[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 53 (Thursday, March 19, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13347-13371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-6972]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 227

[Docket No. 980225046-8060-02; I.D. 073097E]


Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for Two ESUs 
of Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and California

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

ACTION: Final rule; notice of determination.

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

SUMMARY: Previously, NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of 
west coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss, or O. mykiss) populations in 
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, and identified 15 
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) within this range. After 
soliciting additional data to resolve scientific disagreements, NMFS 
now issues a final rule to list two ESUs as threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The threatened steelhead ESUs are located 
in Washington, Oregon, and California (Lower Columbia River and Central 
Valley, California ESUs). NMFS will issue shortly protective 
regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA for these threatened ESUs.
    NMFS has determined that the Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountains 
Province (KMP), and Northern California ESUs do not warrant listing at 
this time. Available scientific information and conservation measures 
indicate these ESUs are now at a lower risk of extinction than at the 
time of the proposed rule. However, NMFS remains concerned about the 
status of steelhead in these areas; therefore, the Oregon Coast, KMP, 
and Northern California ESUs warrant classification as candidate 
species. NMFS will reevaluate the status of these ESUs within four 
years to determine whether listing is warranted.
    In the two ESUs identified as threatened, only naturally spawned 
populations of steelhead (and their progeny) residing below naturally 
and man-made impassable barriers (e.g., impassable waterfalls and dams) 
are listed. NMFS has examined the relationship between hatchery and 
natural populations of steelhead in these ESUs and has assessed whether 
any hatchery populations are essential for their recovery. At this 
time, no hatchery populations are deemed essential for recovery (and 
hence listed) in either of the two listed ESUs.
    At this time, NMFS is listing only anadromous life forms of O. 
mykiss.

DATES: Effective May 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Northwest 
Region, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, 503-231-2005, Craig 
Wingert, 562-980-4021, or Joe Blum, 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Species Background

    Oncorhynchus mykiss exhibit one of the most complex suites of life 
history traits of any salmonid species. Oncorhynchus mykiss may exhibit 
anadromy (meaning they migrate as juveniles from fresh water to the 
ocean, and then return to spawn in fresh water) or freshwater residency 
(meaning they reside their entire 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 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 other Pacific salmon, steelhead are iteroparous, 
meaning they are capable of spawning more than once before they die. 
However, it is rare for steelhead to spawn more than twice before 
dying; most that do so are females. Steelhead adults typically spawn 
between December and June (Bell, 1990; Busby et al., 1996). Depending 
on water temperature, steelhead eggs may incubate in ``redds'' (nesting 
gravels) for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval 
life stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac 
absorption, young juveniles or ``fry'' emerge from the gravel and begin 
actively feeding. Juveniles rear in fresh water from 1 to 4 years, then 
migrate to the ocean as ``smolts.''
    Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two reproductive 
ecotypes, based

[[Page 13348]]

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 (i.e., summer-run 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 approximately 
by the Cascade crest (Huzyk and Tsuyuki, 1974; Allendorf, 1975; Utter 
and Allendorf, 1977; Okazaki, 1984; Parkinson, 1984; Schreck et al., 
1986; Reisenbichler et al., 1992). Behnke (1992) proposed classifying 
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 approximately Malibu Creek in southern California. There 
are infrequent anecdotal reports of steelhead occurring as far south as 
the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County (McEwan and Jackson, 
1996). Historically, steelhead likely inhabited most coastal streams in 
Washington, Oregon, and California as well as many inland streams in 
these States and Idaho. However, during this century, over 23 
indigenous, naturally reproducing stocks of steelhead are believed to 
have been extirpated, and many more are thought to be in decline in 
numerous coastal and inland streams in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 
California. Forty-three stocks have been identified as being at 
moderate or high risk of extinction (Nehlsen et al., 1991).

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Steelhead

    The history of petitions received regarding west coast steelhead is 
summarized in the proposed rule published on August 9, 1996 (61 FR 
56138). The most comprehensive petition was submitted by Oregon Natural 
Resources Council and 15 co-petitioners on February 16, 1994. In 
response to this petition, NMFS assessed the best available scientific 
and commercial data, including technical information from Pacific 
Salmon Biological Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and interested parties 
in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The PSBTCs consisted 
primarily of scientists (from Federal, state, and local resource 
agencies, Indian tribes, industries, universities, professional 
societies, and public interest groups) possessing technical expertise 
relevant to steelhead and their habitats. A total of seven PSBTC 
meetings were held in the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 
California during the course of the west coast steelhead status review. 
NMFS also established a Biological Review Team (BRT), composed of staff 
from NMFS' Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers and 
Southwest Regional Office, as well as a representative of the U.S. 
Geological Survey Biological Resources Division (formerly the National 
Biological Service), which conducted a coastwide status review for west 
coast steelhead (Busby et al., 1996).
    Based on the results of the BRT report and after considering other 
information and existing conservation measures, NMFS published a 
proposed listing determination (61 FR 56138, August 9, 1996) that 
identified 15 ESUs of steelhead in the States of Washington, Oregon, 
Idaho, and California. Ten of these ESUs were proposed for listing as 
threatened or endangered species; four were found not warranted for 
listing; and one was identified as a candidate for listing.
    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 the five proposed ESUs addressed 
herein (62 FR 43974, August 18, 1997). In accordance with section 
4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA, NMFS deferred its decision on these five 
remaining steelhead ESUs for 6 months for the purpose of soliciting 
additional data.
    During the 6-month period of deferral, NMFS received new scientific 
information concerning the status of the proposed ESUs. This new 
information was considered by NMFS' BRT, and NMFS has now completed an 
updated status review 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). During 
this period, NMFS also assessed the status of existing hatchery stocks 
to determine their ESU status (Memorandum from Michael Schiewe to 
William Stelle and William Hogarth, January 13, 1998, Status Review 
Update for Deferred ESUs of West Coast Steelhead: Hatchery 
Populations). Copies of these memoranda are available upon request (see 
ADDRESSES). Based on this updated status review and other information, 
NMFS now issues its final determinations for these five proposed ESUs.

Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule

    NMFS held 16 public hearings in California, Oregon, Idaho, and 
Washington to solicit comments on the proposed rule. One hundred 
eighty-eight individuals presented testimony at these public hearings. 
During the 90-day public comment period, NMFS received 939 written 
comments on the proposed rule from Federal, state, and local government 
agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations, the scientific 
community, and other individuals. A number of comments addressed 
specific technical issues pertaining to a particular geographic region 
or O. mykiss population. These technical comments were considered by 
NMFS' BRT in its re-evaluation of ESU boundaries and status and are 
discussed in the updated Status Review document (NMFS, 1997a).
    On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS), published a series of policies regarding listings under 
the ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 
34270). In accordance with this policy, NMFS solicited 22 individuals 
to take part in a peer review of its west coast steelhead proposed 
rule. All individuals solicited are recognized experts in the field of 
steelhead biology and represent a broad range of interests, including 
Federal, state, and tribal resource managers, private industry 
consultants, and academia. Eight individuals took part in the peer 
review of this action; comments from peer reviewers were considered by 
NMFS' BRT and are summarized in the updated Status Review document 
(NMFS, 1997a).
    The following is a summary of the comments received in response to 
the proposed rule:

[[Page 13349]]

Issue 1: Sufficiency and Accuracy of Scientific Information and 
Analysis

    Comment: Numerous commenters disputed the sufficiency and accuracy 
of data which NMFS employed in its proposed rule to list 10 steelhead 
ESUs as either threatened or endangered under the ESA. Several 
commenters urged NMFS to delay any ESA listing decisions for steelhead 
until additional scientific information is available concerning this 
species.
    Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires that NMFS make its 
listing determinations solely on the basis of the best available 
scientific and commercial data after reviewing the status of the 
species. NMFS believes that information contained in the agency's 
status review (Busby et al., 1996), together with more recent 
information obtained in response to the proposed rule (NMFS, 1997a), 
represents the best scientific information presently available for the 
steelhead ESUs addressed in this final rule. NMFS has conducted an 
exhaustive review of all available information relevant to the status 
of this species. NMFS has also solicited information and opinion from 
all interested parties, including peer reviewers as described above. If 
new data become available to change these conclusions, NMFS will act 
accordingly.

Issue 2: Description and Status of Steelhead ESUs

    Comment: A few commenters disputed NMFS' conclusions regarding the 
geographic boundaries for some of the ESUs and questioned NMFS' basis 
for determining these boundaries. Most of these comments pertained to 
the ESUs south of San Francisco Bay, suggesting that particular river 
systems be excluded from listing because of the historical or 
occasional absence of steelhead or rainbow trout.
    Response: NMFS has published a policy describing how it will apply 
the ESA definition of ``species'' to anadromous salmonid species (56 FR 
58612, November 20, 1991). More recently, NMFS and FWS published a 
joint policy, which is consistent with NMFS' policy, regarding the 
definition of ``distinct population segments'' (61 FR 4722, February 7, 
1996). The earlier policy is more detailed and applies specifically to 
Pacific salmonids and, therefore, was used for this determination. This 
policy indicates that one or more naturally reproducing salmonid 
populations will be considered to be distinct and, hence, species under 
the ESA, if they represent an ESU of the biological species. To be 
considered an ESU, a population must satisfy two criteria: (1) It must 
be reproductively isolated from other population units of the same 
species; and (2) it must represent an important component in the 
evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The first criterion, 
reproductive isolation, need not be absolute but must have been strong 
enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to occur in 
different population units. The second criterion is met if the 
population contributes substantially to the ecological or genetic 
diversity of the species as a whole. Guidance on applying this policy 
is contained in a scientific paper entitled: ``Pacific Salmon 
(Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition of `Species' Under the 
Endangered Species Act.'' It is also found in a NOAA Technical 
Memorandum: ``Definition of `Species' Under the Endangered Species Act: 
Application to Pacific Salmon'' (Waples, 1991). A more detailed 
discussion of individual ESU boundaries is provided below under 
``Summary of ESU Determinations.''
    Comment: Several commenters questioned NMFS' methodology for 
determining whether a given steelhead ESU warranted listing. In most 
cases, such commenters also expressed opinions regarding whether 
listing was warranted for a particular steelhead ESU. A few commenters 
provided substantive new information relevant to making risk 
assessments.
    Response: Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``endangered 
species'' as ``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened 
species'' is defined as ``any species which is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' NMFS has identified a number of 
factors that should be considered in evaluating the level of risk faced 
by an ESU, including, (1) Absolute numbers of fish and their spatial 
and temporal distribution, (2) current abundance in relation to 
historical abundance and current carrying capacity of the habitat, (3) 
trends in abundance, (4) natural and human-influenced factors that 
cause variability in survival and abundance, (5) possible threats to 
genetic integrity (e.g., from strays or outplants from hatchery 
programs), and (6) recent events (e.g., a drought or changes in harvest 
management) that have predictable short-term consequences for abundance 
of the ESU. A more detailed discussion of status of individual ESUs is 
provided under the section ``Summary of Conclusions Regarding Listed 
ESUs.''

Issue 3: Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast Steelhead

    Comment: Many commenters identified factors they believe have 
contributed to the decline of west coast steelhead. Factors identified 
include overharvest by recreational fisheries, predation by pinnipeds 
and piscivorous fish species, effects of artificial propagation, and 
the deterioration or loss of freshwater and marine habitats.
    Response: NMFS agrees that many factors, past and present, have 
contributed to the decline of West Coast steelhead. NMFS also 
recognizes that natural environmental fluctuations have likely played a 
role in the species' recent declines. However, NMFS believes other 
human-induced impacts (e.g., incidental catch in certain fisheries, 
hatchery practices, and habitat modification) have played an equally 
significant role in this species' decline. Moreover, these human-
induced impacts have likely reduced the species' resiliency to natural 
factors for decline, such as drought and poor ocean conditions (NMFS, 
1996a).
    Since the time of this proposed listing, NMFS has published a 
report describing the impacts of California sea lions and Pacific 
harbor seals upon salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of 
Washington, Oregon, and California (NMFS, 1997b). This report concludes 
that in certain cases where pinniped populations co-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-run steelhead. This study further 
concludes that data regarding pinniped predation are 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, 1997b). For additional information on this issue see 
Summary of Factors Affecting Steelhead.
    Comment: One peer reviewer and several commenters stated that NMFS' 
assessment underestimated the significant influence of natural 
environmental fluctuations on salmonid populations. Several commenters 
stated that ocean conditions are one of the primary factors for 
decline. These commenters suggested that any listing

[[Page 13350]]

activity should be postponed until the complete oceanographic cycle can 
be observed.
    Response: Environmental changes in both marine and freshwater 
habitats can have important impacts on steelhead abundance. For 
example, a pattern of relatively high abundance in the mid-1980s 
followed by (often sharp) declines over the next decade occurred in 
steelhead populations from most geographic regions of the Pacific 
Northwest. This result is most plausibly explained by broad-scale 
changes in ocean productivity. Similarly, 6 to 8 years of drought in 
the late 1980s and early 1990s adversely affected many freshwater 
habitats for steelhead throughout the region. These natural phenomena 
put increasing pressure on natural populations already stressed by 
anthropogenic factors, such as habitat degradation, blockage of 
migratory routes, and harvest (NMFS, 1996a).
    Improvement of cyclic or episodic environmental conditions (for 
example, increases in ocean productivity or shifts from drought to 
wetter conditions) can help alleviate extinction risk to steelhead 
populations. However, NMFS cannot reliably predict future environmental 
conditions, making it unreasonable to assume improvements in abundance 
as a result of improvements in such conditions. Furthermore, steelhead 
and other species of Pacific salmon have evolved over the centuries 
with such cyclical environmental stresses. This species has persisted 
through time in the face of these conditions largely due to the 
presence of freshwater and estuarine refugia. As these refugia are 
altered and degraded, Pacific salmon species are more vulnerable to 
episodic events, such as shifts in ocean productivity and drought 
cycles (NMFS, 1996a).

Issue 4: Consideration of Existing Conservation Measures

    Comment: Several commenters argued that NMFS had not considered 
existing conservation programs designed to enhance steelhead stocks 
within a particular ESU. Some commenters provided specific information 
on some of these programs to NMFS concerning the efficacy of existing 
conservation plans.
    Response: NMFS has reviewed existing conservation plans and 
measures relevant to the five ESUs addressed in this final rule and 
concludes that existing conservation efforts in some cases have helped 
ameliorate risks facing the species. These conservation efforts are 
discussed in detail under the section Existing Conservation Efforts.
    While several of the plans addressed in comments show promise for 
ameliorating risks facing steelhead, some of the measures described in 
comments have not been implemented. Some of these measures are also 
geographically limited to individual river basins or political 
subdivisions, thereby improving conditions for only a small portion of 
the entire ESU.
    Even though in two ESUs existing conservation efforts and plans are 
not sufficient to preclude the need for listings at this time, they 
are, nevertheless, valuable for improving watershed health and 
restoring fishery resources. In those cases where well-developed, 
reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS may choose to incorporate them 
into the recovery planning process. In the case of threatened species, 
NMFS also has flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor protective 
regulations based on the contents of available conservation measures. 
NMFS has already adopted a 4(d) rule recognizing state conservation 
efforts that adequately address one or more factors contributing to the 
decline of a threatened species. For example, the interim 4(d) rule for 
Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62 FR 38479, July 18, 
1997) relied on an Oregon fishery management plan and regulations 
rather than applying general take prohibitions to freshwater fishing 
activity in the Oregon portion of the ESU. It also relied on habitat 
restoration plans that meet specified standards. In appropriate cases, 
4(d) rules could similarly rely on state or tribal forestry, 
agriculture, road construction and maintenance, or other programs found 
to provide adequate protections for threatened species.
    These examples show that NMFS may apply modified take prohibitions 
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 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.

Issue 5: Steelhead Biology and Ecology

    Comment: Several commenters and a peer reviewer asserted that 
resident rainbow trout should be included in listed steelhead ESUs. 
Several commenters also stated that NMFS and FWS should address how the 
presence of rainbow trout populations may ameliorate risks facing 
anadromous populations within listed ESUs.
    Response: In its August 9, 1996, proposed rule (61 FR 41541), NMFS 
stated that it was the consensus of NMFS scientists, as well as 
regional fishery biologists, that based on available genetic 
information, resident fish should generally be considered part of the 
steelhead ESUs. However, NMFS concluded that available data were 
inconclusive regarding the relationship of resident rainbow trout and 
steelhead. NMFS requested additional data in the proposed rule to 
clarify this relationship and determine whether resident rainbow trout 
should be included in listed steelhead ESUs.
    In response to this request for additional information, many groups 
and individuals expressed opinions regarding this issue. In most cases 
these opinions were not supported by new information that resolves 
existing uncertainty. Two state fishery management agencies (California 
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Washington Department of Fish 
and Wildlife (WDFW)) and one peer reviewer provided comments and 
information supporting the inclusion of resident rainbow trout in 
listed steelhead ESUs. In general, these parties also felt that rainbow 
trout may serve as an important reservoir of genetic material for at-
risk steelhead stocks.
    While conclusive evidence does not yet exist regarding the 
relationship of resident and anadromous O. mykiss, NMFS believes 
available evidence suggests that resident rainbow trout should be 
included in listed steelhead ESUs in certain cases. Such cases include 
(1) where resident O. mykiss have the opportunity to interbreed with 
anadromous fish below natural or man-made barriers or (2) where 
resident fish of native lineage once had the ability to interbreed with 
anadromous fish but no longer do because they are currently above 
human-made barriers and are considered essential for recovery of the 
ESU. Whether resident fish that exist above any particular man-made 
barrier meet these criteria must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by 
NMFS. NMFS recognizes that there may be many such cases in California 
alone. Resident fish above long-standing natural barriers and those 
that are derived from the introduction of non-native rainbow trout 
would not be considered part of any salmonid ESU.
    Several lines of evidence exist to support this conclusion. Under 
certain conditions, anadromous and resident O.

[[Page 13351]]

mykiss are apparently capable not only of interbreeding, but also of 
having offspring that express the alternate life history form, that is, 
anadromous fish can produce nonanadromous offspring, and vice versa 
(Shapovalov and Taft, 1954; Burgner et al., 1992). Mullan et al. (1992) 
found evidence that, in very cold streams, juvenile steelhead had 
difficulty attaining ``mean threshold size for smoltification'' and 
concluded that ``Most fish here [Methow River, Washington] that do not 
emigrate downstream early in life are thermally-fated to a resident 
life history regardless of whether they were the progeny of anadromous 
or resident parents.'' Additionally, Shapovalov and Taft (1954) 
reported evidence of O. mykiss maturing in fresh water and spawning 
prior to their first ocean migration; this life history variation has 
also been found in cutthroat trout (O. clarki) and Atlantic salmon 
(Salmo salar).
    NMFS believes resident fish can help buffer extinction risks to an 
anadromous population by mitigating depensatory effects in spawning 
populations, by providing offspring that migrate to the ocean and enter 
the breeding population of steelhead, and by providing a ``reserve'' 
gene pool in freshwater that may persist through times of unfavorable 
conditions for anadromous fish. In spite of these potential benefits, 
presence of resident populations is not a substitute for conservation 
of anadromous populations. A particular concern is isolation of 
resident populations by human-caused barriers to migration. This 
interrupts normal population dynamics and population genetic processes 
and can lead to the loss of a genetically based trait (anadromy). As 
discussed in NMFS' ``species identification'' paper (Waples, 1991), the 
potential loss of anadromy in distinct population segments may in and 
of itself warrant listing the ESU as a whole.
    On February 7, 1996, FWS and NMFS adopted a joint policy to clarify 
their interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment (DPS) 
of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife'' for the purposes of 
listing, delisting, and reclassifying species under the ESA (61 FR 
4722). DPSs are ``species'' pursuant to section 3(15) of the ESA. 
Previously, NMFS had developed a policy for stocks of Pacific salmon 
where an ESU of a biological species is considered to be a DPS 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 (Department of Interior (DOI), 1997; FWS, 1997).
    In its review of West Coast steelhead, NMFS'' BRT stated that 
rainbow trout and steelhead in the same area may share a common gene 
pool at least over evolutionary time periods (NMFS, 1997a). The 
importance of any recovery action is measured in terms of its ability 
to recover the listed species in the foreseeable future. FWS believes 
that steelhead recovery will not rely on the intermittent exchange of 
genetic material between resident and anadromous forms (FWS, 1997). As 
a result, without a clear demonstration of any risks to resident 
rainbow trout or of the need to protect rainbow trout to recover 
steelhead in the foreseeable future, the FWS concludes that only the 
anadromous forms of O. mykiss should be included in the listed 
steelhead ESUs at this time (FWS, 1997).
    Comment: Several commenters and peer reviewers questioned NMFS'' 
inclusion of both summer- and winter-run steelhead in the same ESU. 
These commenters suggested that summer- and winter-run steelhead be 
segregated into individual ESUs based on life history differences.
    Response: While NMFS considers both life history forms (summer-and 
winter-run steelhead) to be important components of diversity within 
the species, new genetic data reinforce previous conclusions that, 
within a geographic area, summer-and winter-run 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 an ESU 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-run 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-run steelhead should be considered part of the same 
ESU in geographic areas where they co-occur.

Summary of ESU Determinations

    The following is a summary of NMFS'' ESU determinations for these 
species. A more detailed discussion of ESU determinations is presented 
in the documents entitled ``Status Review Update for West Coast 
Steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California'' (NMFS, 
1997a) and ``Status Review Update for Deferred ESUs of West Coast 
Steelhead: Hatchery Populations'' (NMFS, 1998a). Copies of these 
documents are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

(1) Lower Columbia River ESU

    This coastal steelhead ESU occupies tributaries to the Columbia 
River between the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers in Washington, inclusive, and 
the Willamette and Hood Rivers in Oregon, inclusive. Excluded are 
steelhead in the upper Willamette River Basin above Willamette Falls, 
and steelhead from the Little and Big White Salmon Rivers in 
Washington. This similarity results from the shared geology of the area 
and the transportation of Columbia River sediments northward along the 
Washington coast. Rivers draining into the Columbia River have their 
headwaters in increasingly drier areas, moving from west to east. 
Columbia River tributaries that drain the Cascade Mountains have 
proportionally higher flows in late summer and early fall than rivers 
on the Oregon coast.
    Steelhead populations in this ESU are of the coastal genetic group 
(Schreck et al., 1986; Reisenbichler et al., 1992; Chapman et al., 
1994), and a number of genetic studies have shown that they are part of 
a different ancestral lineage than inland steelhead from the Columbia 
River Basin. Genetic data also show steelhead from this ESU to be 
distinct from steelhead from the upper Willamette River and coastal 
streams in Oregon and Washington. WDFW data show genetic affinity 
between the Kalama, Wind, and Washougal River steelhead. These data 
show differentiation between the Lower Columbia River ESU and the 
Southwest Washington and Middle Columbia River Basin ESUs. This ESU is 
composed of both winter- and summer-run steelhead.
    NMFS determines that no changes in the boundaries of the Lower 
Columbia River ESU are warranted. No new information was received from 
peer reviewers or from other commenters regarding the boundaries of 
this ESU.

[[Page 13352]]

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU
    Hatchery populations considered part of the ESU include late-
spawning Cowlitz Trout Hatchery stock (winter-run) and Clackamas River 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) stock # 122. For late-
spawning Cowlitz River steelhead, this decision was based on the 
following: (1) Their April to late-May spawning period that mirrors the 
spawn timing of wild winter-run steelhead in this system; (2) the 58-
chromosome count exhibited by this stock, which is indicative of native 
Columbia River Basin origin, in contrast to the 59 or 60 chromosomes 
seen in Chambers Creek steelhead; and (3) a genetic clustering with 
native late-spawning winter-run steelhead in the Clackamas River. 
Clackamas River ODFW hatchery stock # 122, which were recently 
established, are part of the ESU based on its apparent origin from a 
local wild population.
    Hatchery populations not considered part of the ESU include 
Chambers Creek/lower Columbia River mix (early-spawning winter-run), 
Skamania Hatchery stock (summer-run), Eagle Creek National Fish 
Hatchery (NFH) stock (Clackamas River ODFW stock         # 19) (winter-
run), Clackamas River ODFW stock # 20 (winter-run), and Hood River ODFW 
stock # 50 (winter-run). For both Chambers Creek/lower Columbia River 
mix of early spawning steelhead hatchery stocks and the Eagle Creek NFH 
stock (also known as Clackamas River ODFW stock # 19), this conclusion 
is based on the substantial inclusion of original broodstock from 
outside the ESU and on significant deviation in current run-timing 
compared with native winter-run steelhead.
    Available information indicates that a portion of the original 
broodstocks for Skamania Hatchery stock (summer-run) and the Clackamas 
River ODFW stock         # 20 (winter-run) originated from outside the 
ESU. Also, Skamania summer hatchery steelhead stock exhibits a 3-month 
advanced spawn timing compared with wild summer-run steelhead in the 
Washougal River. Skamania Hatchery summer-run steelhead were derived 
from a combination of native Washougal River summer-run steelhead and 
summer-run steelhead imported from the Klickitat River, which is in the 
Middle Columbia River ESU. Clackamas River ODFW stock # 20 (raised at 
Clackamas Hatchery) originated from the Eagle Creek NFH stock (ODFW 
stock # 19), which was derived from a mixture of indigenous Clackamas 
River steelhead, Big Creek Hatchery steelhead from the Southwest 
Washington ESU, and Donaldson rainbow trout.
    At this time, NMFS concludes that Hood River winter-run steelhead 
ODFW stock # 50 does not warrant inclusion in this ESU. Insufficient 
genetic data exist at this time to conclusively determine the stock's 
ESU status.

(2) Oregon Coast ESU

    This coastal steelhead ESU occupies river basins on the Oregon 
coast north of Cape Blanco, excluding rivers and streams that are 
tributaries of the Columbia River. Most rivers in this area drain the 
Coast Range Mountains, have a single peak in flow in December or 
January, and have relatively low flow during summer and early fall. The 
coastal region receives fairly high precipitation levels, and the 
vegetation is dominated by Sitka spruce and western hemlock. Upwelling 
off the Oregon coast is much more variable and generally weaker than in 
areas south of Cape Blanco. While marine conditions off the Oregon and 
Washington coasts are similar, the Columbia River has greater influence 
north of its mouth, and the continental shelf becomes broader off the 
Washington coast.
    Recent genetic data from steelhead in this ESU are limited, but 
they show a level of differentiation from populations from Washington, 
the Columbia River Basin, and coastal areas south of Cape Blanco. Ocean 
migration patterns also suggest a distinction between steelhead 
populations north and south of Cape Blanco. Steelhead (as well as 
chinook and coho salmon) from streams south of Cape Blanco tend to be 
south-migrating rather than north-migrating (Everest, 1973; Nicholas 
and Hankin, 1988; Pearcy et al., 1990; Pearcy, 1992).
    The Oregon Coast ESU primarily contains winter-run steelhead; there 
are only two native stocks of summer-run steelhead. Summer-run 
steelhead occur only in the Siletz River, above a waterfall, and in the 
North Umpqua River, where migration distance may prevent full 
utilization of available habitat by winter-run steelhead. Alsea River 
winter-run steelhead have been widely used for steelhead broodstock in 
coastal rivers. Populations of nonanadromous O. mykiss are relatively 
uncommon on the Oregon coast, as compared with other areas, occurring 
primarily above migration barriers and in the Umpqua River Basin 
(Kostow, 1995).
    Little information is available regarding migration and spawn 
timing of natural steelhead populations within this ESU. Age structure 
appears to be similar to other west coast steelhead, dominated by 4-
year-old spawners. Iteroparity is more common among Oregon coast 
steelhead than in populations to the north.
    NMFS determines that no changes in the boundaries of the Oregon 
Coast ESU are warranted. No new information was received from peer 
reviewers or from other commenters regarding the boundaries of this 
ESU.
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU
    At this time, NMFS has not identified hatchery populations 
pertaining to this ESU.

(3) Klamath Mountains Province ESU

    This coastal steelhead ESU occupies river basins from the Elk River 
in Oregon to the Klamath and Trinity Rivers in California, inclusive. A 
detailed discussion of this ESU is presented in a previous NMFS status 
review (Busby et al., 1994). Geologically, this region includes the 
KMP, which is not as erosive as the Franciscan formation terrains south 
of the Klamath River Basin. Dominant vegetation along the coast is 
redwood forest, while some interior basins are much drier than 
surrounding areas and are characterized by many endemic species. 
Elevated stream temperatures are a factor affecting steelhead and other 
species in some of the larger river basins. With the exception of major 
river basins, such as the Rogue and Klamath, most rivers in this region 
have a short duration of peak flows. Strong and consistent coastal 
upwelling begins at about Cape Blanco and continues south into central 
California, resulting in a relatively productive nearshore marine 
environment.
    Protein electrophoretic analyses of coastal steelhead have 
indicated genetic discontinuities between the steelhead of this region 
and those to the north and south (Hatch, 1990; Busby et al., 1993 and 
1994). Chromosomal studies have also identified a distinctive karyotype 
that has been reported only from populations within this ESU. Steelhead 
within this ESU include both winter-run- and summer steelhead as well 
as the unusual ``half-pounder'' life history (characterized by immature 
steelhead that return to fresh water after only 2 to 4 months in salt 
water, overwinter-run in rivers without spawning, then return to salt 
water the following spring).
    Among the remaining questions regarding this ESU is the 
relationship between O. mykiss below and above Klamath Falls, OR. 
Behnke (1992) has proposed that the two groups are in different 
subspecies and that the upper group, a redband trout (O. m. newberrii),

[[Page 13353]]

exhibited anadromy until blocked by the Copco dams in the early 1900s. 
However, Moyle (1976) stated that Klamath Falls was the upstream 
barrier to anadromous fish prior to construction of the dams.
    NMFS determines that no changes in the boundaries of the KMP ESU 
are warranted. No new information was received from peer reviewers or 
from other commenters regarding the boundaries of this ESU.
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU
    While NMFS has analyzed the relationship of hatchery stocks to 
naturally spawned steelhead within the KMP ESU (NMFS, 1998a), this 
discussion is omitted here since NMFS concludes that KMP steelhead do 
not warrant listing at this time.

(4) Northern California ESU

    This coastal steelhead ESU occupies river basins from Redwood Creek 
in Humboldt County, CA, to the Gualala River, inclusive. Dominant 
vegetation along the coast is redwood forest, while some interior 
basins are much drier than surrounding areas and are characterized by 
many endemic species. This area includes the extreme southern end of 
the contiguous portion of the Coast Range Ecoregion (Omernick, 1987). 
Elevated stream temperatures are a factor in some of the larger river 
basins (greater than 20 deg. Celsius (C)), but not to the extent that 
they are in river basins farther south. Precipitation is generally 
higher in this geographic area than in regions to the south, averaging 
100-200 centimeters (cm) of rainfall annually (Donley et al., 1979). 
With the exception of major river basins, such as the Eel, most rivers 
in this region have peak flows of short duration. Strong and consistent 
coastal upwelling begins at approximately Cape Blanco and continues 
south into central California, resulting in a relatively productive 
nearshore marine environment.
    There are life history similarities between steelhead of the 
Northern California ESU and the KMP ESU. This ESU includes both winter-
run- and summer steelhead, including what is presently considered to be 
the southernmost population of summer-run steelhead, in the Middle Fork 
Eel River. Half-pounder juveniles also occur in this geographic area, 
specifically in the Mad and Eel Rivers. Snyder (1925) first described 
the half-pounder from the Eel River; however, Cramer et al. (1995) 
suggested that adults with the half-pounder juvenile life history may 
not spawn south of the Klamath River Basin. As with the Rogue and 
Klamath Rivers, some of the larger rivers in this area have migrating 
steelhead year round, and seasonal runs have been named. River entry 
ranges from August through June, and spawning from December through 
April, with peak spawning in January in the larger basins and late 
February and March in the smaller coastal basins.
    NMFS determines that no changes in the boundaries of the Northern 
California ESU are warranted. No new information was received from peer 
reviewers or from other commenters regarding the boundaries of this 
ESU.
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU
    While NMFS has analyzed the relationship of hatchery stocks to 
naturally spawned steelhead within the KMP ESU (NMFS, 1998a), this 
discussion is omitted here since NMFS concludes that Northern 
California steelhead do not warrant listing at this time.

(5) Central Valley, California ESU

    This coastal steelhead ESU occupies the Sacramento and San Joaquin 
Rivers and their tributaries. Excluded are steelhead from San Francisco 
and San Pablo Bays which are part of the Central California Coast ESU. 
In the San Joaquin Basin, the best available information suggests that 
the current range of steelhead has been limited to the Stanislaus, 
Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers (tributaries) and the mainstem San Joaquin 
River to its confluence with the Merced River by human alteration of 
formerly available habitat. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers offer 
the only migration route to the drainages of the Sierra Nevada and 
southern Cascade mountain ranges for anadromous fish. The distance from 
the Pacific Ocean to spawning streams can exceed 300 km, providing 
unique potential for reproductive isolation among steelhead. The 
Central Valley is much drier than the coastal regions to the west, 
receiving on average of only 10 to 50 cm of rainfall annually. The 
valley is characterized by alluvial soils, and native vegetation was 
dominated by oak forests and prairie grasses prior to agricultural 
development. Steelhead within this ESU have the longest freshwater 
migration of any population of winter-run steelhead. There is 
essentially one continuous run of steelhead in the upper Sacramento 
River. River entry ranges from July through May, with peaks in 
September and February. Spawning begins in late December and can extend 
into April (McEwan and Jackson, 1996).
    There are two recognized taxonomic forms of native O. mykiss within 
the Sacramento River Basin: Coastal steelhead/rainbow trout (O. m. 
irideus, Behnke, 1992) and Sacramento redband trout (O. m. stonei, 
Behnke, 1992). It is not clear how the coastal and Sacramento redband 
forms of O. mykiss interacted in the Sacramento River prior to 
construction of Shasta Dam in the 1940s. However, it appears the two 
forms historically co-occurred at spawning time, but may have 
maintained reproductive isolation.
    Two questions were raised by commenters regarding the extent of the 
Central Valley, California, ESU. These are (1) whether steelhead were 
native to the San Joaquin River Basin, and (2) whether steelhead in the 
Central Valley comprised a single ESU or multiple ESUs. New information 
received during the 6-month deferral period has aided somewhat in 
addressing these questions.
    Recent observations resulting from monitoring efforts for chinook 
salmon document steelhead juveniles and/or adults in the lower San 
Joaquin River, the Stanislaus River, the Tuolumne River, and the Merced 
River. These steelhead appear to represent natural production since 
hatchery releases in recent years have been made only into the 
Mokelumne River. CDFG presented evidence that steelhead historically 
occurred in the San Joaquin River Basin, and, historically, there is no 
evidence that have been any obvious barriers to colonization of the 
basin by steelhead. NMFS notes that spring chinook salmon and steelhead 
have somewhat similar ecological requirements and that the San Joaquin 
River Basin historically supported large runs of spring chinook salmon. 
From this, NMFS concludes that steelhead probably historically occurred 
in the San Joaquin River Basin.
    Ecological information provides additional insight into species 
diversity within this region. First, the Central Valley as a whole can 
be divided into three ecoregions based largely on elevation and 
associated changes in climate and rainfall: (1) A mountainous region, 
averaging about 1000 m elevation, that includes the headwaters of the 
Sacramento and tributaries to the San Joaquin Rivers; (2) a region of 
tablelands and hills at intermediate elevation, through which the 
tributary rivers flow; and (3) the valley itself, which includes broad, 
flat lands that border the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. 
Geologically, the upper Sacramento River Basin, which arises from the 
volcanic Cascade Range, differs from the lower Sacramento and San 
Joaquin River Basins, which flow out of

[[Page 13354]]

the northern and southern Sierra Nevada. The upper Sacramento River 
Basin is also hydrologically distinct, and it supports native 
subspecies of resident 0. mykiss. The southern part of the San Joaquin 
River Basin is also very distinct ecologically. Limited run-timing 
information suggests there may have been historic differences between 
populations in the Sacramento River Basin, three distinct runs may have 
occurred there as recently as 1947 (McEwan and Jackson, 1996), 
including a summer-run in the American River (Cramer et al., 1995; 
McEwan and Jackson, 1996) but the data are far from conclusive. 
Currently, CDFG considers all Central Valley steelhead to be winter-run 
steelhead (McEwan and Jackson, 1996), others call them fall-run 
steelhead (Cramer et al., 1995).
    Genetic data indicate that, as a group, Central Valley steelhead 
are quite distinct from all coastal populations. However, existing data 
are not very informative regarding historical relationships among 
populations within the Central Valley. The single sample we have from 
the San Joaquin River basin is genetically similar to samples from 
Coleman Hatchery, Feather River Hatchery, and Deer and Mill Creeks in 
the Sacramento River. It is not clear whether this reflects historical 
relationships or more recent effects of stock transfers and/or straying 
by hatchery fish.
    After considering this information in the aggregate, NMFS concludes 
that it is likely that, historically, more than one ESU of steelhead 
occurred in the Central Valley. However, at this time, existing 
scientific information does not permit the formulation of ESU 
boundaries for more than one ESU in this region. Therefore, NMFS 
concludes that steelhead in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins 
(Central Valley) should be considered a single ESU until additional 
information becomes available.
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU
    Hatchery populations considered part of this ESU include the 
Coleman NFH stock and Feather River Hatchery stock (winter-run). The 
Coleman NFH and Feather River Hatchery steelhead stocks are part of the 
ESU since broodstock histories and genetic evidence show these two 
stocks to be similar to wild steelhead in Deer and Mill Creeks.
    Hatchery populations not considered part of the ESU include the 
Nimbus Hatchery stock and Mokelumne Hatchery stock. Nimbus Hatchery 
steelhead cluster genetically with Eel River steelhead (Northern 
California ESU), the source of much of the steelhead broodstock used to 
found the Nimbus Hatchery stock. Nimbus Hatchery has provided the vast 
majority of eggs to the Mokelumne Hatchery.

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, 
whether 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 education 
purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    As noted earlier, NMFS received numerous comments regarding the 
relative importance of various factors contributing to the decline of 
West Coast steelhead. Several recent documents describe in more detail 
the impacts of various factors contributing to the decline of steelhead 
and other salmonids (e.g., NMFS, 1997c). NMFS has prepared a supporting 
document that addresses the factors leading to the decline of this 
species entitled ``Factors for Decline: A supplement to the notice of 
determination for west coast steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996a). This report, 
available upon request (see ADDRESSES), concludes that all of the 
factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a role in 
the decline of the species. The report identifies destruction and 
modification of habitat, overutilization for recreational purposes, and 
natural and human-made factors as being the primary causes for the 
decline of West Coast steelhead. The following discussion briefly 
summarizes findings regarding factors for decline across the range of 
west coast steelhead. While these factors have been treated here in 
general terms, it is important to underscore that impacts from certain 
factors are more acute for specific ESUs. For example, impacts from 
water diversion are more pervasive for the Central Valley, California, 
ESU than for some coastal ESUs.

(1) The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

    Steelhead on the West Coast of the United States have experienced 
declines in abundance in the past several decades as a result of 
natural and human factors. Forestry, agriculture, mining, and 
urbanization have degraded, simplified, and fragmented habitat. Water 
diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower 
purposes (especially in the Columbia River and Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Basins) have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible 
habitat. Studies estimate that during the last 200 years, the lower 48 
states have lost approximately 53 percent of all wetlands and the 
majority of the rest are severely degraded (Dahl, 1990; Tiner, 1991). 
Washington and Oregon's wetlands are estimated to have diminished by 
one-third, while California has experienced a 91 percent loss of its 
wetland habitat (Dahl, 1990; Jensen et al., 1990; Barbour et al., 1991; 
Reynolds et al., 1993). Loss of habitat complexity has also contributed 
to the decline of steelhead. For example, in national forests in 
Washington, there has been a 58 percent reduction in large, deep pools 
due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures, such as 
boulders and large wood (Forest 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.

(2) Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Education Purposes

    Steelhead support an important recreational fishery throughout 
their range. During periods of decreased habitat availability (e.g., 
drought conditions or summer low flow when fish are concentrated), the 
impacts of recreational fishing on native anadromous stocks may be 
heightened. NMFS has reviewed and evaluated the impacts of recreational 
fishing on west coast steelhead populations (NMFS, 1996a). Steelhead 
are not generally targeted in commercial fisheries. High seas driftnet 
fisheries in the past may have contributed slightly to a decline of 
this species in local areas, but could not be solely responsible for 
the large declines in abundance observed along most of the Pacific 
coast over the past several decades.
    A particular problem occurs in the main stem of the Columbia River 
where naturally spawned steelhead from the Upper Columbia and Snake 
River Basin ESUs migrate at the same time and are subject to the same 
fisheries as hatchery-produced steelhead, chinook,

[[Page 13355]]

and coho salmon. Incidental harvest mortality in mixed-stock sport and 
commercial fisheries may exceed 30 percent of naturally spawned 
populations.

(3) Disease or Predation

    Infectious diseases constitute one of many factors that can 
influence adult and juvenile steelhead survival. Steelhead are exposed 
to numerous bacterial, protozoan, viral, and parasitic organisms in 
spawning and rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and the 
marine environments. Specific diseases, such as bacterial kidney 
disease (BKD), ceratomyxosis, columnaris, furunculosis, infectious 
hematopoietic necrosis virus, 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 
and Wedemeyer, undated). Very little current or historical information 
exists to quantify changes in infection levels and mortality rates 
attributable to these diseases for steelhead. However, studies have 
shown that naturally spawned 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 some areas 
experiencing dwindling steelhead run sizes.

(4) Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Federal Land and Water Management
    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 the Implementation of Interim Strategies for 
Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in eastern Oregon and 
Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (known as PACFISH). The 
strategy was developed in response to significant declines in naturally 
reproducing salmonid stocks, including steelhead, and to the 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 Federal 
land ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within all 
the affected ESUs.
    Within the range of KMP steelhead, the majority of available 
steelhead habitat is covered by the requirements of the NFP. 
Furthermore, on May 6, 1997, Southern Oregon/Northern California coho 
salmon were listed as a threatened species under the ESA (62 FR 24588) 
resulting in some new habitat protections. These existing management 
efforts have resulted in improvements in aquatic habitat conditions for 
salmonids within this region.
    Over the past 3 years, NMFS has consulted with the Arcata, Redding, 
and Clear Lake U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Areas and 
the Six Rivers, Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, and Mendocino National Forests 
(Forests) on all ongoing and proposed activities that may affect coho 
salmon and steelhead and their habitats. During this period of time, 
NMFS reviewed thousands of activities throughout northern California 
and helped develop numerous programmatic biological assessments (BAs) 
with the BLM and the Forests. These BAs cover a wide range of 
management activities, including forest and/or resource area-wide 
routine and non-routine road maintenance, hazard tree removal, range 
allotment management, watershed and instream restoration, special use 
permits (e.g., mining, ingress/egress), timber sale programs (e.g., 
green tree, fuel reduction, thinning, regeneration, and salvage), and 
BLM's land tenure adjustment program. Numerous other project-specific 
BAs received consultations and conferences. These forest and resource 
area-wide BAs include region-specific best management practices, all 
necessary measures to minimize impacts for all listed/proposed 
anadromous salmonids, monitoring, and environmental baseline checklists 
for each project. These BAs have resulted in a more consistent approach 
to management of public lands throughout the NFP and PACFISH areas.
    On October 27, 1986, the Klamath Act (Pub. L. 99-552) was passed by 
Congress authorizing a 20-year-long Federal-State cooperative Klamath 
River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program for the rebuilding of 
the river's fish resources. The Act created a 14-member Klamath River 
Basin Fisheries Task Force and directs the U.S. Secretary of Interior 
to cooperate with the Task Force in the creation and implementation of 
a Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program 
(KRBFTF, 1991). The Task Force members are appointed by, and represent, 
the Governors of California and Oregon; the U.S. Secretaries of 
Interior, Commerce and Agriculture; the California counties of Del 
Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou and Trinity; Hoopa Valley, Karuk and Yurok 
Indian tribal fishers; as well as by anglers and commercial fishermen. 
The KMP Act also created an 11-member Klamath Fishery Management 
Council to ``establish a comprehensive long-term plan and policy * * * 
for the management of the in-river and ocean harvesting that affects or 
may affect Klamath and Trinity River basin anadromous salmon 
populations.'' The Council comprises essentially the same interests as 
the Task Force, except for the four county representatives which hold 
seats only on the Task Force.
    In October 1984, the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife 
Restoration Act (Act) was enacted by Congress. The Act appropriated $33 
million over a 10-year period for design and construction of 
restoration projects and $2.4 million annually for operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring. The Act embodied in law an 11-point plan 
to restore and maintain fish and wildlife resources in the basin at 
levels which occurred prior to the construction of the Trinity River 
Diversion, Central Valley Project. The Trinity River Basin Fish and 
Wildlife Task Force was formed to investigate and develop an action 
plan to identify and correct fish and wildlife problems in the Trinity 
River basin. In 1982, the Task Force issued the Trinity River Basin 
Fish and Wildlife Management Program Report, which outlined five major 
goals to restore fish and wildlife. The report identified ten major 
actions and associated costs to restore fish populations and 
rehabilitate habitat. A 3-year action plan was issued by the

[[Page 13356]]

Task Force in 1988 and a second 3-year plan was issued in 1992. This 
most recent plan identifies over 100 restoration, supplementation, and 
monitoring activities to be completed over the next 3 years. Presently, 
final flow measurements are being analyzed by FWS to determine 
necessary flows and system capabilities for anadromous salmonids in the 
basin, and an Environmental Impact Statement, and National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) report should be released in 1998. The 
funding for this project expired at the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 
and was re-authorized through FY 1998. However, many of the identified 
restoration activities have only just begun, and, unless this 
legislation is re-authorized, they will not be completed.
    The Pacific Gas and Electric's (PG&E) Potter Valley hydroelectric 
project is a major diverter of water from the mainstem Eel River 
located in the Northern California ESU. This water is diverted into the 
Russian River basin to generate hydroelectric power and provide water 
for agriculture and urban uses. Pursuant to a Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (FERC) licensing requirement, PG&E was required, in 
consultation with FWS and CDFG, to develop and implement a 10-year 
monitoring program and develop recommendations for modifications in the 
flow release schedule or project structures and operations necessary to 
protect and maintain fishery resources. This study was completed in 
1996, as was construction of a $14 million fish screen facility at the 
Van Arsdale Dam diversion on the Eel River. Based on the results of the 
monitoring study, NMFS, FWS, CDFG, and PG&E have recently completed 
negotiations on a plan to increase project flows to the Eel River by an 
additional 15 percent (20 TAF), as well as to make non-flow related 
capital improvements. This plan will be submitted to FERC by March 30, 
1998, which will in turn trigger a NEPA review of the proposal. The 
provision of additional instream flows in the Eel River, in conjunction 
with the new fish screening facility, are expected to improve habitat 
quality and benefit steelhead in this ESU by increasing survival. As 
part of the proposal being carried forward to FERC, PG&E will also 
implement or fund additional mitigation measures that will provide 
benefits to both salmon and steelhead in the Eel River. These measures 
include direct funding of $30,000 annually to CDFG, funding of 
squawfish suppression in the Eel River, and funding of various 
monitoring activities.
    Central Valley steelhead are benefitting from two major 
conservation initiatives which are being simultaneously implemented and 
developed to conserve and restore anadromous fish resources, including 
steelhead, in California's Central Valley. These include the Federal 
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) which was passed by 
Congress in 1992 and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED Program) 
which is a joint State/Federal effort implemented in 1995.
    The CVPIA is specifically intended to remedy habitat and other 
problems associated with the construction and operation of the Bureau 
of Reclamation's (BOR's) Central Valley Project. The CVPIA has two key 
features related to steelhead. First, it directs the Secretary of the 
Interior to develop and implement a program that makes all reasonable 
efforts to double natural production of anadromous fish in Central 
Valley streams (Section 3406(b)(1)) by the year 2002. This plan, which 
is called the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP), was initially 
drafted in 1995 and subsequently revised in 1997. Funding has been 
appropriated since 1995 to implement restoration projects identified in 
the AFRP planning process. Second, the CVPIA dedicates up to 800,000 
acre feet (AF) of water annually for fish, wildlife, and habitat 
restoration purposes (Section 3406(b)(2)) and provides for the 
acquisition of additional water to supplement the 800,000 AF (Section 
3406(b)(3)). FWS, in consultation with other Federal and State 
agencies, has directed the use of this dedicated water yield since 
1993.
    The AFRP addresses six anadromous fish species, including 
steelhead, identified for restoration in the CVPIA. The revised 1997 
plan presents the goals, objectives, and strategies of the AFRP; 
describes processes the AFRP used to identify, develop, and select 
restoration actions; and lists actions and evaluations determined at a 
programmatic level to be reasonable to implement as part of the AFRP. 
FWS intends to finalize this restoration plan in 1998 following 
completion of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) 
required by Section 3409 of the CVPIA. Additionally, FWS and BOR have 
released guidelines in the form of two administrative proposals that 
will provide guidance for several key aspects of the AFRP 
implementation. A draft administrative proposal regarding the 
development of the AFRP was released in June 1997. A final 
administrative proposal on the management of section 3406(b)(2) water 
and a set of flow-related actions for the next 5 years was released by 
DOI in November, 1997. These plans will be updated to include new 
information, consistent with the adaptive management approach described 
in the AFRP. To make restoration efforts as efficient as possible, the 
AFRP has committed to coordinate restoration efforts with those by 
other groups or programs. DOI has committed to working with NMFS, CDFG, 
and others to coordinate actions in this implementation and recovery 
plans for anadromous fish and for listed and proposed species under the 
ESA.
    The CVPIA obligated $1.9 million in 1996 for 11 site-specific 
restoration actions and evaluations authorized by the AFRP, and $9.7 
million for over 30 restoration projects in 1997. In 1998, the AFRP's 
projected budget for habitat restoration activities in the Central 
Valley is $8.2 million. Continued long term funding of AFRP restoration 
activities is currently authorized in the CVPIA. An estimated $20 
million to $35 million will be spent on AFRP restoration actions per 
year for 25 years ($500 million to $875 million estimated total), most 
of which will be closely integrated with funding for activities 
implemented through the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
    The second conservation initiative that benefits Central Valley 
steelhead and other species is the CALFED Program. In June 1994, state 
and Federal agencies, including NMFS, signed a framework agreement that 
pledged all agencies would work together to formulate water quality 
standards to protect the Bay-Delta, coordinate State Water Project and 
Central Valley Project operations in the Bay-Delta, and develop a long-
term Bay-Delta solution that would address ecosystem restoration and 
other objectives. In December 1994, a diverse group of state and 
Federal agencies, water agencies, and environmental organizations 
signed the Bay-Delta Accord which set out specific interim (3-year 
plan) measures for environmental protection, including the protection 
of Central Valley anadromous salmonids. The CALFED Program, which began 
in June 1995, is charged with the responsibility of developing a long-
term Bay-Delta solution. The 1994 Bay-Delta Accord was recently 
extended through December 31, 1998.
    Three types of environmental protection measures are detailed in 
the Bay-Delta Accord: (1) Control of freshwater outflow in the Delta to 
improve estuarine conditions in the shallow-water habitat of the Bay-
Delta estuary (Category I measures); (2) regulation of water project 
operations

[[Page 13357]]

and flows to minimize harmful environmental impacts of water exports 
(Category II measures); and (3) implementation of projects to address 
non-flow related factors affecting the Bay-Delta ecosystem, such as 
unscreened diversions, physical habitat degradation, and pollution 
(Category III measures). Many of the Category I and II measures 
identified in the agreement were implemented by a Water Quality Control 
Plan that was adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 
1995. Efforts were also initiated to fund and implement Category III 
non-flow projects beginning in 1995.
    The CALFED Program completed Phase I in September 1996 with the 
identification of problems confronting the Bay-Delta system, the 
development of a mission statement and guiding principals, and the 
development of three basic alternative approaches to solving the 
problems. Currently in Phase II, the CALFED Program has refined the 
preliminary alternatives and is conducting a comprehensive programmatic 
environmental review with implementation strategies. In addition to the 
development of three water conveyance and storage alternatives, the 
CALFED Program has developed four common programs to resolve regional 
problems: ecosystems quality, water quality, levee system 
vulnerability, and water system reliability. A major element of the 
CALFED Program is the Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan (ERPP) which 
is intended to provide the foundation for long-term ecosystem and water 
quality restoration and protection throughout the region. Since 
adoption of the Bay-Delta Accord, urban water users have contributed 
approximately $21 million and State Proposition 204 has generated an 
additional $60 million for Category III non-flow habitat restoration 
projects. Among the non-flow factors for decline that have been 
targeted by the Category III program are unscreened diversions, waste 
discharges and water pollution prevention, impacts due to poaching, 
land derived salts, exotic species, fish barriers, channel alterations, 
loss of riparian wetlands, and other causes of estuarine habitat 
degradation. To ensure that Category III habitat restoration projects 
are coordinated with the Federal CVPIA and implemented in accordance 
with the draft ERPP, the CALFED Program's Restoration Coordination 
Program administers Category III funds and coordinates its funding with 
other related restoration programs and funding sources.
    Continued funding of CALFED program activities and the Category III 
program are assured through funds provided by State Proposition 204, 
Federal funding through the DOI, and contributions by water development 
agencies under Category III. The total cost for implementing the ERPP 
component of the long-term CALFED Program has been estimated at $1.5 
billion, of which about half should be available through State 
Proposition 204 bonds and expected Federal appropriations. These funds 
will be used to provide the initial funding necessary to begin 
implementing the ERPP. The current ERPP implementation strategy assumes 
that $390 million of Proposition 204 funding will be available for use 
after the CALFED Program's long-term plan is formally adopted by the 
CALFED agencies through filing of a Record of Decision for the Federal 
EIS and certification of the EIS by the California Resources Agency in 
late 1998.
    Collectively, the CVPIA and CALFED conservation programs have the 
potential to provide a comprehensive conservation response to the 
extensive ecological problems facing steelhead and other salmonids in 
the Central Valley. However, the scope, intensity and effectiveness of 
the CALFED Program is still coming into focus. Therefore, NMFS 
concludes that the conservation measures provided by these programs are 
not currently sufficient to ensure recovery of steelhead. Nevertheless, 
NMFS believes the level of risk faced by the Central Valley steelhead 
ESU has diminished considerably since the 1996 listing proposal as a 
result of habitat restoration and other measures that have recently 
been implemented through the CALFED and CVPIA programs. NMFS is 
committed to working with the State and CALFED agencies to build on 
these programs to ensure that all risks to steelhead are adequately 
addressed. Through the prioritization of restoration funds available 
through the CALFED and CVPIA programs, NMFS can assist with the 
establishment of objectives and targets and implementation strategies 
which address many of the primary risk factors for Central Valley 
steelhead.
    In the San Joaquin River Basin of the Central Valley, collaboration 
between water interests and state and Federal resource agencies, 
including NMFS, has led to the development of a scientifically based, 
adaptive fisheries management plan known as the Vernalis Adaptive 
Management Plan (VAMP). The VAMP will provide environmental benefits 
for fall-run chinook salmon smolts in the Delta and lower San Joaquin 
River and its tributaries by (1) using current scientific knowledge to 
enhance smolts survival by modifying flows; and (2) gathering 
additional scientific information on the effects of various San Joaquin 
River flows and Delta water export rates on the survival of salmon 
smolts to permit adaptive changes. This 12-year plan will be 
implemented through experimental flows in the San Joaquin Basin and 
operational changes at the Delta pumping plants during the peak chinook 
salmon smolts out-migration period (about April 15 to May 15). Initial 
implementation of the VAMP is scheduled for spring 1998; however, 
negotiations regarding some aspects of the program continue. The 
current focus of VAMP is to provide better protection for fall chinook 
in the San Joaquin basin. However, NMFS expects that the long-term 
commitment of all participating parties to fully implement the plan 
will provide ancillary benefits to Central Valley steelhead through 
improved flow and passage conditions.
State Land Management
    The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) 
enforces the State of California's forest practice rules (CFPRs) on 
private and State managed forests, and these rules are promulgated 
through the State Board of Forestry (BOF). Timber harvest activities 
have been documented to result in negative effects on streams and 
streamside zones, including the loss of large woody debris, increased 
sedimentation, loss of riparian vegetation, and the loss of habitat 
complexity and connectivity. In the California portion of the KMP 
steelhead ESU, a relatively small percentage of the major river basins 
(i.e., the Smith, Klamath, and Trinity River basins) are composed of 
private forest lands where timber harvest is managed by CDFG. In these 
basins, private forest lands average approximately 18 percent of the 
total acreage, with a range of 17 (Trinity River) to 23 (Smith River) 
percent. In contrast, a much higher percentage of the acreage 
comprising the major river basins in the Northern California ESU (i.e., 
Redwood Creek, Mad River, Eel River, Mattole River, Ten Mile River, 
Noyo River, Big River, Albion River, Navarro River, Garcia River, and 
Gualala River) are composed of private forest lands where timber 
harvest is managed by CDFG. In these 11 river basins, private forest 
lands average about 75 percent of the total acreage, with a range of 42 
percent (Eel River) to 94 percent (Gualala River).
    NMFS has reviewed the CFPRs to determine their adequacy for 
protecting anadromous salmonids in California. Specifically, the review 
determined that, although the CFPRs mandate

[[Page 13358]]

protection of sensitive resources such as salmonids, the CFPR 
provisions and their implementation and enforcement, fall short of 
accomplishing his objective. Specific problems with the CFPRs include 
the inclusion of many protective provisions that are not supported by 
or with scientific literature; (2) provisions that are scientifically 
inadequate to protect salmonids including steelhead; (3) inadequate and 
ineffective cumulative effects analysis; (4) dependency upon registered 
professional foresters (RPFs) that may not possess the necessary level 
of multi-disciplinary technical expertise to develop appropriate THPs; 
(5) dependency by CDFG on other State agencies to review and comment on 
THPs; (6) failure of CDFG to incorporate recommendations from other 
agencies; and (7) inadequate enforcement due to staffing limitations.
    On April 29, 1997, CDFG issued guidelines to RPF's for the 
protection of coho salmon which had been recently listed under the ESA. 
These ``coho considerations'' are an improvement over the CFPRs for the 
protection of steelhead in addition to coho salmon, but they are 
voluntary and not part of the CFPR provisions. Consequently, 
implementation of these provisions is unpredictable.
    The CFPRs could be an effective vehicle for protecting steelhead 
and other species and reversing the factors for decline if there were 
substantial changes made to the provisions and their implementation and 
enforcement. Such changes include the following: (1) The provision for 
scientific peer review of the CFPRs, including science-based 
recommendations for modification of provisions; (2) development of 
comprehensive cumulative effects analyses; (3) implementation of 
mandatory provisions to protect anadromous fish; (4) additional and 
specialized training of RPFs, increased funding and staffing to review 
THPs; (5) improved enforcement of the CFPRs and THP requirements; and 
(6) mandatory incorporation of other State agency comments and 
modifications into THPs. Until a comprehensive scientific peer review 
process is adopted and appropriate changes to the CFPRs and the THP 
approval process are made, properly functioning habitat conditions will 
not exist in the KMP and Northern California steelhead ESUs.
    The State is currently funding a conservation planning effort in 
Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Siskyou, and Trinity counties to review 
and analyze all county General Plans, ordinances, and policies relating 
to activities affecting salmon and steelhead. Examples of such 
activities include riparian habitat maintenance and setbacks, riparian 
water withdrawal, grading, erosion and sediment control, storm water 
retention, floodplain development, and stream crossings. Gaps or 
inconsistent policy application will be identified and General Plans or 
ordinances will be modified to better protect salmon and steelhead.
    The Washington Department of Natural Resources implements and 
enforces the State of Washington's forest practice rules (WFPRs) which 
are promulgated through the Forest Practices Board. These WFPRs contain 
provisions that can be protective of steelhead if fully implemented. 
This is possible given that the WFPR's are based on adaptive management 
of forest lands through watershed analysis, development of site-
specific land management prescriptions, and monitoring. Watershed 
analysis prescriptions can exceed WFPR minima for stream and riparian 
protection. However, NMFS believes the WFPRs, including watershed 
analysis, do not provide properly functioning conditions in riparian 
and instream habitats. Specifically, the base WFPRs do not adequately 
address large woody debris (LWD) 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 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 plans (AWQMPs) (as enacted by 
State Senate Bill 1010). The guidance focuses on achieving 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 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs; see 
following discussion) should over the long-term improve water quality; 
the extent to which other habitat impacts will be ameliorated is 
unknown.
    Impacts from agricultural and grazing practices have not 
historically been closely regulated in California. This is an important 
concern to NMFS because a substantial amount of acreage in the KMP and 
Northern California ESU is comprised of farmland. Private lands, and 
public lands not administered by the federal government, are now being

[[Page 13359]]

addressed by the California Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan 
(CRWQMP) which was adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board 
as a voluntary compliance effort in accordance with its Non-point 
Source Management Plan. The emphasis of the CRWQMP is on outreach and 
education with assistance from the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS), University of California Cooperative Extension, and 
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts (CSRCSs), and 
the California Cattleman's Association. The Best Management Practices 
(BMPs) contained in the CRWQMP are derived from the NRCS Field Office 
Technical Guides.
    Under this program, the NRCS, Cooperative Extension and CARCD 
encourage rangeland owners to develop and implement ranch plans or 
other documents detailing their management goals and practices. NRCS 
and Cooperative extension provide training in this effort and the NRCS 
can condition assistance on implementation of the BMPs set forth in the 
CRWQMP. The Regional Water Control Boards promote implementation of the 
CRWQMP by also encouraging landowners to develop plans and by requiring 
ranch plans to be developed and implemented in accordance with the 
CRWQMP for watershed listed under section 303(d) of the CWA as 
requiring the development of TMDLs. As noted below, TMDLs will be 
developed for most all streams in the Northern California and KMP 
steelhead ESUs under the terms of a recent consent decree. Between 
1995-1998, rangeland plans were developed under the CRWQMP for more 
than 250,000 acres on the north coast ranging from San Francisco to the 
Oregon border. The State plans to review the implementation status of 
these plans at intervals of 3, 5 and 10 years, provided resources are 
available. Efforts are currently in progress to incorporate existing 
rangeland management plans in the Garcia River into the TMDL 
development process for that watershed. NMFS is encouraged by these 
ongoing efforts. Plans that are consistent with this guidance are 
likely to result in meeting state water quality standards, but the 
program is voluntary and it is uncertain to what extent their 
implementation will contribute to improved habitat conditions and 
riparian function.
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.
    The Corps of Engineers, State, and local governments recently 
developed and implemented procedures reviewing, approving and 
monitoring gravel mining activities in Del Norte and Humboldt counties 
which are authorized under a Letter of Permission process. This process 
now regulates gravel mining in a substantial portion of the north 
coast, including all of the Klamath Mountains Province in California 
and a substantial portion of the Northern California ESU (including the 
Mad, Eel and Van Duzen Rivers). These procedures are designed to 
provide substantially improved protection for anadromous fish and their 
habitats, including steelhead. Important features of this new process 
include: A prohibition on gravel mining in the active channel except in 
limited instances, a restriction of gravel operations to the dry 
season, monitoring of channel cross section to detect channel 
degradation, fisheries monitoring, gravel mining on a sustained yield 
basis, and watershed-level analysis of gravel mining. NMFS participated 
in the development of these procedures and has concluded, through 
section 7 consultation with the Corps, that these procedures will not 
jeopardize the continued existence of coho salmon or steelhead in the 
KMP and Northern California ESUs.
Water Quality Programs
    The Federal CWA is intended to protect beneficial uses, including 
fishery resources. To date, implementation has not been effective in 
adequately protecting fishery resources, particularly with respect to 
non-point sources of pollution.
    Section 303(d)(1)(C) and (D) of the CWA requires states to prepare 
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. Furthermore, TMDLs for water quality-limited 
waterbodies may address several factors including, temperature levels, 
sediment load, nutrient input, and dissolved oxygen levels.
    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. As a result of a recent consent decree, 
EPA and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board) 
have committed to preparing TMDLs for 18 river basins in California. 
All of these river basins are located within the Northern California or 
KMP steelhead ESUs, the majority of which (12) are located within the 
Northern California ESU. The consent decree establishes a schedule for 
developing TMDL criteria for listed rivers. Under this schedule, seven 
river basins in the Northern California ESU will have TMDLs developed 
within the next 2 years, with the remaining rivers having TMDLs 
developed by 2002. TMDLs for rivers in the KMP steelhead ESU (e.g., 
Klamath, Trinity, Scott, and Shasta Rivers) will not be developed until 
after 2001. This legally-binding schedule will result in significant 
progress on improving the beneficial uses of these watersheds, where 
the beneficial use has been identified as habitat for salmonids.
    Currently, a sediment TMDL has been established for the Garcia 
River in the Northern California steelhead ESU. This TMDL will 
ultimately be adopted into the Water Quality Control Plan for the North 
Coast Basin (Basin Plan) in 1998. The adoption of the Strategy into the 
Basin Plan carries significant weight for compliance. The completion of 
the Garcia River TMDL and the initiation of TMDLs for the other listed 
rivers represent a significant step forward in improving watershed 
health for steelhead and other salmonids on the north coast of 
California.
    State agencies in Oregon are committed to completing TMDLs for 
coastal drainages within 4 years, and all impaired waters within 10 
years. Similarly ambitious schedules are being developed for 
Washington.
    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. Furthermore, it is 
essential EPA consults with NMFS on

[[Page 13360]]

the formulation of TMDLs in waters that contain listed salmonids. Such 
consultations will help ensure TMDLs adequately address the needs of 
these species.
State Hatchery and Harvest Management
    In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat and to enhance 
fishing opportunities, extensive hatchery programs have been 
implemented throughout the range of steelhead on the West Coast. While 
some of these programs have succeeded in providing fishing 
opportunities, the impacts of these programs on native, naturally 
reproducing stocks are not well understood. Competition, genetic 
introgression, and disease transmission resulting from hatchery 
introductions may significantly reduce the production and survival of 
native, naturally reproducing steelhead (NMFS, 1996a). 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.
    In the past, non-native steelhead stocks have been introduced as 
broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal rivers 
and streams in California (Bryant, 1994; Busby et al., 1996; NMFS, 
1997a). Because of problems associated with this practice, CDFG 
developed its Salmon and Steelhead Stock Management Policy. This policy 
recognizes that such stock mixing is detrimental and seeks to maintain 
the genetic integrity of all identifiable stocks of salmon and 
steelhead in California, as well as to minimize interactions between 
hatchery and natural populations. To protect the genetic integrity of 
salmon and steelhead stocks, this policy directs CDFG to evaluate each 
salmon and steelhead stream and to classify it according to its 
probable genetic source and degree of integrity.
    Hatchery programs and harvest management have strongly influenced 
steelhead populations in the Lower Columbia River and Central Valley, 
California, 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 have 
detrimentally impacted some populations.
    The three state agencies (ODFW, WDFG, and CDFG) have adopted and 
are implementing natural salmonid policies designed to limit hatchery 
influences on natural, indigenous steelhead. Sport fisheries now focus 
on harvest of 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 are necessary in order to minimize impacts on listed species.

(5) Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

    Natural climatic conditions have exacerbated the problems 
associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats. 
Persistent drought conditions have reduced already limited spawning, 
rearing, and migration habitat. Climatic conditions appear to have 
resulted in decreased ocean productivity which, during more productive 
periods, may help offset degraded freshwater habitat conditions (NMFS, 
1996a).

Efforts Being Made To Protect West Coast Steelhead

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make 
listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available and after taking into account state 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 whether 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, 1996b). 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, 1996c). During the 6-month period of deferral, NMFS 
identified additional conservation measures in the States of 
Washington, Oregon, and California. 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 consists 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.

[[Page 13361]]

    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. In the near term, for steelhead and 
other listed species, individual components of the conservation effort 
may be recognized through section 4(d) of the ESA. In this way 
activities conducted in accordance with full, matured, and implemented 
conservation efforts may be excepted from take under section 9 of the 
ESA.
    In conjunction with the LCSCI process, industry in the Lower 
Columbia River ESU sponsored the review and assessment of existing 
conservation programs in this region (Cramer, 1997). This assessment 
provided a helpful summary of measures, which if fully implemented and 
funded, may aid in conserving steelhead in this region. In particular, 
NMFS found this assessment's analysis of impacts associated with trout 
fisheries on juvenile steelhead helpful in analyzing existing state 
harvest regulations.

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). The essential tenets of the OPSW include the following:
    a. The plan comprehensively addresses all factors for decline of 
coastal coho and steelhead, most notably, those factors relating to 
harvest, habitat, and hatchery activities.
    b. 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 
activity is essential since salmon and steelhead have been affected by 
the actions of many different state agencies.
    c. The Plan includes a framework for prioritizing conservation and 
restoration efforts.
    d. The Plan includes a comprehensive monitoring plan that 
coordinates Federal, state, and local efforts to improve 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.
    e. 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 those 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.
    f. 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.
    g. The Plan includes an Independent Multidisciplinary 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.
    h. The Plan requires that a yearly report be made to the Governor, 
the legislature, and the public. This report will help the agencies 
make the adjustments described for the adaptive management process.
    To implement the various monitoring and other programs associated 
with the steelhead portion of the OPSW, the Oregon Legislative 
Emergency Board allocated just under $2 million in January 1998. This 
funding commitment is in addition to funds previously allocated for the 
coho portion of the OPSW.
    The state of Oregon recently implemented changes to its fishing 
regulations that will help conserve steelhead in the Oregon portion of 
the KMP ESU (State of Oregon, 1998). These regulations, adopted on 
February 5, 1998, and in effect prior to this listing determination, 
include the following: (1) Elimination of steelhead retention fisheries 
in all areas of the KMP ESU except select areas in the Rogue River 
basin; (2) creation of sanctuary areas for rearing steelhead where no 
angling is permitted; (3) elimination of the use of bait in trout 
fisheries that could negatively impact juvenile steelhead; (4) 
implementation of season closures for trout species during juvenile 
steelhead out-migration; and (5) modification of gear requirements to 
protect juvenile steelhead in trout fisheries. NMFS has analyzed these 
harvest regulation changes and finds that these harvest regulations, 
coupled with existing hatchery management practices, will greatly 
reduce mortality to adult and juvenile steelhead in the KMP ESUs (NMFS, 
1998b). Current harvest regulations and hatchery programs will be 
modified in the future if monitoring results indicate that changes are 
needed. Such changes will be made after the State and NMFS confer on 
them.
    In addition to these recently adopted harvest regulations, the 
state of Oregon has committed to: (1) Devise and fund monitoring 
programs, in association with NMFS, to assess stock status and redirect 
existing management programs if need be; (2) establish a process for 
setting wild steelhead escapement goals; (3) continue to implement 
marking of all hatchery steelhead; and (4) eliminate stocking of 
hatchery trout in juvenile

[[Page 13362]]

steelhead rearing habitat. These commitments and additions to the OPSW 
are captured in a letter from John Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon to 
William Stelle, Jr., dated March 11, 1998 (Oregon, 1998).

State of California Conservation Measures

    The state of California's program for steelhead conservation 
consists of several major elements: (1) The CALFED Bay-Delta program, 
including the integrated components of the CVPIA; (2) the Governor's 
Watershed Restoration and Protection Council (WPRC) program, including 
ongoing State efforts to implement the watershed planning and habitat 
restoration objectives contained in Senate Bill (SB) 271; (3) CDFG 
strategic management plans for steelhead in the KMP and Northern 
California ESUs; and (4) a joint Memorandum of Agreement between NMFS 
and the State. The following briefly summarizes these measures and 
their benefits for steelhead.

(1) CALFED Bay-Delta Program and CVPIA

    The CALFED Bay-Delta Program and CVPIA are discussed in detail 
above under ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.'' Collectively, 
these Central Valley programs have the potential to provide a 
comprehensive conservation response to the extensive ecologic problems 
facing at-risk salmonids, including Central Valley steelhead. However, 
the scope, intensity, and effectiveness of the CALFED Program are still 
coming into focus. Therefore, NMFS concludes that the conservation 
measures provided for by this program are not currently sufficient to 
ensure long-term recovery of steelhead.
    NMFS reviewed and evaluated habitat restoration efforts implemented 
by the CALFED and CVPIA programs to date, as well as other recently 
implemented measures (NMFS, 1998c). Based on this review, NMFS 
concludes that Central Valley steelhead have benefitted from improved 
habitat protection resulting from the placement of new fish screens, 
modifications of barriers to fish passage, and various habitat 
acquisition and restoration projects. NMFS believes that the benefits 
provided by these habitat improvements, and other measures recently 
implemented, have diminished the risk faced by Central Valley steelhead 
ESU. Furthermore, NMFS is committed to continue working with Federal 
and state agencies to build on the CALFED and CVPIA programs to ensure 
that all risks to steelhead are adequately addressed. Through the 
prioritization of restoration monies under the CALFED and CVPIA 
programs, NMFS can assist with the establishment of objectives and 
targets, as well as implementation strategies, that address the primary 
risk factors for Central Valley steelhead.

(2) WPRC Program and Implementation of SB 271

    In July, 1997, California's Governor signed Executive Order W-159-
97 which created the WPRC. The WPRC, which is chaired by the Secretary 
of Resources, is an umbrella body consisting of all State agencies that 
have programs addressing anadromous salmonid protection and 
restoration. Under State law, the WPRC is charged with (1) providing 
oversight of all State activities aimed at watershed protection and 
enhancement, including the conservation and restoration of anadromous 
salmonids in California, and (2) directing the development of a 
Watershed Protection Program that provides for anadromous salmonid 
conservation in the State. The WPRC has established a 12-member, multi-
disciplinary science review panel to advise it in the development of 
the watershed protection program.
    The WPRC is currently in the process of comprehensively reviewing 
and evaluating existing Statewide regulatory and non-regulatory 
programs protecting anadromous salmonids and their habitat, as well as 
state and local restoration program efforts that are ongoing or 
proposed. An important outcome of this review is expected to be a 
compilation of management, implementation, and monitoring improvements 
that are needed to protect and conserve anadromous salmonids and their 
habitat. NMFS has reviewed early workproducts generated by this review 
process and will continue to participate in the review and the 
development of the watershed protection program.
    NMFS is encouraged to see the State taking a comprehensive, 
watershed based approach to salmon management and restoration. However, 
the WPRC process is still in progress and a Watershed Protection 
Program has yet to be developed. The 1998 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 
signed by NMFS and the Secretary of Resources and Director of the CDFG 
(NMFS/California MOA 1998) ensures that NMFS will substantively 
participate in the development of this program, including participation 
on the scientific review panel that will advise the WPRC in the 
development of the Program. An important initial focus of this 
scientific review panel will be a review of California's forest 
practice regulations and their implementation and enforcement to 
determine their adequacy.
    To support implementation of the Governor's Executive Order and the 
WPRC's efforts to develop a Watershed Protection Program, CDFG began 
implementing a Watershed Initiative with $3 million in SB 271 funds in 
FY 1997-1998. This funding is currently being obligated, together with 
a relatively limited amount of funds from other state sources (e.g., 
Proposition 70, Proposition 99, Commercial Salmon Stamp Account, 
Steelhead Catch-Restoration Card, and Wildlife Conservation Board), for 
coastal watershed projects through CDFG's Fishery Restoration Grants 
Program. CDFG expects to allocate at least $1.3 million for watershed 
and riparian habitat restoration, up to $425,000 for instream habitat 
restoration, and up to $900,000 for watershed evaluation, assessment, 
planning, restoration project maintenance and monitoring, and a wide 
range of other activities. For FY 1998-1999 (beginning in July 1998), 
CDFG anticipates spending $1.0 million for eight new positions to 
assist in watershed planning efforts and grant proposal development, 
and $7.0 million on grants for actual projects.
    In 1997, the California legislature enacted SB 271 which provides 
CDFG with $43 million over six years for habitat restoration and 
watershed planning in coastal watersheds. This new funding allows CDFG 
to significantly expand its existing habitat restoration program in 
coastal watersheds, including KMP and Northern California steelhead 
ESUs. Senate Bill 271 requires that 87.5 percent of the $43 million in 
funding be spent on project grants for habitat restoration, watershed 
planning and related programs, and permits CDFG to use the remainder 
for contract administration activities and biological support staff 
necessary to achieve the restoration objectives of the legislation. 
Senate Bill 271 also specifies that projects be given highest priority 
that, (1) emphasize the development of coordinated watershed 
improvement activities, (2) restore habitat for salmon and/or steelhead 
that are eligible for protection as listed or candidate species under 
the State or Federal ESA, and (3) treat the causes of fish habitat 
degradation. As part of this program, CDFG is currently funding $3.0 
million in new projects this year, and will begin funding $7.0 million/
year in new projects for five years, beginning in FY 1998-1999 
(starting July 1998). In addition, CDFG will use SB 271 funding to 
support several new permanent

[[Page 13363]]

positions that will assist in administering the program and provide 
technical support in the development of watershed plans and habitat 
restoration projects.
    In addition to the SB 271 funds, CDFG has committed to seeking 
additional funding in the FY 1998-1999 budget cycle for a new steelhead 
monitoring and adaptive management program (CDFG, 1998a and 1998b; 
NMFS/California MOA 1998). CDFG anticipates spending over $1.6 million 
to hire over 30 person-years of staff for this program in FY 1998-1999.
    The NMFS/California MOA (see discussion on NMFS/California MOA) 
provides additional assurances that the SB 271 program will provide 
these benefits. The MOA allows NMFS to serve as an ex-officio member of 
the Advisory Committee that will oversee implementation of SB 271, 
including the allocation funds. Furthermore, the MOA commits CDFG to 
direct a major portion of the new personnel and fiscal resources 
provided by SB 271 to watershed restoration efforts in these ESUs 
(NMFS/California MOA, 1998).

(3) Klamath Mountains Province and Northern California Strategic Plans

    The state of California recently provided NMFS with strategic 
management plans specifically designed to address steelhead stocks in 
the KMP and Northern California ESUs on January 23, 1998, and February 
5, 1998, respectively (CDFG, 1998a and 1998b). These strategic plans 
describe substantial changes in CDFG's management of recreational 
angling and steelhead hatchery programs, along with its monitoring, 
assessment, and adaptive management programs for steelhead in these two 
ESUs. In addition, both plans describe CDFG's ongoing efforts to 
protect and enhance steelhead habitat. These management measures are 
intended to provide immediate protection for steelhead populations in 
these ESUs, while longer-term measures are implemented to protect 
anadromous fish habitat on non-Federal lands through the State's 
Watershed Protection Program. The following is a description of the 
main components of the strategic management plans.
a. Harvest Measures
    CDFG's strategic plans propose several harvest management actions 
that are designed to increase escapement of adult steelhead and reduce 
impacts on juvenile steelhead in the Northern California and KMP 
steelhead ESUs. NMFS (1998d) has reviewed and analyzed these measures 
and concludes that impacts to adult steelhead will be greatly reduced 
as a result of these new measures. Impacts to juveniles will also be 
significantly reduced due to fishing closures in all steelhead rearing 
tributaries, expanded angling closures in mainstem areas through the 
end of May, and various gear and bait restrictions.
    On February 6, 1998, the state of California's Fish and Game 
Commission (Commission) adopted emergency changes to the State's inland 
fishing regulations, which became effective on February 12, 1998. These 
regulation changes were intended to be consistent with the measures 
outlined in the KMP and Northern California strategic plans (CDFG, 
1998a and 1998b). NMFS reviewed and evaluated these emergency 
regulation changes and determined that some of them did not adequately 
protect wild juvenile steelhead (NMFS, 1998e). The State and NMFS 
agreed to further modifications of the emergency regulations which were 
adopted by the Commission on March 6, 1998, as amendments to the 
emergency regulations. NMFS reviewed these modifications and concludes 
that they will reduce threats to steelhead and will help conserve the 
species in these ESUs (NMFS, 1998f).
b. Hatchery Measures
    CDFG's strategic plans for KMP and Northern California steelhead 
identify a wide range of existing and new hatchery management measures 
that are intended to reduce the impacts of hatchery steelhead programs 
on wild steelhead populations in these ESUs. These measures include the 
following: (1) Release strategies that require a minimum 6'' size and 
release at the hatchery; (2) marking all hatchery fish and conducting 
spawning surveys to assess the extent hatchery fish stray into natural 
spawning areas; (3) reductions in hatchery releases or other 
modifications of hatchery practices if significant straying of hatchery 
fish is found to occur; (4) a cap on hatchery production to current 
levels; regular health checks during each rearing cycle and the 
destruction of diseased fish that cannot be effectively treated; (5) 
review of the existing operating procedures for all cooperative rearing 
facilities permitted by the State; and (6) adoption of a requirement 
that all cooperative facilities develop and submit 5-year management 
plans to the State for approval.
    NMFS has reviewed these existing and new hatchery management 
measures and concludes they will substantially reduce potential impacts 
to wild steelhead (NMFS, 1998d). However, NMFS continues to be 
concerned with operations at the Mad River Hatchery since its winter-
run steelhead broodstock is non-indigenous to the Mad River. To address 
this concern CDFG commits, in conjunction with NMFS, to, (1) undertake 
a comprehensive review of the hatchery program, including its stocking 
history and genetic analysis of current broodstock, and (2) develop a 
plan to eliminate any adverse impacts of hatchery operations on 
Northern California steelhead if necessary (NMFS/California MOA, 1998).
c. Steelhead Monitoring and Adaptive Management
    In its strategic management plans for KMP and Northern California 
steelhead, CDFG commits to implement ongoing and expanded monitoring 
programs for assessing steelhead abundance in these ESUs (CDFG, 1998a 
and 1998b; NMFS/California MOA, 1998). In addition, CDFG commits to 
establishing a joint scientific and technical team including 
representatives from California, Oregon as appropriate, and NMFS to 
design appropriate detailed monitoring programs for steelhead (CDFG, 
1998a and 1998b; NMFS/California MOA, 1998). NMFS considers these 
monitoring efforts essential given the uncertain status of steelhead 
populations in these ESUs, and believes that adequate State funding is 
critical to implementing this program.
    Through the MOA (see discussion on NMFS/California MOA), CDFG 
further commits to seek adequate funding for this program (NMFS/
California MOA, 1998). To this end, CDFG has submitted a budget change 
proposal for $1.6 million to initiate the program in FY 1998-1999 
(starting July 1, 1998). Aside from State funding commitments, NMFS 
commits to seek funding support for California's monitoring effort and 
to provide technical assistance in its design and implementation (NMFS/
California MOA, 1998).

NMFS/California Memorandum of Agreement

    NMFS evaluated a wide range of conservation efforts that California 
has adopted or is in the process of developing and concludes these 
efforts will provide substantial protections to KMP and Northern 
California steelhead populations. In particular, NMFS concludes that 
CDFG's harvest and hatchery management programs for KMP and Northern 
California steelhead will contribute to increasing escapement of 
adults, substantially reduce impacts on juveniles resulting in 
increased survival, and reduce adverse impacts of hatchery populations 
on wild fish

[[Page 13364]]

(NMFS 1998b and 1998d). In the near-term, NMFS expects these measures 
will contribute to improved survival and population stability for 
steelhead. Furthermore, CDFG's monitoring and adaptive management 
programs will provide the ability to assess the status of steelhead 
populations and their response to these management improvements. 
However, NMFS remains concerned that the State's habitat protection 
measures which are being evaluated as part of the WPRC's effort to 
develop a Watershed Protection Program and the watershed restoration 
program established by SB 271, are not presently adequate to secure 
properly functioning habitat conditions over the long-term. To address 
this concern, NMFS entered into a MOA with the WPRC, Resources Agency, 
and CDFG (NMFS/California MOA, 1998).
    Under the terms of the MOA, NMFS will provide the State with 
guidance on its key programs that address habitat conditions affecting 
steelhead in the KMP and Northern California ESUs. Specifically, the 
MOA ensures that NMFS will substantially participate in (1) the ongoing 
development of the WPRC's Watershed Protection Program, including 
review of, and participation on, the multi-disciplinary scientific 
review panel that is an integral part of the WPRC program development, 
and (2) the implementation of the SB 271 watershed planning and habitat 
restoration program as an ex-officio member of the Advisory Committee.
    The MOA commits NMFS and the State, in conjunction with the 
scientific review panel, to conduct an expedited review of California's 
forest practice rules and their implementation and enforcement, in 
order to assess their adequacy. In accordance with the provisions of 
the MOA, the State will make changes in implementation and/or 
enforcement of rules necessary to adequately conserve anadromous 
salmonids, including steelhead, by December 31, 1998. Also, by December 
31, 1998, the State, in consultation with NMFS, will recommend any rule 
changes to the Board of Forestry that are necessary to adequately 
conserve anadromous salmonids. Because of the preponderance of private 
timber forested lands and timber harvest in the Northern California 
ESU, NMFS believes this is a critically important provision of the MOA.
    In addition to these key provisions, the MOA also commits CDFG to: 
(1) Implement harvest and hatchery management changes contained in its 
strategic management plans for KMP and Northern California steelhead, 
including the emergency regulations adopted as a result of those plans; 
(2) comply with existing Federal law including the adoption of State 
fishing regulations that are consistent with Federal protective 
regulations for listed coho salmon; (3) implement a monitoring and 
adaptive management program for KMP and Northern California steelhead; 
(4) direct a major portion of new personnel and fiscal resources 
resulting from SB 271 funding for FY 1998-1999 to watershed protection 
efforts in the Northern California ESU; and (5) seek funding in FY 
1998-1999 for those activities identified in the State's Eel River 
Action Plan that have the most immediate and direct benefit to 
steelhead (NMFS/California MOA, 1998).

Status of Steelhead ESUs

    Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as 
``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is 
defined as ``any species which is likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' Thompson (1991) suggested that conventional 
rules of thumb, analytical approaches, and simulations may all be 
useful in making this determination. In previous status reviews (e.g., 
Weitkamp et al., 1995), NMFS has identified a number of factors that 
should be considered in evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU, 
include the following: (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 in the 
proposed rule, published August 9, 1996 (61 FR 41541). 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 the status of these steelhead ESUs is 
presented in the documents entitled ``Status Review Update for Deferred 
and Candidate ESUs of West Coast Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1997a) and ``Status 
Review Update for Deferred ESUs of West Coast Steelhead: Hatchery 
Populations'' (NMFS, 1998a). Copies of these documents are available 
upon request (see ADDRESSES).

(1) Lower Columbia River ESU

    Based on its previous review of this ESU and on new data received 
during the deferral period, NMFS identified several major concerns for 
steelhead within this ESU. First, populations are at low abundance 
relative to historical levels, placing this ESU at risk due to random 
fluctuations in genetic and demographic parameters that are 
characteristic of small populations. Second, there have been almost 
universal, and in many cases dramatic, declines in steelhead abundance 
since the mid-1980s in both winter-run and summer-run steelhead runs. 
For example, on the basis of recent severe declines, WDFW has 
identified a change in the status designation for Wind River summer-run 
steelhead from ``depressed'' in 1992 to ``critical'' in 1997. In 
addition, WDFW recently determined that, of 21 wild winter-run and 
summer-run steelhead stocks on the northern side of this ESU, only two 
are healthy and the remaining 19 are depressed or believed to be 
depressed (WDF et al., 1993). NMFS also notes the results from ODFW's 
extinction risk modeling, which predicts that the Kalama River summer-
run steelhead have a greater than 5 percent probability of extinction 
within 100 years.
    The primary exception to the declines within this ESU is the Toutle 
River winter-run steelhead stock, which has increased following 
decimation by the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, but which 
remains at very low abundance. In some cases, chinook salmon 
populations in the same streams have not shown such dramatic declines. 
No clear explanation presently exists for these declines in steelhead, 
but not chinook salmon.
    NMFS remains concerned about the widespread occurrence of hatchery 
fish in naturally spawning steelhead populations throughout this ESU. 
Recent estimates of the proportion of hatchery fish on the winter-run 
steelhead spawning grounds are over 80 percent in the Hood and Cowlitz 
Rivers, 45 percent in the Sandy, Clackamas, and Kalama Rivers, and 
approximately 75 percent for summer-run steelhead in the Kalama River. 
Only three out of 14 populations for which data exist have low 
estimates of percent hatchery fish in

[[Page 13365]]

natural escapements (i.e., 0 percent in the Washougal River summer 
steelhead run and Panther and Trout Creeks of the Wind River Basin). 
NMFS is unable to identify any natural populations of steelhead in this 
ESU that could be considered ``healthy.'' Contributing to NMFS'' 
concern is new genetic data from WDFW which indicate that some 
introgression has occurred between Puget Sound Chambers Creek Hatchery 
stock and wild steelhead in this ESU.
    Summer-run steelhead are native to the Hood, Lewis, Washougal and 
Kalama Rivers in this ESU. However, summer-run fish have also been 
introduced into the Sandy and Clackamas Rivers. Furthermore, ODFW has 
estimated that naturally spawning winter-run steelhead populations have 
been negatively impacted by introductions of non-native summer-run 
steelhead due to interbreeding and/or competition (Chilcote, 1997). 
Recently implemented changes in hatchery release practices by WDFW and 
ODFW are generally positive; however, NMFS believes these changes have 
relatively minor mitigating effects on overall risks due to widespread 
artificial propagation and the history of stock transfers within this 
ESU.

Listing Determination

    Based on available information, NMFS concludes that steelhead in 
the Lower Columbia ESU warrant listing as a threatened species. Recent 
abundance information indicates that steelhead populations have 
seriously declined within this ESU over the past several years. In the 
Washington portion of this ESU, steelhead stocks have reached 
historically low levels in several areas. Adding to this concern are 
recent assessments by WDFW that indicate the majority of steelhead 
stocks in this area are depressed or believed to be depressed.
    Recent conservation planning efforts by the states of Washington 
and Oregon, along with those of industry, 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, 1998g). The 
OPSW, while substantially implemented and funded on the Oregon Coast, 
has not yet reached a similar level of development in inland areas.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

    NMFS concludes that the late-spawning Cowlitz River Trout Hatchery 
stock (winter-run), and the late-spawning Clackamas River ODFW stock 
#122 are not essential for recovery. At this time, sufficient numbers 
of wild steelhead remain in the ESU as a whole that can be used in 
recovery efforts. Therefore, inclusion of existing hatchery stocks in 
the listed ESU is not necessary at this time.

(2) Oregon Coast ESU

    In the initial coastwide status review, NMFS concluded that the 
Oregon Coast ESU warranted listing as a threatened species based 
primarily on two factors: (1) Pronounced and nearly universal short- 
and long-term declines in abundance for populations throughout the ESU, 
and (2) substantial contribution of non-native hatchery fish to natural 
escapements in most basins. Abundance and trend estimates available at 
the time of the status review were based on angler catch through 1992. 
Subsequently, catch-and-release regulations for wild steelhead were 
implemented for most coastal streams, so angler catch no longer 
provides any information about wild steelhead abundance or trends. 
Unfortunately, ODFW has not initiated any comprehensive monitoring 
program to replace the angler catch data and as a result, NMFS is able 
to review only recent abundance data for three of the over 40 steelhead 
populations in this ESU.
    The abundance of steelhead in the populations for which updated 
data exists (North Umpqua River summer-and winter-run-runs and 
Salmonberry River in the Nehalem River Basin) is moderate, and the 
trends are stable or increasing. However, these populations are among 
the few that showed relatively stable trends in the previous status 
review, so there is reason to believe they may not be representative of 
trends in the ESU as a whole (Chilcote, 1997). Spawner surveys from 
three coastal rivers (Trask, Wilson, and Nestucca Rivers) suggest mixed 
trends in abundance, but no expansions to total abundance estimates for 
these streams were provided. Of particular concern to NMFS is the 
absence of any recent information for a large number of streams that 
showed sharp declines in the initial coastwide status review.
    Additional information provides some indication that the proportion 
of hatchery fish in natural escapements has declined in some of these 
coastal steelhead populations in recent years. A review of recent 
hatchery release information indicates that, compared with previous 
years, smolt releases have increased in four streams, decreased in four 
streams, and remained essentially unchanged in four streams. However, 
release programs have also been terminated in four streams, so the net 
effect has been some reduction in the number of smolts released. In 
addition, ODFW reported the locations of hatchery releases have been 
and will be modified in an effort to reduce the incidence of strays. 
NMFS believes these recent changes in hatchery practices will reduce 
risks to wild steelhead. However, significant opportunities for 
deleterious effects remain as many programs continue to release non-
native fish and ODFW data show that hatchery fish stray into and spawn 
in streams with no hatchery releases.
Listing Determination
    Based on the best available information, NMFS concludes that 
steelhead in the Oregon Coast ESU do not presently warrant listing as a 
threatened species. Recently obtained abundance and hatchery data 
indicate that naturally spawned steelhead are at a lower risk of 
extinction than was concluded in the proposed rule. However, this 
conclusion is tempered by the fact that abundance information in this 
ESU is sparse and may not accurately portray the status of naturally 
spawned steelhead in this region.
    Recently implemented conservation efforts have reduced the degree 
of risk facing this species. Specifically, habitat, hatchery and 
harvest, and monitoring aspects of the Oregon Plan will likely provide 
conservation benefits for this species. Furthermore, implementation of 
the NFP has reduced risks associated with habitat destruction on 
Federal lands within this ESU. However, NMFS remains concerned about 
the overall lack of abundance and trend information for this ESU. NMFS 
believes additional monitoring of this ESU is necessary before it is 
eliminated from ESA consideration. Therefore, NMFS concludes that this 
ESU warrants classification as a candidate species. NMFS will revisit 
the status of this ESU within the next 4 years to determine whether ESA 
protection is warranted.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

    As described previously, NMFS concludes that the Oregon Coast ESU 
does not currently warrant listing. Therefore, no hatchery stocks are 
essential for recovery at this time.

(3) Klamath Mountains Province ESU

    The KMP ESU includes a number of populations with different life 
history attributes and very different indicators of stock health. The 
Rogue River winter-

[[Page 13366]]

run steelhead run appears to be the most robust stock in the ESU, with 
relatively high abundance, stable long-term trends, and a relatively 
low hatchery contribution to overall abundance. The opposite pattern is 
exhibited in the Klamath River, where returns of winter-run steelhead 
to Iron Gate Hatchery have declined precipitously since 1990. In the 
Trinity River, returns of naturally produced fish have remained 
relatively stable since 1992, but in recent years there have also been 
a very high percentage of naturally spawning hatchery fish. Outside the 
Rogue and Klamath River Basins recent data on winter-run steelhead are 
very sparse. Based on angler catch data through 1992, most of the non-
Rogue River populations in Oregon were declining, but more recent data 
are not available. Smolts monitoring in the Elk River indicated a 
relatively stable trend in smolts production over the period 1985-1996. 
The usefulness of this information is limited by a lack of smolts-adult 
survival for this population.
    Available data indicate that summer-run steelhead populations in 
this ESU are relatively small and show almost universal declines. 
Extinction analyses by ODFW (Chilcote, 1997) identified the Middle 
Rogue River summer-run steelhead run as having a sensitive status 
(i.e., it had a greater than 5 percent probability of extinction in 100 
years if survival rates are lower in the future than they have been 
over the last 30 years). Summer snorkel surveys in the Klamath River 
show consistent declines, but counts in the Trinity River are up in 
recent years relative to lows in the mid-1980s. This latter pattern is 
directly opposite to that found for most other steelhead populations 
coastwide, which generally showed peaks of abundance in the mid-1980s.
    As with the Oregon Coast steelhead ESU described above, NMFS is 
concerned about the lack of recent abundance data for many steelhead 
populations in the KMP ESU. In particular, the lack of reliable 
abundance and trend information for winter-run steelhead in the 
California portion of this ESU may lead to some bias in overall risk 
assessment. Although the percentage of naturally spawning hatchery fish 
is relatively low to moderate in Oregon streams in this ESU and the 
number of hatchery fish planted is being reduced, the percentage of 
hatchery strays of unknown origin spawning naturally in unplanted 
Oregon streams remains a concern for Oregon streams. In California, 
risks associated with hatchery operations in the Klamath and Trinity 
Rivers are a concern due to the long-term high abundance of naturally 
spawning hatchery fish in the Trinity River and the apparent inability 
of the Iron Gate Hatchery stock to maintain itself.
    The states of Oregon and California expressed disagreement with the 
conclusions reached by NMFS in its KMP steelhead risk assessment. The 
States contend that NMFS gave inappropriate weight to snorkel surveys 
of summer-run steelhead in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers (California 
and Oregon, 1998). The States contend such snorkel surveys account for 
only one component of the entire spawning stock (spring migrating fish) 
and that such surveys are not representative of the status of winter-
run steelhead in these areas. Furthermore, the States believe available 
information indicates recent improvements in summer- and winter-run-run 
steelhead status in the Rogue River, Oregon, and strong stock status in 
the Smith River, California.
Listing Determination
    Based on available information, NMFS concludes that steelhead in 
the KMP ESU do not warrant listing as a threatened species at this 
time. In arriving at this determination, NMFS carefully considered the 
scientific conclusions of the BRT, existing and recently implemented 
State conservation efforts, and Federal management programs such as the 
NFP that have ameliorated risks to this species.
    Available biological information indicates that some steelhead 
populations within this ESU are stable and increasing, such as winter-
run steelhead in the Rogue River and summer-run steelhead in the 
Trinity River, while other populations, such as summer-run steelhead in 
the Middle Rogue River and winter-run steelhead in the Klamath River, 
are declining. Complicating NMFS' risk assessment is the lack of long-
term data for steelhead populations within this ESU. Prior to 1992, 
angler catch data were available for streams in the Oregon portion of 
this ESU; however, these data have not been collected since then. Smolt 
monitoring conducted in the Elk River from 1985 to 1996 indicates 
stable trends in smolt production; however, the value of this data is 
limited since no studies of smolt to adult survival have been conducted 
for this population. In California, recent data on winter-run steelhead 
are sparse. Furthermore, summer snorkel survey information from the 
Klamath and Trinity Rivers may or may not reflect the actual status of 
steelhead within this region.
    NMFS believes existing conservation efforts implemented by the 
states of Oregon and California have reduced threats to this species. 
NMFS has assessed recent harvest regulation changes implemented by the 
states of California and Oregon relating to juvenile and adult harvest 
in this ESU and concludes these regulations will contribute to 
steelhead conservation (NMFS, 1998b and 1998d). Monitoring efforts 
implemented and committed to by the states of California and Oregon 
should clarify the status of steelhead populations within this ESU and 
permit a more conclusive determination regarding the status of this ESU 
as a whole.
    NMFS concludes that biological risks associated with habitat 
modification and degradation on Federal lands have declined in recent 
years with the implementation of the NFP, coupled with the consultation 
requirements associated with the listing of coho salmon as a threatened 
species in this region in 1997. While NMFS remains concerned about 
habitat conditions on non-Federal lands in this ESU, the majority of 
habitat in this area is under Federal management (about 64 percent). 
Efforts are currently underway in Oregon to improve habitat conditions 
on non-Federal lands. Recently implemented measures contained in the 
OPSW should improve habitat conditions for steelhead and other 
salmonids. In the California portion of this ESU, about 80 percent of 
the land area is under Federal management and is covered by the 
requirements of the NFP and ESA section 7 requirements for listed coho 
salmon. While NMFS remains concerned about the condition of non-Federal 
lands in this region, those areas comprise only 20 percent this ESU in 
California. Furthermore, NMFS believes that provisions contained in the 
California/NMFS MOA will result in stronger State/Federal partnerships 
in these and other areas. NMFS views this MOA as an important step in 
developing long-term conservation efforts that will benefit not only 
KMP steelhead, but other anadromous salmonids as well.
    Given the lack of reliable information concerning the status of 
steelhead in this ESU, and available information indicating that 
certain populations within this ESU may have declined substantially, 
NMFS remains concerned about the status of steelhead in this ESU as a 
whole. NMFS believes that additional monitoring of this ESU is 
necessary before it is eliminated from ESA consideration. Therefore, 
NMFS concludes that this ESU warrants as a candidate species. NMFS will 
revisit the

[[Page 13367]]

status of this ESU within the next 4 years to determine if ESA 
protection is warranted.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

    As described above, NMFS concludes that the KMP ESU does not 
currently warrant listing. Therefore, no existing hatchery populations 
are essential for recovery of the ESU at this time.

(4) Northern California ESU

    Steelhead abundance data available for this ESU are very limited, 
particularly for winter-run-run steelhead and NMFS' BRT identified this 
lack of data to be a risk factor for this ESU. The most complete data 
set available in this ESU is a time series of winter-run steelhead dam 
counts on the Eel River at Cape Horn Dam. Updated abundance data 
through 1997 show moderately declining long- and short-term trends in 
abundance; however, these data show a strong decline prior to 1970 and 
no significant trend thereafter. Additional winter-run steelhead data 
are available for Sweasy Dam on the Mad River which show a significant 
decline, but the data set ends in 1963. For the seven populations where 
recent trend data are available, the only runs showing recent increases 
in abundance in this ESU are relatively small populations of summer-run 
steelhead in the Mad River, which has high hatchery production, and 
winter-run steelhead in Prairie Creek whose increase may be due to 
increased monitoring or mitigation efforts. Abundance data in this ESU, 
particularly for winter-run steelhead populations are limited. The BRT 
noted, however, that steelhead are considered to be widely distributed 
throughout the region.
    Risks associated with interactions between wild and hatchery 
steelhead in the Northern California ESU were also of concern to the 
BRT. Of particular concern to the BRT was the potentially deleterious 
impact to wild steelhead from past hatchery practices at the Mad River 
hatchery, primarily from transfers of non-indigenous Mad River hatchery 
fish to other streams in the Northern California ESU and the production 
of non-indigenous summer-run steelhead. These potentially deleterious 
hatchery practices ended for summer-run steelhead in 1996 (NMFS, 
1998a).
    Habitat degradation and other factors were also of concern to the 
BRT in its evaluation of the long-term risks to this ESU. Specific 
factors identified by the BRT were dams on the upper Eel and Mad 
Rivers, the likely existence of minor blockages throughout the ESU, the 
continuing impacts of catastrophic flooding on the 1960s, and 
reductions in riparian and instream habitat and increased sedimentation 
from logging. The BRT also cited poaching of summer-run steelhead and 
predation from squawfish in the Eel River as factors for concern. NMFS' 
supplemental review of factors affecting west coast steelhead also 
identified additional factors including water diversion and extraction, 
agriculture, and mining (NMFS, 1996a).
Listing Determination
    Based on available information, NMFS concludes that steelhead in 
the Northern California ESU do not warrant listing as a threatened 
species at this time. In arriving at this determination, NMFS carefully 
considered the scientific conclusions of the BRT, existing and recently 
implemented State conservation efforts, and Federal management programs 
such as the NFP that have ameliorated risks to this species.
    The limited abundance data for steelhead in this ESU (Upper Eel 
River; Cape Horn Dam) indicate that some winter-run populations have 
declined, but most of this decline occurred prior to 1970. Since 1970, 
abundance has remained depressed relative to historic abundance levels 
(1930s and 1940s), but with no significant downward trend. Presence/
absence information indicates that juvenile O. mykiss are broadly 
distributed throughout this ESU; however, the unknown origin of these 
juveniles makes this information difficult to interpret (i.e., observed 
juveniles may be hatchery steelhead, rainbow trout, or wild steelhead).
    Based on the limited abundance data for steelhead in this ESU, the 
fact that recent data show mixed trends in abundance of steelhead of 
unknown origin, and the apparent widespread distribution of steelhead, 
NMFS concludes that there is a high degree of uncertainty about the 
current status of this ESU even though populations seem to be 
depressed. The lack of long-term and comprehensive monitoring data for 
steelhead in this ESU limits NMFS' ability to assess risk, a fact the 
BRT recognized as a significant problem.
    NMFS analyzed the conservation measures and regulation changes 
described in CDFG's strategic management plan and concludes these 
measures will contribute to conservation of steelhead in this ESU (NMFS 
1998b and 1998d). NMFS further concludes that the provisions in the 
NMFS/California MOA that provide for a comprehensive evaluation of the 
Mad River Hatchery and the implementation of a plan to eliminate any 
adverse impacts will contribute to the conservation of this ESU. 
Finally, monitoring efforts implemented and committed to by CDFG, 
including the establishment of a scientific and technical team to 
develop and evaluate this program, is expected to clarify the status of 
steelhead populations in this ESU and permit a more conclusive 
determination regarding the status of this ESU as a whole.
    Although NMFS concludes that harvest and hatchery management 
improvements implemented or soon to be implemented by the State will 
help conserve steelhead in this ESU, and that new monitoring will 
improve our understanding of the status of this ESU, habitat protection 
and restoration are essential to ensuring the long-term survival of 
steelhead in this ESU.
    Federal conservation efforts in this ESU are relatively limited, 
but do address some important risk factors. About 20 percent of the 
habitat within this ESU is under Federal management, including Redwood 
National Park in the lower end of Redwood Creek, and portions of the 
Mendocino National Forest in the upper reaches of the Eel and Mad 
Rivers. Although these Federal lands are limited, NMFS concludes that 
biological risks associated with habitat modification and degradation 
on Federal lands have declined in this ESU due to implementation of the 
NFP, coupled with the completion of numerous section 7 consultations.
    NMFS concludes that conservation measures addressing habitat 
conditions on non-Federal lands do not currently provide for properly 
functioning habitat conditions needed to conserve Northern California 
steelhead over the long-term. However, the State's coastal conservation 
efforts, including its strategic plan for Northern California 
steelhead, the WPRC's watershed protection program, and the SB 271 
habitat restoration program, contain measures that NMFS concludes will 
improve habitat conditions on non-Federal lands within this ESU. 
Specifically, NMFS has carefully reviewed the SB 271 program and 
concludes that its implementation will help conserve steelhead in this 
ESU by promoting the development of watershed protection plans and the 
restoration of degraded habitat conditions (NMFS, 1998c). In addition, 
the NMFS/California MOA provides an assurance that these conservation 
efforts will be implemented.
    Continued review of California's forest practice rules and their 
implementation and enforcement is critical to achieving properly

[[Page 13368]]

functioning habitat conditions for steelhead in this ESU since timber 
harvest on private lands is a major land management activity in this 
ESU. As discussed above, by December 31, 1998, under the terms of the 
NMFS/California MOA, the State will make changes in implementation and/
or enforcement, as necessary, and will make recommendations to the 
Board of Forestry for rules changes if they are determined necessary to 
adequately conserve anadromous salmonids.
    During the period the California forest practice rules and other 
State programs are under review through the WPRC program, NMFS believes 
harvest and hatchery measures that are currently being implemented will 
provide conservation benefits for steelhead in this ESU. However, if 
these State conservation processes and efforts are not fully 
implemented, or the provisions of the NMFS/California MOA are not fully 
met, NMFS will act promptly to change the ESA status of this ESU to the 
extent warranted.
    Since the determination not to list the Northern California ESU 
relies heavily on the continued implementation of State conservation 
measures and implementation of the NMFS/California MOA, NMFS intends to 
review this listing determination no later than 4 years from the date 
this notice is published, or at any time sooner if substantive new 
information such as new biological data resulting from the State's 
monitoring program warrants consideration. Therefore, NMFS concludes 
that the Northern California ESU warrants classification as a candidate 
species under the ESA and will continue to monitor its status as well 
as the efficacy of the State's conservation measures and compliance 
with the MOA.

(5) Central Valley, California ESU

    No new abundance data for the Central Valley was received since the 
ESU was proposed for listing as an endangered species in 1996. 
Therefore, NMFS' current risk assessment is based on the data available 
at the time of the coastwide status review, supplemented by new 
qualitative information about the presence of steelhead in the San 
Joaquin River Basin.
    Various reports indicate that naturally spawning steelhead are 
distributed throughout a number of streams in the Central Valley 
region, but that they occur in small numbers. Furthermore, many 
populations are of non-native, mixed, or uncertain origin. In 1994, the 
recent total run size to the upper Sacramento River basin is probably 
less than 10,000 steelhead per year, and it is believed that fewer than 
2,000 of those fish were the result of natural production from native 
populations (based on counts at Red Bluff Diversion Dam). In 
particular, the status of native steelhead in the American River is in 
considerable doubt; new genetic data indicate that a sample of natural 
fish from the river and a sample of fish from the nearby Nimbus 
Hatchery are genetically similar to samples from the Eel River on the 
coast of Northern California. Presumably, this reflects a lasting 
influence from transfers of Eel River stock steelhead into the Nimbus 
Hatchery in a number of previous years.
    Newly compiled information exists on the presence of steelhead in 
streams in the San Joaquin River Basin. This information indicates 
steelhead smolts occur in the lower San Joaquin and Stanislaus Rivers 
and adult steelhead occur in the Stanislaus and Merced Rivers. The only 
steelhead hatchery program operating in the San Joaquin River Basin is 
on the Mokelumne River, and no recent releases of juvenile steelhead 
have been made in other rivers in the basin; therefore, these results 
were viewed as an indication that at least some natural production of 
steelhead occurs in several streams in the San Joaquin River Basin.
    The BRT identified long-term declines in abundance, small 
population sizes in the Sacramento River, and the high risk of 
interbreeding between hatchery and naturally spawned steelhead as major 
concerns for steelhead in this ESU. Addition, the BRT emphasized the 
significant loss of historic habitat, degradation of remaining habitat 
from water diversions, reduction in water quality and other factors, 
and the lack of monitoring data on abundance as other important risk 
factors for this ESU. NMFS (1996) review of factors for decline for 
this ESU noted many of these same factors as well as harvest impacts.
Listing Determination
    Based on available information, NMFS concludes that steelhead in 
the Central Valley ESU warrant listing as a threatened species at this 
time. In arriving at this determination, NMFS carefully considered the 
scientific conclusions of the BRT, existing and recently implemented 
State conservation efforts, and Federal management programs such as the 
CVPIA that have ameliorated risks to this species.
    Significant steps have been taken over the past two years in the 
Central Valley towards the largest ecological restoration project yet 
undertaken in the United States. The CALFED Program and the CVPIA AFRP, 
in coordination with other Central Valley efforts, have implemented 
numerous habitat restoration actions that benefit Central Valley 
steelhead. The majority of these recent restoration actions address key 
factors for decline and emphasis has been placed on addressing 
tributary drainages with high potential for steelhead production. 
Additional actions during the past two years that benefit Central 
Valley steelhead include new efforts to enhance fisheries monitoring 
and conservation actions to address artificial propagation. Based on a 
review of these and other conservation efforts in the Central Valley, 
NMFS concludes that risks to Central Valley steelhead have diminished 
since the completion of the status review in 1996 (NMFS, 1998c).
    NMFS is uncertain whether implementation of these Central Valley 
restoration programs are adequate to ensure long-term recovery of 
Central Valley steelhead at this time. However, the level of risk faced 
by the Central Valley steelhead ESU has diminished considerably since 
the completion of the August 1996 assessment by the NMFS biological 
review team. Considering the conservation actions implemented during 
the past 2 years and the direction of the Central Valley restoration 
efforts under the CALFED Program and CVPIA, NMFS concludes that Central 
Valley steelhead warrant listing as a threatened species at this time. 
If new information indicates a substantial change in the biological 
status of this ESU or the direction of restoration efforts in the 
Central Valley is judged to be inadequate, this determination will be 
reconsidered.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

    NMFS concludes that neither the Coleman NFH nor Feather River 
Hatchery steelhead stocks are essential for recovery at present. While 
these stocks may be needed in future recovery programs, NMFS concludes 
that these stocks need to be analyzed more carefully before they are 
contemplated for use in recovery programs. In the case of the Coleman 
NFH stock, NMFS notes most of the original broodstock was taken at dams 
in the upper Sacramento River and that most historical production 
occurred above Shasta Dam. The Feather River Hatchery stock was founded 
from eggs taken from native Feather River steelhead that numbered no 
more than 100 to 200 wild fish at the time this stock originated. Based 
on the genetic clustering with Coleman NFH steelhead and wild steelhead 
in Deer and Mill Creeks, transplants of out-of-

[[Page 13369]]

basin steelhead into this system may not have been effective.

Determination

    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as any species 
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a threatened species as any species likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires 
that listing determinations be based solely on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status of 
the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being 
made to protect such species.
    Based on results from its coastwide assessments, NMFS determines 
that, of the five ESUs proposed for listing on August 9, 1996, and 
deferred from final determinations on August 18, 1997, two ESUs are 
threatened (Lower Columbia River and Central Valley). NMFS further 
determines that, three ESUs that were previously proposed for listing 
(Oregon Coast, KMP, and Northern California ESUs) do not currently 
warrant listing; however, NMFS remains concerned about the status of 
these ESUs and therefore is classifying these ESUs as candidates for 
listing at this time. NMFS will reevaluate the status of the Oregon 
Coast, KMP, and Northern California ESUs within 4 years to determine 
whether listing is warranted. The geographic boundaries (i.e., the 
watersheds within which the members of the ESU spend their freshwater 
residence) for these ESUs are described under section Summary of ESUs 
Determinations.
    In both ESUs identified as threatened, only naturally spawned 
populations of steelhead (and their progeny) residing below naturally 
and man-made impassable barriers (e.g., impassable water falls and 
dams) are listed. NMFS has examined the relationship between hatchery 
and natural populations of steelhead in these ESUs and has assessed 
whether any hatchery populations are essential for their recovery. At 
this time, no specific hatchery populations warrant listing.
    NMFS' ``Interim Policy on Artificial Propagation of Pacific Salmon 
Under the Endangered Species Act'' (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993) 
provides guidance on the treatment of hatchery stocks in the event of a 
listing. Under this policy, ``progeny of fish from the listed species 
that are propagated artificially are considered part of the listed 
species and are protected under the ESA.'' In accordance with this 
interim NMFS policy, all progeny of listed steelhead are themselves 
considered part of the listed species. Such progeny include those 
resulting from the mating of listed steelhead with non-listed hatchery 
stocks.
    At this time, NMFS is listing only anadromous life forms of O. 
mykiss.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or 
indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all 
individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. 
Section 9 prohibitions apply automatically to endangered species; as 
described below, this is not the case for threatened species.
    Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary to implement 
regulations ``to provide for the conservation of [threatened] species'' 
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). NMFS will issue shortly protective regulations pursuant to 
section 4(d) for the Lower Columbia River and Central Valley, 
California 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 affects 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 
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, FERC 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 to avoid or reduce 
impacts to steelhead and its habitat within the range of the listed 
ESU. It is important to note that the current listing applies only to 
the anadromous form of O. mykiss; therefore, section 7 consultations 
will not address resident forms of O. mykiss at this time.
    There are likely to be Federal actions ongoing in the range of the 
listed ESUs at the time these listings become effective. Therefore, 
NMFS will review all ongoing actions that may affect the listed species 
with Federal agencies and will complete formal or informal 
consultations, if requested or necessary, for such actions pursuant to 
ESA section 7(a)(2).

Take Guidance

    NMFS and FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 
FR 34272), a policy that NMFS shall identify, to the maximum extent 
practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that 
would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The 
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of 
a listing on proposed and on-going activities within the species' 
range. NMFS believes that, based on the best available information, the 
following actions will not result in a violation of section 9: (1) 
Possession of steelhead from the listed ESUs acquired lawfully by 
permit issued by NMFS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the 
terms of an incidental take statement pursuant to section 7 of the ESA; 
and (2) federally funded or approved projects that involve activities 
such as silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam 
construction and operation, discharge of fill material, stream 
channelization or diversion for which a section 7 consultation has been 
completed, and when such an activity is conducted in accordance with 
any terms and conditions provided by NMFS in an incidental take 
statement accompanied by a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of 
the ESA.
    Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm, injure or 
kill steelhead in the listed ESUs and result in a violation of section 
9 include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Land-use 
activities that adversely affect steelhead habitat in this ESU (e.g.,

[[Page 13370]]

logging, grazing, farming, road construction in riparian areas, and 
areas susceptible to mass wasting and surface erosion); (2) destruction 
or alteration of steelhead habitat in the listed ESUs, such as removal 
of large woody debris and ``sinker logs'' or riparian shade canopy, 
dredging, discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, diverting, 
blocking, or altering stream channels or surface or ground water flow; 
(3) discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants (e.g., 
sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting listed 
steelhead; (4) violation of discharge permits; (5) pesticide 
applications; (6) interstate and foreign commerce of steelhead from the 
listed ESUs and import/export of steelhead from listed ESUs without an 
ESA permit, unless the fish were harvested pursuant to legal exception; 
(7) collecting or handling of steelhead from listed ESUs, (permits to 
conduct these activities are available for purposes of scientific 
research or to enhance the propagation or survival of the species); and 
(8) introduction of non-native species likely to prey on steelhead in 
these ESUs or displace them from their habitat. These lists are not 
exhaustive. They are intended to provide some examples of the types of 
activities that might or might not be considered by NMFS as 
constituting a take of west coast steelhead under the ESA and its 
regulations. Questions regarding whether specific activities will 
constitute a violation of this rule and general inquiries regarding 
prohibitions and permits should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Effective Date of Final Listing

    Given the cultural, scientific, and recreational importance of this 
species, and the broad geographic range of these listings, NMFS 
recognizes that numerous parties may be affected by this listing. 
Therefore, to permit an orderly implementation of the consultation 
requirements associated with this action, this final listing will take 
effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

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 
NFP (on Federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl), 
PACFISH (on all additional Federal lands with anadromous salmonid 
populations), Oregon's Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, 
Washington's Lower Columbia River Salmon Conservation Initiative, 
overlapping protections from California's listing of coho salmon stocks 
in California under both the Federal and State ESAs, and implementation 
of California's Steelhead Management Plan. 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 to the extent that staff and resources 
permit, in the belief that they can play an important role in the 
recovery planning process.
    Based on information presented in this final rule, general 
conservation measures that could be implemented to help conserve the 
species are listed 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 less 
adversely affect steelhead populations.
    (5) Water diversions could have adequate headgate and staff gauge 
structures installed to control and monitor water usage accurately. 
Water rights could be enforced to prevent irrigators from exceeding the 
amount of water to which they are legally entitled.
    (6) Irrigation diversions affecting downstream migrating steelhead 
trout could be screened. A thorough review of the impact of irrigation 
diversions on steelhead could be conducted.
    NMFS recognizes that, to be successful, protective regulations and 
recovery programs for steelhead will need to be developed in the 
context of conserving aquatic ecosystem health. NMFS intends that 
Federal lands and Federal activities play a primary role in preserving 
listed populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. However, 
throughout the range of all three ESUs listed, steelhead habitat occurs 
and can be affected by activities on state, tribal, or private land. 
Agricultural, timber, and urban management activities 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 all state, tribal, and local 
governments, landowner representatives, and Federal and non-Federal 
biologists, participate and share the goal of restoring steelhead to 
the watersheds.

Critical Habitat

    Section 4(b)(6)(C) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent, 
critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a 
species unless such critical habitat is not determinable at that time. 
NMFS intends to propose critical habitat for all listed and proposed 
steelhead ESUs in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. (See 63 FR 
11798 for proposed rule to list two ESUS of steelhead and 62 FR 43937 
for final rule to list 5 ESUs of steelhead). Copies of these proposed 
and final rules are 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 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

[[Page 13371]]

when assessing 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 promulgating protective regulations 
pursuant to ESA section 4(d). In the future, prior to finalizing its 
4(d) regulations for the threatened ESUS, NMFS will comply with all 
relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.

References

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 227

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine 
mammals, Transportation.

    Dated: March 13, 1998.
David L. Evans,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 227 is 
amended as follows:

PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE

    1. The authority citation for part 227 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 227.12 also 
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    2. In Sec. 227.4, paragraphs (m) and (n) are added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 227.4  Enumeration of threatened species.

* * * * *
    (m) Lower Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Includes 
all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in 
streams and tributaries to the Columbia River between the Cowlitz and 
Wind Rivers, Washington, inclusive, and the Willamette and Hood Rivers, 
Oregon, inclusive. Excluded are steelhead in the upper Willamette River 
Basin above Willamette Falls and steelhead from the Little and Big 
White Salmon Rivers in Washington;
    (n) Central Valley, California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 
Includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their 
progeny) in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their 
tributaries. Excluded are steelhead from San Francisco and San Pablo 
Bays and their tributaries.

[FR Doc. 98-6972 Filed 3-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P