[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