Endangered and Threatened Species: Listing of Several Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Steelhead

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 222 and 227

[Docket No. 960730210-7193-02; I.D. 050294D]

RIN 0648-XX65

Endangered and Threatened Species: Listing of Several

Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Steelhead

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On August 9, 1996, NMFS completed a comprehensive status

review of west coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss, or O. mykiss)

populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, and

identified 15 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) within this

range. NMFS is now issuing a final rule to list two ESUs as endangered

and three ESUs as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The endangered steelhead ESUs are located in California (Southern

California) and Washington (Upper Columbia River). The threatened

steelhead ESUs are located in California (Central California Coast and

South-Central California Coast) and Idaho, Washington, and Oregon

(Snake River Basin). For the endangered ESUs, section 9(a) prohibitions

will be effective 60 days from the publication of this final rule. For

the threatened ESUs, NMFS will issue shortly protective regulations

under section 4(d) of the ESA, which will apply section 9(a)

prohibitions with certain exceptions.

NMFS has examined the relationship between hatchery and natural

populations of steelhead in these ESUs, and has assessed whether any

hatchery

[[Page 43938]]

populations are essential for their recovery. Only the Wells Hatchery

stock in the Upper Columbia River ESU is essential for recovery and

included in this listing. Aside from the Wells Hatchery stock, only

naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) residing

below long-term, naturally and man-made impassable barriers (i.e.,

dams) are listed in all five ESUs identified as threatened or

endangered.

At this time, NMFS is listing only anadromous life forms of O.

mykiss.

DATES: Effective October 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 NE

Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, 503-231-2005, Craig

Wingert, 562-980-4021, or Joe Blum, 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Species Background

Oncorhynchus mykiss exhibit one of the most complex suites of life

history traits of any salmonid species. Oncorhynchus mykiss may exhibit

anadromy (meaning they migrate as juveniles from fresh water to the

ocean, and then return to spawn in fresh water) or freshwater residency

(meaning they reside their entire life in fresh water). Resident forms

are usually referred to as ``rainbow'' or ``redband'' trout, while

anadromous life forms are termed ``steelhead.'' Few detailed studies

have been conducted regarding the relationship between resident and

anadromous O. mykiss and as a result, the relationship between these

two life forms is poorly understood. Recently the scientific name for

the biological species that includes both steelhead and rainbow trout

was changed from Salmo gairdneri to O. mykiss. This change reflects the

premise that all trouts from western North America share a common

lineage with Pacific salmon.

Steelhead typically migrate to marine waters after spending 2 years

in fresh water. They then reside in marine waters for typically 2 or 3

years prior to returning to their natal stream to spawn as 4-or 5-year-

olds. Unlike Pacific salmon, steelhead are iteroparous, meaning they

are capable of spawning more than once before they die. However, it is

rare for steelhead to spawn more than twice before dying; most that do

so are females. Steelhead adults typically spawn between December and

June (Bell, 1990; Busby et al., 1996). Depending on water temperature,

steelhead eggs may incubate in ``redds'' (nesting gravels) for 1.5 to 4

months before hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval life stage dependent on

food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac absorption, young

juveniles or ``fry'' emerge from the gravel and begin actively feeding.

Juveniles rear in fresh water from 1 to 4 years, then migrate to the

ocean as ``smolts.''

Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two reproductive

ecotypes, based on their state of sexual maturity at the time of river

entry and the duration of their spawning migration. These two ecotypes

are termed ``stream maturing'' and ``ocean maturing.'' Stream maturing

steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition and

require several months to mature and spawn. Ocean maturing steelhead

enter fresh water with well-developed gonads and spawn shortly after

river entry. These two reproductive ecotypes are more commonly referred

to by their season of freshwater entry (e.g., summer and winter

steelhead).

Two major genetic groups or ``subspecies'' of steelhead occur on

the west coast of the United States: a coastal group and an inland

group, separated in the Fraser and Columbia River Basins approximately

by the Cascade crest (Huzyk & Tsuyuki, 1974; Allendorf, 1975; Utter &

Allendorf, 1977; Okazaki, 1984; Parkinson, 1984; Schreck et al., 1986;

Reisenbichler et al., 1992). Behnke (1992) proposed to classify the

coastal subspecies as O. m. irideus and the inland subspecies as O. m.

gairdneri. These genetic groupings apply to both anadromous and non-

anadromous forms of O. mykiss. Both coastal and inland steelhead occur

in Washington and Oregon. California is thought to have only coastal

steelhead while Idaho has only inland steelhead.

Historically, steelhead were distributed throughout the North

Pacific Ocean from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asia to the northern Baja

Peninsula. Presently, the species distribution extends from the

Kamchatka Peninsula, east and south along the Pacific coast of North

America, to at least Malibu Creek in southern California. There are

infrequent anecdotal reports of steelhead occurring as far south as the

Santa Margarita River in San Diego County (McEwan & Jackson, 1996).

Historically, steelhead likely inhabited most coastal streams in

Washington, Oregon, and California as well as many inland streams in

these states and Idaho. However, during this century, over 23

indigenous, naturally-reproducing stocks of steelhead are believed to

have been extirpated, and many more are thought to be in decline in

numerous coastal and inland streams in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California. Forty-three stocks have been identified by Nehlsen et al.

(1991) as being at moderate or high risk of extinction.

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Steelhead

The history of petitions received regarding west coast steelhead is

summarized in the proposed rule published on August 9, 1996 (61 FR

56138). The most comprehensive petition was submitted by Oregon Natural

Resources Council and 15 co-petitioners on February 16, 1994. In

response to this petition, NMFS assessed the best available scientific

and commercial data, including technical information from Pacific

Salmon Biological Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and interested parties

in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. The PSBTCs consisted

primarily of scientists (from Federal, state, and local resource

agencies, Indian tribes, industries, universities, professional

societies, and public interest groups) possessing technical expertise

relevant to steelhead and their habitats. A total of seven PSBTC

meetings were held in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California during the course of the west coast steelhead status review.

NMFS also established a Biological Review Team (BRT), composed of staff

from NMFS' Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers and

Southwest Regional Office, as well as a representative of the National

Biological Service, which conducted a coastwide status review for west

coast steelhead (Busby et al., 1996).

Based on the results of the BRT report, and after considering other

information and existing conservation measures, NMFS published a

proposed listing determination (61 FR 56138, August 9, 1996) that

identified 15 ESUs of steelhead in the states of Washington, Oregon,

Idaho, and California. Ten of these ESUs were proposed for listing as

threatened or endangered species, four were found not warranted for

listing, and one was identified as a candidate for listing.

NMFS has now analyzed new information and public comments received

in response to the August 9, 1996, proposed rule. NMFS' BRT has

likewise analyzed this new information and has updated its conclusions

accordingly (NMFS, 1997a). Copies of the BRT's updated conclusions,

entitled ``Status Review Update for West Coast Steelhead from

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California,'' are available upon request

(see ADDRESSEES). This final rule identifies five ESUs of west

[[Page 43939]]

coast steelhead in the four states that currently warrant listing as

threatened or endangered species under the ESA.

Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule

NMFS held 16 public hearings in California, Oregon, Idaho, and

Washington to solicit comments on the proposed rule. One hundred and

eighty-eight individuals presented testimony at the public hearings.

During the 90-day public comment period, NMFS received 939 written

comments on the proposed rule from Federal, state, and local government

agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations, the scientific

community, and other individuals. A number of comments addressed

specific technical issues pertaining to a particular geographic region

or O. mykiss population. These technical comments were considered by

NMFS' BRT in its re-evaluation of ESU boundaries and status and are

discussed in the updated Status Review document (NMFS, 1997a).

On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS), published a series of policies regarding listings under the ESA,

including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270). In

accordance with this policy, NMFS solicited 22 individuals to take part

in a peer review of its west coast steelhead proposed rule. All

individuals solicited are recognized experts in the field of steelhead

biology and represent a broad range of interests, including Federal,

state, and tribal resource managers, private industry consultants, and

academia. Eight individuals took part in the peer review of this

action; comments from peer reviewers were considered by NMFS' BRT and

are summarized in the updated Status Review document (NMFS, 1997a).

A summary of comments received in response to the proposed rule is

presented below.

Issue 1: Sufficiency and Accuracy of Scientific Information and

Analysis

Comment: Numerous commenters disputed the sufficiency and accuracy

of data which NMFS employed in its proposed rule to list ten steelhead

ESUs as either threatened or endangered under the ESA. Several

commenters urged NMFS to delay any ESA listing decisions for steelhead

until additional scientific information is available concerning this

species.

Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires that NMFS make its

listing determinations solely on the basis of the best available

scientific and commercial data after reviewing the status of the

species. NMFS believes that information contained in the agency's

status review (Busby et al., 1996), together with more recent

information obtained in response to the proposed rule (NMFS, 1997a),

represent the best scientific information presently available for the

steelhead ESUs addressed in this final rule. NMFS has conducted an

exhaustive review of all available information relevant to the status

of this species. NMFS has also solicited information and opinion from

all interested parties, including peer reviewers as described above. If

in the future new data become available to change these conclusions,

NMFS will act accordingly.

Section 4(b)(6) of the ESA requires NMFS to publish a final

determination whether a species warrants listing as threatened or

endangered within 1 year from publishing a proposed determination. If

such a final listing is not warranted, NMFS must withdraw the proposed

regulation. In certain cases where NMFS concludes that substantial

disagreement exists regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of available

data relevant to its determinations, NMFS may extend this 1-year period

by not more than 6 months for the purposes of soliciting additional

data. (ESA Sec. 4(b)(6)(B)(i)).

With respect to those steelhead ESUs addressed in this final rule,

NMFS concludes no basis exists to delay final ESA listings. State

resource agencies, peer reviewers, and other knowledgeable parties are

in general agreement that steelhead stocks in these areas are at risk.

As described in a separate Federal Register notice, however, NMFS has

determined a 6-month extension is warranted for five remaining ESUs of

west coast steelhead. These ESUs include the following: Lower Columbia

River, Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountains Province, Northern California,

and the Central Valley of California. For these particular ESUs, NMFS

concludes that substantial disagreement exists regarding the

sufficiency and accuracy of the data. Several efforts are underway that

may resolve scientific disagreement regarding the sufficiency and

accuracy of data relevant to these ESUs. NMFS has undertaken an

intensive effort to analyze the data received during and after the

comment period on the proposed ESUs from the States of Washington,

Oregon, and California, as well as from peer reviewers. This work will

include evaluating the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

models, analyzing population abundance trends where new data are

available, and examining new genetic data relative to the relationship

between winter and summer steelhead and between hatchery and wild fish.

In light of these disagreements and the fact that more data are

forthcoming, NMFS extends the final determination deadline for these

ESUs for 6 months, until February 9, 1998.

Issue 2: Description and Status of Steelhead ESUs

Comment: A few commenters disputed NMFS' conclusions regarding the

geographic boundaries for some of the ESUs and questioned NMFS' basis

for determining these boundaries. Most of these comments pertained to

the ESUs south of San Francisco Bay, suggesting particular river

systems be excluded from listing due to historical or occasional

absence of steelhead or rainbow trout.

Response: NMFS has published a policy describing how it will apply

the ESA definition of ``species'' to anadromous salmonid species (56 FR

58612, November 20, 1991). More recently, NMFS and FWS published a

joint policy, consistent with NMFS' policy, regarding the definition of

``distinct population segments'' (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The

earlier policy is more detailed and applies specifically to Pacific

salmonids and, therefore, was used for this determination. This policy

indicates that one or more naturally reproducing salmonid populations

will be considered to be distinct and, hence, species under the ESA, if

they represent an ESU of the biological species. To be considered an

ESU, a population must satisfy two criteria: (1) It must be

reproductively isolated from other population units of the same

species; and (2) it must represent an important component in the

evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The first criterion,

reproductive isolation, need not be absolute but must have been strong

enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to occur in

different population units. The second criterion is met if the

population contributes substantially to the ecological or genetic

diversity of the species as a whole. Guidance on applying this policy

is contained in a scientific paper entitled: ``Pacific Salmon

(Oncorhynchus spp.) and the Definition of `Species' under the

Endangered Species Act.'' It is also found in a NOAA Technical

Memorandum: ``Definition of `Species' Under the Endangered Species Act:

Application to Pacific Salmon'' (Waples, 1991). A more detailed

discussion of individual ESU boundaries is provided below under

``Summary of Conclusions Regarding Listed ESUs.''

[[Page 43940]]

Comment: Several commenters questioned NMFS' methodology for

determining whether a given steelhead ESU warranted listing. In most

cases, such commenters also expressed opinions regarding whether

listing was warranted for a particular steelhead ESU. A few commenters

provided substantive new information relevant to making risk

assessments.

Response: Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``endangered

species'' as ``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout

all or a significant portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened

species'' is defined as ``any species which is likely to become an

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.'' NMFS has identified a number of

factors that should be considered in evaluating the level of risk faced

by an ESU, including: (1) Absolute numbers of fish and their spatial

and temporal distribution; (2) current abundance in relation to

historical abundance and current carrying capacity of the habitat; (3)

trends in abundance; (4) natural and human-influenced factors that

cause variability in survival and abundance; (5) possible threats to

genetic integrity (e.g., from strays or outplants from hatchery

programs); and (6) recent events (e.g., a drought or changes in harvest

management) that have predictable short-term consequences for abundance

of the ESU. A more detailed discussion of status of individual ESUs is

provided below under ``Summary of Conclusions Regarding Listed ESUs.''

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

Comment: Many commenters identified factors they believe have

contributed to the decline of west coast steelhead. Factors identified

include overharvest by recreational fisheries, predation by pinnipeds

and piscivorous fish species, effects of artificial propagation, and

the deterioration or loss of freshwater and marine habitats.

Response: NMFS agrees that many factors, past and present, have

contributed to the decline of west coast steelhead. NMFS also

recognizes that natural environmental fluctuations have likely played a

role in the species' recent declines. However, NMFS believes other

human-induced impacts (e.g., incidental catch in certain fisheries,

hatchery practices, and habitat modification) have played an equally

significant role in this species' decline. Moreover, these human-

induced impacts have likely reduced the species' resiliency to natural

factors for decline such as drought, poor ocean conditions, and

predation (NMFS, 1996a).

Since the time of this proposed listing, NMFS has published a

report describing the impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific

Harbor Seals upon salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of

Washington, Oregon, and California (NMFS, 1997b). This report concludes

that in certain cases where pinniped populations co-exist with

depressed salmonid populations, salmon populations may experience

severe impacts due to predation. An example of such a situation is

Ballard Locks, WA, where sea lions are known to consume significant

numbers of adult winter steelhead. This study further concludes that

data regarding pinniped predation is quite limited and that substantial

additional research is needed to fully address this issue. For

additional information on this issue see the ``Summary of Factors

Affecting Steelhead'' below.

Comment: One peer reviewer and several commenters stated that NMFS'

assessment underestimated the significant influence of natural

environmental fluctuations on salmonid populations. Several commenters

stated that ocean conditions are one of the primary factors for

decline. These commenters suggested that any listing activity should be

postponed until the complete oceanographic cycle can be observed.

Response: Environmental changes in both marine and freshwater

habitats can have important impacts on steelhead abundance. For

example, a pattern of relatively high abundance in the mid-1980s

followed by (often sharp) declines over the next decade occurred in

steelhead populations from most geographic regions of the Pacific

Northwest. This result is most plausibly explained by broad-scale

changes in ocean productivity. Similarly, 6 to 8 years of drought in

the late 1980s and early 1990s adversely affected many freshwater

habitats for steelhead throughout the region. These natural phenomena

put increasing pressure on natural populations already stressed by

anthropogenic factors such as habitat degradation, blockage of

migratory routes, and harvest (NMFS, 1996a).

Improvement of cyclic or episodic environmental conditions (for

example, increases in ocean productivity or shifts from drought to

wetter conditions) can help alleviate extinction risk to steelhead

populations. However, NMFS cannot reliably predict future environmental

conditions, making it unreasonable to assume improvements in abundance

as a result of improvements in such conditions. Furthermore, steelhead

and other species of Pacific salmon have evolved over the centuries

with such cyclical environmental stresses. This species has persisted

through time in the face of these conditions largely due to the

presence of freshwater and estuarine refugia. As these refugia are

altered and degraded, Pacific salmon species are more vulnerable to

episodic events such as shifts in ocean productivity and drought cycles

(NMFS, 1996a).

Issue 4: Consideration of Existing Conservation Measures

Comment: Several commenters argued that NMFS had not considered

existing conservation programs designed to enhance steelhead stocks

within a particular ESU. Some commenters provided specific information

on some of these programs to NMFS concerning the efficacy of existing

conservation plans.

Response: NMFS has reviewed existing conservation plans and

measures relevant to the five ESUs addressed in this final rule and

concludes that existing conservation efforts in these areas are not

sufficient to preclude listing of individual ESUs at this time. Several

of the plans addressed in comments show promise of ameliorating the

risks facing steelhead. However, in most cases, measures described in

comments have not been implemented or are in their early stages of

implementation and have not yet demonstrated success. Some of these

measures are also geographically limited to individual river basins or

political subdivisions, thereby improving conditions for only a small

portion of the entire ESU.

While existing conservation efforts and plans are not sufficient to

preclude the need for listings at this time, they are nevertheless

valuable for improving watershed health and restoring fishery

resources. In those cases where well developed, reliable conservation

plans exist, NMFS may choose to incorporate them into the recovery

planning process. In the case of threatened species, NMFS also has

flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor section 9 take regulations

based on the contents of available conservation measures. NMFS fully

intends to recognize local conservation efforts to the fullest extent

possible. Endangered Species Act listing should not be viewed as the

failure of such plans; rather, it should be viewed as a challenge to

better coordinate existing conservation efforts to address the

underlying problems of watershed degradation and species health.

[[Page 43941]]

Issue 5: Steelhead Biology and Ecology

Comment: Several commenters and a peer reviewer asserted that

resident rainbow trout should be included in listed steelhead ESUs.

Several commenters also stated that NMFS and FWS should address how the

presence of rainbow trout populations may ameliorate risks facing

anadromous populations within listed ESUs.

Response: In its August 9, 1996, proposed rule, NMFS stated that

based on available genetic information, it was the consensus of NMFS

scientists, as well as regional fishery biologists, that resident fish

should generally be considered part of the steelhead ESUs. However,

NMFS concluded that available data were inconclusive regarding the

relationship of resident rainbow trout and steelhead. NMFS requested

additional data in the proposed rule to clarify this relationship and

determine if resident rainbow trout should be included in listed

steelhead ESUs.

In response to this request for additional information, many groups

and individuals expressed opinions regarding this issue. In most cases

these opinions were not supported by new information that resolves

existing uncertainty. Two state fishery management agencies (California

Department of Fish and Game and Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife) and one peer reviewer provided comments and information

supporting the inclusion of resident rainbow trout in listed steelhead

ESUs. In general, these parties also felt that rainbow trout may serve

as an important reservoir of genetic material for at risk steelhead

stocks.

While conclusive evidence does not yet exist regarding the

relationship of resident and anadromous O. mykiss, NMFS believes

available evidence suggests that resident rainbow trout should be

included in listed steelhead ESUs in certain cases. Such cases include:

(1) Where resident O. mykiss have the opportunity to interbreed with

anadromous fish below natural or man-made barriers; or (2) where

resident fish of native lineage once had the ability to interbreed with

anadromous fish but no longer do because they are currently above

human-made barriers, and they are considered essential for recovery of

the ESU. Whether resident fish that exist above any particular man-made

barrier meet these criteria, must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis

by NMFS. NMFS recognizes that there may be many such cases in

California alone. Resident fish above long-standing natural barriers,

and those that are derived from the introduction of non-native rainbow

trout, would not be considered part of any ESU.

Several lines of evidence exist to support this conclusion. Under

certain conditions, anadromous and resident O. mykiss are apparently

capable not only of interbreeding, but also of having offspring that

express the alternate life history form, that is, anadromous fish can

produce nonanadromous offspring, and vice versa (Shapovalov and Taft,

1954; Burgner et al., 1992). Mullan et al. (1992) found evidence that

in very cold streams, juvenile steelhead had difficulty attaining

``mean threshold size for smoltification'' and concluded that ``[m]ost

fish here [Methow River, WA] that do not emigrate downstream early in

life are thermally-fated to a resident life history regardless of

whether they were the progeny of anadromous or resident parents.''

Additionally, Shapovalov and Taft (1954) reported evidence of O. mykiss

maturing in fresh water and spawning prior to their first ocean

migration; this life history variation has also been found in cutthroat

trout (O. clarki) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).

NMFS believes resident fish can help buffer extinction risks to an

anadromous population by mitigating depensatory effects in spawning

populations (e.g., inability of spawning adults to find mates due to

low population sizes), by providing offspring that migrate to the ocean

and enter the breeding population of steelhead, and by providing a

``reserve'' gene pool in freshwater that may persist through times of

unfavorable conditions for anadromous fish. In spite of these potential

benefits, presence of resident populations is not a substitute for

conservation of anadromous populations. A particular concern is

isolation of resident populations by human-caused barriers to

migration. This interrupts normal population dynamics and population

genetic processes and can lead to loss of a genetically based trait

(anadromy). As discussed in NMFS' ``species identification'' paper

(Waples 1991), the potential loss of anadromy in distinct population

segments may in and of itself warrant listing the species as a whole.

On February 7, 1996, FWS and NMFS adopted a joint policy to clarify

their interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment (DPS)

of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife'' for the purposes of

listing, delisting, and reclassifying species under the ESA (61 FR

4722). DPSs are ``species'' pursuant to section 3(15) of the ESA.

Previously, NMFS had developed a policy for stocks of Pacific salmon

where an ESU of a biological species is considered ``distinct'' (and

hence a species) if it is substantially reproductively isolated from

other conspecific population units, and it represents an important

component in the evolutionary legacy of the species (November 20, 1991,

56 FR 58612). NMFS believes available data suggest that resident

rainbow trout are in many cases part of steelhead ESUs. However, the

FWS, which has ESA authority for resident fish, maintains that

behavioral forms can be regarded as separate DPSs (e.g., western snowy

plover) and that absent evidence suggesting resident rainbow trout need

ESA protection, the FWS concludes that only the anadromous forms of

each ESU should be listed under the ESA (DOI, 1997; FWS, 1997).

In its review of west coast steelhead, the NMFS BRT stated that

rainbow trout and steelhead in the same area may share a common gene

pool, at least over evolutionary time periods (NMFS, 1997a). The

importance of any recovery action is measured in terms of its ability

to recover the listed species in the foreseeable future. The FWS

believes that steelhead recovery will not rely on the intermittent

exchange of genetic material between resident and anadromous forms

(FWS, 1997). As a result, without a clear demonstration of any risks to

resident rainbow trout or the need to protect rainbow trout to recover

steelhead in the foreseeable future, the FWS concludes that only the

anadromous forms of O. mykiss should be included in the listed

steelhead ESUs at this time (FWS 1997). Moreover, including resident

forms of O. mykiss in any future listing action under the ESA would

necessitate that the two forms combined meet the definition of an

endangered or threatened species (FWS, 1997).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the listing regulations (50 CFR part

424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary of

Commerce (Secretary) must determine, through the regulatory process, if

a species is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a

combination of the following factors: (1) The present or threatened

destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made

factors affecting its continued existence.

As noted earlier, NMFS received numerous comments regarding the

relative importance of various factors contributing to the decline of

west coast

[[Page 43942]]

steelhead. Several recent documents describe in more detail the impacts

of various factors contributing to the decline of steelhead and other

salmonids (e.g., NMFS, 1997c). Relative to west coast steelhead, NMFS

has prepared a supporting document that addresses the factors leading

to the decline of this species entitled ``Factors for Decline: A

supplement to the notice of determination for west coast steelhead''

(NMFS, 1996a). This report, available upon request (see ADDRESSES),

concludes that all of the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the

ESA have played a role in the decline of the species. The report

identifies destruction and modification of habitat, overutilization for

recreational purposes, and natural and human-made factors as being the

primary reasons for the decline of west coast steelhead. The following

discussion briefly summarizes findings regarding factors for decline

across the range of west coast steelhead. While these factors have been

treated here in general terms, it is important to underscore that

impacts from certain factors are more acute for specific ESUs. For

example, impacts from hydropower development are more pervasive for

ESUs in the Upper Columbia River and Snake River ESUs than for some

coastal ESUs.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of its Habitat or Range

Steelhead on the west coast of the United States have experienced

declines in abundance in the past several decades as a result of

natural and human factors. Forestry, agriculture, mining, and

urbanization have degraded, simplified, and fragmented habitat. Water

diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower

purposes (especially in the Columbia River and Sacramento-San Joaquin

Basins) have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible

habitat. Studies estimate that during the last 200 years, the lower 48

states have lost approximately 53 percent of all wetlands and the

majority of the rest are severely degraded (Dahl, 1990; Tiner, 1991).

Washington and Oregon's wetlands are estimated to have diminished by

one-third, while California has experienced a 91-percent loss of its

wetland habitat (Dahl, 1990; Jensen et al., 1990; Barbour et al., 1991;

Reynolds et al., 1993). Loss of habitat complexity has also contributed

to the decline of steelhead. For example, in national forests in

Washington, there has been a 58-percent reduction in large, deep pools

due to sedimentation and loss of pool-forming structures such as

boulders and large wood (FEMAT, 1993). Similarly, in Oregon, the

abundance of large, deep pools on private coastal lands has decreased

by as much as 80 percent (FEMAT, 1993). Sedimentation from land use

activities is recognized as a primary cause of habitat degradation in

the range of west coast steelhead.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Educational Purposes

Steelhead support an important recreational fishery throughout

their range. During periods of decreased habitat availability (e.g.,

drought conditions or summer low flow when fish are concentrated), the

impacts of recreational fishing on native anadromous stocks may be

heightened. NMFS has reviewed and evaluated the impacts of recreational

fishing on west coast steelhead populations (NMFS, 1996a). Steelhead

are not generally targeted in commercial fisheries. High seas driftnet

fisheries in the past may have contributed slightly to a decline of

this species in local areas, but could not be solely responsible for

the large declines in abundance observed along most of the Pacific

coast over the past several decades.

A particular problem occurs in the main stem of the Columbia River

where listed steelhead from the Upper Columbia and Snake River Basin

ESUs migrate at the same time and are subject to the same fisheries as

unlisted, hatchery-produced steelhead, chinook and coho salmon.

Incidental harvest mortality in mixed-stock sport and commercial

fisheries may exceed 30 percent of listed populations.

C. Disease or Predation

Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult

and juvenile steelhead survival. Steelhead are exposed to numerous

bacterial, protozoan, viral, and parasitic organisms in spawning and

rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and the marine

environments. Specific diseases such as bacterial kidney disease (BKD),

ceratomyxosis, columnaris, Furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic

necrosis (IHNV), redmouth and black spot disease, Erythrocytic

Inclusion Body Syndrome (EIBS), and whirling disease among others are

present and are known to affect steelhead and salmon (Rucker et al.,

1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Foott et al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer,

undated). Very little current or historical information exists to

quantify changes in infection levels and mortality rates attributable

to these diseases for steelhead. However, studies have shown that

native fish tend to be less susceptible to pathogens than hatchery-

reared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et al., 1992).

Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have

resulted in increased predator populations in numerous river systems,

thereby increasing the level of predation experienced by salmonids.

Predation by pinnipeds is also of concern in areas experiencing

dwindling steelhead run sizes. However, salmon and marine mammals have

coexisted for thousands of years and most investigators consider

predation an insignificant contributing factor to the large declines

observed in west coast steelhead populations.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

1. Federal and State Forest Practices

The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a Federal management policy with

important benefits for steelhead. While the NFP covers a very large

area, the overall effectiveness of the NFP in conserving steelhead is

limited by the extent of Federal lands and the fact that Federal land

ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within the

affected ESUs. The extent and distribution of Federal lands limits the

NFP's ability to achieve its aquatic habitat restoration objectives at

watershed and river basin scales and highlights the importance of

complementary salmon habitat conservation measures on non-Federal lands

within the subject ESUs. For example, there are no Federal lands

managed under the NFP within the Central California, South-Central

California, or Southern California ESUs.

On February 25, 1995, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management adopted Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing

Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington,

Idaho, and portions of California (known as PACFISH). The strategy was

developed in response to significant declines in naturally-reproducing

salmonid stocks, including steelhead, and widespread degradation of

anadromous fish habitat throughout public lands in Idaho, Washington,

Oregon, and California outside the range of the northern spotted owl.

Like the NFP, PACFISH is an attempt to provide a consistent approach

for maintaining and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat conditions

which, in turn, are expected to promote the sustained natural

production of anadromous fish. However, as with the NFP, PACFISH is

[[Page 43943]]

limited by the extent of Federal lands and the fact that Federal land

ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within the

affected ESUs. In the South-Central California and Southern California

ESU, for example, Federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service

represent less than 15-25 percent of each ESU. Moreover, much of these

Federal lands are located in upper elevation areas above currently

impassible barriers. Furthermore, PACFISH was designed to be a short-

term land management/anadromous fish conservation strategy to halt

habitat degradation and begin the restoration process until a long-term

strategy could be adopted. Interagency PACFISH implementation reports

from 1995 and 1996 indicate PACFISH has not been consistently

implemented and has not achieved the level of conservation anticipated

for the short-term. Additionally, because PACFISH was expected to be

replaced within 18 months, it required only minimal levels of watershed

analysis and restoration. The interim PACFISH strategy could be

effective until summer 1998, when the Interior Columbia River basin

Environmental Impact Statements replace it. In total, PACFISH would be

in place for a period of approximately 42 months and its long-term

limitations have already resulted in lost conservation opportunities

for threatened and proposed anadromous fishes.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)

enforces the State of California's forest practice rules (CFPRs) that

are promulgated through the Board of Forestry (BOF). The CFPRs contain

provisions that can be protective of steelhead if fully implemented.

However, NMFS believes the CFPRs do not secure properly functioning

riparian habitat. Specifically, the CFPRs do not adequately address

large woody debris recruitment, streamside tree retention to maintain

bank stability, and canopy retention standards that assure stream

temperatures are properly functioning for all life stages of steelhead.

The current process for approving Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) under the

CFPRs does not include monitoring of timber harvest operations to

determine whether a particular operation damaged habitat and, if so,

how it might be mitigated in future THPs. The CFPR rule that permits

salvage logging is also an area where better environmental review and

monitoring could ensure better protection for steelhead. For these

reasons, NMFS is working to improve the condition of riparian buffers

in ongoing habitat conservation plan negotiations with private

landowners.

The Washington Department of Natural Resources implements and

enforces the State of Washington's forest practice rules (WFPRs) which

are promulgated through the Forest Practices Board. These WFPRs contain

provisions that can be protective of steelhead if fully implemented.

This is possible given that the WFPR's are based on adaptive management

of forest lands through watershed analysis, development of site-

specific land management prescriptions, and monitoring. Watershed

Analysis prescriptions can exceed WFPR minima for stream and riparian

protection. However, NMFS believes the WFPRs, including watershed

analysis, do not provide properly functioning riparian and instream

habitats. Specifically, the base WFPRs do not adequately address large

woody debris recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream bank

integrity and channel networks within floodplains, and chronic and

episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that maintain habitats that

are properly functioning for all life stages of steelhead.

The majority of land area within the Snake River ESU (about 70

percent) is under Federal management; therefore, in most watersheds the

State of Idaho's forest practice rules play a lesser role in forest

management relative to Federal measures (i.e., PACFISH). Even so, NMFS

believes that certain aspects of the State's forest practice rules do

not avoid adverse effects to anadromous fish populations or their

habitat. Specifically, current riparian buffer width requirements are

inadequate, as well as rules which do not prohibit logging on unstable

hillsides and landslide prone areas.

2. Dredge, Fill, and Inwater Construction Programs

The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates removal/fill activities

under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which requires that the

COE not permit a discharge that would ``cause or contribute to

significant degradation of the waters of the United States.'' One of

the factors that must be considered in this determination is cumulative

effects. However, the COE guidelines do not specify a methodology for

assessing cumulative impacts or how much weight to assign them in

decision-making. Furthermore, the COE does not have in place any

process to address the additive effects of the continued development of

waterfront, riverine, coastal, and wetland properties.

3. Water Quality Programs

The Federal CWA is intended to protect beneficial uses, including

fishery resources. To date, implementation has not been effective in

adequately protecting fishery resources, particularly with respect to

non-point sources of pollution.

Section 303(d)(1) (C) and (D) of the CWA requires states to prepare

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all water bodies that do not meet

State water quality standards. TMDLs are a method for quantitative

assessment of environmental problems in a watershed and identifying

pollution reductions needed to protect drinking water, aquatic life,

recreation, and other use of rivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs may

address all pollution sources including point sources such as sewage or

industrial plant discharges, and non-point discharges such as runoff

from roads, farm fields, and forests.

The CWA gives state governments the primary responsibility for

establishing TMDLs. However, EPA is required to do so if a state does

not meet this responsibility. In California, as a result of recent

litigation, the EPA has made a legal commitment guaranteeing that

either EPA or the State of California will establish TMDLs, that

identify pollution reduction targets, for 18 impaired river basins in

northern California by the year 2007. The State of California has made

a commitment to establish TMDLs for approximately half the 18 river

basins by 2007. The EPA will develop TMDLs for the remaining basins and

has also agreed to complete all TMDLs if the State fails to meet its

commitment within the agreed upon time frame.

State agencies in Oregon are committed to completing TMDLs for

coastal drainages within 4 years, and all impaired waters within 10

years. Similarly ambitious schedules are in place, or being developed

for Washington and Idaho.

The ability of these TMDLs to protect steelhead should be

significant in the long term; however, it will be difficult to develop

them quickly in the short term and their efficacy in protecting

steelhead habitat will be unknown for years to come.

4. Hatchery and Harvest Management

In the past, non-native steelhead stocks have been introduced as

broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal rivers

and streams in California (Bryant, 1994; Busby et al., 1996; NMFS,

1997a). Because of problems associated with this practice, California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) developed its

[[Page 43944]]

Salmon and Steelhead Stock Management Policy. This policy recognizes

that such stock mixing is detrimental and seeks to maintain the genetic

integrity of all identifiable stocks of salmon and steelhead in

California, as well as minimize interactions between hatchery and

natural populations. To protect the genetic integrity of salmon and

steelhead stocks, this policy directs CDFG to evaluate each salmon and

steelhead stream and classify it according to its probable genetic

source and degree of integrity. This has not yet been accomplished by

the State.

California's Steelhead Management Plan [or plan] was adopted and

published in February 1996. The plan recognizes that restoration of

California's steelhead populations requires a broad approach that

emphasizes ecosystem restoration. The plan focuses on restoration of

native and naturally produced steelhead stocks because of their

importance in maintaining genetic and biological diversity and for

their aesthetic values. The Steelhead Plan presents a historical

account of the decline of California's steelhead populations, and

identifies needed restoration measures both on a broad, programmatic

scale and on a stream-specific scale. The Steelhead Plan identifies

recent changes in the State's steelhead fishery management and

regulations (e.g., steelhead trout catch report--restoration card [AB

2187], seasonal closures and zero bag limits for nearly all coastal

streams from Santa Barbara County southward) and also identifies

recommendations for further management changes to protect and conserve

steelhead populations. These recommended changes include marking of all

hatchery-produced steelhead in the State, implementation of an 8-inch

minimum size limit for all anadromous waters in the State, and a

reduction in the State-wide bag limit to one steelhead per day. CDFG

has just recently begun implementation of some of the measures

identified in this plan.

Hatchery programs and harvest management have strongly influenced

steelhead populations in the Upper Columbia and Snake River Basin ESUs.

Hatchery programs intended to compensate for habitat losses have masked

declines in natural stocks and have created unrealistic expectations

for fisheries. Collection of natural steelhead for broodstock and

transfers of stocks within and between ESUs has detrimentally impacted

some populations.

The three state agencies (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Washington Department of Fish and Game, and Idaho Department of Fish

and Game) have adopted and are implementing natural salmonid policies

designed to limit hatchery influences on natural, indigenous steelhead.

Sport fisheries are based on marked, hatchery-produced steelhead, and

sport fishing regulations are designed to protect wild fish. While some

limits have been placed on hatchery production of anadromous salmonids,

more careful management of current programs and scrutiny of proposed

programs is necessary in order to minimize impacts on listed species.

E. Other Natural or Human-Made Factors Affecting Its Continued

Existence

Natural climatic conditions have exacerbated the problems

associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats.

Persistent drought conditions have reduced already limited spawning,

rearing and migration habitat. Climatic conditions appear to have

resulted in decreased ocean productivity which, during more productive

periods, may help offset degraded freshwater habitat conditions (NMFS,

1996a).

In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat, extensive hatchery

programs have been implemented throughout the range of steelhead on the

West Coast. While some of these programs have succeeded in providing

fishing opportunities, the impacts of these programs on native,

naturally-reproducing stocks are not well understood. Competition,

genetic introgression, and disease transmission resulting from hatchery

introductions may significantly reduce the production and survival of

native, naturally-reproducing steelhead. Collection of native steelhead

for hatchery broodstock purposes often harms small or dwindling natural

populations. Artificial propagation can play an important role in

steelhead recovery through carefully controlled supplementation

programs.

Summary of ESU Determinations

Below follows a summary of NMFS' ESU determinations for these

species. A more detailed discussion of ESU determinations is presented

in the ``Status Review Update for West Coast Steelhead from Washington,

Idaho, Oregon, and California'' (NMFS, 1997a). Copies of this document

are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

(1) Central California Coast ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies river basins from the Russian

River, Sonoma County, CA, (inclusive) to Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz

County, CA, (inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco and San

Pablo Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), Napa County, CA. The

Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin of the Central Valley of California

is excluded. Environmental features show a transition in this region

from the northern redwood forest ecosystem to the more xeric southern

chaparral and coastal scrub ecosystems. This area is characterized by

very erosive soils in the coast range mountains; redwood forest is the

dominant coastal vegetation for these drainages. Precipitation is lower

here than in areas to the north, and elevated stream temperatures

(greater than 20 deg. C) are common in the summer. Coastal upwelling in

this region is strong and consistent, resulting in a relatively

productive nearshore marine environment.

NMFS has determined that no changes in the proposed boundaries of

the Central California Coast ESU are warranted; however, the original

written description of this ESU inadvertently left a gap between Soquel

Creek and the Pajaro River. This ESU includes steelhead occupying the

Russian River and all basins south to Aptos Creek but not including the

Pajaro River Basin.

One peer reviewer questioned the basis for the location of the

boundary between this ESU and the South-Central California Coast,

effectively splitting the basins that flow into Monterey Bay. The ESU

break between Aptos Creek and the Pajaro River is largely based on

ecological differences of the river basins. The Pajaro River and river

basins south of there drain an arid interior and end in broad coastal

plains, whereas north of the Pajaro River, the river basins largely

drain coastal mountains at the southern end of the natural range of the

redwood forest. This boundary is also consistent with the southern

limit of coho salmon, further suggesting a natural ecological break.

NMFS finds no biological basis to exclude steelhead from the basins

of either San Francisco or San Pablo Bays from this ESU, as some

commenters have suggested. The characteristics of hydrology, geology,

and upper basin vegetation in the basins draining into San Francisco

Bay and San Pablo Bay are more similar to those attributes of the

coastal portion of this ESU than to the Central Valley ESU, although

resource management activities and urbanization have altered much of

the habitat. Life history characteristics of steelhead, such as period

of emigration and spawning, are also consistent within this ESU.

[[Page 43945]]

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU

Hatchery populations considered part of this ESU include Big Creek

Hatchery stock and San Lorenzo River Hatchery stock which is reared at

the Big Creek hatchery. The basis for this conclusion is the minimal

influence of releases of fish from outside of the ESU and the genetic

similarity between these and other regional stocks. Furthermore, adult

collection and spawning procedures practiced by the hatcheries (which

include using naturally produced fish) have helped reduce selection for

domestication and small population effects during the course of

hatchery operations.

Hatchery populations not included in the listed ESU at this time

include the Dry Creek stock at the Warm Springs hatchery. Information

concerning this stock is sparse and therefore this stock's relationship

to the entire ESU is uncertain. NMFS will continue to evaluate any new

information concerning this stock in the future to determine if its

inclusion is warranted.

(2) South-Central California Coast ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies rivers from the Pajaro River,

located in Santa Cruz County, CA, (inclusive) to (but not including)

the Santa Maria River, San Luis Obispo County, CA. Most rivers in this

ESU drain the Santa Lucia Mountain Range, the southernmost unit of the

California Coast Ranges. The climate is drier and warmer than in the

north, which is reflected in the vegetational change from coniferous

forest to chaparral and coastal scrub. Another biological transition at

the north of this area is the southern limit of the distribution of

coho salmon (O. kisutch). The mouths of many of the rivers and streams

in this area are seasonally closed by sand berms that form during

periods of low flow in the summer. The southern boundary of this ESU is

near Point Conception, a well-known transition area for the

distribution and abundance of marine flora and fauna.

NMFS has determined that no changes in the proposed boundaries of

the South-Central California Coast ESU are warranted. See discussion of

the Central California Coast ESU, above, regarding the break between

Aptos Creek and the Pajaro River.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU

Hatchery populations considered part of this ESU include Whale Rock

Reservoir stock. Although this stock was established from a steelhead

population that was trapped behind the Whale Rock Dam in the 1950s, it

apparently retains an anadromous component. Juvenile steelhead are able

to emigrate from Whale Rock Reservoir during high spill years, and

anecdotal information indicates that some of these juveniles return as

adults to the base of the dam 2 years later.

(3) Southern California ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies rivers from the Santa Maria

River, San Luis Obispo County, CA (inclusive) to the southern extent of

the species' range. Available data indicate that Malibu Creek, Los

Angeles County is the southernmost stream generally recognized as

supporting a persistent, naturally spawning population of anadromous O.

mykiss (Behnke, 1992; Burgner et al., 1992).

Migration and life history patterns of southern California

steelhead depend more strongly on rainfall and streamflow than is the

case for steelhead populations farther north (Moore, 1980; Titus et

al., in press). River entry ranges from early November through June,

with peaks in January and February. Spawning primarily begins in

January and continues through early June, with peak spawning in

February and March. Average rainfall is substantially lower and more

variable in this ESU than regions to the north, resulting in increased

duration of sand berms across the mouths of streams and rivers and, in

some cases, complete dewatering of the marginal habitats. Environmental

conditions in marginal habitats may be extreme (e.g., elevated water

temperatures, droughts, floods, and fires) and presumably impose

selective pressures on steelhead populations. Steelhead use of southern

California streams and rivers with elevated temperatures suggests that

populations within this ESU are able to withstand higher temperatures

than those to the north. The relatively warm and productive waters of

the Ventura River resulted in more rapid growth of juvenile steelhead

than occurred in northerly populations (Moore, 1980; McEwan & Jackson,

1996). However, relatively little life history information exists for

steelhead from this ESU.

In the proposed rule NMFS stated that this ESU presently extends to

the southern extent of the species range which is currently thought to

be Malibu Creek, Los Angeles County. Many comments were received

regarding this issue; most supported placing the southern boundary of

this ESU further south. NMFS has reviewed numerous references to

steelhead occurring historically and recently in streams as far south

as the U.S.-Mexico border. While available data indicate that steelhead

may occasionally occur as far south as the Santa Margarita River, the

relationship of these individuals to those populations occurring

further north is poorly understood.

Based on available data, NMFS concludes that insufficient

information exists to justify revision of the proposed southern

boundary of this ESU.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU

No hatchery production of steelhead currently occurs in this ESU.

(4) Upper Columbia River Basin ESU

This inland steelhead ESU occupies the Columbia River Basin

upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the United States-Canada

border. The geographic area occupied by this ESU forms part of the

larger Columbia Basin Ecoregion (Omernik, 1987). The Wenatchee and

Entiat Rivers are in the Northern Cascades Physiographic Province, and

the Okanogan and Methow Rivers are in the Okanogan Highlands

Physiographic Province. The geology of these provinces is somewhat

similar and very complex, developed from marine invasions, volcanic

deposits, and glaciation (Franklin & Dyrness, 1973). The river valleys

in this region are deeply dissected and maintain low gradients except

in extreme headwaters. The climate in this area includes extremes in

temperatures and precipitation, with most precipitation falling in the

mountains as snow. Streamflow in this area is provided by melting

snowpack, groundwater, and runoff from alpine glaciers. Mullan et al.

(1992) described this area as a harsh environment for fish and stated

that ``it should not be confused with more studied, benign, coastal

streams of the Pacific Northwest.''

Life history characteristics for Upper Columbia River Basin

steelhead are similar to those of other inland steelhead ESUs; however,

some of the oldest smolt ages for steelhead, up to 7 years, are

reported from this ESU. This may be associated with the cold stream

temperatures (Mullan et al., 1992). Based on limited data available

from adult fish, smolt age in this ESU is dominated by 2-year-olds.

Steelhead from the Wenatchee and Entiat Rivers return to fresh water

after 1 year in salt water, whereas Methow River steelhead are

primarily two-ocean resident (Howell et al., 1985).

In 1939, the construction of Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River

blocked over 1,800 kilometers of river

[[Page 43946]]

from access by anadromous fish (Mullan et al., 1992). In an effort to

preserve fish runs affected by Grand Coulee Dam, all anadromous fish

migrating upstream were trapped at Rock Island Dam from 1939 through

1943 and either released to spawn in tributaries between Rock Island

and Grand Coulee Dams or spawned in hatcheries and the offspring

released in that area (Peven, 1990; Mullan et al., 1992; Chapman et

al., 1994). Through this process, stocks of all anadromous salmonids,

including steelhead, which were historically native to several separate

subbasins above Rock Island Dam, were redistributed among tributaries

in the Rock Island-Grand Coulee reach without regard to their origin.

Exactly how this has affected stock composition of steelhead is

unknown.

NMFS has determined that no changes in the boundaries of the Upper

Columbia River ESU are warranted. No new information was received from

peer reviewers or other commenters regarding the boundaries of this

ESU.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU

Hatchery populations considered part of this ESU include the Wells

Hatchery stock of steelhead (Summer run). Although this stock

represents a mixture of native populations, it probably retains the

genetic resources of steelhead populations above Grand Coulee Dam that

are now extinct from those native habitats. Operations at the Wells

Hatchery have utilized large numbers of spawning adults

(500) and have incorporated some naturally

spawning adults (10 percent of the total) into the broodstock each

year, procedures which should help minimize the negative genetic

effects of artificial propagation. Because of the incorporation of

naturally-spawning adults into the hatchery broodstock and the large

number of hatchery-propagated fish that spawn naturally, there is a

close genetic resemblance between naturally spawning populations in the

ESU and the Wells Hatchery stock that could be used for recovery

purposes.

Hatchery populations not considered part of this ESU include the

Skamania Hatchery stock (Summer run) because of its non-native

heritage.

(5) Snake River Basin ESU

This inland steelhead ESU occupies the Snake River Basin of

southeast Washington, northeast Oregon and Idaho. The Snake River flows

through terrain that is warmer and drier on an annual basis than the

upper Columbia Basin or other drainages to the north. Geologically, the

land forms are older and much more eroded than most other steelhead

habitat. The eastern portion of the basin flows out of the granitic

geological unit known as the Idaho Batholith. The western Snake River

Basin drains sedimentary and volcanic soils of the Blue Mountains

complex. Collectively, the environmental factors of the Snake River

Basin result in a river that is warmer and more turbid, with higher pH

and alkalinity, than is found elsewhere in the range of inland

steelhead.

Snake River Basin steelhead are summer steelhead, as are most

inland steelhead, and have been classified into two groups, A-run and

B-run, based on migration timing, ocean-age, and adult size. Snake

River Basin steelhead enter fresh water from June to October and spawn

in the following spring from March to May. A-run steelhead are thought

to be predominately one-ocean, while B-run steelhead are thought to be

two-ocean (IDFG, 1994). Snake River Basin steelhead usually smolt at

age-2 or -3 years (Whitt, 1954; BPA, 1992; Hassemer, 1992).

NMFS concludes that no changes in the proposed boundaries of the

Snake River Basin ESU are warranted. While several commenters stated

that A- and B-run steelhead are distinctive and therefore warrant

consideration as separate ESUs, no new scientific evidence was provided

to support this. As one peer reviewer noted, the distinction between A-

and B-run fish currently is made using either timing-based or length-

based divisions of steelhead passing Bonneville Dam, on the mainstem

Columbia River. Above Bonneville dam, run-timing separation is not

observed, and the groups are separated based on ocean age and body size

(IDFG, 1994). It is unclear if the life history and body size

differences observed upstream are correlated with groups forming the

bimodal migration observed at Bonneville dam. Furthermore, the

relationship between patterns observed at the dams and the distribution

of adults in spawning areas through the Snake River basin is not well

understood. Based on the inability to clearly distinguish between A-

and B-run steelhead once above Bonneville, NMFS concludes their

division into separate ESUs is not warranted.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU

Hatchery populations considered part of this ESU include Dworshak

National Fish Hatchery (NFH) stock (Summer run); Imnaha River stock

(Summer run); and Oxbow Hatchery stock (Summer run). Although the

historical spawning and rearing habitat for the Dworshack Hatchery

stock is not available to anadromous migrants (due to the construction

of Dworshak Dam), this stock represents the only source of a

genetically distinct component of the ESU. Furthermore, due to the

absence of any introgression from other populations, the purity of this

stock likely has been maintained. While some concern exists for

potential domestication or genetic founder effects, hatchery records

indicate that a minimum of a thousand adults have been used annually to

perpetuate the stock, which would reduce the possibility of genetic

drift leading to reduced genetic variation within the stock.

NMFS concludes that the Imnaha River Hatchery stock is part of the

Snake River ESU. This stock was recently founded from an undiluted

stock (with no previous history of non-native hatchery releases) for

the purpose of preserving the native genetic resources of this area.

Therefore, this stock represents an important component of the

evolutionary legacy of this ESU.

Finally, NMFS concludes that the Oxbow Hatchery stock is part of

the Snake River ESU. Although this stock has been under artificial

propagation for several generations and has been propagated almost

entirely from hatchery-derived adults, NMFS believes this stock

represents the only source of a unique genetic resource and as such is

important to preserve as part of the ESU.

Hatchery populations not considered part of the Snake River ESU

include the Lyons Ferry stock (Summer run), Pahsimeroi Hatchery stock

(Summer run), East Fork Salmon River Trap (Summer run), and Wallowa

Hatchery stock (Summer run). The Lyons Ferry Hatchery stock is excluded

primarily based on the use of steelhead from stocks that originated

outside of this ESU. The Pahsimeroi Hatchery stock consists of a

mixture of populations, all of which originate within the ESU; however,

NMFS believes that because these populations came from ecologically-

distinct regions throughout the Snake River Basin, the assemblage of

these populations does not closely resemble any naturally spawning

counterpart. In recent years, hatchery practices have focused on

propagating this stock solely from hatchery derived adults. The East

Fork Salmon River Trap consists of a mixture of Pahsimeroi and Dworshak

Hatchery stocks which are not included in the ESU.

NMFS concludes that the Wallowa Hatchery stock is not included in

this ESU. This stock was founded by collections of adults from lower

Snake

[[Page 43947]]

River mainstem dams, and there was no clear consensus on which

populations within the Snake River Basin were represented in the

mixture. Also, populations not native to the Snake River (e.g.,

Skamania stock) have been incorporated into Wallowa Hatchery

broodstock. Many of the reasons for not including this stock are

similar to those given for the Pahsimeroi Hatchery stock.

Existing Conservation Efforts

Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is

required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best

scientific and commercial data available and after taking into account

efforts being made to protect a species. During the status review for

west coast steelhead, NMFS reviewed an array of protective efforts for

steelhead and other salmonids, ranging in scope from regional

strategies to local watershed initiatives. NMFS has summarized some of

the major efforts in a document entitled ``Steelhead Conservation

Efforts: A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast

Steelhead under the Endangered Species Act'' (NMFS, 1996b). In

addition, NMFS has compiled inventories of locally based, watershed

conservation planning and restoration efforts for steelhead in the

Central California, South-Central, and Southern California ESUs (NMFS,

1997d). These documents are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Despite numerous efforts to halt and reverse declining trends in

west coast steelhead, it is clear that the status of many native,

naturally-reproducing populations has continued to deteriorate. NMFS

therefore believes it highly likely that past efforts and programs to

address the conservation needs of these stocks are inadequate,

including efforts to reduce mortalities and improve the survival of

these stocks through all stages of their life cycle. Important factors

include the loss of habitat, continued decline in the productivity of

freshwater habitat for a wide variety of reasons, significant potential

negative impacts from interactions with hatchery stocks, overfishing,

and natural environmental variability.

NMFS recognizes that many of the ongoing Federal, state, and local

protective efforts are likely to promote the conservation of steelhead

and other salmonids. However, NMFS has also determined that,

collectively, these efforts are not sufficient to achieve long-term

conservation and recovery of steelhead at the scale of individual ESUs.

There have been significant improvements in migration conditions in the

Columbia River Basin as a result of NMFS' 1995 Biological Opinion on

the operation of the Federal hydropower system. However, mainstem

passage conditions are only one of many threats facing the species.

NMFS believes most existing efforts lack some of the critical elements

needed to provide a high degree of certainty that the efforts will be

successful.

The best available scientific information on the biological status

of the species supports a final listing of five steelhead ESUs under

the ESA at this time. NMFS concludes that existing protective efforts

are inadequate to alter the proposed determination of threatened or

endangered for these five steelhead ESUs.

Status of Steelhead ESUs

Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as

``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is

defined as ``any species which is likely to become an endangered

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range.'' Thompson (1991) suggested that conventional

rules of thumb, analytical approaches, and simulations may all be

useful in making this determination. In previous status reviews (e.g.,

Weitkamp et al., 1995), NMFS has identified a number of factors that

should be considered in evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU,

including: (1) Absolute numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal

distribution; (2) current abundance in relation to historical abundance

and current carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in abundance;

(4) natural and human-influenced factors that cause variability in

survival and abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity

(e.g., from strays or outplants from hatchery programs); and (6) recent

events (e.g., a drought or changes in harvest management) that have

predictable short-term consequences for abundance of the ESU.

During the coastwide status review for steelhead, NMFS evaluated

both quantitative and qualitative information to determine whether any

proposed ESU is threatened or endangered according to the ESA. The

types of information used in these assessments are described below,

followed by a summary of results for each ESU.

Quantitative Assessments

A significant component of NMFS' status determination was analyses

of abundance trend data. Principal data sources for these analyses were

historical and recent run size estimates derived from dam and weir

counts, stream surveys, and angler catch estimates. Of the 160

steelhead stocks on the west coast of the United States for which

sufficient data existed, 118 (74 percent) exhibited declining trends in

abundance, while the remaining 42 (26 percent) exhibited increasing

trends in abundance. Sixty-five of the stock abundance trends analyzed

were statistically significant. Of these, 57 (88 percent) indicated

declining trends in abundance and the remaining 8 (12 percent)

indicated increasing trends in abundance. NMFS' analysis assumes that

catch trends reflect trends in overall population abundance. NMFS

recognizes there are many problems with this assumption and, therefore,

the index may not represent trends in the total population in a river

basin. However, angler catch is the only information available for many

steelhead populations, and changes in catch still provide a useful

indication of trends in total population abundance. Furthermore, where

alternate abundance data existed, NMFS used them in its risk analyses.

Analyses of steelhead abundance indicate that across the species'

range, the majority of naturally reproducing steelhead stocks have

exhibited long-term declines in abundance. The severity of declines in

abundance tends to vary by geographic region. Based on historical and

recent abundance estimates, stocks in the southern extent of the

coastal steelhead range (i.e., California's Central Valley, South-

Central and Southern California ESUs) appear to have declined

significantly, with widespread stock extirpations. In several areas, a

lack of accurate run size and trend data make estimating abundance

difficult.

Qualitative Assessments

Although numerous studies have attempted to classify the status of

steelhead populations on the west coast of the United States, problems

exist in applying results of these studies to NMFS' ESA evaluations. A

significant problem is that the definition of ``stock'' or

``population'' varies considerably in scale among studies, and

sometimes among regions within a study. In several studies, identified

units range in size from large river basins, to minor coastal streams

and tributaries. Only two studies (Nehlsen et al., 1991; Higgins et

al., 1992) used categories that relate to the ESA ``threatened'' or

``endangered'' status. Even these studies applied their own

interpretations of these terms to individual stocks, not to broader

[[Page 43948]]

geographic units such as those discussed here. Another significant

problem in applying previously published studies to this evaluation is

the manner in which stocks or populations were selected to be included

in the review. Several studies did not evaluate stocks that were not

perceived to be at risk, making it difficult to determine the

proportion of stocks they considered to be at risk in any given area.

Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered salmon and steelhead stocks

throughout Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California and enumerated all

stocks they found to be extinct or at risk of extinction. They

considered 23 steelhead stocks to be extinct, one possibly extinct, 27

at high risk of extinction, 18 at moderate risk of extinction, and 30

of special concern. Steelhead stocks that do not appear in their

summary were either not at risk of extinction or there was insufficient

information to classify them. Washington Department of Fisheries et al.

(1993) categorized all salmon and steelhead stocks in Washington on the

basis of stock origin (``native,'' ``non-native,'' ``mixed,'' or

``unknown''), production type (``wild,'' ``composite,'' or ``unknown'')

and status (``healthy,'' ``depressed,'' ``critical,'' or ``unknown'').

Of the 141 steelhead stocks identified in Washington, 36 were

classified as healthy, 44 as critical, 10 as depressed, and 60 as

unknown.

The following summaries draw on these quantitative and qualitative

assessments to describe NMFS' conclusions regarding the status of each

steelhead ESU. Furthermore, in these summaries, NMFS identifies those

hatchery populations that are essential for the recovery of the ESU. An

``essential'' hatchery population is one that is currently vital to the

success of recovery efforts for the ESU within which it occurs. In

evaluating the importance of hatchery stocks for recovery, NMFS

considers the relationship between the natural and hatchery populations

and the degree of risk faced by the natural populations. A more

detailed discussion of the status of these steelhead ESUs is presented

in the ``Status Review Update for West Coast Steelhead from Washington,

Idaho, Oregon, and California'' (NMFS, 1997a). Copies of this document

are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

(1) Central California Coast ESU

Only two estimates of historical (pre-1960s) abundance specific to

this ESU are available: an average of about 500 adults in Waddell Creek

in the 1930s and early 1940s (Shapovalov & Taft, 1954), and an estimate

of 20,000 steelhead in the San Lorenzo River before 1965 (Johnson,

1964). In the mid-1960s, CDFG (1965) estimated 94,000 steelhead

spawning in many rivers of this ESU, including 50,000 and 19,000 fish

in the Russian and San Lorenzo Rivers, respectively. NMFS has

comparable recent estimates for only the Russian (approximately 7,000

fish) and San Lorenzo (approximately 500 fish) Rivers. These estimates

indicate that recent total abundance of steelhead in these two rivers

is less than 15 percent of their abundance 30 years ago. Additional

recent estimates for several other streams (Lagunitas Creek, Waddell

Creek, Scott Creek, San Vincente Creek, Soquel Creek, and Aptos Creek)

indicate individual run sizes are 500 fish or less. No recent estimates

of total run size exist for this ESU. McEwan and Jackson (1996) noted

that steelhead in most tributary streams in San Francisco and San Pablo

Bays have been extirpated.

Additional information received in response to the proposed rule

suggests that steelhead in this ESU may be exhibiting slight increases

in abundance in recent years (NMFS, 1997a). Updated abundance data for

the Russian and San Lorenzo Rivers indicate increasing run sizes over

the past 2-3 years, but it is not possible to distinguish the relative

proportions of hatchery and natural steelhead in those estimates.

Additional data from a few smaller streams in the region also show

general increases in juvenile abundance in recent years.

Presence/absence data available since the proposed rule show that

in a subset of streams sampled in the central California coast region,

most contain steelhead. This is in contrast to the pattern exhibited by

coho, which are absent from many of those same streams. Those streams

in which steelhead were not present are concentrated in the highly

urbanized San Francisco Bay region. While there are several concerns

with these data (e.g., uncertainty regarding origin of juveniles), NMFS

believes it is generally a positive indicator that there is a

relatively broad distribution of steelhead in smaller streams

throughout the region.

In evaluating trends in productivity throughout the ESU, NMFS

considered difficulties arising from the inability to separate out the

effects of hatchery productivity from overall run size increases in

recent years. The Russian and San Lorenzo Rivers have the highest

steelhead productivity in the ESU, but it is likely that many of the

fish are of hatchery origin (estimates in both streams range from 40-60

percent over the last 5 years).

After considering available information, NMFS concludes that

steelhead in the Central California Coast ESU warrant listing as a

threatened species--a change from its proposed status as endangered.

Factors contributing to the present conclusion include new evidence for

greater absolute numbers of steelhead in the larger rivers of the

central California coast region and the possible increases in juvenile

abundance over the last few years. In addition, the broad geographic

distribution of steelhead throughout the region, as indicated by the

presence/absence data, also convinced NMFS this ESU does not warrant an

endangered listing at this time.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

NMFS concludes that the Big Creek and San Lorenzo River Hatchery

stocks are not essential for recovery of this ESU. Current information

indicates sufficient naturally spawning populations exist for recovery

efforts. The significant degree of hatchery contribution to steelhead

runs in the San Lorenzo River may require the use of this stock in

recovery efforts in the future.

(2) South-Central California Coast ESU

Historical estimates of steelhead abundance are available for a few

rivers in this region. In the mid-1960s, CDFG (1965) estimated a total

of 27,750 steelhead spawning in this ESU. Recent estimates for those

rivers where comparative abundance information is available show a

substantial decline during the past 30 years. In contrast to the CDFG

(1965) estimates, McEwan and Jackson (1996) reported runs ranging from

1,000 to 2,000 in the Pajaro River in the early 1960s, and Snider

(1983) estimated escapement of about 3,200 steelhead for the Carmel

River for the 1964-1975 period. No recent estimates for total run size

exist for this ESU; however, recent run-size estimates are available

for five rivers (Pajaro River, Salinas River, Carmel River, Little Sur

River, and Big Sur River). The total of these estimates is less than

500 fish, compared with a total of 4,750 for the same rivers in 1965,

which suggests a substantial decline for the entire ESU from 1965

levels.

Updated data on abundance and trends for steelhead in this ESU

indicate slight increases in recent years. New data from the Carmel

River show increases in adult and juvenile steelhead abundance over the

past 2 to 5 years.

After weighing this new information, NMFS concludes that steelhead

in the

[[Page 43949]]

South-Central California Coast ESU warrant listing as a threatened

species--a change from its proposed status as endangered. Reasons for

this slightly more optimistic assessment include new abundance data

indicating recent increases in adult and juvenile abundance in the

Carmel River and several small coastal tributaries in the southern part

of the region. In addition, risks to genetic integrity to steelhead in

this ESU are relatively low because of low levels of hatchery stocking.

(There are a few scattered reports of rainbow trout introductions from

rivers outside the central California coast region.)

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

NMFS concludes that the Whale Rock Reservoir Hatchery stock is not

essential for recovery of this ESU. Current information indicates

sufficient naturally spawning populations exist for recovery efforts.

If in the future the status of steelhead in this ESU worsens, this

stock may become essential for recovery efforts.

(3) Southern California ESU

Historically, steelhead occurred naturally south into Baja

California. Estimates of historical (pre-1960s) abundance for several

rivers in this ESU are available: Santa Ynez River, before 1950, 20,000

to 30,000 (Shapovalov & Taft, 1954; CDFG, 1982; Reavis, 1991; Titus et

al., in press); Ventura River, pre-1960, 4,000 to 6,000 (Clanton &

Jarvis, 1946; CDFG, 1982; AFS, 1991; Hunt et al., 1992; Henke, 1994;

Titus et al., in press); Santa Clara River, pre-1960, 7,000 to 9,000

(Moore, 1980; Comstock, 1992; Henke, 1994); Malibu Creek, pre-1960,

1,000 (Nehlsen et al., 1991; Reavis, 1991). In the mid-1960s, CDFG

(1965) estimated steelhead spawning populations for smaller tributaries

in San Luis Obispo County as 20,000 fish; however, no estimates for

streams further south were provided.

The present estimated total run size for 6 streams (Santa Ynez

River, Gaviota Creek, Ventura River, Matilija Creek, Santa Clara River,

Malibu Creek) in this ESU are summarized in Titus et al., and each is

less than 200 adults. Titus et al. concluded that populations have been

extirpated from all streams south of Ventura County, with the exception

of Malibu Creek in Los Angeles County. While there are no comprehensive

stream surveys conducted for steelhead trout occurring in streams south

of Malibu Creek, there continue to be anecdotal observations of

steelhead in rivers as far south as the Santa Margarita River, San

Diego County, in years of substantial rainfall (Barnhart, 1986,

Higgins, 1991, McEwan & Jackson, 1996). Titus et al. (in press) cited

extensive loss of steelhead habitat due to water development, including

impassable dams and dewatering.

No time series of data are available within this ESU to estimate

population trends. Titus et al. summarized information for steelhead

populations based on historical and recent survey information. Of the

populations south of San Francisco Bay (including part of the Central

California Coast ESU) for which past and recent information was

available, 20 percent had no discernable change, 45 percent had

declined, and 35 percent were extinct. Percentages for the counties

comprising this ESU show a very high percentage of declining and

extinct populations.

The sustainability of steelhead populations in the Southern

California ESU continues to be a major concern, evidenced by

consistently low abundance estimates in all river basins. There are

fairly good qualitative accounts of historical abundances of steelhead

in this ESU, and recent adult counts are severely depressed relative to

the past. The few new data that have become available since the

proposed rule do not suggest any consistent pattern of change in

steelhead abundance in this region.

NMFS concludes that the Southern California ESU is, as proposed,

endangered. The primary reasons for concern about steelhead in this ESU

are the widespread, dramatic declines in abundance relative to

historical levels. Low abundance leads to increased risks due to

demographic and genetic variability in small populations. In addition,

NMFS believes the restricted spatial distribution of remaining

populations places the ESU as a whole at risk because of reduced

opportunities for recolonization of streams suffering local population

extinctions. The main sources of the extensive population declines in

steelhead in this ESU are similar to those described in the South-

Central California Coast ESU. In addition, because of fire suppression

practiced throughout the area, NMFS believes the effects of increased

fire intensity and duration is likely to be a significant risk to the

steelhead in this ESU.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

No hatchery production of steelhead currently occurs in this ESU.

(4) Upper Columbia River Basin ESU

Estimates of historical (pre-1960s) abundance specific to this ESU

are available from fish counts at dams. Counts at Rock Island Dam from

1933 to 1959 averaged 2,600 to 3,700, suggesting a pre-fishery run size

in excess of 5,000 adults for tributaries above Rock Island Dam

(Chapman et al., 1994). Runs may already have been depressed by lower

Columbia River fisheries at this time. Recent five-year (1989-93)

average natural escapements are available for two stock units:

Wenatchee River, 800 steelhead, and Methow and Okanogan Rivers, 450

steelhead. Recent average total escapements for these stocks were 2,500

and 2,400, respectively. Average total run size at Priest Rapids Dam

for the same period was approximately 9,600 adult steelhead.

Trends in total (natural and hatchery) adult escapement are

available for the Wenatchee River (2.6 percent annual increase, 1962-

1993) and the Methow and Okanogan Rivers combined (12 percent annual

decline, 1982-93). These two stocks represent most of the escapement to

natural spawning habitat within the range of the ESU; the Entiat River

also has a small spawning run (WDF et al., 1993).

Steelhead in the Upper Columbia River ESU continue to exhibit low

abundances, both in absolute numbers and in relation to numbers of

hatchery fish throughout the region. Data from this ESU include

separate total and natural run sizes, allowing the separation of

hatchery and natural fish abundance estimates for at least some areas

in some years. Review of the most recent data indicates that natural

steelhead abundance has declined or remained low and relatively

constant in the major river basins in this ESU (Wenatchee, Methow,

Okanogan) since the early 1990s. Estimates of natural production of

steelhead in the ESU are well below replacement (approximately 0.3:1

adult replacement ratios estimated in the Wenatchee and Entiat Rivers.)

These data indicate that natural steelhead populations in the Upper

Columbia River Basin are not self-sustaining at the present time. The

BRT also discussed anecdotal evidence that resident rainbow trout,

which are in numerous streams throughout the region, contribute to

anadromous run abundance. This phenomenon would reduce estimates of the

natural steelhead replacement ratio.

The proportion of hatchery fish is high in these rivers (65-80

percent). In addition, substantial genetic mixing of populations within

this ESU has occurred, both historically (as a result of the Grand

Coulee Fish Maintenance Project) and more recently as a result of the

Wells Hatchery program. Extensive mixing of hatchery stocks throughout

this ESU, along with the reduced

[[Page 43950]]

opportunity for maintenance of locally adapted genetic lineages among

different drainages, represents a considerable threat to steelhead in

this region.

Based on the considerations above, NMFS concludes the Upper

Columbia ESU is endangered, as proposed. In their comments on the

proposed rule, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife states its

general concurrence with this conclusion (WDFW, 1997). The primary

cause for concern for steelhead in this ESU are the extremely low

estimates of adult replacement ratios. The dramatic declines in natural

run sizes and the inability of naturally spawning steelhead adults to

replace themselves suggest that if present trends continue, this ESU

will not be viable. Habitat degradation, juvenile and adult mortality

in the hydrosystem, and unfavorable environmental conditions in both

marine and freshwater habitats have contributed to the declines and

represent risk factors for the future. Harvest in lower river fisheries

and genetic homogenization from composite broodstock collections are

other factors that may contribute significantly to risk to the Upper

Columbia ESU.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

NMFS concludes the Wells Hatchery stock including progeny is

essential for recovery efforts in this ESU, and therefore should be

listed. This conclusion is primarily based on very low estimates of the

recruits per spawner ratio, which indicate that productivity of

naturally spawning steelhead in this ESU is far below the replacement

rate.

(5) Snake River Basin ESU

Prior to Ice Harbor Dam completion in 1962, there were no counts of

Snake River Basin naturally spawned steelhead. However, Lewiston Dam

counts during the period from 1949 to 1971 averaged about 40,000

steelhead per year in the Clearwater River, while the Ice Harbor Dam

count in 1962 was 108,000, and averaged approximately 70,000 until

1970.

All steelhead in the Snake River Basin are summer steelhead, which

for management purposes are divided into ``A-run'' and ``B-run''

steelhead. Each has several life history differences including spawning

size, run timing, and habitat type. Although there is little

information for most stocks within this ESU, there are recent run-size

and/or escapement estimates for several stocks. Total recent-year

average (1990-1994) escapement above Lower Granite Dam was

approximately 71,000, with a natural component of 9,400 (7,000 A-run

and 2,400 B-run). Run size estimates are available for only a few

tributaries within the ESU, all with small populations.

Snake River Basin steelhead recently have suffered severe declines

in abundance relative to historical levels. Low run sizes over the last

ten years are most pronounced for naturally produced steelhead. In

addition, average parr densities recently have dropped for both A-and

B-run steelhead, resulting in many river basins in this region being

characterized as critically underseeded relative to the carrying

capacity of streams. Declines in abundance have been particularly

serious for B-run steelhead, increasing the risk that some of the life

history diversity may be lost from steelhead in this ESU. Recently

obtained information indicates a record low smolt survival and ocean

production for Snake River steelhead in 1992-94.

The proportion of hatchery steelhead in the Snake River Basin is

very high for the ESU as a whole (over 80 percent hatchery fish passing

Lower Granite Dam), yet hatchery fish are rare to nonexistent in

several drainages in the region. In places where hatchery release sites

are interspersed with naturally-spawning reaches, the potential for

straying and introgression is high, resulting in a risk to the genetic

integrity of some steelhead populations in this ESU. Hatchery/natural

interactions that do occur for Snake River steelhead are of particular

concern because many of the hatcheries use composite stocks that have

been domesticated over a long period of time.

Based on this information, NMFS concludes that the Snake River ESU

is threatened, as proposed. The primary indicator of risk to the ESU is

declining abundance throughout the region. Demographic and genetic

risks from small population sizes are likely to be important, because

few natural steelhead are spread over a wide geographic area. In their

comments on the proposed rule, the State of Idaho concurred with NMFS'

assessment that steelhead stocks in this ESU are imperiled (State of

Idaho, 1997). Steelhead in this ESU face risks similar to those in the

Upper Columbia River ESU: Widespread habitat blockage from hydrosystem

management and potentially deleterious genetic effects from straying

and introgression from hatchery fish. The reduction in habitat capacity

resulting from large dams such as the Hells Canyon dam complex and

Dworshak Dam is somewhat mitigated by several river basins with fairly

good production of natural steelhead runs.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

NMFS concludes that the hatchery stocks considered part of this ESU

(Dworshak NFH stock, Imnaha Hatchery stock, and Oxbow Hatchery stock)

are not currently essential for the recovery of the ESU. The Dworshak

NFH stock and Oxbow Hatchery stock both represent the remnants of

population(s) of steelhead that have been excluded from their

historical spawning and rearing habitat by impassable dams. These

stocks represent the only legacy for the reintroduction of native

populations into these areas. If such reintroduction programs are

undertaken, these stocks will likely be essential to the recovery of

steelhead in these areas. Currently, naturally spawning steelhead

populations in the Imnaha River are relatively healthy; however, if

naturally spawning populations decline considerably in the future, this

stock may become essential for recovery.

Listing Determination

Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as any species

in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its

range, and a threatened species as any species likely to become an

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires

that the listing determination be based solely on the best scientific

and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status

of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any,

being made to protect such species.

Based on results from its coastwide assessment, NMFS has determined

that on the west coast of the United States, there are fifteen ESUs of

steelhead that constitute ``species'' under the ESA. NMFS has

determined that two ESUs of steelhead are currently endangered

(Southern California and Upper Columbia River ESUs) and three ESUs are

currently threatened (Central California Coast, South-Central

California Coast, and Snake River Basin ESUs). The geographic

boundaries (i.e., the watersheds within which the members of the ESU

spend their freshwater residence) for these ESUs are described under

``Summary of ESUs Determinations.''

NMFS has examined the relationship between hatchery and natural

populations of steelhead in these ESUs and has assessed whether any

hatchery populations are essential for their recovery. While NMFS has

concluded that several hatchery stocks are part of the ESU in which

they occur, only the

[[Page 43951]]

Wells Hatchery stock in the Upper Columbia River ESU is deemed

essential for recovery at this time and therefore, included in this

listing. Aside from the Wells Hatchery stock, only naturally spawned

populations of steelhead (and their progeny) which are part of the

biological ESU residing below long-term, naturally and man-made

impassable barriers (i.e., dams) are listed in all five ESUs identified

as threatened or endangered.

In some cases unlisted hatchery fish that are part of the ESU may

not return to the hatchery but instead spawn naturally. In that event,

the progeny of that naturally spawning hatchery fish is considered

listed. This final rule includes in the listing determination those

naturally spawned fish that have at least one parent that was derived

from current ESU hatchery broodstock. In some cases these fish may be

hybrids; that is, they may have one parent that is part of the

biological ESU and one that is not. By listing these fish and extending

to them the protections of the ESA, NMFS does not mean to imply that

these hybrids are suitable for use in conservation. That decision would

need to be made on a case-by-case basis.

NMFS' ``Interim Policy on Artificial Propagation of Pacific Salmon

Under the Endangered Species Act'' (April 5, 1993, 58 FR 17573)

provides guidance on the treatment of hatchery stocks in the event of a

listing. Under this policy, ``progeny of fish from the listed species

that are propagated artificially are considered part of the listed

species and are protected under the ESA.'' In accordance with this

interim NMFS policy, all progeny of listed steelhead are themselves

considered part of the listed species. Such progeny include those

resulting from the mating of listed steelhead with non-listed hatchery

stocks.

At this time, NMFS is listing only anadromous life forms of O.

mykiss.

NMFS concludes the Wells Hatchery stock including progeny is

essential for recovery efforts in this ESU, and therefore should be

listed. This conclusion is primarily based on very low estimates of the

recruits per spawner ratio, which indicate that productivity of

naturally spawning steelhead in this ESU is far below the replacement

rate. It is possible that in some years returns to this hatchery may

exceed the number of returns necessary to produce the number of

offspring NMFS considers advisable for release into this ESU. This

surplus may therefore be, by definition, not essential for recovery

efforts. In that case, hatchery operators may be faced with a choice

between destroying the excess returns or using them for some other

purpose. In making its decision today to include the Wells Hatchery

stock as part of the listed population, NMFS does not intend to

foreclose the possibility of using such excess returns to provide

limited harvest opportunities consistent with the conservation of this

ESU.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or

indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all

individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Section 9 prohibitions apply automatically to endangered species; as

described below, this is not the case for threatened species.

Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary to implement

regulations ``to provide for the conservation of [threatened]

species,'' which may include extending any or all of the prohibitions

of section 9 to threatened species. Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits

violations of protective regulations for threatened species implemented

under section 4(d). NMFS will issue shortly protective regulations

pursuant to section 4(d) for the Central California Coast, South-

Central California Coast, and Snake River ESUs.

Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult

with NMFS on any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence

of a species proposed for listing and on actions likely to result in

the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

For listed species, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure

that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into consultation with NMFS.

Examples of Federal actions likely to affect steelhead in the

listed ESUs include authorized land management activities of the U.S.

Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management, as well as operation

of hydroelectric and storage projects of the Bureau of Reclamation and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Such activities include timber

sales and harvest, hydroelectric power generation, and flood control.

Federal actions, including the COE section 404 permitting activities

under the CWA, COE permitting activities under the River and Harbors

Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits issued by

the Environmental Protection Agency, highway projects authorized by the

Federal Highway Administration, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

licenses for non-Federal development and operation of hydropower, and

Federal salmon hatcheries, may also require consultation. These actions

will likely be subject to ESA section 7 consultation requirements that

may result in conditions designed to achieve the intended purpose of

the project and avoid or reduce impacts to steelhead and its habitat

within the range of the listed ESU. It is important to note that the

current listing applies only to the anadromous form of O. mykiss;

therefore, section 7 consultations will not address resident forms of

O. mykiss at this time.

There are likely to be Federal actions ongoing in the range of the

listed ESUs at the time these listings become effective. Therefore,

NMFS will review all ongoing actions that may affect the listed species

with Federal agencies and will complete formal or informal

consultations, where requested or necessary, for such actions pursuant

to ESA section 7(a)(2).

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with

authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions (see

regulations at 50 CFR 222.22 through 222.24). Section 10(a)(1)(A)

scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued to entities

(Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that involves a directed

take of listed species.

NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research or enhancement of

survival permits for other listed species (e.g., Snake River chinook

salmon and Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon) for a number of

activities, including trapping and tagging, electroshocking to

determine population presence and abundance, removal of fish from

irrigation ditches, and collection of adult fish for artificial

propagation programs. NMFS is aware of several sampling efforts for

steelhead in the listed ESUs, including efforts by Federal and state

fishery management agencies. These and other research efforts could

provide critical information regarding steelhead distribution and

population abundance.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-

Federal entities performing activities that may incidentally take

listed species. The types of activities potentially requiring a section

10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the operation and release of

artificially propagated fish by state or privately operated and funded

hatcheries, state or university research on species other than

steelhead, not

[[Page 43952]]

receiving Federal authorization or funding, the implementation of state

fishing regulations, and timber harvest activities on non-Federal

lands.

Take Guidance

NMFS and the FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994

(59 FR 34272), a policy that NMFS shall identify, to the maximum extent

practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that

would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The

intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of

a listing on proposed and on-going activities within the species'

range. NMFS believes that, based on the best available information, the

following actions will not result in a violation of section 9: (1)

Possession of steelhead from the listed ESUs acquired lawfully by

permit issued by NMFS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the

terms of an incidental take statement pursuant to section 7 of the ESA;

and (2) Federally funded or approved projects that involve activities

such as silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam

construction and operation, discharge of fill material, stream

channelization or diversion for which a section 7 consultation has been

completed, and when such an activity is conducted in accordance with

any terms and conditions provided by NMFS in an incidental take

statement accompanied by a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of

the ESA.

Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm, injure or

kill steelhead in the endangered listed ESUs and result in a violation

of section 9 include, but are not limited to: (1) Land-use activities

that adversely affect steelhead habitat in this ESU (e.g., logging,

grazing, farming, road construction in riparian areas, and areas

susceptible to mass wasting and surface erosion); (2) Destruction or

alteration of steelhead habitat in the listed ESUs, such as removal of

large woody debris and ``sinker logs'' or riparian shade canopy,

dredging, discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, diverting,

blocking, or altering stream channels or surface or ground water flow;

(3) discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants (e.g.,

sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting listed

steelhead; (4) violation of discharge permits; (5) pesticide

applications; (6) interstate and foreign commerce of steelhead from the

listed ESUs and import/export of steelhead from listed ESUs without an

ESA permit, unless the fish were harvested pursuant to legal exception;

(7) collecting or handling of steelhead from listed ESUs. Permits to

conduct these activities are available for purposes of scientific

research or to enhance the propagation or survival of the species; and

(8) introduction of non-native species likely to prey on steelhead in

these ESUs or displace them from their habitat. These lists are not

exhaustive. They are intended to provide some examples of the types of

activities that might or might not be considered by NMFS as

constituting a take of west coast steelhead under the ESA and its

regulations. Questions regarding whether specific activities will

constitute a violation of this rule, and general inquiries regarding

prohibitions and permits, should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Effective Date of Final Listing

Given the cultural, scientific, and recreational importance of this

species, and the broad geographic range of these listings, NMFS

recognizes that numerous parties may be affected by this listing.

Therefore, to permit an orderly implementation of the consultation

requirements and take prohibitions associated with this action, this

final listing will take effect October 17, 1997.

Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions, Federal

agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on taking.

Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation

actions by Federal, state, and local agencies, private organizations,

and individuals.

Several conservation efforts are underway that may help reverse the

decline of west coast steelhead and other salmonids. These include the

Northwest Forest Plan (on Federal lands within the range of the

northern spotted owl), PACFISH (on all additional Federal lands with

anadromous salmonid populations), Oregon's Coastal Salmon Restoration

Initiative, Washington's Wild Stock Restoration Initiative, overlapping

protections from California's listing of coho salmon stocks in

California under both the Federal and State ESAs, implementation of

California's Steelhead Management Plan, and NMFS' Proposed Recovery

Plan for Snake River Salmon. NMFS is very encouraged by a number of

these efforts and believes they have or may constitute significant

strides in the efforts in the region to develop a scientifically well

grounded conservation plan for these stocks. Other efforts, such as the

Middle Columbia River Habitat Conservation Plan, are at various stages

of development, but show promise of ameliorating risks facing listed

steelhead ESUs. NMFS intends to support and work closely with these

efforts--staff and resources permitting--in the belief that they can

play an important role in the recovery planning process.

Based on information presented in this final rule, general

conservation measures that could be implemented to help conserve the

species are listed below. This list does not constitute NMFS'

interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) of the ESA.

1. Measures could be taken to promote land management practices

that protect and restore steelhead habitat. Land management practices

affecting steelhead habitat include timber harvest, road building,

agriculture, livestock grazing, and urban development.

2. Evaluation of existing harvest regulations could identify any

changes necessary to protect steelhead populations.

3. Artificial propagation programs could be required to incorporate

practices that minimize impacts upon natural populations of steelhead.

4. Efforts could be made to ensure that existing and proposed dam

facilities are designed and operated in a manner that will less

adversely affect steelhead populations.

5. Water diversions could have adequate headgate and staff gauge

structures installed to control and monitor water usage accurately.

Water rights could be enforced to prevent irrigators from exceeding the

amount of water to which they are legally entitled.

6. Irrigation diversions affecting downstream migrating steelhead

trout could be screened. A thorough review of the impact of irrigation

diversions on steelhead could be conducted.

NMFS recognizes that, to be successful, protective regulations and

recovery programs for steelhead will need to be developed in the

context of conserving aquatic ecosystem health. NMFS intends that

Federal lands and Federal activities play a primary role in preserving

listed populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. However,

throughout the range of all five ESUs listed, steelhead habitat occurs

and can be affected by activities on state, tribal, or private land.

Agricultural, timber, and urban management activities on nonFederal

land could and should be conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse

effects to steelhead habitat.

[[Page 43953]]

NMFS encourages nonfederal landowners to assess the impacts of

their actions on potentially threatened or endangered salmonids. In

particular, NMFS encourages the establishment of watershed partnerships

to promote conservation in accordance with ecosystem principles. These

partnerships will be successful only if state, tribal, and local

governments, landowner representatives, and Federal and nonFederal

biologists all participate and share the goal of restoring steelhead to

the watersheds.

Critical Habitat

Section 4(b)(6)(C) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent,

critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a

species unless such critical habitat is not determinable at that time.

While NMFS has completed its initial analysis of the biological status

of steelhead populations from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California, it has not completed the analyses necessary for designating

critical habitat. Therefore, critical habitat is not now determinable

for these five listed steelhead ESUs. NMFS intends to develop and

publish a critical habitat determination for west coast steelhead

within one year from the publication of this notice.

Classification

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the

information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.

Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the

opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir.

1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from

environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.

As noted in Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA,

economic considerations have no relevance to determinations regarding

the status of species. Therefore, the analytical requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not

required. Similarly, this final rule is exempt from review under E.O.

12866.

At this time NMFS is not promulgating protective regulations

pursuant to ESA section 4(d). In the future, prior to finalizing its

4(d) regulations for the threatened ESUs, NMFS will comply with all

relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.

References

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 222

Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened

species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

50 CFR Part 227

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine

mammals, Transportation.

Dated: August 11, 1997.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 222 and 227

are amended as follows:

PART 222--ENDANGERED FISH OR WILDLIFE

1. The authority citation of part 222 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart D, Sec. 222.32 also

issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

2. In Sec. 222.23, paragraph (a) is amended by revising the second

sentence to read as follows:

Sec. 222.23 Permits for scientific purposes or to enhance the

propagation or survival of the affected endangered species.

(a) * * * The species listed as endangered under either the

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 or the Endangered Species

Act of 1973 and currently under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of

Commerce are: Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum); Totoaba

(Cynoscian macdonaldi), Snake River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchusnerka),

Umpqua River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki); Southern

California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which includes all

naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in

streams from the Santa Maria River, San Luis Obispo County, California

(inclusive) to Malibu Creek, Los Angeles County, California

(inclusive); Upper Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),

which includes the Wells Hatchery stock and all naturally spawned

populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in streams in the Columbia

River Basin upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the United

States-Canada Border; Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); Western North Pacific (Korean) gray whale

(Eschrichtius robustus), Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Humpback

whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Bowhead whale (Balaenamysticetus),

Right whales (Eubalaena spp.), Fin or finback whale (Balaenoptera

physalus), Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), Sperm whale (Physeter

catodon); Cochito (Phocoena Sinus), Chinese river dolphin (Lipotes

vexillifer); Indus River dolphin (Platanista minor); Caribean monk seal

(Monachus tropicalis) Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi);

Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus); Saimaa seal (Phoca hispida

saimensis); Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), western population,

which consists of Steller sea lions from breeding colonies located west

of 144 deg. W. long.; Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea),

Pacific hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata bissa), Atlantic

hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata imbricata), Atlantic

ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). * * *

* * * * *

PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE

1. The authority citation for part 227 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 227.12 also

issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

2. In Sec. 227.4, paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) are added to read as

follows:

Sec. 227.4 Enumeration of threatened species.

* * * * *

(j) Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their

progeny) in streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz

County, California (inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco and

San Pablo Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive), Napa County,

California. Excludes the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin of the

Central Valley of California;

(k) South-Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their

progeny) in streams from the Pajaro River (inclusive), located in Santa

Cruz County, California, to (but not including) the Santa Maria River;

(l) Snake River Basin steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Includes all

naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in

streams

[[Page 43954]]

in the Snake River Basin of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon, and

Idaho.

[FR Doc. 97-21661 Filed 8-13-97; 9:14 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P