in a state or tribal plan.
There may be other circumstances as well in which NMFS would use the
flexibility of section 4(d). For example, in some cases there may be a
healthy population of salmon or steelhead within an overall ESU that is
listed. In such a case, it may
[[Page 11807]]
not be necessary to apply the full range of prohibitions available in
section 9. NMFS intends to use the flexibility of the ESA to respond
appropriately to the biological condition of each ESU and the
populations within it, and to the strength of state and tribal plans in
place to protect them. Therefore, after further analysis, NMFS will
issue protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) for the Upper
Willamette River and Middle Columbia 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 ESUs. It is important to note that the
current proposed 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.
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 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 proposed 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 receiving Federal authorization or funding, the
implementation of state fishing regulations, and timber harvest
activities on non-Federal lands.
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 Plan for Salmon and
Watersheds (formerly known as the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration
Initiative), and Washington's Lower Columbia River Salmon Restoration
Initiative. 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 to ameliorate 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 proposed rule, general
conservation measures that could be implemented to help conserve the
species are listed here. 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 lessen
adverse effects to 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 the two ESUs proposed for listing, steelhead
habitat occurs and can be affected by activities on state, tribal, or
private land. Agricultural, timber, and urban
[[Page 11808]]
management activities on non-federal land could and should be conducted
in a manner that minimizes adverse effects to steelhead habitat.
NMFS encourages non-Federal 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 non-Federal
biologists all participate and share the goal of restoring steelhead to
the watersheds.
Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently
with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. NMFS
intends to propose critical habitat for all previously listed and
currently proposed steelhead ESUs in a forthcoming Federal Register
notice. Copies of this notice will be available upon request (see
ADDRESSES).
NMFS Policies on Endangered and Threatened Fish and Wildlife
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. FWS, published a
series of policies regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy
for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270), and a policy to
identify, to the maximum extent possible, those activities that would
or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA (59 FR
34272).
Role of peer review: The intent of the peer review policy is to
ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial
data available. Prior to a final listing, NMFS will solicit the expert
opinions of three qualified specialists, concurrent with the public
comment period. Independent peer reviewers will be selected from the
academic and scientific community, tribal and other native American
groups, Federal and state agencies, and the private sector.
Identification of those activities that would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the ESA: The intent of this policy is to
increase public awareness of the effect of this listing on proposed and
ongoing activities within the species' range. NMFS will identify, to
the extent known at the time of the final rule, specific activities
that will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9,
as well as activities that will be considered likely to result in
violation. 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 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.
(2) Federally 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 consultation has been completed, and when such
activity is conducted in accordance with any terms and conditions given
by NMFS in an incidental take statement accompanied by a biological
opinion.
Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm the steelhead
and result in ``take'', include, but are not limited to:
(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species. Permits to
conduct these activities are available for purposes of scientific
research or to enhance the propagation or survival of the species.
(2) Unauthorized destruction/alteration of the species' habitat
such as removal of large woody debris 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
(i.e., sewage, oil and gasoline) into waters or riparian areas
supporting the species.
(4) Violation of discharge permits.
(5) Interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across State lines
and international boundaries) and import/export without prior
obtainment of an endangered species permit.
This list is not exhaustive; rather, it is provided to give the
reader some examples of activities that may be considered by NMFS as
constituting a ``take'' of steelhead under the ESA and associated
regulations. Questions regarding whether specific activities constitute
a violation of section 9, and general inquiries regarding prohibitions
and permits, should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Public Comments Solicited
To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and effective as possible, NMFS is soliciting comments
and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.
Public hearings will be held in several locations in the range of the
proposed ESUs; details regarding locations, dates, and times will be
published in a forthcoming Federal Register document. NMFS recognizes
that there are serious limits to the quality of information available,
and, therefore, NMFS has executed its best professional judgement in
developing this proposal. NMFS will appreciate any additional
information regarding, in particular: (1) biological or other relevant
data concerning any threat to steelhead or rainbow trout; (2) the
range, distribution, and population size of steelhead in both
identified ESUs; (3) current or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impact on this species; (4) steelhead escapement,
particularly escapement data partitioned into natural and hatchery
components; (5) the proportion of naturally reproducing fish that were
reared as juveniles in a hatchery; (6) homing and straying of natural
and hatchery fish; (7) the reproductive success of naturally-
reproducing hatchery fish (i.e., hatchery-produced fish that spawn in
natural habitat) and their relationship to the identified ESUs; and (8)
efforts being made to protect naturally spawned populations of
steelhead and rainbow trout in Washington and Oregon.
NMFS also requests quantitative evaluations describing the quality
and extent of freshwater and marine habitats for juvenile and adult
steelhead as well as information on areas that may qualify as critical
habitat in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. Areas that include
the physical and biological features essential to the recovery of the
species should be identified. NMFS recognizes there are areas within
the proposed boundaries of these ESUs that historically constituted
steelhead habitat, but may not be currently occupied by steelhead. NMFS
requests information about steelhead in these currently unoccupied
areas and whether these habitats should be considered essential to the
recovery of the species or excluded from designation. Essential
features include, but are not limited to: (1) habitat for individual
and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air,
light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for reproduction and rearing of
offspring; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of the species.
For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is
requesting
[[Page 11809]]
information describing: (1) the activities that affect the area or
could be affected by the designation, and (2) the economic costs and
benefits of additional requirements of management measures likely to
result from the designation.
NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information
regarding the status of the steelhead ESUs described herein and, as
required under the ESA, will complete a final rule within 1 year of
this proposed rule. The availability of new information may cause NMFS
to reassess the status of steelhead ESUs.
Public Hearings
Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the
Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person
so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to
list a species or to designate critical habitat (See 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3)). In a forthcoming Federal Register document, NMFS will
announce the dates and locations of public hearings on this proposed
rule to provide the opportunity for the public to give comments and to
permit an exchange of information and opinion among interested parties.
NMFS encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES).
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 the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered in determinations regarding
the status of species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are not applicable to the listing
process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under E.O.
12866.
At this time NMFS is not proposing 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
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 227
Endangered and threatened wildlife, Exports, Imports, Marine
Mammals, Transportation.
Dated: February 26, 1998.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 227 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE
1. The authority citation for part 227 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1343; subpart B, Sec. 227.12 also
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. In Sec. 227.4, paragraphs (v) and (w) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 227.4 Enumeration of threatened species.
* * * * *
(v) Upper Willamette River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their
progeny) in the Willamette River, Oregon, and its tributaries above
Willamette Falls; and
(w) Middle Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Includes
all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in
streams from above (and excluding) the Wind River, Washington, and the
Hood River, Oregon, upstream to (and including) the Yakima River,
Washington. Excluded are steelhead from the Snake River Basin.
[FR Doc. 98-5473 Filed 3-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P