[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44934-44961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16579]



[[Page 44933]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed 
Rule To List the Southwestern Washington/Columbia River Distinct 
Population Segment of the Coastal Cutthroat Trout as Threatened; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 44934]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF45


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of 
Proposed Rule To List the Southwestern Washington/Columbia River 
Distinct Population Segment of the Coastal Cutthroat Trout as 
Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the 
proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on April 5, 1999, to 
list the southwestern Washington/Columbia River Distinct Population 
Segment (DPS) of coastal cutthroat trout as threatened. The DPS 
includes all coastal cutthroat trout in waters draining into Grays 
Harbor, Willapa Bay, and the Columbia River upstream to the Klickitat 
River in Washington and to Fifteen Mile Creek in Oregon, excluding the 
Willamette River above Willamette Falls. The coastal cutthroat trout 
inhabits streams, lakes, rivers, estuaries, and near-shore ocean 
habitats throughout the range of the DPS.
    The change in forest management regulation, the latest information 
indicating relatively healthy-sized total populations in a large 
portion of the DPS, and our improved understanding of the ability of 
freshwater forms to produce anadromous progeny, lead us to conclude 
that this DPS does not meet the definition of a threatened species (in 
danger of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future) at this time.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this withdrawal is available for 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 
97266.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kemper McMaster, State Supervisor, 
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone 503/231-
6179; facsimile 503/231-6195).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), one of 10 
formally described subspecies of cutthroat trout (Behnke 1992), are 
distributed along the Pacific Coast of North America from Prince 
William Sound in Alaska to the Eel River in California (Behnke 1992, 
Trotter 1997) and inland from the Coast Range of Alaska to roughly the 
crest of the Cascades of Washington and Oregon (Trotter 1997). The 
southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS proposed for listing as 
threatened includes the Columbia River and its tributaries from the 
mouth to the Klickitat River on the Washington side of the river and 
Fifteenmile Creek on the Oregon side; the Willamette River and its 
tributaries from its confluence with the Columbia upstream to 
Willamette Falls; Willapa Bay and its tributaries; and Grays Harbor and 
its tributaries.
    The DPS inhabits portions of five Ecoregions, the Coast Range, 
Puget Lowland, Cascades, Willamette Valley, and Eastern Cascades. Most 
of the DPS occurs in the Coast Range, Puget Lowland, and Cascades 
Ecoregions. The Coast Range Ecoregion has a maritime climate, 
characterized by medium to high rainfall averaging 200 to 240 
centimeters (cm) (80 to 90 inches (in) per year, which peaks in the 
winter months, with very little precipitation in July or August. Random 
events, such as strong storms with heavy rains can have damaging 
effects, especially on a disturbed landscape. Floods and landslides 
triggered by these events can significantly affect aquatic resources 
throughout the stream system. The Puget Lowland Ecoregion experiences 
reduced rainfall (50 to 120 cm (20 to 47 in)), with peak flows from 
December to June. The area tends to have groundwater resources from 
bordering mountain ranges that help sustain river flows during 
droughts. The Cascades Ecoregion includes headwater tributaries of many 
coastal cutthroat streams. Precipitation can average 280 cm (110 in) 
per year, much of it in the form of heavy snowfall. There is little 
storage capacity for long-term groundwater except where porous rock 
substrate exists. In these porous areas, streams receive 75 to 95 
percent of their average discharge as groundwater and are able to 
maintain flows during dry periods. Surface water flow originating in 
the Cascade Range influences river flows throughout this region. A 
smaller portion of the DPS occurs in the Willamette Valley Ecoregion, 
which lies in the rainshadow of the Coast Ranges and typically 
experiences rainfall of 120 cm (47 in), with peak flows in December and 
January. A small portion of the DPS occurs in the Eastern Cascades 
Slopes and Foothills Ecoregion, which is marked by a transition between 
the high rainfall areas of the Cascades Ecoregion and the drier regions 
to the east. This Ecoregion receives 30 to 60 cm (10 to 20 in) of 
precipitation. Streamflow is often intermittent, especially during the 
summer (Johnson et al. 1999).
    Coastal cutthroat trout differ in appearance from other subspecies 
by the numerous small to medium irregularly-shaped spots evenly 
covering virtually the entire sides of the body, often extending to the 
ventral surface and anal fin (Behnke 1992). Skin color on sea-run fish 
is often silvery, and may mask body spots, while freshwater residents 
are darker with a copper or brassy sheen.
    Relatively little is known about the specific life history and 
habitat requirements of coastal cutthroat trout. Coastal cutthroat 
trout spend more time in the freshwater environment and make more 
extensive use of this habitat, particularly small streams, than do most 
other Pacific salmonids (Johnson et al. 1999). The life history of 
coastal cutthroat trout may be one of the most complex of any Pacific 
salmonid. Coastal cutthroat trout exhibit a variety of life history 
strategies across their range (Northcote 1997, Johnson et al. 1999) 
that include three basic variations: Resident or primarily non-
migratory; freshwater migrants; and marine migrants. Residents may stay 
within the same stream segment their entire life. Freshwater migrants 
may make migrations from small tributaries to larger tributaries or 
rivers, or may migrate from tributary streams to lakes or reservoirs. 
Marine migrations (anadromy) are generally thought to be limited to 
near shore marine areas; individuals may not venture out of the estuary 
in some cases (Trotter 1997). There are numerous exceptions to these 
generalized behaviors and we lack observations of definitive genetic 
relationships between individual or population migratory strategies 
(Behnke 1997). In areas above long-standing barriers, coastal cutthroat 
trout are limited to resident or fresh-water migratory life history 
strategies. In areas accessible to the ocean, all three life history 
strategies (resident, freshwater migratory, and anadromous) are likely 
to be expressed in the same area.
    Coastal cutthroat trout appear to exhibit very flexible life 
history strategies. The extent to which individuals expressing these 
various strategies are isolated from other life history forms is 
largely unknown, though there is growing evidence that individuals may 
express multiple life history behaviors in their life time (Johnson et 
al. 1999). For convenience we refer to individuals that migrate to 
marine waters as anadromous or anadromous life form. In doing so, we do 
not intend to imply that they represent a separate population from

[[Page 44935]]

freshwater forms. We are treating all forms as part of a single 
population in this analysis.
    As a result of their wide distribution and variable life history 
behavior, coastal cutthroat trout are exposed to a wide range of water 
temperatures. Several studies concluded that cutthroat trout, like 
other salmonids, were not typically found in water temperatures higher 
than 22 degrees Celsius (C) (72 degrees Fahrenheit (F)) although they 
could tolerate temperatures as high as 26 to 28 degrees C (79 to 82 
degrees F) for short periods. Optimum temperatures for coastal 
cutthroat trout spawning range from 6.1 to 17.2 degrees C (43 to 63 
degrees F), and for egg incubation from 4.4 to 12.7 degrees C (40 to 55 
degrees F) (Bell 1986). The preferred temperature range of adult 
coastal cutthroat is between 9 and 12 degrees C (48 and 54 degrees F) 
(Bell 1986). Giger (1972) reported that temperature was believed to be 
the most influential characteristic in the migration and distribution 
of coastal cutthroat in estuaries. Giger further states that high upper 
estuary temperatures (23.9 to 26.7 degrees C (75 to 80 degrees F)) 
probably prevent movement to cooler tributaries until later in the 
fall.
    Coastal cutthroat trout spawn in a variety of gravel sizes from 0.6 
to 30 cm (0.2 to 12 in) (Hooper 1973, Hanson 1977). Gravels free from 
fine sediment support higher egg to fry survival for salmonids (Irving 
and Bjornn 1984, Weaver and Fraley 1993). Anadromous coastal cutthroat 
trout spawn and complete early rearing in headwater stream sections, 
often above those used by other anadromous salmonids (Glova and Mason 
1977, Michael 1983), and then migrate downstream eventually entering 
the estuary and near ocean environment to complete growth and 
maturation. By spawning higher in the watersheds than other salmonids, 
cutthroat trout may avoid competition for suitable spawning sites, 
reduce the likelihood of hybridization, and reduce competitive 
interactions between juvenile coastal cutthroat trout and other 
salmonids. Salmonids need water free from high levels of suspended 
sediment to feed and migrate. When very high sediment loads are present 
(greater than 4,000 parts per million (ppm)) salmonids cease movement 
or migration (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Cutthroat trout are known to 
stop feeding and move to cover when turbidity is above 35 ppm (Pauley 
et al. 1989).
    Coastal cutthroat trout are poorer swimmers than other anadromous 
salmonids, probably due to morphological characteristics, including 
their large heads and narrow caudal (tail) regions (Bisson et al. 1988, 
Hawkins and Quinn 1996). In laboratory tests of two different hatchery 
stocks of coastal cutthroat trout, Hawkins and Quinn (1996) found 
critical swimming speeds were between 5.58 to 6.69 body lengths per 
second, whereas steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) had critical velocities 
of 7.69 body lengths per second. In field studies, two-to four-year old 
coastal cutthroat trout were found in streams with velocities of 0.14 
to 0.20 meters per second (0.46 to 0.66 feet per second) (Hanson 1977). 
Coastal cutthroat trout juveniles were most often in streams where 
water velocities were between 0.25 and 0.50 meters per second (0.82 to 
1.6 feet per second) (Pauley et al. 1989).
    The timing of fish returns to estuary and freshwater habitat varies 
considerably across the range and within river basins (Trotter 1997, 
Behnke 1992). For example, return migrations of anadromous coastal 
cutthroat trout in the Columbia River system usually begin as early as 
late June and continue through October, with peaks in late September 
and October. Anadromous coastal cutthroat trout spawning typically 
starts in December and continues through June, with peak spawning in 
February.
    Coastal cutthroat trout are repeat spawners. Some individuals have 
been documented to spawn each year for at least five years (Giger 
1972), others may not spawn every year, and some do not return to 
seawater after spawning, remaining in fresh water for at least a year. 
Eggs begin to hatch within six to seven weeks of spawning, depending on 
temperature; fry emerge between March and June, with peak emergence in 
mid-April. At emergence, fry appear to seek refugia near channel 
margins and backwater habitats, although they may use fast water 
habitats (riffles and glides) when exposed to competitive interactions 
with other native salmonids (Johnson et al. 1999).
    Coastal cutthroat trout juveniles generally remain in upper 
tributaries until they are one year of age, at which time they may 
begin moving more extensively throughout the river system. Juvenile 
salmonids on marine-directed migrations undergo physiological changes 
to adapt to salt water called smoltification. These individuals are 
called smolts. Downstream movement may begin with the first spring 
rains, usually in mid-April with peak movement in mid-May. Time of 
initial seawater entry generally begins as early as March, peaks in 
mid-May, and is essentially over by mid-June. Some juveniles may enter 
the estuary and remain there over the summer without smolting or 
migrating to the open ocean. Seaward migration of Columbia River smolts 
may occur to more protected areas at an earlier age and smaller size 
than migration to more exposed areas such as the outer Washington 
coast. Columbia River smolts generally make their first migration at 
age two, at a mean size of about 160 mm (6 in) (Johnson et al. 1999).
    Upstream movement of juveniles appears to begin with the onset of 
winter freshets (overflows) during November and continues through the 
spring, frequently peaking during late winter and early spring. Many of 
these yearling fish may average less than 200 mm (8 in) in length and 
can be found in streams that run through ponds or sloughs (Hartman and 
Gill 1968, Garrett 1998). In winter, coastal cutthroat trout move to 
pool areas with dense cover such as near log jams or overhanging banks 
(Bustard and Narver 1975, Waters 1993).
    Coastal cutthroat trout that enter nearshore marine waters 
reportedly move moderate distances along the shoreline. Individual 
marked fish have been reported to move 72 to 290 kilometers (km) (45 to 
180 miles (mi)) off the Oregon Coast (Pearcy 1997). Sea-run cutthroat 
trout along the Oregon coast may swim or be transported with the 
prevailing currents long distances during the summer. It is unclear how 
far offshore coastal cutthroat trout migrate. Cutthroat trout have been 
routinely caught up to 6 km (4 mi) off the mouth of the Nestucca River 
(Sumner 1953, 1972). Coastal cutthroat trout have also been captured 
between 10 and 46 km (6 to 28 mi) offshore of the Columbia River, 
though it is unclear whether they were carried by the freshwater plume 
of the Columbia River or moved offshore in search of prey.
    Resident (non-migratory) fish appear to mature earlier (two to 
three years) and are shorter-lived than the migratory form (Trotter 
2000). Smoltification has been reported to occur from one to six years 
of age, most commonly at ages two through four (Trotter 1997), and at 
sizes of from 175 to 225 millimeters (mm) (7 to 9 in) (Behnke 1992). 
Sexual maturity rarely occurs before age four in anadromous coastal 
cutthroat trout (Johnson et al. 1999). Growth rates increase during the 
initial period of ocean residence, but decrease following the first 
spawning due to energy expenditures from migration and spawning (Giger 
1972). Behnke (1992) reports the maximum age of sea-run cutthroat to be 
approximately 10 years.

[[Page 44936]]

    The diverse life history strategies shown by coastal cutthroat 
trout are not well understood, but are thought to represent unique 
adaptations to local environments and the subspecies' response to 
environmental variability and unpredictability. The significance of the 
various life history strategies, the extent to which each strategy is 
controlled by genetic versus environmental factors, and the extent of 
isolation among individuals expressing these various strategies is 
largely unknown, though there is growing evidence that individuals may 
express multiple life history behaviors over time (Johnson et al. 
1999). The few existing studies show that, although both allele 
frequencies and morphology may differ between populations above and 
below barriers, the portions of the population displaying different 
life history strategies are generally more closely related within a 
drainage than are populations from different drainages (Behnke 1997, 
Johnson et al. 1999). These results indicate that migratory and non-
migratory portions of the population of cutthroat trout represent a 
single evolutionary lineage in which the various life history 
characteristics have arisen repeatedly in different geographic regions 
(Johnson et al. 1999).
    Many coastal cutthroat populations are isolated above natural 
barriers. Recent studies have shown low levels of downstream migration 
over these natural barriers indicating that these isolated populations 
likely are contributing demographically and genetically to populations 
below them (Griswold 1996, Johnson et al. 1999). Furthermore, 
populations above natural barriers may represent genetic resources 
shared by populations below these barriers and therefore may constitute 
a significant component of diversity for the population (Johnson et al. 
1999).
    There is increasing evidence that coastal cutthroat trout isolated 
for long periods of time above impassable dams retain the capacity to 
produce marine migrants. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(WDFW) (2001) reported that between 476 and 1,756 smolts were produced 
from the freshwater form of coastal cutthroat trout above Cowlitz Falls 
Dam on the Cowlitz River in 1997 and 1998. Tagging and otolith 
microchemistry analysis of one returning adult showed the tagged fish, 
originating from above the dam, migrated to salt water and returned. 
The report suggested that the resident portion of the population of 
cutthroat trout is making contributions to the anadromous portion of 
the population. The significance of marine migrant production from the 
freshwater coastal cutthroat trout, whether from above long-standing 
natural barriers or human-created barriers, likely varies according to 
river basin characteristics, the length of time barriers have been in 
place, and the genetic composition of coastal cutthroat trout within 
each basin (Johnson et al. 1999). In addition, the significance and 
long-term success of freshwater cutthroat trout contributing to the 
saltwater migrant cutthroat trout may be largely dependent upon the 
ability of downstream habitat conditions and near-shore environments to 
support the persistence of this life history strategy.
    The effects of interspecific competition between coastal cutthroat 
trout and other salmonids, particularly coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 
kisutch), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), and steelhead (the anadromous form 
of rainbow trout) are well documented. In general, steelhead and coho 
are more commonly found in the larger river reaches and coastal 
cutthroat trout are more abundant in the headwater tributaries, 
reducing the potential for competition (Hartman and Gill 1968). 
However, when they do overlap, steelhead tend to dominate coastal 
cutthroat trout in the riffles and juvenile coho dominate cutthroat in 
pools and glides. As a result, coastal cutthroat trout are often 
displaced to less desirable habitats in the presence of other native 
salmonids (Griffith 1988). Coastal cutthroat trout evolved with these 
competitive interactions and competition with native salmonids is not 
anticipated to adversely affect this DPS of coastal cutthroat trout.

Population Size

    Little data exist to determine the actual population size of 
cutthroat trout in the DPS. Most counts were conducted only in the area 
accessible to anadromous salmonids; include only coastal cutthroat 
trout moving up or down stream (mostly migrants); and were collected 
incidental to studies for other salmonid species using traps or 
collection facilities designed for salmon and steelhead. We lack 
information on the efficiency of these systems in capturing coastal 
cutthroat trout, therefore, data from most traps cannot be used to 
determine or estimate actual population size for coastal cutthroat 
trout. We have updated the population analyses using the latest data 
received from WDFW, as well as evaluating the accuracy of data in 
depicting actual coastal cutthroat trout population levels.
    Two sets of data from the Grays Harbor tributaries provide some 
population information (WDFW 2001c). The number of migrating adult 
coastal cutthroat trout captured at Bingham Creek from 1983 to 2001 
ranged from a low of zero to a high of 35 with a mean of eight. This 
trap measures all fish returning to an 8,250 hectare (ha) (20,386 acre 
(ac)) watershed and likely catches all coastal cutthroat trout 
migrating upstream. On the West Fork Hoquiam River, the number of 
migrating coastal cutthroat trout (wild and hatchery) captured from 
1986 to 2000 ranged from 17 to 122 with a mean of 51. No hatchery 
cutthroat trout have been detected at this facility since 1995, and the 
mean number of fish since 1995 is 55. This trap measures almost all 
adult coastal cutthroat trout returning to a 2,166 ha (5,352 ac) 
watershed.
    Catch data for coastal cutthroat trout were recorded incidental to 
creel surveys for salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River, though no 
data were collected on angler effort for coastal cutthroat trout. These 
data were collected from four points in Washington. No creel census 
data were received from Oregon. The number of coastal cutthroat trout 
recorded in the creel surveys for the lower Columbia River is likely to 
be strongly influenced by the change in cutthroat trout fishing 
regulations (WDFW 2001c). During the period when creel census data were 
collected, the general fishing regulation limits for coastal cutthroat 
trout in Washington decreased from 12 to 8 trout per angler in 1983, to 
2 trout in the marine environment and 8 trout in freshwater in 1986, 
and finally to 2 trout in 1992. Minimum size limits also became more 
restrictive during this period. In addition, catch and release angling 
for wild cutthroat was implemented in some streams within the DPS's 
range starting in 1989 and expanded to all lower Columbia River streams 
below Portland and Vancouver in 1992 (Leider 1997). The lack of angling 
effort data make it impossible to determine if the decline in creel 
census numbers are the result of low populations or low angling effort 
for coastal cutthroat trout. Creel census personnel have noted reduced 
angler effort in traditional cutthroat trout angling areas and fewer 
anglers using traditional sea-run cutthroat trout gear (WDFW 2001c). 
Given the lack of angler effort with which to standardize the counts, 
we can no longer conclude that the creel census data indicate an 
extremely low number of anadromous cutthroat trout in the DPS as 
described in the proposed rule (64 FR 16397, April 5, 1999).
    Trap data are similarly difficult to interpret. The Kalama River 
trap has detected low numbers of coastal cutthroat trout in all but 
four years since

[[Page 44937]]

1982. This trap is located above the natural, historic anadromous 
cutthroat trout zone, in an area blocked to upstream passage by a falls 
until a ladder was built in 1936. In addition, the trap is designed to 
catch and hold adult salmon, having a 3.8 cm (1.5 in) bar spacing. 
According to WDFW (2001), most adult sea-run cutthroat trout would pass 
through this trap undetected because of the wide bar spacing. 
Therefore, because the trap is above a previous natural migration 
barrier and has a large bar spacing, the trap likely significantly 
underestimates the actual number of adult cutthroat trout returning to 
this drainage, resulting in data that are unreliable for determining 
population level.
    The number of adult coastal cutthroat trout trapped at the North 
Fork Toutle River rose from 1988 until 1995 and has declined since 
(WDFW 2001c). The maximum number trapped reached 153 in 1995. This 
increase likely tracks the recovery of the population following the 
eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 and the resulting massive mud and 
debris flows in the Toutle River. The recent decline in numbers of 
coastal cutthroat trout counted is likely a result of the continued 
failure of the Fish Collection Facility to handle the high sediment 
loads still common in this system. The trap has been closed during fall 
freshets in recent years due to high sediment loads, coinciding with 
the upstream migration of anadromous cutthroat (WDFW 2001c). A third 
trap was added at the Grist Mill Fish Ladder on Cedar Creek in 1998. 
Because adult cutthroat trout may bypass the ladder, this count is an 
underestimate of actual population size. The numbers of fish captured 
at the Grist Mill Fish Ladder ranged from 57 to 120.
    Of the nine adult traps with population data in southwest 
Washington and the Columbia River tributaries below Bonneville Dam, 
four have total annual counts below 10 coastal cutthroat trout in 
recent years. In at least one case (Kalama River trap), this may well 
be due to the inefficiency of the trap in collecting adult coastal 
cutthroat trout as described above. Five of these traps have counts 
(averaged for the last five years) of 50 to 1,400 adult cutthroat trout 
per year. These data indicate higher numbers than previously described 
and we no longer conclude that the annual number of adults returning to 
these traps in the DPS are consistently below 10 fish as described in 
the proposed rule (64 FR 16407).
    Many juvenile fish traps are monitored in tributaries of Grays 
Harbor. While juvenile counts are less reliable indicators of 
population size than adult counts, they do provide some information on 
the level of production. Numbers of total juveniles produced are 
available from 21 traps in the Grays Harbor system, based on either 
total counts or estimates derived using trap efficiency data provided 
by the WDFW (2001). Total numbers of juveniles produced is likely 
affected by the amount of habitat available in the system, which varies 
widely. We attempted to correct for this by calculating the number of 
downstream migrants per square kilometer (km\2\) of watershed above the 
trap. The number of downstream migrants per km\2\ of watershed area in 
the Grays Harbor tributaries varied widely from 0.04 to 10.4 per km\2\ 
(0.1 to 26.8 per square mi (mi\2\)), with some watersheds producing 
large numbers of downstream migrants. The total estimated number of 
juveniles produced from Columbia River tributaries below Bonneville Dam 
were available from eight traps. The number of downstream migrants per 
km\2\ of watershed area varied from 0.5 to 38.4 per km\2\ (1.4 to 99.4 
per mi\2\), with most watersheds producing more than 6 outmigrants per 
km\2\ (15 per mi\2\).
    Mongillo and Hallock (2001) conducted extensive surveys of 156 
locations within the Washington portion of the DPS's range for 
abundance of coastal cutthroat trout. Data were collected by single-
pass electrofishing, a method which likely underestimates the actual 
abundance, and included areas used by resident and anadromous coastal 
cutthroat trout. Additional data were presented by the WDFW (2001) for 
surveys conducted by Weyerhaeuser Company in 1994 and 1995 and from one 
study in the Humptulips Basin in the 1970s. The relative density for 
all locations below Bonneville Dam ranged from 0.009 to 0.222 fish per 
square meter (m\2\) (0.09 to 2.4 per ft\2\). These values were compared 
to population densities from the 1970s in the Olympic Peninsula and 
Puget Sound (0.009 to 0.384 fish per m\2\ (0.09 to 4.1 per ft\2\)), 
which were considered healthy (in terms of abundance) during that 
period (WDFW 2001c) and were not considered likely to be in danger of 
extinction in the foreseeable future by the Status Review Team (Johnson 
et al. 1999). Densities recorded in southwest Washington by Mongillo 
and Hallock (2001) were not significantly different from densities 
recorded in the 1970s from the Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound.
    Densities measured in Washington above Bonneville Dam were lower 
(0.0003 fish per m\2\ (0.003 per ft\2\)), based on coastal cutthroat 
trout caught at a single location in Spring Creek. Densities were 
calculated for all sites, whether or not cutthroat were located. The 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) provided information on 
densities of coastal cutthroat over 85 mm in size in the Hood River 
above the area accessible to anadromous salmonids (ODFW 1998). While 
cutthroat trout were not detected in all streams sampled, cutthroat 
trout densities where present were relatively high, ranging from 0.003 
to 0.283 fish per m\2\ (0.03 to 3.0 per ft\2\). The watersheds above 
Bonneville Dam are ecologically very different from the remainder of 
the subspecies' range. These include the only watersheds where this 
subspecies is found east of the Cascade Mountain Divide. This area 
experiences a very different hydrologic and climatic environment that 
may influence the densities of cutthroat.
    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Status Review (Johnson 
et al. 1999) also cited concern over ``* * * two near extinctions of 
anadromous runs in the Hood and Sandy Rivers'' (64 FR 16407). The Sandy 
River basin occupies 4 percent of the DPS's range. Data on adult 
cutthroat trout numbers are derived from a trap that is located on a 
tributary approximately 34 km (21 mi) from the mouth of the Sandy River 
and 3 km (2 mi) up Cedar Creek from its confluence with the Sandy 
River. This trap historically captured two to three dozen anadromous 
coastal cutthroat trout, though none have been captured in recent years 
(Johnson et al. 1999). Trap data from this off-channel location may not 
accurately represent the number of anadromous cutthroat in the Sandy 
River. As a substantial portion of the historic anadromous-accessible 
habitat in the Sandy River has been isolated by dams and other 
barriers, the number of anadromous coastal cutthroat trout is likely 
depressed from historic levels. However, it is difficult to extrapolate 
data from one trap located on a tributary to the main river to a 
meaningful estimate of the anadromous component of the population for 
the basin as a whole. Resident cutthroat trout are considered well-
distributed in the Sandy River basin, occurring above and below Marmot 
and Little Sandy Dams (PGE 2000). Much of the upper Sandy River Basin 
is under Federal land management which minimizes future threats of 
habitat degradation that would cause population declines (see Federal 
Land Management Section below). We conclude that the anadromous portion 
of the population

[[Page 44938]]

of coastal cutthroat trout in the Sandy River has declined from 
historic levels, though the limited data do not allow us to determine 
if they are nearly extinct in this small portion of the DPS, as 
described in the proposed rule. The resident portion of the population 
remains well distributed in the Sandy River.
    Powerdale Dam, completed in 1922, lies 7.2 km (4.5 mi) up the Hood 
River from its confluence with the Columbia River. The area between the 
dam and the powerhouse (river mile (rmi) 1.5) was historically 
dewatered at times, though now has minimum required flows. The dam 
likely has affected the number of anadromous cutthroat trout using the 
Hood River, which comprises two percent of the DPS's range. Hood River 
lies upriver of Bonneville Pool and Dam, which may further impede 
anadromous cutthroat trout movements. Hood River lies near the eastern 
edge of the range of coastal cutthroat trout. No information is 
available as to anadromous cutthroat trout use and numbers prior to 
construction of Powerdale and Bonneville Dams, and only limited 
information exists on numbers in even recent times. Trap data from 1962 
to 1971 shows variable, but significant numbers of adult cutthroat 
trout trapped (mean 61, range 8 to 177) followed by a gap in 
information until 1992. Very few adult fish have been trapped at the 
facility since 1992, with no fish captured in 6 of 10 years. However, 
in 2001, 11 adult coastal cutthroat trout returned to Powerdale Dam 
(Connolly et al. 2002). From 1994 to 1999, downstream smolt traps in 
the Hood River system continued to trap migrants, though at low numbers 
(mean of 24 fish). Given the location and long history of Powerdale 
Dam, it is not surprising that the anadromous portion of the population 
in Hood River is depressed. Resident forms within this system are in 
better condition, with relatively high densities (0.003 to 0.238 fish 
per m\2\ (0.03 to 2.56 fish per ft\2\) for fish greater than 85 mm 
(approximately 3 in) in length (ODFW 1998). We conclude that the 
anadromous portion the population of coastal cutthroat trout in the 
Hood River has declined severely from historic levels in this small 
portion of the DPS. The resident portion of the population remains well 
distributed at relatively high densities in the Hood River. Occasional 
upstream migrants continue to be trapped in some years, and in 2001, a 
total of 11 upstream migrants were captured (Connolly et al. 2002).
    The proposed rule stated that NMFS was concerned about the 
extremely low population size of anadromous coastal cutthroat trout in 
lower Columbia River streams, indicated by low incidental catch of 
coastal cutthroat trout in salmon and steelhead recreational fisheries, 
and by low trap counts in a number of tributaries throughout the region 
and that numbers of adults returning to traps in the lower Columbia 
River tributaries were consistently below 10 fish in most streams over 
each of the past 6 years (64 FR 16407). Based on the information 
described in this section, we conclude that, while the anadromous 
portion of the population of coastal cutthroat trout is likely at 
lower-than-historic levels, there is little information available to 
determine the actual size of runs or to indicate that populations, or 
even the anadromous portion alone, are at extremely low levels in most 
areas of the DPS. The anadromous portion of the population may be at 
very low numbers in Hood and Sandy Rivers (6 percent of the DPS's 
range), though the location of the trap on the Sandy River makes it 
difficult to support the conclusion that anadromous coastal cutthroat 
trout are near extinction in this river as described in the proposed 
rule (64 FR 16407). Resident/freshwater forms remain well distributed 
and at reasonable densities in these same river systems. Coastal 
cutthroat trout in the southwest Washington portion of the DPS (75 
percent of the land base) remain at comparable densities to other areas 
considered to have healthy-sized populations. Therefore, we conclude 
that the population of coastal cutthroat trout as a whole in the DPS is 
not extremely low in numbers or at levels that would lead to increased 
risk of extinction due to small population size in the foreseeable 
future.

Population Trends Across the DPS

    The proposed rule stated that ``[t]rends in anadromous adults and 
outmigrating smolts in the southwestern Washington portion of this 
[DPS] are all declining'' (64 FR 16407) and that ``[r]eturns of both 
naturally and hatchery produced anadromous coastal cutthroat trout in 
almost all lower Columbia River streams have declined markedly over the 
last 10 to 15 years,'' with the only increase in the Toutle River (64 
FR 16407).
    During the public comment period we received new data from several 
of the fish traps operating in the DPS's range. Based on analyses of 
these new data, including further information on individual traps from 
WDFW (2001), we evaluated the trend in the population of coastal 
cutthroat trout in the DPS and the reliability of the trend information 
from each individual data set. Evaluating the reliability of the trend 
information is very important in determining the appropriate use of the 
information. The reliability of analyses in truly depicting any 
population trend could be affected by the collection method, length of 
data set, specific concerns for individual collection sites, and 
statistical reliability of the test results. In interpreting the 
results of the analyses, less weight was given to results with low 
statistical reliability, short data sets, and where the agency managing 
the trap/collection indicated specific problems that could bias or 
affect trend information.
    Most information was collected in areas accessible to anadromous 
salmonids, incidental to studies for other salmonid species, using 
traps or collection facilities designed for other species. Information 
on the efficiency of these systems in detecting or collecting cutthroat 
trout is lacking. Therefore, these values do not represent the trends 
of all portions of the DPS. We carefully explored information on the 
individual traps or other information to ensure that potential biases 
that could affect use of these data as indices of population trend were 
minimized. Trends from short-term data sets are particularly suspect. 
There is naturally high variation in all adult and juvenile counts, 
with some apparent short-term cyclicity. The trend in a short data set 
is therefore more likely indicative of the particular time span of the 
data collection, and position in the ``cycle,'' than an indication of 
true long-term trend in the population. Only a few long-term data sets 
were available.
    Data sets were analyzed for the percent annual decline using a 
regression of the natural log of the trap counts. Where data sets were 
longer than 11 years, analyses were conducted for entire data set (long 
term) and for the last 7 to 11 years (short term). These same methods 
were used by NMFS in the Status Review (Johnson et al. 1999). We used 
statistical analyses to determine the reliability of the observed 
trend. The accuracy of the observed trend is evaluated by the p value. 
A low p value indicates that the trend we calculated is likely to be an 
accurate representation of the true trend in the population. For 
example, a p value of 0.10 indicates a 90 percent probability that the 
observed trend is accurate, a p value of 0.5 indicates only a 50 
percent probability that the observed trend is accurate. With 
regression statistics, we also report the r\2\ value which describes 
how well the straight trend line fits the observed population data. Low 
r\2\ values indicate that the straight trend line does not fit the data

[[Page 44939]]

well and lowers our confidence that the observed trend accurately 
represents the true trend. Highly variable data often result in a low 
r\2\ value.
    The proposed rule stated that ``[t]rends in anadromous adults and 
outmigrating smolts in the southwestern Washington portion of this 
[DPS] are all declining'' (64 FR 16407) and that ``[r]eturns of both 
naturally and hatchery produced anadromous coastal cutthroat trout in 
almost all lower Columbia River streams have declined markedly over the 
last 10 to 15 years'' (64 FR 16407). The latest trend data, as 
described below, do not support this conclusion.

Population Trends in Grays Harbor

    Trends in the counts of adult coastal cutthroat trout migrants from 
the Grays Harbor portion of the DPS were analyzed from three available 
data sets. Data used in the Status Review (Johnson et al. 1999) 
indicated a declining trend for the West Fork Hoquiam River (5 percent 
annual decline, data through 1995). In the latest analysis there is no 
reliable indication of a trend, increasing or decreasing (p = 0.44, 
r2 = 0.05) in the West Fork Hoquiam River. Adult migrant 
counts from Bingham Creek were not used in the Status Review's 
assessment (Johnson et al. 1999). Analysis of data from 1983 through 
2001 show an increasing long-term trend (7 percent annual increase) 
that is considered relatively reliable, though the straight trend line 
does not fit the data well (p = 0.05, r2 = 0.2). Additional 
hook and line data were available from a single individual who kept 
very accurate catch records over 15 years (WDFW 2001c). Such data can 
be biased by changes in the individual's skill and effort over time, 
however, these data do generally support the conclusion of an 
increasing trend (4 percent annual increase, p less than 0.01, 
r2 = 0.58). WDFW also concluded, based on angler data, that 
the percentage of repeat spawners or larger fish in the population has 
also recently increased, indicating an improvement in population 
condition (WDFW 2001c). Based on analysis of data from the West Fork 
Hoquiam River, Bingham Creek, and the angler data, there is no evidence 
that the adult portion of the population in the Grays Harbor 
tributaries, which comprises 18 percent of the DPS, is declining over 
the long term as described in the proposed rule (64 FR 16407), and 
there is some indication that the adult portion of the population may 
be stable or increasing, at least in Bingham Creek.
    Juvenile (downstream migrant) count data were available from many 
locations within the Grays Harbor portion of the DPS. Most of the trend 
analyses from these data sets are not reliable due to short time series 
or poor statistical results. Only the Stevens Creek data were 
considered relatively reliable (p less than 0.001, r2 = 
0.67). This population was declining at a rate of 15 percent per year 
as of 1994 (Johnson et al. 1999) and there were no additional data 
available for this trap. New data were available from the Chehalis 
River trap. Hatchery releases in this area have declined significantly 
and no hatchery marked coastal cutthroat trout have been recorded at 
the trap in recent years. The number of total coastal cutthroat trout 
caught at the trap appears to have declined in recent years (11 percent 
annual decline, p = 0.18, r2 = 0.19). However, when only 
unmarked (i.e., naturally spawned) coastal cutthroat trout were 
counted, the number of fish counted appears to have increased over the 
long term (10 percent annual increase, p = 0.18, r2 = 0.14). 
Given the moderate p values and poor r2 values, these data 
have relatively poor reliability. Therefore, the Chehalis River trap 
provides no strong evidence of either a long-term positive or negative 
population trend.

Population Trends in the Columbia River and Tributaries

    Trends in the numbers of migratory adult coastal cutthroat trout 
returning to traps in the lower Columbia River portion of the DPS were 
analyzed on five available data sets discussed below. These analyses 
provide some indication of decline in the numbers of adult anadromous 
coastal cutthroat trout, though there are concerns about the 
reliability and confidence in the magnitude of these trends for most of 
the data sets. These concerns are poor statistical reliability, lack of 
trap efficiency data, and consistency problems that likely bias the 
results. No data exist specific to trends in the resident portion of 
coastal cutthroat trout population in the DPS.
    Two of the five data sets were from a limited time period and not 
considered reliable indicators of trend. In addition, the North Fork 
Toutle River trap was considered unreliable for determining trend due 
to recent continued failure of the Fish Collection Facility leading to 
closures coinciding with the upstream migration of anadromous cutthroat 
trout (WDFW 2001c). Trends for wild fish returns for the Elochoman 
River trap were difficult to fully analyze due to a significant gap in 
the data. There are only seven years of data following this gap, ending 
in 1995 when trapping was discontinued.
    The Kalama River trap has detected low numbers of coastal cutthroat 
trout in all but four years since 1982. The Kalama River basin occupies 
1.5 percent of the DPS's range. This trap is located above the 
traditional anadromous cutthroat trout zone, in an area blocked to 
upstream passage until a ladder was built at the falls in 1936. The 
trap is designed for adult salmon with a 3.8 cm (1.5 in) bar spacing. 
According to WDFW, most adult sea-run cutthroat trout would pass 
through undetected (WDFW 2001c). While these factors may affect total 
counts at this location, it is still potentially usable for trend 
analyses. The data indicate a long-term declining trend (10 percent 
annual decline, p less than 0.001, r2 = 0.62). WDFW (2000) 
noted that after a sharp decline in the mid-1980s, counts at the Kalama 
facility have been low and stable, though our analysis of data since 
1987 indicates that the number of cutthroat trapped has continued to 
decline at a similar rate.
    Creel census data for coastal cutthroat trout from the lower 
Columbia River were collected incidentally to studies of salmon and 
steelhead fisheries, and no data were collected on angler effort for 
coastal cutthroat trout. Based on the latest creel census data, there 
is an indication of an 18 percent annual rate of decline over the long 
term. The number of cutthroat trout recorded in the creel surveys for 
the lower Columbia River, and thus the calculated trend, is likely to 
be strongly influenced by the change in cutthroat trout fishing 
regulations during this period (WDFW 2001c) with a decrease in limits 
and an increase in minimum size (see Population Size section), as well 
as changes in salmon and steelhead fisheries. The lack of angler effort 
data make it impossible to determine if the decline in creel census 
numbers is the result of declining populations or declining effort. 
Creel census personnel have noted reduced angler effort in traditional 
cutthroat trout areas and fewer anglers using traditional sea-run 
cutthroat trout gear (WDFW 2001c). The change in regulations likely 
changed fishing behavior, reducing the angler effort. With reduced 
effort, we would expect a lower catch and therefore the appearance of a 
decline. While it is likely that there has been some decline in the 
number of adult anadromous cutthroat trout, it is impossible to 
determine the rate of decline with any certainty in the absence of data 
on angling effort (WDFW 2001c). Given the lack of angler effort with 
which to standardize the counts, we can no longer conclude that the 
creel census

[[Page 44940]]

data indicates a specific level of decline in the anadromous portion of 
the cutthroat trout DPS as described in the proposed rule (64 FR 
16397).
    The NMFS Status Review also cited concern relative to two near 
extinctions of anadromous runs in the Hood and Sandy Rivers (6 percent 
of the DPS's range) (see Population Size section). There has been a 
decline in the number of anadromous cutthroat caught at the trap in the 
Sandy River, though it is difficult to extrapolate data from one trap 
located on a tributary to the main river to a meaningful population 
trend in this system. Captures have been very low at Powerdale Dam on 
the Hood River (see Population Size section). The data were 
insufficient to conduct any meaningful trend analysis. Given the long 
history of this dam, it is not surprising that the anadromous portion 
of the population in Hood River is severely depressed. The resident 
portion of the population within this system is in better condition, 
with relatively high densities (ODFW 1998), though no trend data exist 
for this portion of the population.
    Data were available for the smolt to adult return rate at the 
Cowlitz River Hatchery. These rates have declined in the long-term (19 
years) (6 percent decline per year, p = 0.01, r\2\ = 0.34). In the 
short term (11 years), the data do not reliably show an increasing or 
decreasing trend (p = 0.46, r\2\ = 0.06). The last return rate (1998 
juveniles) was 4.1 percent, the highest value since 1988. These data 
are based on hatchery fish and likely underestimate natural survival 
rates of cutthroat in this system because of the higher levels of 
survival of wild over hatchery produced salmonids (Chilcote in prep).
    Data on population trends for juveniles (downstream migrants) were 
very limited. Most data sets were short and trend could not be 
determined with any certainty. Trends varied from weak increases to 
weak declines. The Status Review noted a 16 percent decline in smolt 
abundance in the Kalama River. This was based on data from 7 years 
(1978-1984) followed by a gap of 8 years and 3 years of additional data 
(1992-1994). The gap and short nature of the end portion of the data 
make it difficult to interpret a reliable rate of decline.

Summary of Trend Analysis

    Based on the above information, population trends of the DPS appear 
more variable than previously thought. The proposed rule stated that 
``[t]rends in anadromous adults and outmigrating smolts in the 
southwestern Washington portion of this [DPS] are all declining'' (64 
FR 16407). Based on the latest information, there is no reliable 
evidence that the adult population in the Grays Harbor tributaries is 
declining over the long term and some indication that the adult 
population may be stable or increasing in at least some areas. There is 
an indication from a single trap that juvenile outmigration may be 
declining, though we lack data for the past seven years. Therefore, we 
no longer conclude that trends of the adult anadromous portion of the 
population and outmigrating juveniles in the southwest Washington 
portion of the DPS are all declining markedly as described in the 
proposed rule (64 FR 16407).
    The proposed rule stated that ``[r]eturns of both naturally and 
hatchery produced anadromous coastal cutthroat trout in almost all 
lower Columbia River streams have declined markedly over the last 10 to 
15 years,'' with the only increase in the Toutle River (64 FR 16407). 
The petition to list sea-run cutthroat trout (ONRC 1998) stated that 
``[i]f angler catch truly mirrors run size, * * * then the latest 
surveys suggest a decline of close to 99 percent in sea-run cutthroat 
trout numbers from historical levels in the lower Columbia River and 
its tributaries.'' As described above, due to changes in regulations 
and the lack of angler effort data, we conclude that angler catch data 
for the lower Columbia River is likely not a true representation of run 
size. Data for the lower Columbia River are limited and there are 
significant concerns about the reliability of the results. There are 
indications of declines in the anadromous component of the adult 
portion of the population in the Columbia River, though the rate of the 
decline is uncertain due to concerns over the reliability of the 
analyses and potential biases in the data sets. While the number of 
anadromous coastal cutthroat trout have likely declined in the Columbia 
River, we do not have sufficient data to determine a reliable rate of 
recent decline and, therefore, no longer conclude that returns of 
anadromous cutthroat trout in almost all lower Columbia River streams 
have ``declined markedly over the last 10 to 15 years'' as described in 
the proposed rule (64 FR 16407). There is little information on 
population trends for resident or freshwater forms of cutthroat trout 
in the DPS, though populations in the Washington portion of the DPS 
appear to remain at levels comparable to healthy-sized populations, 
indicating that large-scale, long-term declines have not occurred at a 
landscape level. Based on these data, we do not find that the 
population trends indicate that coastal cutthroat trout are likely to 
be extirpated from any significant portion of their range in the 
foreseeable future.

Life History Diversity

    The proposed rule stated that ``[a] significant risk factor for 
coastal cutthroat trout in this [DPS] was a reduction of life-history 
diversity'' (64 FR 16407), based on serious declines in anadromous life 
history forms and near extirpation in at least two rivers on the Oregon 
side of the basin. The proposed rule does acknowledge that freshwater 
forms remained well distributed and in relative high abundance (64 FR 
16407). The proposed rule indicated that habitat degradation in stream 
reaches accessible to anadromous cutthroat trout, and poor ocean and 
estuarine conditions, likely have combined to severely deplete the 
anadromous life history form throughout the lower Columbia River Basin. 
Finally, the proposed rule further stated that ``Reduced abundance in 
anadromous fish will tend to restrict connectivity of populations in 
different watersheds, which can increase genetic and demographic risks. 
* * * The significance of this reduction in life-history diversity to 
the [sic] both the integrity and the likelihood of this [DPS's] long-
term persistence is a major concern to NMFS'' (64 FR 16407).
    ODFW and WDFW presented preliminary evidence to the Status Review 
team that freshwater cutthroat trout could produce anadromous migrants, 
which could mitigate risks to the anadromous portion of the population. 
The proposed rule did note that the presence of well distributed 
freshwater forms in relatively high abundance, coupled with the 
possibility that freshwater forms could produce anadromous progeny ``* 
* * could act to mitigate risk to anadromous forms of coastal cutthroat 
trout,'' though the observation that sea-run coastal cutthroat trout 
population sizes remained consistently low remained a cause for concern 
(64 FR 16407).
    Anadromous cutthroat trout, particularly in the lower Columbia 
River, are the most negatively affected portion of the DPS. The degree 
to which the reduced numbers of the anadromous portion of the 
population of coastal cutthroat trout represent a risk to the DPS as a 
whole depends, in part, on the importance of this life history strategy 
and the extent to which the expression of life history strategies are 
genetically versus environmentally controlled.
    The anadromous life history strategy is likely important to the DPS 
for genetic mixing in the long-term and for potential recolonization 
after

[[Page 44941]]

catastrophic events. Genetic exchange can be important in evolutionary 
time scales to maintain diversity within populations, but requires that 
only a few individuals interbreed successfully over time. The Pacific 
Northwest is subject to periodic catastrophic events such as volcanic 
eruptions and stand replacement fires that can seriously depress, and 
even extirpate, local populations. These types of events occur on very 
long time scales and at watershed or sub-basin scales. Anadromous 
cutthroat represent one possible source of individuals for 
recolonization, the other being resident cutthroat trout above or 
outside the area of the catastrophic event. The ability of anadromous 
cutthroat trout to recolonize is limited by barriers and they cannot 
provide rescue to populations above large, natural barriers.
    The extent to which each life history expression is partitioned or 
isolated among and within populations is largely unknown, though there 
is growing evidence that individuals may express multiple life history 
behaviors over time (Johnson et al. 1999). Coastal cutthroat trout that 
were believed to be freshwater forms one year may migrate to the sea 
another year; some individuals may not make their initial migration to 
sea until age six (Sumner 1962, Geiger 1972). Some sea-run cutthroat 
trout may not enter saltwater every year after their initial seaward 
migration (Tomasson 1978).
    Both ODFW (1998) and WDFW (2001) presented information showing 
evidence of production of anadromous progeny by freshwater resident 
cutthroat trout. Studies of brown trout have demonstrated that non-
anadromous adults can produce anadromous offspring, though at lower 
levels than anadromous adults. For other salmonids with multiple life 
history forms, Jonsson and Jonsson (1993) suggested that in a single 
mating, parents may produce offspring with different migratory 
strategies, though this has not been confirmed experimentally for 
coastal cutthroat trout (Johnson et al. 1999).
    WDFW (2001) provided additional information on the production of 
downstream migrants by cutthroat trout entrained above dams on the 
Cowlitz River. A downstream migrant trap at Mayfield Dam recorded 
between 60 and 812 migrants per year from 1978 to 1999. There was a 
single release of hatchery-derived anadromous cutthroat trout above 
Mayfield Dam in 1981, but all cutthroat trout currently above the dam 
are considered to be freshwater forms (WDFW 2001c). Mayfield Dam was 
built in 1962, blocking upstream migration. WDFW has marked coastal 
cutthroat trout smolts produced by upstream freshwater fish at Cowlitz 
Falls, which lies above Mayfield Dam. Two adults returned from smolts 
tagged in 1997, one of which was sacrificed and microchemistry results 
confirmed it had migrated to salt water and returned. Eight fish from 
smolts tagged returned in 1998. While this portion of the DPS may 
contain residualized anadromous cutthroat trout trapped behind the dam, 
it has continued to produce downstream migrants for over 40 years (more 
than 10 generations). These results are consistent with the hypothesis 
that resident fish in anadromous fish zones are capable of producing 
migratory juveniles (i.e., smolts) and ``sea-run'' adults.
    The few existing studies show that, although both allele 
frequencies and morphology may differ between populations above 
barriers and populations below barriers with access to the sea, these 
different life history forms are generally more closely related within 
a drainage than are populations from different drainages (Behnke 1997, 
Johnson et al. 1999). These results indicate that the migratory and 
non-migratory portions of the population of cutthroat trout represent a 
single evolutionary lineage in which the various life history 
characteristics have arisen repeatedly in different geographic regions. 
These relationships for coastal cutthroat trout are similar to those 
for other salmonid fishes, particularly sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus 
nerka) and its non-anadromous form, kokanee.
    NMFS (Johnson et al. 1999) acknowledged that if freshwater coastal 
cutthroat trout can produce smolts, this could mitigate the risks to 
the anadromous portion of the population, though at the time they 
lacked information on the length of isolation of populations above 
Mayfield Dam to fully evaluate this phenomenon. They did note that even 
if smolts were being produced, the anadromous portion of the population 
remains consistently low in many areas which is cause for concern. 
Coastal cutthroat trout above Mayfield Dam have been isolated for over 
40 years, representing many generations, and continue to produce 
appreciable numbers of downstream migrants. The fact that they continue 
to produce smolts after long isolation suggests that even if the 
anadromous portion of the population continues to experience low number 
and declines, smolts will be produced that can supplement the 
anadromous portion of the population and take advantage of any 
improvement in anadromous habitat (e.g., ocean, estuary, mainstem 
rivers). In addition, there is no evidence at this time that coastal 
cutthroat trout pursuing the anadromous life history strategy are 
segregated from the remainder of the population. In fact, studies show 
that individuals above barriers and below barriers with access to the 
sea are more closely related within a drainage than are individuals 
from different drainages (Behnke 1997, Johnson et al. 1999). This 
further supports the conclusion that anadromous and non-anadromous 
individuals are not substantially separate subpopulations. Therefore, 
based on the evidence that freshwater and isolated portions of the 
population are capable of producing anadromous migrants, we now 
conclude that freshwater and isolated portions of the coastal cutthroat 
trout population are mitigating risks to anadromous forms to some 
degree. The ability for non-anadromous cutthroat trout to produce 
anadromous progeny reduces the risk of loss of the anadromous life 
history strategy in the foreseeable future.

Distinct Population Segment

    The analysis for this listing determination is based on the DPS as 
described in the April 5, 1999, Federal Register proposed rule (64 FR 
16397). In that proposed rule, the DPS was defined to include naturally 
spawned cutthroat trout below long-standing, naturally-impassable 
barriers. However, at that time we indicated that, prior to the final 
listing, we would examine the relationship between hatchery and 
naturally spawned cutthroat trout, and cutthroat trout above barriers 
to assess whether any of these populations warrant inclusion in the 
DPS. In the proposed rule, we indicated that this could result in the 
inclusion of specific hatchery populations or populations above 
barriers as part of the DPS.
    Only one coastal cutthroat trout hatchery remains active in the 
DPS's range, the Cowlitz River Hatchery. We examined the relationship 
between this hatchery and unmarked fish from the DPS. Genetically, the 
remaining hatchery population appears more similar to other populations 
within the DPS than to populations from outside the DPS (Johnson et al. 
1999). Stock for this hatchery came initially from the now closed 
Beaver Creek Hatchery, which in turn was initiated using a mixed stock 
of fish from within the DPS (Crawford 1979). We have no information 
that would lead us to exclude the Cowlitz River Hatchery stock from the 
DPS at this time. Therefore, all further analyses were conducted 
including the Cowlitz River Hatchery stock.

[[Page 44942]]

    As described in the proposed rule, we indicated that populations 
above barriers that permit some one-way migration should generally be 
included in the DPS. Populations above such barriers may contribute 
demographically and genetically to populations below barriers. The 
genetic similarity observed between populations above and below 
barriers supports this interpretation (Johnson et al. 1999). Few, if 
any, natural barriers prevent some one-way migration. Therefore, we 
have included all above-barrier populations as part of the DPS for the 
following analysis. Therefore, the DPS analyzed in this listing 
determination includes all coastal cutthroat trout, whether naturally 
spawned, from hatcheries, or above barriers, within the area described 
above.

Previous Federal Actions

    NMFS published a Status Review of coastal cutthroat trout in 
Washington, Oregon, and California in January 1999. On April 5, 1999, 
NMFS and the Service published a proposed rule in the Federal Register 
(64 FR 16397) proposing to list the coastal cutthroat trout population 
in southwestern Washington and the Columbia River, excluding the 
Willamette River above Willamette Falls, as threatened pursuant to the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act). We published a document in the 
Federal Register (65 FR 20123) on April 14, 2000, extending the 
deadline from April 5, 2000, to October 5, 2000 for the final action on 
the proposed rule to list this population in Washington and Oregon, and 
to provide a 30-day comment period. On April 21, 2000, NMFS and the 
Service published a notice of our assumption of jurisdiction for 
coastal cutthroat trout. We published a document on June 2, 2000 (65 FR 
35315), reopening the public comment period and announcing a public 
hearing in Illwaco, WA, on June 20, 2000. On July 14, 2000, we 
published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 43730) to 
clarify the take prohibitions for coastal cutthroat trout and provide 
for a 30-day public comment period. This proposed rule was necessary to 
answer questions we had received regarding the application of the take 
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act to the proposed listing of the 
coastal cutthroat trout as threatened. The comment period was again 
reopened September 6, 2000 (65 FR 53974), and a hearing was held 
September 21, 2000, in Aberdeen, WA, based on a request during the 
public comment period. In November 2000, we suspended work on the 
proposed listing of the coastal cutthroat trout due to budgetary 
limitations. On August 29, 2001, we issued a press release announcing 
that, as part of a settlement agreement with conservation groups, we 
would commence work on the final listing decision for the Southwestern 
Washington/Columbia River coastal cutthroat trout DPS (Center for 
Biological Diversity, et al. v. Norton, Civ. No. 01-2063 (JR) 
(D.D.C.)). This was followed by another proposed rule announcing an 
additional 30-day comment period, published in the Federal Register (66 
FR 58706) on November 23, 2001. We requested any new information 
related to the status and biology of the coastal cutthroat trout 
population in southwestern Washington and the Columbia River, any 
threats to the species, and any efforts being made to protect native, 
naturally reproducing populations.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the April 5, 1999, proposed rule and associated notifications, 
all interested parties were requested to submit factual reports or 
information that might contribute to the development of a final rule. 
Additional requests for public comment were published on April 14, 2000 
(65 FR 20123); July 14, 2000 (65 FR 43730); September 6, 2000 (65 FR 
53974); and November 23, 2001 (66 FR 58706). Appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, county governments, scientific organizations, and other 
interested parties were contacted and requested to comment. During the 
five open comment periods, a total of 127 comments were received from 
96 different government agencies, organizations, or individuals, 
including oral testimony at the four hearings held during the process. 
Many government agencies, organizations, and individuals provided 
comments during more than one public comment period or hearing.
    Issue 1: Several commenters stated that coastal cutthroat trout 
should not be listed as a DPS, but should be considered for listing at 
the subspecies levels and then only if it is reasonably certain that it 
constitutes a separate subspecies based on significant characteristics.
    Service Response: The Act defines species as ``any species of fish 
or wildlife or plants, and any DPS of any species of vertebrate fish or 
wildlife that interbreeds when mature.'' 16 U.S.C. 1532(15). A DPS is a 
population of a vertebrate species that is distinct from, and 
significant to, the remainder of the species or subspecies to which it 
belongs (61 FR 4721). This definition specifically allows for the 
recognition of DPSs at levels below taxonomically recognized species or 
subspecies. The coastal cutthroat trout is a recognized subspecies of 
cutthroat trout (Behnke 1992).
    Issue 2: Two commenters suggested that all life history forms, 
including populations above long-standing, naturally-impassable 
barriers should be included in the DPS. Two commenters suggested that 
resident coastal cutthroat trout may contribute to anadromous smolt 
production, supporting the inclusion of resident fish in the DPS.
    Service Response: We fully evaluated information on the 
relationship between populations above and below long-standing, 
naturally-impassable barriers and agree with the commenters (see 
Distinct Population Segment section). Based on the latest information 
provided by WDFW (2001), we concur that there are data showing that 
cutthroat trout above long-standing barriers produce offspring that 
migrate to the estuary or ocean and return. We have considered this 
information fully in the Life History Diversity section above. We have 
included all life history forms and populations above long-standing, 
naturally-impassable barriers in the final analysis of the DPS.
    Issue 3: One commenter questioned the delineation of the DPS, 
suggesting that observed minor differences in genetic makeup, life 
history, phenotypic traits, and habitat characteristics did not support 
multiple DPSs for coastal cutthroat trout. Several commenters suggested 
the DPS did not meet the requirement for discreteness from other 
populations beyond the DPS.
    Service Response: DPSs of vertebrate populations may be listed 
under the Act if they satisfy the following two elements: (1) 
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of 
the species or subspecies to which it belongs; and (2) significance of 
the population segment to the species or subspecies to which it belongs 
(61 FR 4721).
    To be considered discrete, a DPS must be markedly separated from 
other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, 
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures 
of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this 
separation. Genetic tests of samples from coastal cutthroat trout in 
the DPS show that populations within the DPS are more closely related 
to each other than to populations in adjacent areas. This indicates 
some level of reproductive isolation. As it only requires interbreeding 
of a few individuals

[[Page 44943]]

between populations to effectively keep the population genetics from 
diverging significantly, the differences described in the Status Review 
(Johnson et al. 1999) demonstrate marked separation of the coastal 
cutthroat trout in the DPS from other adjacent areas.
    The second requirement for DPS status is the biological and 
ecological significance of the population to the subspecies. 
Significance includes, but is not limited to the following: (1) 
persistence of the DPS in an ecological setting unusual or unique for 
the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment 
would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; or (3) 
evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from 
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics (61 FR 
4721). The DPS has unique ecological characteristics that distinguish 
it from other portions of the range. The DPS occupies aquatic systems 
that feed three large estuaries with extensive intertidal mud and 
sandflats, very different from estuaries north and south of the DPS. 
Loss of coastal cutthroat in the DPS would result in a significant gap 
in the range of the taxon. Populations may be reproductively isolated 
because of limited migratory range and timing. The loss of these 
populations would negatively affect the genetic resources of coastal 
cutthroat.
    Based on a review of available information, we concluded that the 
DPS meets the criteria for discreteness and significance. Available 
data demonstrate that both environmental and genetic factors indicate 
that the DPS is different from other populations of coastal cutthroat 
trout. Further, we concluded that the available information supports 
the conclusion that the southwest Washington/Columbia River DPS of 
coastal cutthroat is biologically and ecologically significant to the 
subspecies.
    Issue 4: Several commenters recommended splitting the DPS into 
smaller segments. Most commenters suggested separating the Grays 
Harbor/Willapa Bay area from the Columbia River because of physical, 
geographic, and/or biological isolating mechanisms. One commenter 
provided an alternative genetic analysis that indicated the DPS should 
be split into three separate DPSs.
    Service Response: There are significant ecological and genetic 
similarities between the Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor 
portions of the DPS. All three occupy large estuary systems. One 
commenter pointed to the relatively long distances between the Willapa 
Bay and Columbia River tributaries (approximately 80 km (50 mi)), and 
the fact that coastal cutthroat trout are not thought to cross large 
open water as potential isolating factors that would support smaller 
DPSs. However, the same commenter did provide evidence that isolation 
between Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and/or Lower Columbia coastal 
cutthroat is not complete, because hatchery marked coastal cutthroat 
are frequently observed at Willapa Bay salmon hatcheries. WDFW (2000) 
suggested that the hatchery marked fish originated from either Lower 
Columbia River or Grays Harbor because there were no hatchery plants of 
coastal cutthroat in Willapa Bay during this time period. Therefore, we 
conclude that the distance between Willapa Bay and Columbia River 
coastal cutthroat trout populations would not prevent anadromous 
cutthroat from interacting across these systems.
    The alternative genetic analysis presented by WDFW (2001) actually 
revealed a slightly higher genetic similarity between Willapa Bay and 
Lower Columbia River populations than between the former populations 
and Grays Harbor. We agree that populations of coastal cutthroat trout 
in the DPS appear to be substructured according to major geographic 
areas. However, the magnitude of this substructuring, relative to the 
amount of genetic divergence among the six DPSs identified by NMFS 
(Johnson et al. 1999), does not warrant further partitioning into two 
or more separate DPSs. WDFW also presented observed differences 
regarding life history characteristics of juvenile anadromous coastal 
cutthroat (smoltification age) comparing a single stream in the 
Columbia River portion to a combined data set from three streams in 
Willapa Bay. While there were differences in the percentage of 
individuals making their first marine migration at age two (86 versus 
61 percent), this may well be evidence of minor local adaptations to 
the specific conditions in these few individual streams. Without a more 
extensive study, it is impossible to determine if this difference is 
indicative of these portions of the DPS.
    Based on the latest information, we conclude that the DPS as 
defined in the proposed rule (64 FR 16397) meets the requirements of a 
DPS, and that alternative smaller DPSs are not supported by the 
information available at this time.
    Issue 5: Several commenters questioned the analysis and 
interpretation of genetic data based on sample size, limited collection 
period, lack of information on the resident portion of the population 
in the analysis, treatment of outliers and hybrids, analysis procedures 
(e.g., measures of genetic distance), presence of hatchery and mixed 
origin stocks in the samples, and the potential effect of hatchery 
stock on local population genetics. WDFW provided an alternative 
analysis and conclusion of the genetic information.
    Service Response: The principal purpose of genetic analyses for 
Endangered Species Act evaluations is to understand the magnitude of 
genetic diversity among populations throughout the range of the species 
considered for listing under the Act. The goal of such evaluations is 
not to identify every genetically isolated (or diverged) population, 
but rather to identify geographic subsets of the species conforming to 
the definition of a DPS (61 FR 4721). The pattern of genetic diversity 
throughout the range of the species is evaluated geographically to 
identify potential subsets for further evaluation as DPSs.
    In the genetic analysis, Johnson et al. (1999) excluded some 
outlier populations from the statistical analysis. None of the 
populations within the DPS were excluded. Most of the excluded 
populations were from the Upper Willamette DPS, and only one was from 
an adjacent DPS with anadromous components. Therefore, the exclusion of 
outlier populations is unlikely to have significantly affected the 
interpretation of the genetic information relative to the DPS.
    We recognize that exclusion of ``hybrids'' from the population 
genetic analyses conducted by the Status Review Team may be more 
problematic. NMFS used a qualitative, genotypic approach in their 
genetic analyses to classify each individual fish as either a cutthroat 
trout, a rainbow/steelhead trout, or a ``hybrid'' (Johnson et al. 
1999). It is necessary to remove hybrids to accurately analyze regional 
genetic patterns for coastal cutthroat trout, especially where hybrids 
are common. We are currently re-analyzing the data with a more 
quantitative approach based on multivariate statistical analyses. These 
analyses are not yet complete, but preliminary analyses indicate that 
the quantitative and qualitative approaches are classifying most 
individuals consistently.
    Issue 6: Several commenters reported that coastal cutthroat 
(especially resident forms) are distributed throughout the DPS and are 
locally abundant in most areas.
    Service Response: Since obtaining sole jurisdiction for this 
subspecies (64 FR 21376), we have assembled an extensive database 
regarding

[[Page 44944]]

distribution (presence) of coastal cutthroat in the DPS. For example, 
in Washington, we have documented that coastal cutthroat occur in over 
1,300 locations within the DPS. This data set includes the year 2001 
sampling effort conducted by WDFW in Lower Columbia River streams. With 
this new distribution information, we now have a high degree of 
certainty that this subspecies is well distributed throughout suitable 
habitats in the DPS. From these data, it is now apparent that the 
historical distribution of coastal cutthroat has not contracted 
appreciably in the DPS (see Range and Distribution section below).
    Issue 7: Several commenters suggested that the biological 
information presented in the Status Review and proposed rule was not 
adequate to proceed with a final listing. Several commenters requested 
that we extend the time for the decision on the proposed rule to list, 
in part to better assess or gather additional biological information.
    Service Response: We are fully aware of limited data available for 
the coastal cutthroat trout in the DPS. The proposed rule (64 FR 16397) 
specifically addressed this issue in a section entitled, Data 
Limitations and Scientific Uncertainty. In the proposed rule and 
subsequent Federal Register proposed rules, we specifically requested 
additional information to aid us in acquiring the best scientific and 
commercial data available. In 2001, WDFW biologists, with some funding 
from the Service, sampled over 130 locations to determine presence/
absence and relative abundance of coastal cutthroat in Lower Columbia 
River tributaries. They also compiled other fish survey data sets from 
the year 2000 to increase the sample size to over 150 locations. The 
data collected from these surveys were extremely valuable in assessing 
presence/absence and relative abundance, and in the analysis of the 
five threat factors for much of the DPS. In 2001 we also funded a study 
that helped resolve issues of hybridization with rainbow/steelhead 
trout in Washington. We have made every effort to gather all available 
information to complete this listing determination.
    The Act requires us to complete a final listing decision within one 
year of the publication of a proposed listing, though it does allow for 
an extension of not more than six months if there is `` * * * 
substantial disagreement among scientists knowledgeable about the 
species concerned regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the 
available data relevant to the determination concerned* * *.'' On April 
14, 2000, we invoked this provision to help resolve substantial 
scientific disagreement concerning above-barrier coastal cutthroat and 
hatchery populations of coastal cutthroat (65 FR 20123). In addition, 
the current listing decision is part of a settlement agreement with 
conservation groups that requires the final listing decision by June 
23, 2002. Therefore, we are using the best available scientific and 
commercial information to reach a listing decision, as required by the 
Act, and by the court agreed deadline.
    The Act requires that listing determinations be based on the best 
available commercial and scientific information. We have received new 
information since the proposed listing specific to coastal cutthroat 
trout in the DPS. While information on this species is not as rigorous 
and complete as is available for some other salmonids, we believe we 
have sufficient information and evidence to support a final listing 
determination at this time.
    Issue 8: Several commenters requested that we provide specific 
numeric values for distribution and population thresholds. They stated 
that these values were essential to determine threatened status and 
future recovery for this subspecies.
    Service Response: Distribution and population levels were evaluated 
in determining the status of the species in the context of the historic 
condition of the DPS, rather than in the context of predetermined 
specific numerical thresholds. We did not find any significant change 
in distribution of coastal cutthroat trout in this DPS. As with most 
species, actual population numbers were not available for most of the 
DPS. Indices of population levels and trends were used to evaluate 
these aspects of the DPS and are described in the Population Size 
section above. Perhaps of more value in determining current condition 
and threats to the DPS than actual numbers are the trends in these 
index values and in potential threats to the DPS, which were also used 
in this determination and described in the Population Trend section 
above.
    Issue 9: One commenter suggested that because resident cutthroat 
trout populations are generally healthy-sized, one could conclude that 
human and natural factors resulting in adverse marine conditions, 
rather than freshwater conditions, are the cause of declines in 
anadromous forms.
    Service Response: We agree that the latest information indicates 
that the resident portion of the population exists in range and 
densities comparable to populations that are thought to be healthy-
sized outside the DPS. However, this does not prove that freshwater 
conditions have not contributed to declines in the anadromous portions 
of the coastal cutthroat trout population. Conditions in spawning areas 
used by anadromous individuals and barriers to historic anadromous 
spawning areas likely contributed to declines, as have changes in the 
migration corridors (large rivers), estuaries, and marine conditions.
    Issue 10: Several commenters described the impact of continued 
effects of logging to coastal cutthroat trout populations, including 
effects on large woody debris availability, increased disease, altered 
timing of juvenile migrations, increased predation, smothering of eggs 
and fry in gravels, and adverse effects to benthic (bottom dwelling) 
invertebrates that provide food for cutthroat trout.
    Service Response: We agree that logging activities may have adverse 
effects on coastal cutthroat trout and have fully evaluated the past, 
current, and future threats from these activities. Our analysis is 
described in the Forest Management section below. The completion of two 
large-scale forest HCPs and Washington Forest Practices Regulations 
have significantly reduced the threats to coastal cutthroat trout from 
logging in the DPS. Collectively, remnant high quality habitat, ongoing 
forest recovery, active efforts to identify and correct legacies of 
past management, improved standards for future management actions, and 
the ability of coastal cutthroat trout to survive for long periods in 
degraded aquatic and riparian systems provide the basis for maintenance 
of habitat for the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout. Therefore, forest 
management is not likely to result in the DPS of coastal cutthroat 
trout becoming endangered in the foreseeable future.
    Issue 11: One commenter expressed concern about the potential 
impacts of municipal discharges and its impact to water quality; 
instream and adjacent gravel pit operations and its effects on spawning 
gravels; water withdrawals reducing flows at critical periods; 
sedimentation as a result of road building near spawning beds; and 
development resulting in reduced riparian zones. Another commenter 
pointed out the potential effects of agriculture and urban/rural 
development on habitat conditions for coastal cutthroat trout.
    Service Response: We agree that all of these activities may 
adversely affect coastal cutthroat trout. We have fully evaluated the 
past, current, and future threats from these activities (Agriculture

[[Page 44945]]

and Grazing Management, Mining, and Urban and Industrial Development 
sections below). While these activities have affected aquatic and 
riparian conditions in the DPS's range, they are generally localized in 
impact and do not affect the majority of the DPS. Under current 
regulations, continued impacts from these activities are not likely to 
lead to the endangerment of the coastal cutthroat trout in the 
foreseeable future.
    Issue 12: Several commenters described the potential effects of 
barriers (dams and culverts) to anadromous cutthroat trout, including 
blockage of historic habitat and significant declines in all major 
tributaries above dams, with the likely extinction of populations in 
the Wind and Klickitat Rivers. One commenter pointed out that coastal 
cutthroat trout have generally not been included in the trucking 
efforts for other salmonids, increasing the impact of barriers to these 
fish.
    Service Response: We agree that barriers can adversely affect 
migratory coastal cutthroat trout (see Dams and Barriers section 
below). Existing dams block upstream access in several portions of the 
DPS's range. The anadromous portion of the population is most likely 
affected by these large dams, while resident and some freshwater 
migratory portions are likely little affected as their habitat remains 
substantially intact above dams and diversions. Culverts are the most 
widespread potential barriers to upstream migration. Again, anadromous 
and migratory portions of the coastal cutthroat trout population are 
the most likely affected by these barriers, while the resident portion 
of the population likely remains extant above most barriers. Blockage 
of upstream migration is not likely to increase given current 
regulations, and some improvements are likely through dam removal and 
culvert improvements. Despite existing barriers, coastal cutthroat 
trout remain well distributed throughout the DPS's range and at levels 
apparently comparable to healthy-sized populations in many areas. Based 
on the current and likely future effects, existing dams and other 
barriers are not likely to result in endangerment of the DPS of coastal 
cutthroat trout in the foreseeable future.
    Issue 13: Two commenters indicated that fishing pressure for 
anadromous coastal cutthroat has decreased under the current restricted 
regulations. Another commenter indicated that hooking mortality from 
steelhead and salmon fishing is a threat to coastal cutthroat trout.
    Service Response: We are aware that increasing restrictions of 
harvest for coastal cutthroat trout in the DPS have likely decreased 
angler effort, in turn reducing direct and indirect mortality of 
coastal cutthroat trout in the DPS. Information obtained during the 
public comment periods supports the observation that angler effort has 
decreased over time (see Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, 
Scientific, or Educational Purposes section below). We are aware that 
coastal cutthroat trout are susceptible to hook and handling mortality. 
While there are no studies that have specifically evaluated the hooking 
mortality from bycatch of cutthroat trout in steelhead and salmon 
fisheries, we anticipate that mortality from this bycatch would 
generally be small because of differences in the gear used and timing 
of these fisheries.
    Issue 14: Several commenters expressed concern about the potential 
effects of the introduction of non-native predators, including brook 
trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), shad (Alosa sapidissima), largemouth 
bass (Micropterus dolomieui), smallmouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), 
and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Several commenters were also 
concerned about the potential effects of competition from hatchery-
stocked cutthroat trout, coho, and steelhead; hybrid cutthroat/
steelhead; and introduced non-native fish.
    Service Response: We agree that introduced predators or competitors 
can adversely affect coastal cutthroat trout (see Disease and Predation 
section below). Some of the non-native fish species listed by the 
commenters are known to prey on, or compete with, salmonids in the 
DPS's range (Poe et al. 1994). However, no specific information exists 
regarding predation impacts by introduced predatory fishes on coastal 
cutthroat trout and we have no evidence that introduced predators 
represent a major threat to the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout at this 
time.
    We agree that competition with hatchery salmonids or non-native 
fish could adversely affect cutthroat trout (see Disease and predation, 
Hatchery management, and Other Factors sections below). Only one 
hatchery still produces and stocks cutthroat trout within the DPS's 
range. This hatchery produces anadromous cutthroat trout in a system 
with several barrier dams that have reduced natural access to historic 
freshwater habitat for anadromous cutthroat trout which is considered 
part of the DPS. Hatchery steelhead and coho are stocked in several 
streams in the DPS's range. Cutthroat trout and coho are naturally 
sympatric and have likely evolved mechanisms to coexist. However, 
release of hatchery-raised steelhead and coho could affect cutthroat 
trout in localized areas, depending on the location and magnitude of 
the releases. Releases in areas outside of historic coho habitat or in 
numbers that greatly exceed natural levels could have negative effects 
on cutthroat trout in the area of the release. However, information 
demonstrating effects to the DPS from coho releases is limited and the 
extent to which hatchery management affects coastal cutthroat as a 
whole is uncertain.
    Interactions with hybrid steelhead/cutthroat trout are likely 
limited. Hybrid fish are no longer stocked in the DPS's range. 
Cutthroat trout and steelhead are naturally sympatric and have likely 
evolved mechanisms to avoid hybridization. Recent genetic data indicate 
that high levels of hybridization are limited to a few areas. This is 
not currently considered a significant threat to the DPS of coastal 
cutthroat trout.
    Issue 15: Several commenters suggested that we had not fully 
evaluated the contribution of existing conservation efforts and 
regulatory mechanisms to potential future conditions for the coastal 
cutthroat trout, including the Oregon Salmon Plan, the Healthy Streams 
Partnership, Oregon Land Use Planning regulations, Washington Growth 
Management Planning, Federal and State Clean Water laws, Federal 
listing of other species under the Act, recent changes in Oregon and 
Washington Forest Practices Regulations, changes in fishing 
regulations, and actions of local governments to protect and restore 
watersheds.
    Service Response: We fully evaluated information on the most recent 
regulations and their implementation, including the State Forest 
Practices Regulations and Clean Water Act (CWA). There have been 
significant changes in the Washington Forest Practices Regulations 
since the publication of the proposed rule. We also evaluated all other 
conservation efforts for salmonids, many of which are non-regulatory in 
nature. In all cases, we evaluated the likelihood that the regulation 
or program would be implemented and would prove effective in reducing 
threats to the coastal cutthroat trout (see Inadequacy of Existing 
Regulatory Mechanisms and Foreseeable Conservation Measures sections 
below).
    Issue 16: One commenter described the impacts from dredging, 
filling, and diking, all of which can affect important staging and 
feeding areas for outmigrating trout, and thus adversely affect 
populations. Another commenter

[[Page 44946]]

stated that current guidelines for permitting programs (dredging, 
wetland filling, etc.) lack a method for assessing cumulative impacts.
    Service Response: We agree that dredging, filling, and diking can 
adversely affect coastal cutthroat trout (see Inadequacy of Existing 
Regulatory Mechanisms section below). However, based on the 
implementation of current laws and regulatory programs, we conclude 
that the regulation of dredge, fill, and in-water construction 
activities through the section 404 and section 10 permit processes and 
through State programs will provide some protection and support of 
aquatic resources, though they may not fully remove the risk of some 
losses to cumulative effects from small individual projects. The 
remaining risks from cumulative effects are likely to be small in the 
short term and we do not anticipate that cumulative effects of these 
small projects will reach a level at which they would be likely to 
result in the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout becoming endangered in the 
foreseeable future.
    Issue 17: One commenter requested that we propose critical habitat 
at the time of listing.
    Service Response: When we list a species as threatened or 
endangered, the Act requires that the listing rule specify, ``* * * to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable,'' the species' critical 
habitat. However, critical habitat is no longer an issue as we are 
withdrawing the proposed rule to list the coastal cutthroat trout.
    Issue 18: Grays Harbor County suggested that we are required to 
complete an Environmental Impact Statement under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on the proposed listing and asked to be 
designated as the lead organization for writing the document.
    Service Response: In regards to NEPA, we have determined that 
Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as 
defined under the authority of the NEPA of 1969, need not be prepared 
in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act, as amended. A notice outlining our reasons for 
this determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
    Section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations implementing the listing 
provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for 
adding species to the Federal list of threatened and endangered 
species. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1). If, upon consideration of these five factors, the species is 
found to meet the definition of either a threatened or endangered 
species, then listing is called for. The proposed rule summarized the 
``* * * findings regarding the principal factors for decline across the 
range of coastal cutthroat trout'' (64 FR 16402) (hereafter referred to 
as subspecies-wide review). These were generalized for the entire range 
of the six DPSs of the subspecies, and were not specific to the 
southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS that was proposed for 
listing. The specific factors relevant to the proposed rule to list the 
Southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS are described in a separate 
section of the proposed rule (64 FR 16407, 16408). These factors and 
their application to our decision to withdraw the proposed rule to list 
the coastal cutthroat trout in southwest Washington and the Columbia 
River are described below. The following specifically addresses 
conditions and threats within the DPS's range.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range.

Threats to Coastal Cutthroat Trout Habitat
    Six types of activities or land use have potential to affect 
coastal cutthroat trout habitat, including forest management, 
agriculture and livestock management, dams and barriers, urban and 
industrial development, mining, and estuary degradation. Only forest 
management and estuary degradation were described as principal factors 
for declines across the range of coastal cutthroat trout in the 
subspecies-wide review in the proposed rule (64 FR 16402) and only 
estuary degradation was specifically mentioned specific to the 
southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 FR 16407).
    Specific to the southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS, the 
proposed rule stated that ``* * * severe habitat degradation throughout 
the lower Columbia River has contributed to dramatic declines in 
anadromous coastal cutthroat trout populations and two near extinctions 
of anadromous runs in the Hood and Sandy Rivers'' (64 FR 16407). The 
proposed rule also stated that ``[h]abitat degradation in stream 
reaches accessible to anadromous coastal cutthroat trout, and poor 
ocean and estuary conditions, likely combined to severely deplete this 
life-history form throughout the lower Columbia River Basin'' (64 FR 
16407). While neither of these references specify habitat loss due to 
forest management, this is the principal factor for decline described 
in the proposed rule related to freshwater habitat loss.

Forest Management

    The proposed rule to list the DPS as threatened stated that 
``[h]abitat degradation and impacts associated with logging and related 
land management activities, in particular, have likely contributed to 
the decline of coastal cutthroat trout'' (64 FR 16402). The potential 
effects of logging and related practices described in the proposed rule 
included changes in water temperature leading to potential disease 
outbreaks, altered timing of migration, and accelerated maturation; 
changes in stream flow regimes potentially leading to adverse water 
velocities and depth characteristics; loss of potential for new large 
woody debris potentially increasing predation rates on cutthroat trout; 
loss of riparian areas leading to decreased invertebrate production and 
detritus sources, key components in the food chain; and siltation which 
may hinder fry emergence and production of benthic invertebrates. 
Indirect effects of logging could also reduce dissolved oxygen reducing 
egg and fry survival.
    Past and current forest management is the most widespread source of 
modification of aquatic, riparian, and watershed conditions within the 
DPS's range, as forests cover 66 percent of the land base. Past timber 
management practices such as the use of splash dams (early 1900s), 
extensive riparian harvest, concentrated upland harvest, riparian and 
mid-slope roads, and sidecast road construction have modified aquatic 
and riparian conditions in many portions of the DPS's range. These 
practices have reduced current and future large woody debris, reduced 
pool quality, decreased stream shading resulting in increased water 
temperature, and increased the prevalence of landslides in some areas. 
This is of particular concern in areas where watersheds have been fully 
harvested in the past, such as some Grays Harbor tributaries (1940s and 
1950s), and in areas where harvest did not peak until the late 1970s, 
such as some Willapa Bay tributaries. Most of these practices are no 
longer allowed under recent and current forest management regulations, 
and splash dams have not been used for many decades.
    Despite the long-term, widespread impacts to aquatic and riparian 
conditions, coastal cutthroat trout have

[[Page 44947]]

survived in all portions of the DPS for many generations, and 
apparently remain at densities comparable to healthy-sized populations 
elsewhere (WDFW 2001), indicating that they are capable of surviving 
long periods under these conditions. There is no reason to believe that 
they will not continue to do so. We have no specific evidence of 
disease outbreaks, altered timing of migration, and accelerated 
maturation resulting from water temperature changes, or of 
significantly increased predation rates, which were described in the 
proposed rule as principal factors for declines across the range of 
coastal cutthroat trout (64 FR 16402) as the consequences of logging 
and related land management activities. Nor do we have any evidence of 
decreased invertebrate production in forested areas leading to 
decreases in available food or reduced egg or fry survival, also 
described in the proposed rule as the consequences of logging and 
related land management activities.
    Conditions of the riparian and aquatic systems in some forest lands 
are actually in the long-term process of recovery from past forest 
management practices, though the total area of improvement is 
unrecorded. For example, some flow regimes are already beginning to 
improve as forest cover has increased and some riparian areas are 
revegetated with 40-year-old conifers that will provide large woody 
debris sources in the future. Some areas of high quality aquatic and 
riparian systems remain. Approximately eight percent of the DPS's range 
is in wilderness or National Parks and is in good condition. High 
quality aquatic and riparian areas remain on other lands, ranging from 
13 percent in narrow valleys to 31 percent in wider, forested valleys.
    Over time, aquatic and riparian habitats important to coastal 
cutthroat trout are likely to continue to improve. Federal forest 
management and Washington Forest Practices Regulations have been 
revised significantly in recent years so that habitat modification of 
the magnitude or type experienced over the past 70 years is no longer 
likely to occur. Current regulations, mainly aimed at improving stream 
habitat for salmon and steelhead, impose more restrictive standards for 
riparian harvest, harvest on unstable slopes, road construction, and 
road maintenance; and reduce the likelihood of large-scale removal of 
forest cover in a watershed on Federal lands, and State and private 
timberlands in Washington. These changes have greatly reduced the long-
term risk of continued modification of aquatic and riparian habitats in 
57 percent of the DPS's range (see Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms section). Collectively, remnant high quality habitat, 
ongoing forest recovery, active efforts to identify and correct 
legacies of past management, improved standards for future management 
actions (Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section), and the 
ability of coastal cutthroat trout to survive for long periods in 
degraded aquatic and riparian systems provide the basis for maintenance 
of habitat for the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout. Therefore, forest 
management is not likely to result in the DPS of coastal cutthroat 
trout becoming endangered in the foreseeable future.

Agriculture and Livestock Management

    Agriculture and livestock management occur on at least 16 percent 
of the lands in the southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS, with 
relatively greater representation in the Grays Harbor tributaries. 
Neither of these activities were identified as a threat to coastal 
cutthroat trout in the subspecies-wide review of listing factors (64 FR 
16402) or the DPS-specific review for the southwestern Washington/
Columbia River DPS (64 FR 16407). Some of the aquatic and riparian 
impacts associated with agriculture are locally severe and very long-
term, such as diking, filling, riparian conversions, channelization, 
sediment and flow regime changes, and persistent toxic chemicals. In 
addition, agricultural areas are often located in the lowest stream 
sections which are often the most productive portions of the streams. 
Impacts to these stream sections have a proportionally greater effect 
on the anadromous and migratory portions of the DPS of coastal 
cutthroat trout, which use these sections for migration, overwintering, 
and rearing young, while much of the resident portion of the population 
resides in the upper watershed areas where agriculture is not generally 
prevalent.
    Most lands suitable for agriculture and grazing management have 
already been converted and it is unlikely that there will be any 
significant increase in the amount of agricultural and grazing lands in 
the future. While agriculture and grazing management may have had 
significant localized and long-term effects to riparian and aquatic 
systems in the DPS's range, coastal cutthroat trout remain extant in 
all the affected watersheds. Based on the limited extent of 
agricultural lands, agriculture and grazing are not likely to result in 
the southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS of coastal cutthroat 
trout becoming endangered in the foreseeable future. Agriculture and 
livestock management was not identified as a primary threat to the 
subspecies or the DPS in the proposed rule and is not considered a 
significant threat at this time.

Dams and Barriers

    Within the DPS, migratory coastal cutthroat trout access and 
movements are blocked in some areas by dams, diversions, dikes, tide 
gates, poorly-designed culverts, and poor water quality, though dams 
and barriers were not identified as threats in the subspecies-wide 
review of listing factors (64 FR 16402) or the DPS-specific review for 
the southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 FR 16407). Existing 
dams have blocked access for upstream migration to several portions of 
the DPS. Even dams with fish passage structures result in some 
mortality and may delay migrations. The anadromous portion of the DPS 
is the most likely affected by dams and diversions, as these often 
limit access to historic spawning areas. Resident and some freshwater 
migratory portions of the DPS are likely little affected by large 
barriers, as their access to habitat remains intact above the dam. Road 
culverts, especially on forest roads, present widely-dispersed 
potential barriers to upstream movements of coastal cutthroat trout in 
the DPS, though most culverts allow for downstream movements, and some 
allow upstream movement seasonally. Existing information indicates that 
culverts have limited upstream access to a portion of historic habitat 
though the extent of this limitation is not fully documented. Again, 
anadromous and migratory portions of the coastal cutthroat trout 
population are the most likely affected by these barriers, while the 
resident portion of the population likely remains extant above most 
barriers.
    Current Washington and Oregon State Forest Management Regulations 
and fish passage standards will minimize the threat that new culverts 
will block fish passage (see Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms 
section). In addition, under the latest Washington Forest Practices 
Regulations, forest managers are required to develop road maintenance 
and management plans within 5 years and implement such plans within 15 
years. Blockage of upstream migration is not likely to increase given 
current regulations. Despite existing barriers, coastal cutthroat trout 
remain well distributed throughout the DPS's range and at levels 
apparently comparable to healthy-sized populations in many areas. The 
greatest threat from barriers is interference with recolonization of

[[Page 44948]]

areas after catastrophic disturbances, though these are very long-term 
concerns. Floods and related events, in particular, tend to remove 
roads and barrier culverts. Based on the current and likely future 
effects, and the low potential for significant additional barriers to 
be created under current regulations, dams and barriers are not likely 
to result in endangerment of the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout in the 
foreseeable future. Dams and barriers, other than those potentially 
associated with logging practices, were not identified as a primary 
threat in the proposed rule and are not considered a significant threat 
at this time.

Urban and Industrial Development

    Although the direct aquatic and riparian impacts of urbanization in 
the southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS are not widespread, they 
are locally severe and essentially permanent. Urban and industrial 
development was not specifically identified as a threat in the 
subspecies-wide review of listing factors (64 FR 16402) or the DPS-
specific review for the southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 
FR 16407), although it was identified as a potential effect in the 
range of the species where it occurs within estuaries. ``Dredging, 
filling, and diking of estuarine areas for * * * commercial or 
municipal uses have resulted in loss of many estuary habitats'' (64 FR 
16402). This element of development is addressed in the Estuary 
Degradation section. Many of the largest urban areas in this DPS lie 
above the estuaries, and therefore have not resulted in physical 
changes to the estuaries.
    Urban areas are expected to expand in some areas as human 
populations increase, particularly in the Portland Metropolitan area. 
The long-term effects of urbanization include diking, filling, riparian 
conversion, channelization, sediment and flow regime changes, water 
storage, and persistent toxic chemicals. These urban areas are often 
located in the lowest stream sections where flood plains are wide and 
stream gradients are low, and therefore have a proportionally greater 
effect on the anadromous and migratory portions of the coastal 
cutthroat trout population that use these sections for migration, 
overwintering, and rearing. Much of the resident portion of the 
population resides in the upper watershed areas where urbanization is 
not prevalent. While urbanization and associated industrial development 
have potentially substantial effects on aquatic and riparian habitats 
in localized areas, these include only about three percent of the 
current land base in the DPS. Expansion of urban areas is likely to 
occur primarily within the areas already impacted and is not likely to 
substantially increase the impacts to the DPS. The vast majority of the 
DPS is not significantly affected by urbanization. Therefore, 
urbanization and industrial development are not likely to result in the 
DPS of coastal cutthroat trout becoming endangered in the foreseeable 
future.

Mining

    Gravel mining has degraded some stream channels in portions of the 
DPS's range as a result of past, unregulated removal. Mining was not 
identified as a threat in the subspecies-wide review of listing factors 
(64 FR 16402) or the DPS-specific review for the southwestern 
Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 FR 16407). Current regulations and 
permit requirements have reduced, though not totally eliminated, the 
impact of gravel mining (see Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms section). While some continued problems may occur, these 
will be fairly small and localized, and do not represent a major threat 
to the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout at this time. There is a single 
coal mine in the Skookumchuck basin (WSCC 2001) and no known plans for 
additional coal or hardrock mining in the DPS's range. Other mining 
activity in the DPS's range is very limited and does not represent a 
major threat to the coastal cutthroat trout. Mining was not identified 
as a primary threat in the proposed rule and is not considered a 
significant threat at this time.

Estuary Degradation

    The proposed rule described the potential loss of important estuary 
habitat through the ``[d]redging, filling, and diking of estuarine 
areas for agricultural, commercial, or municipal uses'' (64 FR 16402) 
and stated that ``reductions in the quantity and quality of estuarine * 
* * habitat have probably contributed to declines, but the relative 
importance of these risks is not well understood'' (64 FR 16408).
    Anadromous coastal cutthroat trout likely make use of estuaries for 
growth and development, though we have little information on how 
individual trout use the various portions of the estuary, especially 
the large estuaries included in this DPS. The Columbia River estuary 
has lost 12 percent of its area since 1868, including 65 to 75 percent 
of off-channel habitats. Thirty percent of the historical wetland 
habitat in Grays Harbor estuary has been lost, as well as 31 percent of 
the historical Willapa Bay estuary wetlands. Without information on how 
coastal cutthroat trout use the estuary habitats, we cannot predict the 
effect of this loss on the coastal cutthroat trout population. However, 
the loss of estuary habitat has likely contributed to the lower-than-
historical numbers of the anadromous portion of the DPS, though 
anadromous cutthroat trout remain extant in all three major basins 
within the DPS. Resident and freshwater migratory portions of the 
population do not use, and therefore are not affected by changes in, 
the estuaries.
    Given current laws and regulations on wetland dredge and fill (see 
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section), we do not 
anticipate additional large-scale conversion or loss of estuary or off-
channel areas, though some small scale impacts are still likely, and 
the legacy of past actions will result in some continued changes. The 
only large-scale project currently proposed is the Columbia River 
Channel Improvement Project which will deepen 166 km (103 mi) of the 
already-dredged, narrow navigation channel. This project is anticipated 
to have limited short-term impacts to estuarine and riverine 
conditions, and will be monitored carefully in the future to minimize 
any impacts to known fish habitat (USFWS 2002). The resident portion of 
the population is completely unaffected by estuary conditions and 
changes. The current condition, limited likelihood of continued 
degradation or loss of estuary habitat, and remaining populations of 
cutthroat trout lead us to conclude that estuary conditions are not 
likely to result in the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout becoming 
endangered in the foreseeable future.
    The proposed rule described the potential loss of important estuary 
habitat and stated that reductions in the quantity and quality of 
estuarine habitat probably contributed to declines of anadromous 
cutthroat trout, but the relative importance of these risks was not 
well understood (64 FR 16402). This is further complicated by the lack 
of information on how coastal cutthroat trout use these large estuary 
systems. Significant portions of the estuarine wetlands remain intact 
in the Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor systems and, to a lesser degree, 
the Columbia River estuary. Given current regulations, we do not 
anticipate additional large-scale conversion or loss of estuary or off-
channel areas. While past losses of estuaries may have contributed to a 
reduction in the anadromous portion of the coastal cutthroat trout 
population over historic levels, we do not have evidence that the past 
and potential future losses are likely to result in the DPS of coastal 
cutthroat trout as a whole

[[Page 44949]]

becoming endangered in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

    The proposed rule stated that ``* * * severe habitat degradation 
throughout the lower Columbia River has contributed to dramatic 
declines in anadromous coastal cutthroat trout populations and two near 
extinctions of anadromous runs in the Hood and Sandy Rivers,'' and that 
``[h]abitat degradation in stream reaches accessible to anadromous 
coastal cutthroat trout, and poor ocean and estuary conditions, likely 
combined to severely deplete this life-history form throughout the 
lower Columbia River Basin'' (64 FR 16407). Based on analysis of the 
latest data, we now conclude that, while the anadromous portion of the 
population of coastal cutthroat trout is likely at lower-than-historic 
levels, there is little specific information indicating that 
populations, even of the anadromous portion of the DPS, are at 
extremely low levels in most areas of the DPS (see Population Size 
section). Relative to the two near extinctions cited in the proposed 
rule, the data do not support this conclusion (see Population Size 
section). The trap location on a side channel in the Sandy River system 
makes it impossible to extrapolate to the entire River system. 
Anadromous cutthroat trout are still occasionally trapped at Powerdale 
Dam on the Hood River, including 11 upstream migrants in 2001 (Connolly 
et al. 2002).
    The proposed rule's conclusions assumed that the anadromous 
component of the population of coastal cutthroat trout is effectively 
isolated from other portions of the population and that the anadromous 
component represents a significant portion of the DPS. However, new 
data indicate that fish with these various life strategies do interact 
and that anadromous progeny may be produced by non-anadromous parents, 
even after many generations of isolation above barriers (see Life 
History Diversity section). Therefore, coastal cutthroat trout 
populations are more appropriately evaluated including all life history 
strategies, anadromous, migratory and resident. Resident/freshwater 
forms remain well distributed and at reasonable densities in the lower 
Columbia River, including areas accessible to anadromous fish, and in 
the Sandy and Hood Rivers where the anadromous portion of the 
population is low.
    While aquatic and riparian systems have been heavily altered in 
some areas, the latest information does not support the conclusion that 
this has severely affected the habitat of the coastal cutthroat trout 
throughout the range of this DPS. Some areas have begun to recover from 
past forest practices and new regulations are in place that reduce the 
risk of continued adverse impacts to much of the DPS. Conditions in 
many parts of the DPS's range are expected to continue to improve over 
time and many of the most damaging past practices (e.g., splash dams, 
large-scale wetland conversion) are not expected to occur in the future 
due to current laws and regulations. Given that coastal cutthroat trout 
have not only survived the long-term and widespread impacts of these 
past practices to aquatic and riparian conditions in large portions of 
the DPS's range for many generations, but apparently remain well 
distributed at densities comparable to healthy-sized populations 
elsewhere, the condition of aquatic and riparian systems is not likely 
to result in endangerment of the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout in the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, we no longer conclude that past habitat 
degradation has led to severe declines in the population of coastal 
cutthroat trout in the southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS. In 
addition, current regulations (described in the Forest Management and 
State Land Use Practices sections) greatly reduce the risk that 
significant additional modification of habitat will occur in the 
foreseeable future.
Curtailment of Range
    According to WDFW (2001), the southwestern Washington-lower 
Columbia River region historically supported healthy, highly productive 
coastal cutthroat trout populations. Coastal cutthroat trout, 
especially the freshwater forms, are still well distributed in most 
river basins in this geographic region, although probably in lower 
numbers relative to historical population sizes (Johnson et al. 1999). 
Based on over 1,300 locations from 5 data sources (WDFW 2001a (Resident 
Fish Database 1987-97), WDFW 2001b (Priority Habitat Species database 
1989-90), Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 2001 (Last 
Fish, Last Fish Habitat Database 2001), Mongillo and Hallock 2001, U.S. 
Forest Service Watershed Analysis Documents 1995-2001), cutthroat trout 
remain extant throughout their historic range in the Washington portion 
of the DPS. Little systematic information is available for the Oregon 
portion of the DPS, though cutthroat trout, particularly resident 
forms, are known to occur throughout the DPS in Oregon (Hooton 1997).
    Mongillo and Hallock (2001) conducted extensive surveys of 156 
locations within the Washington portion of the DPS for presence and 
abundance of coastal cutthroat trout. Additional data were presented by 
WDFW (2001) for surveys conducted by Weyerhaeuser Company in 1994-95. 
The percentage of locations with cutthroat trout from both studies was 
compared to data collected in the 1970s from the Olympic Peninsula and 
Puget Sound areas. Populations in these areas were considered healthy-
sized during this time period (WDFW 2001c). The percentage of sample 
sites with coastal cutthroat trout within the DPS's range below 
Bonneville Dam (Mongillo and Hallock 2001, WDFW 2001c) was not 
significantly different than the early data from the apparently 
healthy-sized populations in the Olympic Peninsula and Puget Sound 
DPSs, indicating that populations in the DPS are still well 
distributed.
    The percentage of sites where cutthroat trout were found in the 
Washington portion of the DPS above Bonneville Dam was very low when 
compared to the rest of the DPS. No similar information was available 
for Oregon portions of the DPS. The area above the Bonneville Dam is 
ecologically very different from the remainder of the subspecies' range 
and is the only area within its range where the subspecies is found 
east of the Cascade Mountain Divide. This area experiences a very 
different hydrologic and climatic environment than the rest of the 
subspecies' range, which may influence the abundance of coastal 
cutthroat trout. In addition, many sample sites from the Mongillo and 
Hallock study (2001) in the Washington portion of the DPS above 
Bonneville Dam included areas outside the likely historic range of the 
species, which would have artificially depressed the percentage of 
locations with cutthroat trout. Based on these factors, the calculated 
percentage of sites with cutthroat trout from the Mongillo and Hallock 
study (2001) above Bonneville Dam likely under-represents the true 
density of coastal cutthroat trout in this area.
    There has been a change in the accessibility of some areas to 
anadromous cutthroat trout due to barriers created by dams, diversions, 
culverts, dikes, tidegates, and water quality. Some streams within the 
DPS's range have been lost to development, such as streams in the more 
developed portions of Portland, Oregon. The total amount of currently 
inaccessible habitat is unknown, but it includes only a very small 
percentage of the total available habitat within the DPS's range and is 
interspersed with occupied habitat. Despite the long-term, widespread

[[Page 44950]]

impacts to aquatic and riparian conditions, coastal cutthroat trout 
have survived in these areas for many generations and remain well 
distributed at densities comparable to healthy-sized populations in 
large portions of the DPS's range. There is no reason to believe that 
they will not continue to do so. Based on the above information, there 
is no significant present or identifiable threat of curtailment of the 
range of the DPS.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes.

    Cutthroat trout are not harvested commercially. Scientific and 
educational programs have probably had little or no impact on the DPS.
    The proposed rule to list the Southwestern Washington/Columbia 
River coastal cutthroat trout DPS stated that ``* * * cutthroat trout 
are a popular gamefish throughout the Pacific Northwest, and available 
information indicates that recreational fishing may have contributed to 
the general decline of cutthroat trout populations (Gresswell and 
Harding 1997)'' (64 FR 16402). This information was not specific to 
coastal cutthroat trout, or to the southwestern Washington/Columbia 
River DPS, and the referenced paper does not indicate that angling is a 
direct cause of decline.
    Cutthroat trout are among the salmonids most vulnerable to 
overharvest by angling (Gresswell and Harding 1997, Johnson et al. 
1999), especially during post-spawning outmigrations to summer feeding 
areas. In many areas, coastal cutthroat trout harvest is primarily 
incidental in recreational fisheries for other species of salmonids. 
Because of harvest restrictions on naturally produced coastal cutthroat 
trout in many areas and the lack of targeted fisheries, direct 
mortality due to fishing pressure is thought to be relatively low, at 
least in recent years (Hooton 1997, Gerstung 1997, WDFW 1998a). In 
addition, fishing regulations establishing size and bag limits are 
relatively recent, and biologists familiar with coastal cutthroat trout 
feel that in some areas their abundance has begun to increase only 
recently due to imposition of these more restrictive fishing limits 
(WDFW 1998b).
    The Washington and Oregon trout fishing regulations have become 
incrementally more restrictive in the past two decades. Several types 
of recreational fishing for coastal cutthroat trout are allowed under 
current fishing regulations in these States. However, catch and keep 
fisheries on wild coastal cutthroat trout are limited to some portions 
of the DPS in Washington. Washington's current fishing regulations, 
particularly the more restrictive ``special rules'' which affect nearly 
all of the DPS, provide protection to coastal cutthroat while allowing 
fishing opportunities that can promote conservation of this subspecies. 
We believe that carefully regulated fishing can promote awareness and 
conservation of coastal cutthroat trout by maintaining public support 
for its conservation. Continued recreational fishing conducted in a 
manner consistent with the conservation of the coastal cutthroat trout 
helps to maintain a broad support base for the conservation of aquatic 
resources, including coastal cutthroat trout.
    Leider (1997) provided a summary of WDFW ``special regulation'' 
changes that were developed to protect coastal cutthroat in Washington. 
In the DPS's range, major special regulations occurred in 1983 (limit 
reduced from 12 to 8 trout per angler), 1986 (limit further reduced to 
5 fish), 1992 (limit reduced to 2 fish). Minimum size limits also 
increased during this time. In addition, wild cutthroat release was 
required in some streams within the DPS's range starting in 1989 and 
expanded to all lower Columbia River streams below Portland/Vancouver 
in 1992 (Leider 1997). Currently, in the Chehalis River Basin, most 
streams allow a 2-fish daily limit with a 36 cm (14 in) minimum size 
limit and, in Willapa Bay and Lower Columbia tributaries, wild 
cutthroat release is generally required. The exceptions to this wild 
cutthroat release regulation are mainly in the mainstem Columbia River 
above Bonneville Dam, above the Cowlitz River Dams, and in the Toutle 
River Drainage (WDFW 2001d).
    The proposed rule stated that ``* * * coastal cutthroat trout are 
especially susceptible to hooking mortality and incidental catch in 
recreational and commercial fisheries targeting Pacific salmon and 
steelhead'' (64 FR 16402). Studies of anadromous cutthroat trout show 
variable susceptibility to baited hook mortality, from 6 to 58 percent 
(Gresswell and Harding 1997). There is no current evidence that 
recreational harvest, whether targeted or incidental to other 
fisheries, is contributing to declines in the DPS. There is also no 
evidence that bycatch of coastal cutthroat trout in commercial salmon 
and steelhead fisheries is a significant source of mortality in this 
DPS.
    The proposed rule stated that ``* * * poaching may pose a 
significant threat to depressed populations of cutthroat trout in some 
areas'' (64 FR 16402), though it did not indicate where this might 
occur and this was not identified as a specific threat in the 
southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 FR 16407). There is no 
evidence that poaching is a significant threat to the DPS of cutthroat 
trout.
    There is no information to indicate that commercial or recreational 
fishing represents a threat to the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout. 
Overutilization, including recreational and commercial fishing, was not 
identified in the proposed rule as a threat to this DPS and is not 
considered a threat at this time. The States of Washington and Oregon 
have continued to modify regulations in response to changes in 
cutthroat trout populations.

C. Disease or Predation

    The proposed rule stated that ``[d]isease may be a factor 
contributing to the decline of cutthroat trout populations,'' including 
the parasite Ceratomyxa shasta in the Columbia and Willamette Rivers 
(ODFW 1998), though the extent to which this and other diseases affect 
cutthroat trout populations was unknown (64 FR 16402). Disease or 
parasites were not listed as a specific threat to the majority of the 
DPS (64 FR 16407). Predation by non-native fish and pinnipeds (seals 
and sea lions) was also identified as a potential threat, though the 
extent to which this was a factor in coastal cutthroat trout declines 
was unknown (64 FR 16402) and predation was not listed as a specific 
threat to the DPS (64 FR 16407).
    Coastal cutthroat trout in the Columbia and other large rivers with 
hydroelectric dams are potentially vulnerable to gas bubble disease 
caused by increased gas saturation levels associated with the spilling 
of water at dams. The disease's effects can range from temporary 
debilitation to mortality. Because of variability in water temperature, 
depth, flow, and other factors, the biological effects of a given level 
of dissolved gas saturation are likely to vary in different areas at 
various times of the year. Increased gas saturation levels have been 
identified at the Bonneville and Dalles dams, and can adversely affect 
fish downstream of these dams. In recent years, NMFS has proposed to 
balance the needs of juvenile salmonid migrants by increasing spill 
levels to reduce turbine-related mortalities, resulting in elevated gas 
supersaturation levels in the Columbia River. Spill levels of up to 120 
percent of saturation at ambient temperature and pressure have occurred 
in recent years during managed spills, with involuntary spill episodes 
resulting in levels as high as 140 percent

[[Page 44951]]

at some sites (NMFS 2000). At levels of 120 percent, gas bubble disease 
affects a maximum of 0.7 percent of fish exposed, and near 140 percent, 
over 3 percent of fish exposed are affected (NMFS 2000). While this 
could cause the loss of some individuals, it is not considered a 
significant threat at this time.
    Ceratomyxa shasta, a native parasite that can kill cutthroat trout 
when water temperatures are high, occurs in the lower Columbia River 
drainages (Hoffmaster et al. 1988) and has been a factor in the loss of 
cutthroat trout at hatcheries in this area. The effect of the parasite 
increases as water temperature increases. Ceratomyxa shasta is a native 
parasite in the Pacific Northwest and coastal cutthroat trout have 
likely developed strategies or life history adaptations to cope with 
this parasite. Parasites and diseases were not listed in the proposed 
rule as specific threats in the DPS (64 FR 16407) and are still not 
anticipated to threaten wild coastal cutthroat trout in the DPS. No 
introduced diseases have been documented in the DPS. There is no 
evidence of significant loss of wild cutthroat trout to parasites or 
disease in the DPS at this time.
    Several non-native fish species are known to prey on, or compete 
with, salmonids within the DPS's range (Poe et al. 1991). However, no 
specific information exists regarding predation impacts by predatory 
fishes on cutthroat trout, though it is reasonable to assume some 
predation does occur. We have no evidence that aquatic predators have 
significantly reduced coastal cutthroat trout populations or represent 
a major threat to coastal cutthroat trout. Non-native predators were 
not identified in the proposed rule as a threat to this DPS (64 FR 
16407) and are not considered a significant threat at this time.
    The proposed rule stated that while pinniped populations are 
increasing on the West Coast, ``* * * the extent to which pinnipeds 
predation is a factor causing the decline of coastal cutthroat trout is 
unknown'' (64 FR 16402). Pinnipeds are potential natural predators of 
cutthroat trout that use the estuaries and near-shore marine 
environment (NMFS 1997, Beach et al. 1985). In addition, mustelids, 
such as otter and mink, and other mammals are natural predators in both 
salt and freshwater environments, though there are no studies of the 
level of predation by any mammals. Piscivorus birds, such as terns and 
cormorants, are also natural predators of coastal cutthroat trout. 
There is information indicating that terns and cormorants may take 
significant numbers of salmonids in the Columbia River estuary near 
artificial islands in the Columbia River, though there is no 
information on the vulnerability of cutthroat trout in this situation. 
There is no evidence that mammal or bird predation represents a 
significant threat to the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout at this time. 
Predation was not identified in the proposed rule as a specific threat 
to this DPS (64 FR 16407) and is not considered a threat at this time.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.

Federal Land Management Practices
    The proposed rule indicated that the Northwest Forest Plan's 
management policy provided important benefits for salmonids, including 
coastal cutthroat trout, though its effectiveness in conserving 
cutthroat trout was limited by the extent and distribution of Federal 
land ownership (64 FR 16397).
    Approximately 27 percent of the land base within the DPS's range is 
Federal land, managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, 
National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. One percent of 
the DPS's range is in National Parks or National Wildlife Refuges, both 
of which are managed under laws and regulations that should provide 
adequate management for the conservation of the cutthroat trout. The 
remaining 26 percent is managed under the requirements of the Northwest 
Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan contains important benefits to, 
and conservation measures for, salmonids, including cutthroat trout. 
The overall effectiveness of the Northwest Forest Plan in conserving 
the DPS of cutthroat trout is somewhat limited by the extent of Federal 
lands and by the fact that Federal land ownership is not uniformly 
distributed. Most of the lands in the DPS's range are located in the 
upper watersheds, providing habitat primarily for freshwater forms of 
the cutthroat trout. Two components of the Northwest Forest Plan 
provide conservation for salmonids, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 
and land allocations with their associated standards and guidelines.
    The Aquatic Conservation Strategy was developed to restore and 
maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems 
contained within lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management 
and Forest Service. It consists of four primary elements: (1) riparian 
reserves; (2) key watersheds; (3) watershed analyses; and (4) watershed 
restoration. All four of these components are designed to operate 
together to maintain and restore the productivity and resiliency of 
riparian and aquatic ecosystems.
    Riparian reserves apply to all lands managed under the Northwest 
Forest Plan and are intended to maintain and restore riparian 
structures and functions. They occur at the margins of standing and 
flowing water, intermittent stream channels, ephemeral ponds, and 
wetlands, though they may also include upland areas necessary for 
maintaining ecological processes. Key watersheds serve as refugia for 
maintaining and recovering habitat for at-risk stocks of anadromous 
salmonids and resident fish species.
    Watershed analyses are the principal tool for implementation of the 
Aquatic Conservation Strategy and play a critical role in providing for 
aquatic and riparian habitat protection. Watershed analyses should 
identify processes that are active within a watershed, how those 
processes are distributed in time and space, the current upland and 
riparian conditions of the watershed, and how all of these factors 
influence riparian habitat and other beneficial uses. Watershed 
analyses provide the contextual basis at the site level for decision 
makers to set appropriate boundaries of Riparian Reserves, plan land 
use activities compatible with disturbance patterns, design road 
transportation networks that pose minimal risk, identify high priority 
restoration activities, and establish specific parameters and 
activities to be monitored. Watershed restoration is also an integral 
part of a program to aid recovery of fish habitat, riparian habitat, 
and water quality, and is based on watershed analyses and planning.
    All lands within the Northwest Forest Plan are placed into one of 
six land use allocations. These allocations dictate the type and 
standards for activities within the allocation. Congressionally 
Reserved Areas (e.g., wilderness areas) constitute 22 percent of the 
Federal lands within the DPS's range and are the most protected type of 
allocation. Administratively Withdrawn Areas are designated for a 
variety of reasons and are generally fairly protective of aquatic and 
riparian systems. Administratively Withdrawn Areas constitute 5.7 
percent of the Federal lands within the DPS's range. There is a low 
likelihood of short- or long-term adverse effects to cutthroat trout in 
Congressionally Reserved Areas or Administratively Withdrawn Areas due 
to the low likelihood of activities occurring that impact resident or 
anadromous coastal cutthroat trout or their habitat.
    Late-Successional Reserves are intended to maintain a functional, 
interactive, late-successional and old

[[Page 44952]]

growth forest ecosystem. In the long term, Late-Successional Reserves 
and their associated Standards and Guidelines, will likely prove 
extremely beneficial to resident and anadromous fish by providing 
islands of functional reserves in late seral (older) forest condition 
with high water quality and habitat complexity. Late-Successional 
Reserves constitute 31.2 percent of the Federal land allocations in the 
DPS's range. Managed Late-Successional Areas are similar to Late-
Successional Reserves, but constitute less than one percent of the 
Federal lands in the DPS's range. Management activities in both of 
these allocations may result in some latent impacts due to present 
baseline conditions (existing riparian and upslope roads, past timber 
management activity), silviculture, road-related impacts, and short-
term impacts associated with restoration activities. However, these 
impacts will be reduced over time as Riparian Reserves and forests 
mature.
    Adaptive Management Areas are landscape units designated to 
encourage the development and testing of technical and social 
approaches to achieving desired ecological, economic, and social 
objectives. Activities may vary greatly, depending on the individual 
management plans of these areas. Adaptive Management Areas comprise 
seven percent of the Federal land in the DPS's range. Matrix lands 
constitute 33.4 percent of the Federal land in the DPS's range. This 
allocation focuses on providing for timber harvest and commodity 
resources and will have the highest level of management activities. 
Riparian Reserve and other Aquatic Conservation Strategy requirements 
do apply to Matrix lands. Management activities on Matrix lands are 
expected to have somewhat greater impacts to aquatic systems than in 
reserve land allocations due to the latent effects of past management 
(existing riparian and upslope roads, past timber management activity), 
ongoing silvicultural activities, road-related impacts, and short-term 
impacts associated with restoration activities. However, impacts to 
aquatic and riparian systems will be reduced over time as Riparian 
Reserves mature. Some long-term indirect impacts from management 
activity may occur due to timber management and silvicultural 
activities in upslope areas. Both short- and long-term road-related 
impacts may result from new and existing roads used to implement 
management direction. We expect that the level of road-related impacts 
will be reduced over time through reduced road densities and correction 
of site-specific road impacts (culvert replacement, drainage problems, 
etc.).
    Based on the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and management 
guidelines for the individual land allocations, Federal lands within 
the DPS's range (27 percent of the land base) should be managed in a 
manner that provides long-term improvement in aquatic habitat and 
limits short-term habitat quality declines. These lands should provide 
significant contributions to the conservation of the coastal cutthroat 
trout in the foreseeable future. These lands typically lie in the upper 
portions of the watersheds, above the areas generally used by the 
anadromous portion of the population.
State Land Use Practices

Washington

    The proposed rule concluded that the Washington Forest Practices 
Regulations did ``* * * not provide for properly functioning riparian 
and instream habitats,'' including failure to address large woody 
debris recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream band and channel 
integrity, and chronic and episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediments 
(64 FR 16402).
    Washington's Growth Management Act requires counties and cities in 
the State to designate natural resource lands and to designate and 
protect critical areas (such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat 
conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous 
areas, and aquifer recharge areas) consistent with overall State-level 
guidelines and objectives. The cities and counties are required to 
review and implement development regulations relative to these 
designations on a five-year cycle. Development regulations include a 
zoning code, subdivision ordinance, clearing and grading ordinance, 
critical areas ordinance and other regulations as necessary. Recent 
amendments to the Growth Management Act require the use of ``best 
available science'' and consideration of salmonid habitat in developing 
these regulations. However, recent reviews of Growth Management Act 
implementation (State of Washington 1998 and 1999) have indicated that 
protection of water quality and aquatic and riparian resources have not 
been prioritized in local planning, many cities and counties have not 
yet adopted the required designations and regulations, and most local 
plans have not yet incorporated the best available data. Additionally, 
the ability of the State to impose sanctions on the cities and counties 
for failure to comply with the Growth Management Act is limited, and 
minimum guidelines established by the State for designating natural 
resource lands and procedural criteria to guide the development of 
comprehensive plans are not mandatory for the cities and counties.
    The Washington Forest Practices Act (WFPA) regulates timber 
management and related activities on most non-Federal forest lands in 
the Washington portion of the DPS's range (30 percent of DPS's range). 
The WFPA was improved in 2001 to address water quality concerns and 
conservation of listed salmonids which will also contribute to coastal 
cutthroat trout conservation. The new rules set standards for timber 
harvest activities in and around riparian areas and unstable slopes, 
and for road use, construction, and maintenance related to forest 
management. These rules include regulations requiring increased 
riparian buffer widths, reduced level of management activities within 
the buffers, and an increase in the percentage of the stream network 
subject to these buffers. Under the new regulations, virtually all 
perennial streams will receive some level of protection. Landowners 
will be required to develop plans for ensuring that existing forest 
roads meet improved standards for fish passage, protection of unstable 
slopes, minimization of sediment and runoff within 15 years. These new 
rules represent a substantial improvement over previous practices and 
should substantially reduce the adverse impacts of current and future 
management activities to aquatic and riparian systems supporting 
coastal cutthroat trout compared to those that would have occurred 
under previous standards. Revegetation and natural regeneration will 
result in the long-term process of recovery of these areas from past 
forest management practices. Standards for construction of new roads 
are also designed to meet water quality goals.
    We and others have noted some uncertainty about the effects of 
portions of this regulatory program, especially as related to non-fish 
bearing streams, road practices, and management of cumulative watershed 
impacts. A comprehensive, long-term research, monitoring, and adaptive 
management program has been established to determine the validity of 
these and other concerns, and to remedy any identified shortfalls of 
the WFPA in a timely fashion. This adaptive management includes a 
formal, structured process with the Service as a participant. Specific 
questions and issues related to concerns raised during the development 
of these rules have

[[Page 44953]]

been identified and prioritized. Both Federal and State agencies have 
funded the adaptive management monitoring and research to date, and 
support for continued funding remains high.
    Approximately 325,450 ha (804,202 ac) (8.7 percent of the DPS's 
range) within the Washington portion of the DPS are managed through the 
provisions of HCPs approved under section 10 of the Act. The most 
significant of these include those developed by Simpson Timber (61,638 
ha (152,311 ac)) (USFWS and NMFS 2000) and the WDNR (263,812 ha 
(651,891 ac)) (WDNR 1997). These HCPs include riparian management 
standards somewhat different from those normally applied under the 
WFPA. The WDNR HCP was approved in 1997, though not fully addressed in 
the original listing proposal, and is scheduled to remain in effect 
through 2093. This HCP contains a Riparian Conservation Strategy 
designed to maintain the integrity and function of freshwater stream 
habitat necessary for the health and persistence of aquatic species, 
including coastal cutthroat trout. The strategy includes stream, lake, 
and wetland buffers of various widths managed under standards that must 
``maintain or restore salmonid habitat'' (WDNR 1997). The HCP also 
includes road maintenance and network planning standards, protection of 
disturbance-sensitive sites, and overall landscape-level forest habitat 
condition standards. Collectively, these HCP measures should minimize 
the adverse effects to coastal cutthroat trout of future forest 
management activities on WDNR lands in the DPS's range. However, even 
with the HCP in place, ``adverse impacts to salmonid habitat will 
continue to occur because past forest management practices have left a 
legacy of degraded riparian ecosystems, deforested unstable slopes, and 
a poorly planned and maintained road network'' (WDNR 1997). While the 
HCP will address some of these legacy threats, implementation of the 
full suite of necessary corrective and restorative actions on WDNR land 
is subject to the WFPA and other State programs and policies.
    The Simpson Timberlands HCP was approved in 2000 and is scheduled 
to remain in effect through 2050. It contains elements similar to those 
in the WDNR HCP, including a riparian conservation strategy; buffers 
for streams, lakes, wetlands, and other disturbance-sensitive sites; 
and road maintenance and network planning standards. The HCP is unique 
in that buffers and management standards for riparian resources are 
tailored to the geomorphology and hydrologic function of specific 
stream classes. This was designed to provide greater certainty that 
they would identify and conserve areas with direct and indirect 
influence on the streams and associated salmonids, including cutthroat 
trout. Overall, the HCP should result in stream protections similar to, 
or greater than, those required under Washington Forest Practices 
Regulations, and improved remediation or closure of problematic forest 
roads (USDI 2000). Collectively, the HCP measures should minimize the 
adverse effects of future forest management activities on Simpson 
Timberlands in the DPS.
    Changes in the WFPA since the original proposed rule to list the 
coastal cutthroat trout as threatened in the southwestern Washington/
Columbia River DPS (64 FR 16397) and provisions of two long-term forest 
HCPs completed in the Washington portion of the DPS should greatly 
reduce the risk of continued degradation of aquatic and riparian 
systems on forest lands in 30 percent of the DPS's range. The proposed 
rule concluded that the WFPA did ``* * * not provide for properly 
functioning riparian and instream habitats,'' with specific concerns 
about failure to address large woody debris recruitment, tree retention 
to maintain stream band and channel integrity, and chronic and episodic 
inputs of coarse and fine sediments (64 FR 16402). Based on the new 
provisions addressing: (1) Timber harvest activities in and around 
riparian areas and unstable slopes; (2) road use, construction, and 
maintenance related to forest management; and (3) increased riparian 
buffer widths, reduced level of management activities within the 
buffers and an increase in the percentage of the stream network subject 
to these buffers, we no longer conclude, as described in the proposed 
rule (64 FR 16402), that the Washington Forest Practices Regulations do 
not provide for the conservation of coastal cutthroat trout and their 
habitat. While some degradation of aquatic and riparian systems will 
continue as a legacy of past management activities, and some elements 
of the riparian/aquatic systems are naturally slow to recover, these 
conservation efforts should significantly improve the long-term 
conditions for coastal cutthroat trout in a significant portion of the 
DPS's range.
    Within the Washington portion of the DPS, there are two additional 
regulatory programs that apply to all of the non-federal land use 
activities discussed above, the Shoreline Management Act and State 
Environmental Policy Act. The Shoreline Management Act applies 
statewide to all water bodies, except for small streams and lakes. 
Every local government with shorelines is required to adopt a local 
shoreline plan which must be reviewed and approved by the Department of 
Ecology for consistency with State-level Shoreline Management Act 
guidelines. Most of the local shoreline master programs in effect today 
were originally adopted in the mid-to late-1970s and are based on 
guidelines that do not reflect current scientific understanding or the 
current emphasis on salmonid conservation. Recent efforts by the 
Washington Department of Ecology to ensure that local plans were 
revised consistent with current science and priorities have been 
subject to litigation and have not been finalized. Thus, the extent to 
which the Shoreline Management Act can be used as a tool to support 
salmonid conservation is uncertain. Under the State Environmental 
Policy Act, an agency may deny permits or other approvals if the 
proposed rule would likely result in significant adverse environmental 
impacts and if mitigation measures would be insufficient to avoid or 
reduce those impacts. The use of the State Environmental Policy Act in 
this fashion by local and State agencies has been extremely limited 
and, as a result, has not effectively served as a conservation 
mechanism or to address the inadequacies of other regulatory programs 
(State of Washington 1999).

Oregon

    The proposed rule stated that the Oregon Forest Practices Act did 
not adequately protect salmonid habitat, specifically including 
production and introduction of large woody debris into medium, small, 
and non-fish bearing streams; timber harvest and road construction on 
unstable slopes subject to mass wasting; and cumulative effects (64 FR 
16403).
    Oregon was the first State to adopt comprehensive land-use planning 
laws and these remain among the strongest in the nation. Under this 
regulatory program, the State's 36 counties and 240 municipalities were 
required to develop comprehensive plans that addressed applicable 
statewide planning goals, including several related to maintenance of 
natural resource lands (agriculture and forest), critical fish and 
wildlife habitats, and protection of water quality and supply. The 
planning goals themselves do not regulate individual land development 
decisions, but are implemented through county and local comprehensive 
plans, ordinances, and standards which, in turn, regulate individual 
land use and development decisions. The comprehensive plans typically 
involve

[[Page 44954]]

tradeoffs to balance numerous goals and objectives, some of which may 
conflict. Most local plans now in effect have not prioritized goals 
related to water quality and aquatic habitat protection, and have not 
been based on the best currently available data; therefore, they may 
not eliminate adverse effects to the riparian and aquatic environment 
and provide protection for some areas of cutthroat habitat (State of 
Oregon 2000a).
    The Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA) regulates timber management 
and related activities on most non-Federal forest lands in the Oregon 
portion of the DPS (8 percent of DPS's range). The OFPA sets standards 
for timber harvest activities in and around riparian areas, and was 
improved in 1995 to better protect aquatic resources and address water 
quality concerns. Additional improvements were recently recommended to 
better support watershed health and conservation of listed salmonids 
(State of Oregon 2000b). While some of these recommendations may be 
implemented as regulations through the OFPA in the future, others will 
likely be implemented voluntarily and through various incentive-based 
programs. Even considering possible near-term improvements, there is 
substantial concern about whether the types and levels of management 
activities allowed within and adjacent to riparian zones under the 
regulatory component of the OFPA will adequately support riparian 
processes and conditions crucial to salmonid habitat. Specifically, 
there is concern for how well current OFPA regulations address tree 
retention to maintain stream bank integrity and channel networks within 
flood plains; chronic and episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment 
processes; and the recruitment of large woody debris into the aquatic 
systems, all of which are critical to maintaining functioning habitat 
for all life stages of cutthroat trout. Much of the concern focuses on 
management standards for medium, small, and non-fish bearing streams. 
The OFPA does not adequately manage timber harvest and road 
construction on sensitive, unstable slopes subject to mass wasting, and 
the lack of consideration for cumulative effects is of concern, 
especially in light of current harvest rotation schedules 
(approximately 50 years).
    While potential changes are on the horizon, we are still concerned 
that the OFPA may not adequately provide for large woody debris input 
into medium, small, and non-fish bearing streams; address timber 
harvest and road construction on unstable slopes subject to mass 
wasting; and cumulative effects, as described in the proposed rule (64 
FR 16403). However, as the OFPA affects a relatively small portion of 
the DPS (8 percent of the land base), it is not likely to result in the 
DPS of coastal cutthroat trout becoming endangered in the foreseeable 
future.
Dredge, Fill, and Inwater Construction Programs
    The proposed rule described the potential protection of aquatic 
systems under section 404 of the CWA, though there was concern for the 
lack of a specific methodology to address cumulative effects and 
additive effects of continued development (64 FR 16403). Dredge, fill, 
and inwater construction programs were not listed as a specific threat 
to the DPS (64 FR 16407), though they may have contributed to some past 
habitat loss, particularly in the estuaries and large rivers.
    A wide variety of instream and near-stream activities are regulated 
under section 404 of the CWA and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 
Act of 1899, which are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(COE). Examples include wetland fills; channel dredging; bank 
stabilization; pipeline trenches; road and bridge construction; survey 
activities; outfall construction; and boat ramps, pilings and other 
structures. Section 404 of the CWA requires that the COE not permit 
such activities if they ``cause or contribute to significant 
degradation of the waters of the United States.'' The States also play 
a role in CWA implementation by reviewing and conditioning proposed 
section 404 permits relative to State water quality standards and State 
coastal zone management policies. These joint State/Federal CWA 
determinations focus primarily on water quality and pollution. COE 
guidelines do lack a specific methodology for assessing cumulative 
impacts in the decision-making process, or for minimizing and 
mitigating the additive effects of the continued development of 
waterfront, riverine, coastal, and wetland properties.
    Many of the activities regulated under the CWA are also controlled 
by State-level regulatory programs. In Oregon, work which may modify 
the bed or banks of rivers, lakes, streams, estuaries and wetlands of 
the State must receive a permit under the Removal-Fill Law administered 
by the Division of State Lands. Permits are conditioned to reduce 
adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic resources or to mitigate 
those impacts. A standard condition stipulates that riparian vegetation 
removal be limited to the minimum amount needed to complete the 
project; and replacement, re-establishment and replanting riparian 
vegetation is an essential permit condition. As with CWA permits, 
removal-fill permits are also reviewed by the Department of 
Environmental Quality for consistency with State water quality 
standards. Protection and restoration of salmonid habitat has recently 
received increased emphasis in administration of this law. In 
Washington, similar activities are regulated under the State Hydraulics 
Code, which is administered by the WDFW through its Hydraulic Project 
Approval program. Hydraulic Project Approval program standards and 
guidelines are specifically focused on the protection of fish life and 
aquatic habitats, and are subject to review every five years to ensure 
consistency with these objectives.
    Based on the implementation of current laws and regulatory 
programs, we conclude that the regulation of dredge, fill, and in-water 
construction activities through the section 404 and section 10 permit 
processes, and through State programs, will provide some protection and 
support of aquatic resources, though they may not fully remove the risk 
of some losses to cumulative effects from small individual projects. 
The remaining risks from cumulative effects are likely to be small in 
the short term, and we do not anticipate that the cumulative effects of 
these small projects will reach a level at which they would be likely 
to result in the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout becoming endangered in 
the foreseeable future. Dredge, fill, and inwater construction programs 
were not identified in the proposed rule as a threat to this DPS (64 FR 
16407) and are not considered a significant threat at this time.
Water Quality Programs
    The proposed rule stated that ``* * * implementation [of the 
Federal CWA] has not been effective in adequately protecting fishery 
resources, particularly with respect to non-point sources of 
pollution''(64 FR 16403), though this was not listed as a specific 
threat to the DPS (64 FR 16407). The proposed rule did describe the 
long-term benefits of developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and 
the ability of these to protect cutthroat trout in the long term, 
though they would be difficult to develop in the short term and their 
efficacy in protecting salmonid habitat would be unknown for years (64 
FR 16403).
    Under section 303(c) of the CWA, States are required to adopt water 
quality standards to restore and

[[Page 44955]]

maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the 
nation's waters. As part of this process, the States develop standards 
for TMDLs of pollutants relative to particular water quality standards. 
TMDLs offer a method for quantitatively assessing environmental 
problems in a watershed and identifying pollution reductions needed to 
protect drinking water, aquatic life, recreation, and other uses of 
rivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs address pollution sources, including 
such point sources as sewage or industrial plant discharges, and such 
non-point discharges as runoff from roads, farm fields, and forests. 
The CWA gives State governments the primary responsibility for 
establishing TMDLs. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires States to 
identify surface waters that do not meet State water quality standards.
    The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted 
revised water quality standards to the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) for review and approval on July 11, 1996. EPA considered 
approval of Oregon's water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, 
temperature, and pH as submitted, with the exception of the temperature 
criterion for the Willamette River from the river's mouth to river mile 
50. Consideration of the temperature criterion for this reach of the 
Willamette River was deferred until a final action (approval of a 
revised State criterion or a new criterion promulgated by EPA) is 
proposed by EPA. ODEQ has recently finalized the 1998 303(d) list and 
submitted to EPA a schedule for completing TMDLs by the year 2007.
    Unless specifically allowed under an ODEQ-approved surface water 
temperature management plan, no measurable surface water temperature 
increase resulting from anthropogenic activities is allowed in the 
following cases: (1) In a basin for which salmonid fish rearing is a 
designated beneficial use, and in which surface water temperatures 
exceed 17.8 degrees C (64 degrees F); (2) in waters and periods of the 
year determined by the ODEQ to support native salmonid spawning, egg 
incubation, and fry emergence from the egg and from the gravels in a 
basin which exceeds 12.8 degrees C (55.0 degrees F); (3) in waters 
determined by the ODEQ to be ecologically significant cold-water 
refugia; (4) in stream segments containing Federally-listed threatened 
or endangered species if the increase would impair the biological 
integrity of the threatened or endangered population; and (5) in Oregon 
waters when the dissolved oxygen levels are within 0.5 ppm or 10 
percent saturation of the water column or intergravel dissolved oxygen 
criterion for a given stream reach or sub-basin, or in natural lakes. 
In addition to revising numeric standards, Oregon incorporated language 
to address water bodies exceeding the relevant numeric temperature 
criterion and included on the State's 303(d) list. Oregon rules require 
development and implementation of a surface water temperature 
management plan which describes the best management practices, 
measures, and/or control technologies which will be used to reverse the 
warming trend of the basin, watershed, or stream segment identified as 
water quality limited for temperature.
    Washington has submitted, and is implementing, a TMDL schedule 
running through 2013. As of May 2000, TMDLs had been established for 
approximately 249 stream/water body segments and additional TMDLs are 
under development. A memorandum of agreement between EPA and the 
Washington Department of Ecology stipulates that time frames for 
meeting water quality standards, a plan to implement control actions, 
and a monitoring plan will be developed by 2003.
    Inadequacy of water quality regulatory mechanisms was not 
identified in the proposed rule as a specific threat to this DPS (64 FR 
16407) and is not considered a significant threat at this time. The 
current standards established by Oregon, and the ongoing efforts by 
both States, to establish TMDLs and rectify water quality problems 
should result in significant improvements in habitat conditions for 
cutthroat trout in the long term. However, until TMDLs are finalized 
and remediation efforts implemented for a period of time, adverse water 
quality may continue in some portions of the DPS's range. The ability 
of these TMDLs to protect cutthroat trout should be significant in the 
long term, and significant increases in water quality problems should 
not occur in the interim. Water quality regulations and programs should 
reduce the risk of continued habitat degradation, and water quality 
concerns are not likely to increase to a level at which they are likely 
to result in the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout becoming endangered in 
the foreseeable future.
Hatchery Management
    The proposed rule stated that ``* * * the impact of [hatchery] 
programs on native, naturally spawned stocks are not well understood,'' 
but noted that ``[c]ompetition, genetic introgression, and disease 
transmission resulting from hatchery introductions may significantly 
reduce the production and survival of native, naturally-spawned 
cutthroat trout'' (64 FR 16403). The proposed rule described potential 
effects of introduction of rainbow/steelhead trout outside their 
historic range where cutthroat trout had not evolved in concert with 
these species (64 FR 16403) and discussed the past loss of interior 
strains of cutthroat trout to hybridization due to these hatchery 
releases. However, this is not true for the DPS or the coastal 
subspecies in general. This subspecies has evolved with rainbow/
steelhead trout and has not suffered the impacts from hatchery 
introductions described for interior subspecies (see Hybridization 
section for more information).
    Specific to this DPS, the proposed rule stated that ``[n]egative 
effects of hatchery coastal cutthroat trout may be contributing to the 
risks facing naturally spawned coastal cutthroat trout in this [DPS]'' 
(64 FR 16407). They noted that lower Columbia River tributaries were 
the only streams receiving hatchery-origin coastal cutthroat trout, and 
that the number of trout released has been substantially curtailed. The 
proposed rule stated that ``[t]he ultimate effects of hatchery fish 
depend on the relative size of hatchery and naturally spawned 
populations, the spatial and temporal overlap of hatchery and naturally 
spawned fish throughout their life cycles and the actual extent to 
which hatchery fish spawn naturally and interbreed with naturally 
produced fish'' (64 FR 16407), as well as the level of incidental 
harvest of naturally spawned fish in fisheries targeting hatchery 
salmonids. The proposed rule provided no estimate or evaluation of 
these factors.
    In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat, hatchery programs 
were implemented by the States throughout the range of coastal 
cutthroat trout. Until recently, the transfer of hatchery stocks of 
coastal cutthroat trout between distant watersheds and facilities was a 
common management practice in Oregon and Washington watersheds 
(Crawford 1979, Kostow 1995). Growing concern about the genetic and 
ecological consequences of this practice prompted management agencies 
to institute policies to reduce the exchange of coastal cutthroat trout 
stocks among watersheds, primarily by terminating releases of fish in 
all but a few locations. Appendix A-1 of the Status Review (Johnson et 
al. 1999) contains detailed records of the stocking history of the 
DPS's range. Only the Cowlitz River Hatchery continues to produce and 
release coastal cutthroat trout within the

[[Page 44956]]

DPS, and this at substantially reduced levels. This hatchery produces 
anadromous cutthroat trout in a system with several barrier dams that 
have reduced natural access to historic freshwater habitat for 
anadromous cutthroat trout.
    There is no evidence that competition, genetic introgression, or 
disease transmission from hatchery introductions which were described 
in the proposed rule as the potential consequences of the release of 
hatchery raised cutthroat trout (64 FR 16403) have significantly 
reduced the production and survival of native, naturally spawned 
cutthroat trout in the DPS. Coastal cutthroat trout production has been 
reduced to a single hatchery and there is no information at this time 
to indicate that the limited ongoing coastal cutthroat hatchery 
releases have an adverse effect on the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout. 
Therefore, we conclude that release of hatchery coastal cutthroat trout 
in this DPS does not represent a significant risk to naturally spawning 
cutthroat trout in this DPS.
    The proposed rule also described the potential ``* * * negative 
consequences of interactions between coho salmon fry released from 
hatcheries and coastal cutthroat trout'' (64 FR 16403), though this was 
not identified as a specific threat to the DPS (64 FR 16407). Coho fry 
can compete with cutthroat trout for feeding and rearing habitat. 
Release of hatchery coho and steelhead may have adverse effects to 
local cutthroat trout populations, especially if they are stocked in 
headwater tributaries above traditional coho or steelhead habitat. 
Juvenile coho are dominant over juvenile cutthroat trout (Chapman 1962, 
Glova 1987, Rosenau and McPhail 1987, Trotter et al. 1993, Johnson et 
al. 1999) and coastal cutthroat trout are often displaced to less 
desirable habitats in the presence of other native salmonids (Hartman 
and Gill 1968, Griffith 1988). Coho and steelhead are natural 
competitors of cutthroat trout and cutthroat trout are likely adapted 
to some levels of competition from these species. The effect of coho 
and steelhead stocking is dependent on the location and magnitude of 
the releases. Releases in areas outside of historic coho habitat or in 
numbers that greatly exceed natural levels could have negative effects 
on cutthroat trout in the area of the release. Effects are likely to be 
limited to the stocked area and downstream migration habitats.
    Hatchery coho and steelhead releases are likely to have a 
proportionally greater effect on the anadromous portion of the coastal 
cutthroat trout population because releases of these anadromous fish 
are likely to be concentrated in the anadromous-accessible areas. The 
resident portion of the population in the upper portions of the 
watersheds is not likely to be affected by these hatchery releases. 
However, information demonstrating effects from coho releases is 
limited within the DPS's range, and the extent to which hatchery 
management affects the DPS of coastal cutthroat as a whole is unknown. 
We have no evidence that coho releases in the DPS are producing 
competition above natural levels or represent a significant risk to the 
DPS. Competition from hatchery releases of coho salmon was not 
identified as a specific threat to the DPS (64 FR 16407) and is still 
not considered a significant threat to the DPS at this time.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Climate and Catastrophic Natural Events
    The proposed rule stated that ``[p]ersistent drought conditions 
have reduced the already limited spawning, rearing, and migration 
habitat'' (64 FR 16403), though this was not listed as a specific 
threat to the DPS (64 FR 16407). The proposed rule also stated that 
climate conditions appeared to have resulted in decreased ocean 
productivity, which might have compounded degraded freshwater habitat 
(64 FR 16403). Juvenile and adult anadromous cutthroat trout use tidal 
rivers and low-gradient estuarine sloughs and tributaries during 
spawning and feeding migrations (Kostow 1995). These nearshore areas 
can be influenced by ocean productivity. The El Ni[ntilde]o-Southern 
Oscillation cycle (commonly known as El Nino), causes periodic declines 
in ocean productivity that could affect the survival and productivity 
of anadromous coastal cutthroat trout during low periods. During 
periods of warm ocean conditions, freshwater habitat conditions may 
also be affected due to reduced rainfall with associated impacts on 
streamflows and increasing river temperatures (Greenland 1998). These 
types of climate changes are natural, long-term cycles, and coastal 
cutthroat trout are likely adapted to this variation. Therefore, these 
climate cycles would not be expected to significantly threaten coastal 
cutthroat trout in the foreseeable future. There is no evidence that 
drought or other climate cycles have significantly reduced spawning, 
rearing, or migration habitat for the DPS. Climate change, specifically 
persistent drought, was not identified in the proposed rule as a 
specific threat to this DPS (64 FR 16407) and is not considered a 
significant threat at this time.
    Fire events in Pacific northwest coastal zones are generally of low 
frequency (more than 200 years between disturbances) and high severity 
(e.g., a high proportion of the trees are killed) (Agee 1993). Although 
fires can be large and intense, unburned patches and refugia often 
persist. These refugia provide a source of fish to recolonize other 
areas once the habitat recovers. The effects of fire are likely to be 
episodic, dispersed through time and space. Coastal cutthroat trout 
appear to be well adapted to such natural pulsed disturbances. This 
process historically may have posed little threat to most local and 
regional populations.
    Coastal cutthroat trout are well distributed within the all three 
major drainage areas within the DPS's range. This wide distribution 
reduces the likelihood that catastrophic natural events would severely 
deplete populations throughout the DPS's range. Stochastic events such 
as fire, flood, and volcanic eruptions, are likely to impact coastal 
cutthroat trout at a watershed or sub-basin scale and would not affect 
all portions of the DPS concurrently. Therefore, even if portions of 
the DPS are depressed, the risk of a catastrophic event severely 
impacting the DPS as a whole is very limited and is not anticipated to 
significantly threaten coastal cutthroat trout in the foreseeable 
future.
Hybridization
    The proposed rule stated that ``[h]ybridization between coastal 
cutthroat trout and Oncorhynchus mykiss may prose serious risks for 
this species'' (64 FR 16403), though it was not listed as a threat to 
the DPS (64 FR 16407). The proposed rule described the potential 
adverse effects of the widespread release of hatchery rainbow trout 
throughout the range of interior cutthroat trout; resulting 
hybridization between the species could pose serious risks for 
cutthroat trout (64 FR 16403). However, this is specific to interior 
subspecies that did not evolve in contact with rainbow/steelhead trout. 
The coastal cutthroat trout differs from these interior subspecies as 
they evolved with the presence of rainbow/steelhead trout and therefore 
have developed mechanisms to limit hybridization.
    Hybridization of coastal cutthroat trout among subspecies and with 
other species of trout, particularly rainbow trout, is known to occur, 
and has long been implicated in the decline of other cutthroat 
subspecies (Busack and Gall 1981, Young 1995, Willers 1991). Unlike

[[Page 44957]]

interior subspecies of cutthroat trout that evolved in the absence of 
other salmonids, coastal cutthroat trout evolved in sympatry with a 
suite of other Pacific salmonids, their range closely overlapping with 
steelhead in coastal drainages of western North America. Behnke (1992) 
concluded that cutthroat and rainbow trout shared a common ancestor as 
recently as two million years ago. As a result, it is likely that the 
long evolutionary association of rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout 
would have led to isolating mechanisms that would minimize the 
occurrence of hybridization.
    Recent information (Campton 1981, Campton and Utter 1985, Hawkins 
and Quinn 1996, Williams et al. 1997, Johnson et al. 1999) suggests 
that hybridization of coastal cutthroat trout with steelhead may be 
more prevalent in the Pacific Northwest than previously believed. 
Hybridization appears to occur in a mosaic pattern at naturally low 
levels in areas where coastal cutthroat trout and steelhead spawn in 
the same streams, but the conditions triggering this apparent 
interbreeding are unknown. Hubbs (1955) and Campton (1987) suggest that 
anthropogenic factors can cause or stimulate natural hybridization 
where it previously was rare or uncommon. However, biologists studying 
this issue cannot determine whether the observed occurrences of 
hybridization result from anthropogenic factors (e.g., stocking of 
hatchery-origin steelhead, habitat modifications, etc.) or simply 
reflect a natural evolutionary process that has been ongoing for 
hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.
    The most recent hybridization studies within southwest Washington 
and the Columbia River indicate that hybridization occurs in scattered 
locations, but generally at low levels throughout the range of coastal 
cutthroat. In 2000 and 2001, U.S. Geological Service-Biological 
Resources Division investigators analyzed a total of 230 coastal 
cutthroat tissue samples from coastal cutthroat trout captured within 
southwest Washington and the Columbia River (Carl Ostberg, U.S. 
Geologic Survey, pers. comm., 2001). Fourteen streams were sampled 
including six streams within the Grays Harbor drainage, three streams 
in the Willapa Bay drainage, and one stream each from the Lower 
Columbia, Upper Cowlitz, Kalama, East Fork Lewis, and Upper Washougal 
rivers. Only 1 of the 14 streams sampled contained hybrids (the Green 
Fork of the East Fork Lewis River (4 of 25 individuals) (USFWS 2001). 
Spruell et al. (1998) examined incidence of hybridization between 
coastal cutthroat trout and rainbow/steelhead trout in tributaries of 
the Columbia River and found hybridization to be common, though at low 
levels in most samples. Only a few isolated locations showed high 
levels of hybridization.
    Although the data on hybridization between coastal cutthroat trout 
and rainbow/steelhead trout are limited, indications are that 
hybridization has likely been occurring for at least several decades at 
low levels where these two species co-exist. Much scientific 
uncertainty currently surrounds the causes of hybridization and its 
evolutionary consequences. In view of the limited nature of 
hybridization in the DPS and the natural co-occurrence of these 
species, hybridization between cutthroat trout and rainbow/steelhead 
trout is not currently considered a significant threat to the DPS of 
coastal cutthroat trout. Low levels of hybridization may represent 
natural interaction between rainbow/steelhead trout and coastal 
cutthroat trout. Populations with high levels of hybridization are few 
and isolated. Hybridization was not identified in the proposed rule as 
a specific threat in the DPS, and is not considered a significant 
threat at this time.
Foreseeable Conservation Measures
    Numerous conservation efforts related to maintenance and protection 
of threatened salmonids, riparian and aquatic habitats, and overall 
watershed health are underway in Oregon and Washington. These are being 
driven by the overall salmonid recovery frameworks in place in the 
States and by specific growth management and Endangered Species Act 
considerations. Efforts range from broad scale application undertaken 
by State or regional authorities to site-specific projects implemented 
by individual landowners or local action groups such as watershed 
councils. These are generally non-regulatory in nature, relying on 
incentives or voluntary compliance, or are still in development. 
Therefore, while they may contribute to conservation of coastal 
cutthroat trout, we have not assumed any specific contribution in the 
listing determination.
    Several factors make it difficult to predict the extent to which 
these efforts will result in improved implementation of the non-federal 
land use practices described above, or redress problems associated with 
past activities, including: (1) Many specific regulatory changes and 
on-ground projects have not yet been implemented either because related 
negotiation and rule-making are in the formative stages, or because 
specific proposals are subject to ongoing legal challenges; (2) the 
ecological effects of practices and projects that are implemented may 
not be realized for years or even decades; and (3) for some suites of 
activities, there is no readily available information regarding the 
nature or distribution of on-ground practices or projects.
    The States' overall recovery frameworks are contained within the 
Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon Plan) and the Washington 
Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon: ``Extinction is not an Option'' 
(Washington Strategy). Both of these frameworks emphasize improved 
implementation and enforcement of existing regulations, greater 
coordination and prioritization of conservation projects, and voluntary 
and incentive-based measures to provide greater site-specific 
protection. Based on recent implementation of these recovery 
frameworks, there will likely be some level of widespread effort to 
identify and correct existing fish passage problems (and to prevent 
future obstacles), and to restore previously degraded riparian and 
aquatic habitats on a site-specific basis. The Oregon Plan and the 
Washington Strategy also encourage or otherwise support a handful of 
larger, more comprehensive, restoration-oriented conservation projects 
within the DPS's range, such as the multi-stakeholder Sandy River Basin 
Agreement in Oregon. These projects will likely continue under the 
auspices of scientifically credible watershed assessments that minimize 
the likelihood of inappropriate ``fixes'' and undesirable adverse 
effects. Such restoration-oriented projects have the potential to 
substantially improve conditions for this species in many watersheds in 
the DPS's range. However, such improvements may not be sufficient, and 
in many cases may be negated, unless the broader suite of land-use 
activities occurring within the watersheds are modified to reduce 
future adverse effects.
    The Washington Strategy targets a number of specific land-use 
regulatory programs for improvement, and in general supports 
consideration of improved regulatory standards, either through formal 
rule-making or through stakeholder negotiation processes. In addition 
to the previously mentioned Hydraulic Project Approval program 
revisions, examples include efforts to strengthen the Shoreline 
Management Act and State water policies, and to develop more consistent 
and reliable standards for agricultural practices and pesticide use. 
These efforts may lead to at least some improvement in statewide

[[Page 44958]]

standards for agricultural practices and urban and rural development, 
and redress some of the previously noted problems with these practices.
    In limited portions of the DPS's range in both States, regional and 
local efforts to address growth management issues and Federal 
Endangered Species Act issues for other listed species may improve 
programmatic standards or landowner-specific practices beyond those 
likely under the broad State recovery frameworks. In the Washington 
portion of the DPS's range, several forestry and agricultural planning 
efforts are underway, including the Cowlitz Tree Farm HCP, Tagshinny 
Safe-Harbor and Candidate Conservation Agreement, Scatter Creek HCP, 
and Lewis County Family Forest Conservation project. In addition, Clark 
County has initiated an Endangered Species Act Response Program that 
will address water quality, aquatic and riparian habitat protection, 
and conservation of listed salmonids for a number of development and 
urban land-use activities under the county's purview. Ongoing and 
future components of this effort include assessments of biological 
resources and potential impacts of various activities; review and 
revision of development codes, ordinances, and operating procedures; 
and prioritization and implementation of restoration and acquisition 
projects.
    In the Oregon portion of the DPS's range, a large number of 
municipalities and counties in the Portland metropolitan area have 
initiated efforts to revise comprehensive plans and address Endangered 
Species Act issues in a fashion similar to those described for Clark 
County, Washington. Primary examples include Clackamas County, the City 
of Lake Oswego, City of Gresham, the Metro regional government, and the 
City of Portland. These efforts are in various stages of development 
and are likely to evolve incrementally (i.e., sets of measures to 
address road management followed by measures to address stormwater 
management or streamside development, etc.) over the next several 
years.
    Notwithstanding the formative and uncertain nature of most of these 
local level planning efforts, we are encouraged by the efforts. Most of 
the sponsoring entities have continued to commit staff and financial 
resources to the projects despite recent budget limitations. The issues 
and approaches comprising many of the projects appear consistent with 
conservation objectives for cutthroat trout. Finally, the handful of 
projects that are more evolved show promise in terms of some of the 
measures under consideration. For example, under the City of Portland's 
``Healthy Portland Streams'' program and Metro's Statewide Planning 
Goal 5 program, new rules are being developed to protect important 
streamside areas and vulnerable upslope habitats from inappropriate 
development and to facilitate restoration of some previously degraded 
areas. Similarly, the Portland Water Bureau's Bull Run Watershed 
Management program is close to finalizing proposals to more 
appropriately manage water quality, flow, temperature, and other 
impacts associated with the City's water supply and distribution 
operations. In these programs, the measures being considered represent 
improvements over previous practices, and could be an important 
contribution to ensuring that the activities of local governments and 
their constituents in the Portland metropolitan region are consistent 
with the conservation of this species. Once fully in force, these 
programs may also contribute significantly to the conservation of other 
sensitive species and help preclude the need to list them as threatened 
or endangered.
    Continuation and successful implementation of conservation efforts 
such as those mentioned above, and expansion of these efforts to 
additional activities and areas will be necessary to fully address 
concerns associated with previous management legacies and with the 
existing regulatory framework. Such efforts will be a critical 
determinant of whether current cutthroat trout habitats and populations 
are maintained and improved in the long run to an extent that supports 
long-term conservation. As such, we will continue to monitor and review 
the progress of these efforts very carefully to determine their impact 
on the future status of the species. However, because these are non-
regulatory programs or are still in development, we did not base our 
final listing determination on the assumption that these programs would 
be implemented.
Finding and Withdrawal
    As described in the proposed rule (64 FR 16407), some portions of 
the proposed coastal cutthroat trout DPS are likely at lower-than-
historic levels and are probably still declining. However, new 
information and recent changes in regulations have changed our 
conclusion about the risk that the species may become endangered in the 
foreseeable future. This withdrawal is based on: (1) New data 
indicating that coastal cutthroat trout are more abundant in southwest 
Washington than previously thought and that population sizes are 
comparable to those of healthy populations in other areas; (2) new 
information and analyses calling into question past interpretation of 
the size of the anadromous portion of the population in the Columbia 
River and indicating higher numbers than previously described; (3) new 
data and analyses no longer showing declining adult populations in the 
Grays Harbor tributaries; (4) new analyses that call into question the 
past interpretation of trend data, and therefore the magnitude of the 
trend in the anadromous portion of the population in the Columbia 
River; (5) new information about the production of anadromous progeny 
by above-barrier cutthroat trout; and (6) two large-scale Habitat 
Conservation Plans (HCPs) and significant changes in Washington Forest 
Practices Regulations substantially reducing threats to aquatic and 
riparian habitat on forest lands in Washington.
    The proposed rule stated that ``NMFS remains concerned about the 
extremely low population size of anadromous coastal cutthroat trout in 
lower Columbia River streams, indicated by low incidental catch of 
coastal cutthroat trout in salmon and steelhead recreational fisheries, 
and by low trap counts in a number of tributaries throughout the 
region,'' and that ``* * * numbers of adults returning to traps in the 
lower Columbia River tributaries were consistently below 10 fish in 
most streams over each of the past 6 years'' (64 FR 16407). Despite 
extensive changes to aquatic and riparian condition in many portions of 
the DPS's range, coastal cutthroat trout remain extant throughout their 
historic habitat and populations in a large portion of the DPS are 
found in densities comparable to populations considered to be healthy-
sized. The anadromous portion of the DPS is likely depressed from 
historic levels, though it also appears to remain extant in all 
accessible portions of the DPS's range. There is little specific 
information indicating the actual size of the anadromous portion of the 
population or that these populations are extremely low. Coastal 
cutthroat trout as a whole, in the Washington portion of the DPS, 
remain at comparable densities to other areas considered to have 
healthy-sized populations. There is no information that leads us to 
conclude that coastal cutthroat trout populations in a significant 
portion of the DPS's range are at levels that would lead to risk of 
extinction due to small population size in the foreseeable future.
    The proposed rule stated that ``[t]rends in anadromous adults and 
outmigrating smolts in the southwestern

[[Page 44959]]

Washington portion of this [DPS] are all declining'' (64 FR 16407) and 
that ``[r]eturns of both naturally and hatchery produced anadromous 
coastal cutthroat trout in almost all lower Columbia River streams have 
declined markedly over the last 10 to 15 years,'' with the only 
increase in the Toutle River (64 FR 16407). The most recent data 
indicate variable population trends throughout the DPS and do not 
support the conclusion that trends of anadromous adults and 
outmigrating smolts in the DPS are all declining, as described in the 
proposed rule. There is no evidence that the adult portion of the 
population in the Grays Harbor tributaries is declining over the long 
term, and some indication that the adult portion of the population may 
be stable or increasing. Therefore, we no longer conclude that trends 
in anadromous adults and outmigrating smolts in southwest Washington 
are all declining as described in the proposed rule. There are 
indications of declines in the adult portion of the population in the 
Columbia River tributaries, though the rate of the decline is uncertain 
due to concerns over the reliability of the analyses and potential 
biases in the data sets. Therefore, we no longer conclude that returns 
of anadromous cutthroat trout in ``almost all'' lower Columbia River 
streams have declined markedly over the last 10 to 15 years as 
described in the proposed rule (64 FR 16407). There is little 
information on population trends for the resident or freshwater portion 
of the population in the DPS, though populations in the Washington 
portion of the DPS appear to remain at levels comparable to healthy-
sized populations, indicating that large-scale declines have not 
occurred at a landscape level. Based on these data, we do not find that 
population trends indicate that coastal cutthroat trout are likely to 
be extirpated from any significant portion of their range in the 
foreseeable future.
    The degree to which the reductions in the anadromous portion of the 
coastal cutthroat trout population represent a risk to the population 
in the DPS as a whole depends, in part, on the extent to which various 
coastal cutthroat trout life history strategies are genetically versus 
environmentally controlled. The proposed rule stated that ``* * * a 
significant risk factor for coastal cutthroat trout in this [DPS] was a 
reduction of life-history diversity'' and that ``[r]educed abundance in 
anadromous fish will tend to restrict connectivity of populations in 
different watersheds, which can increase genetic and demographic risk'' 
(64 FR 16407). ``The significance of this reduction in life-history 
diversity to both the integrity and the likelihood of this [DPS's] 
long-term persistence is a major concern to NMFS'' (64 FR 16407). WDFW 
(2001) provided additional information demonstrating the capability of 
resident coastal cutthroat trout to produce anadromous progeny after 
long isolation (40 years), suggesting that even if the anadromous 
portion of the population continues to experience low number and 
declines, smolts will be produced that can supplement the anadromous 
portion of the population and take advantage of any improvement in 
anadromous habitat. There is no evidence at this time that coastal 
cutthroat trout pursuing the anadromous life history strategy are 
segregated from the remainder of the population. In fact, studies show 
that individuals above barriers and below barriers with access to the 
sea are more closely related within a drainage than are individuals 
from different drainages (Behnke 1997, Johnson et al. 1999). This 
further supports the conclusion that anadromous and non-anadromous 
individuals are not substantially separate subpopulations. Therefore, 
based on the evidence that freshwater and isolated portions of the 
population are capable of producing anadromous migrants, we now 
conclude that freshwater and isolated portions of the coastal cutthroat 
trout population are contributing to the anadromous portion of the 
population and mitigating risks to anadromous portion of the population 
to some degree. The ability for non-anadromous cutthroat trout to 
produce anadromous progeny reduces the risk of loss of the anadromous 
life history strategy in the foreseeable future.
    Specific to the southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS, the 
proposed rule stated that ``* * * severe habitat degradation throughout 
the lower Columbia River has contributed to dramatic declines in 
anadromous coastal cutthroat trout populations and two near extinctions 
of anadromous runs in the Hood and Sandy Rivers' (64 FR 16407). The 
proposed rule also stated that ``[h]abitat degradation in stream 
reaches accessible to anadromous coastal cutthroat trout, and poor 
ocean and estuary conditions, likely combined to severely deplete this 
life-history form throughout the lower Columbia River Basin'' (64 FR 
16407). While aquatic and riparian systems have been heavily altered in 
some areas, the latest information does not support the conclusion that 
this has severely affected the habitat of the coastal cutthroat trout 
in this DPS as a whole. Some areas have begun to recover from past 
forest practices and new regulations are in place that reduce the risk 
of continued adverse impacts to much of the DPS. Conditions in many 
parts of the DPS's range are expected to continue to improve over time 
and many of the most damaging past practices (e.g., splash dams, large-
scale wetland conversion) are not expected to occur in the future due 
to current laws and regulations. Despite the long term, widespread 
impacts to aquatic and riparian conditions, coastal cutthroat trout 
have survived in these areas for many generations and remain at 
densities comparable to healthy-sized populations in large portions of 
the DPS's range. Therefore, there is no significant present or 
identifiable threat of curtailment of the range of the DPS. Given that 
coastal cutthroat trout have survived the long-term and widespread 
impacts of these past practices on aquatic and riparian conditions in 
large portions of the DPS's range for many generations, and apparently 
remain well distributed at densities comparable to healthy-sized 
populations elsewhere, the condition of aquatic and riparian systems is 
not likely to result in endangerment of the DPS of coastal cutthroat 
trout in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we no longer conclude that 
past habitat degradation has led to severe declines in the population 
of coastal cutthroat trout in the southwestern Washington/Columbia 
River DPS.
    All Federal lands within the DPS's range (27 percent) are managed 
in a manner conducive to the conservation of coastal cutthroat trout. 
The proposed rule concluded that the Washington Forest Practices 
Regulations did ``* * * not provide for properly functioning riparian 
and instream habitats,'' including failure to address large woody 
debris recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream band and channel 
integrity, and chronic and episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediments 
(64 FR 16402). The Washington Forest Practices Regulations were updated 
since the proposed rule. These new regulations include improvements to: 
(1) Timber harvest activities in and around riparian areas and unstable 
slopes; (2) road use, construction, and maintenance related to forest 
management; and (3) increased riparian buffer widths, reduced level of 
management activities within the buffers, and an increase in the 
percentage of the stream network subject to these buffers. Given these 
improvements, we no longer conclude that the Washington Forest 
Practices

[[Page 44960]]

Regulations do not provide for the conservation of coastal cutthroat 
trout and their habitat. The lands affected by the WFPA and two long-
term forest HCPs completed in the Washington portion of the DPS's range 
should greatly reduce the risk of continued cutthroat habitat 
degradation and loss in an additional 30 percent of the DPS's range. 
Therefore, 57 percent of the DPS's range is under management and 
regulations that should greatly reduce the rate of future habitat 
impacts and provide for long-term improvement of coastal cutthroat 
trout habitat in the DPS's range. Collectively, remnant high quality 
habitat, ongoing forest recovery, active efforts to identify and 
correct legacies of past management, improved standards for future 
management actions, and the ability of coastal cutthroat trout to 
survive for long periods in degraded aquatic and riparian systems 
provide the basis for maintenance of habitat for coastal cutthroat 
trout within the DPS's range. Therefore, forest management is not 
likely to result in the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout becoming 
endangered in the foreseeable future.
    The proposed rule described the potential loss of important 
estuarine habitat and stated that reductions in the quantity and 
quality of estuarine habitat probably contributed to declines of 
anadromous cutthroat trout, but the relative importance of these risks 
was not well understood (64 FR 16402). This is further complicated by 
the lack of information on how coastal cutthroat trout use large 
estuary systems. Significant portions of the estuarine wetlands in the 
Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor systems, and to a lesser degree in the 
Columbia River estuary, remain intact. Given current regulations, we do 
not anticipate additional large-scale conversion or loss of estuary or 
off-channel areas. While past losses of estuaries may have contributed 
to a reduction in the anadromous portion of the coastal cutthroat trout 
population over historic levels, we do not have evidence that the past 
and potential future losses are likely to result in the DPS of coastal 
cutthroat trout becoming endangered in the foreseeable future.
    Specific to this DPS, the proposed rule stated that ``[n]egative 
effects of hatchery coastal cutthroat trout may be contributing to the 
risks facing naturally spawned coastal cutthroat trout in this [DPS]'' 
(64 FR 16407), though the ultimate effects of hatchery practices depend 
on the relative size of the populations, the overlap of hatchery and 
naturally spawned fish, and the actual extent to which hatchery fish 
interbreed with naturally produced fish (64 FR 16407), as well as the 
level of incidental harvest of naturally spawned fish in fisheries 
targeting hatchery salmonids. The proposed rule provided no estimate or 
evaluation of these factors. Coastal cutthroat trout production has 
been reduced to a single hatchery. Analysis of the remaining hatchery 
stock history and genetics indicate that the hatchery stock is similar 
to the naturally spawned stock. There is no information at this time to 
indicate that the limited ongoing coastal cutthroat hatchery releases 
have an adverse effect on the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout. 
Therefore, we conclude that the release of hatchery coastal cutthroat 
trout in this DPS does not represent a significant risk to naturally 
spawning cutthroat trout in this DPS.
    Several other potential threats were described in the Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species section of the proposed rule (64 FR 
16402) as principal factors for decline in the subspecies-wide review 
of listing factors (64 FR 16402), but were not identified as a specific 
threat to the southwestern Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 FR 16407). 
These include overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes (recreational angling, by catch in recreational 
and commercial harvest of other species, and scientific or educational 
uses); predation; some regulatory mechanisms (dredge, fill, and inwater 
construction programs and water quality programs); climate and 
catastrophic natural events, and hybridization. We evaluated the latest 
information on each of these potential threats and conclude that they 
are still not considered a threat at this time.
    Cutthroat trout are not harvested commercially within the DPS. 
Scientific and educational programs likely have little impact on these 
populations and recreational fishing under current regulations does not 
represent a significant threat to the DPS of cutthroat trout. No 
introduced diseases have been documented in coastal cutthroat trout 
populations within the DPS and there is no evidence of significant, 
elevated loss of wild cutthroat trout to native disease in the DPS at 
this time. No specific information exists regarding predation impacts 
by predatory fishes on cutthroat trout, though it is reasonable to 
assume some predation does occur. We have no evidence that aquatic 
predators have significantly reduced coastal cutthroat trout 
populations or represent a major threat to coastal cutthroat trout at 
this time. There is no evidence that mammal or bird predation 
represents a significant threat to the DPS of cutthroat trout at this 
time.
    While regulation of dredge, fill, and in-water construction 
activities through the section 404 permit process in the DPS's range 
may not eliminate all adverse effects to the riparian and aquatic 
environment, we conclude that it should provide significant protection 
for aquatic resources, and the ability for us to track continuing 
effects through the review of permit applications. The remaining risks 
from cumulative effects are likely to be small in the short term and we 
do not anticipate that the cumulative effects of these small projects 
will reach a level at which they would be likely to result in the DPS 
of coastal cutthroat trout becoming endangered in the foreseeable 
future. Current standards established by Oregon under the CWA should 
result in significant improvements in habitat conditions for native 
fish.
    The proposed rule stated that drought and climate condition 
resulting in decreased ocean productivity might have compounded 
degraded freshwater habitat (64 FR 16403). These types of climate 
changes are natural, long-term cycles and coastal cutthroat trout are 
likely adapted to this variation. Therefore, these climate cycles would 
not be expected to significantly threaten coastal cutthroat trout in 
the foreseeable future. There is no evidence that drought or other 
climate cycles have significantly reduced spawning, rearing, or 
migration habitat for the DPS.
    Hybridization with other species could affect coastal cutthroat 
trout. The most recent hybridization studies within southwest 
Washington and the Columbia River indicate that hybridization occurs in 
scattered locations, but generally at low levels throughout the range 
of coastal cutthroat. Coastal cutthroat trout, unlike most other 
cutthroat trout subspecies, evolved in contact with rainbow/steelhead 
trout and it is likely that the long evolutionary association of 
rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout would have led to isolating 
mechanisms that would minimize the occurrence of hybridization. This 
means there is a low potential risk of hybridization significantly 
affecting coastal cutthroat trout. The few areas observed with high 
levels of hybridization are isolated and scattered, and do not appear 
to represent a widespread threat to coastal cutthroat trout at this 
time.
    A few potential threats were not described in the subspecies-wide 
review of listing factors in the proposed rule (64 FR 16402) or 
identified as a DPS-specific threat to the southwestern Washington/
Columbia River DPS. These include losses of habitat to agriculture and 
livestock management, dams and

[[Page 44961]]

barriers, urban and industrial development, and mining. We evaluated 
the latest information on each of these potential threats and concluded 
that they are still not a significant threat at this time.
    While populations of some portions of the DPS of coastal cutthroat 
trout are likely at lower-than-historic levels and probably still 
declining, recent changes in regulations have reduced threats to the 
DPS as a whole. This, and the latest information indicating relatively 
healthy-sized total populations (all life history strategies) in a 
large portion (75 percent) of the DPS's range, and the production of 
anadromous trout from residents, lead us to conclude that the DPS of 
coastal cutthroat trout is not in danger of becoming endangered in the 
foreseeable future and, therefore, does not meet the definition of a 
threatened species at this time. Therefore, we withdraw the April 5, 
1999, proposed rule (64 FR 16397) to list the coastal cutthroat trout 
population in southwestern Washington and the Columbia River, excluding 
the Willamette River above Willamette Falls, as threatened. We will 
continue to monitor the conditions of the coastal cutthroat trout in 
southwest Washington and the Columbia River. In the event that 
conditions or threats change and the species becomes imperiled, we 
could again propose to list the species as endangered or threatened 
under the Act. We will continue to provide technical assistance to 
Federal, State, and other entities and encourage them to address the 
conservation needs of the coastal cutthroat trout. We will continue to 
work with these agencies and entities to collect additional biological 
information, monitor the status of coastal cutthroat trout, and monitor 
the progress of conservation efforts for the DPS.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited is available upon request 
from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are Robin Bown, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) and 
Scott Craig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, 
510 Desmond Drive SE, Lacey, WA 98503.
Authority
    The authority for this action is section 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: June 24, 2002.
Steve Williams,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 02-16579 Filed 7-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P