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

SUMMARY: NMFS has completed a comprehensive status review of West Coast

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss, or O. mykiss) populations in Washington

and Oregon and has identified 15 Evolutionarily Significant Units

(ESUs) within this range. NMFS is now issuing a proposed rule to list

two steelhead ESUs as threatened under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA). The proposed ESUs include the Middle Columbia River ESU located

in Washington and Oregon, and the Upper Willamette River ESU located in

Oregon.

In both ESUs, only naturally spawned steelhead are proposed for

listing. Prior to the final listing determination, NMFS will examine

the relationship between hatchery and naturally spawned populations of

steelhead in these ESUs and assess whether any hatchery populations are

essential for the recovery of the naturally spawned populations. This

may result in the inclusion of specific hatchery populations as part of

a listed ESU in NMFS' final determination.

NMFS requests public comments on the issues pertaining to this

proposed rule. NMFS also requests suggestions and comments on

integrated local/state/tribal/Federal conservation measures that will

achieve the purposes of the ESA to recover the health of steelhead

populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. NMFS strongly

supports current efforts by the states of Oregon and Washington to

develop effective and scientifically based conservation measures to

address at-risk salmon and steelhead stocks. NMFS believes these

efforts, if successful, could serve as the central components of a

broad conservation program that would provide a steady, predictable,

and well grounded road to recovery and rebuilding of these stocks. NMFS

intends to work closely with these efforts and those of local and

regional watershed groups, as well as other involved Federal agencies,

and hopes that this proposal will add greater impetus to those efforts.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 8, 1998. NMFS will announce

the dates and locations of public hearings in Washington and Oregon in

a separate Federal Register notice. Requests for additional public

hearings must be received by April 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule should be sent to Chief,

Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 NE Oregon

Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737. Comments may not be

submitted electronically.

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

Blum, 301-713-1401. Requests for public hearings or reference materials

should be sent to Jim Lynch via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 20, 1993, NMFS announced its intent to conduct a status

review to identify all coastal steelhead ESU(s) within California,

Oregon, and Washington, and to determine whether any identified ESU(s)

warranted listing under the ESA. Subsequently, on February 16, 1994,

NMFS received a petition from the Oregon Natural Resources Council and

15 co-petitioners to list all steelhead (or specific ESUs, races, or

stocks) within the states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

In response to this petition, NMFS announced the expansion of its

status review to include inland steelhead populations occurring in

eastern Washington and Oregon and the State of Idaho (59 FR 27527, May

27, 1994).

On August 9, 1996, NMFS published a proposed rule to list 10 ESUs

of west coast steelhead as threatened and endangered under the ESA;

NMFS solicited comments on the proposal (61 FR 41541). In this notice,

NMFS concluded that the Middle Columbia River ESU warranted

classification as a candidate species since NMFS was concerned about

the status of steelhead in this area, but lacked sufficient information

to merit a proposed listing. In this notice NMFS also concluded that

the Upper Willamette River steelhead ESU did not warrant listing based

on available scientific information.

On August 18, 1997, NMFS published a final rule listing five ESUs

as threatened and endangered under the ESA (62 FR 43937). In a separate

notice published on the same day, NMFS determined substantial

scientific disagreement remained for five proposed ESUs (62 FR 43974,

August 18, 1997). In accordance with section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA,

NMFS deferred its decision on these remaining steelhead ESUs for six

months, until February 9, 1998, for the purpose of soliciting

additional data. By court order the deadline for these final

determinations was extended to March 13, 1998.

During the 6-month period of deferral, NMFS received new scientific

information concerning the status of the Upper Willamette River and

Middle Columbia River ESUs. This new information was considered by

NMFS' Biological Review Team, a team composed of staff from NMFS'

Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Southwest Regional Office, as

well as a representative of the U.S. Geological Survey Biological

Resources Division (formerly the National Biological Service). NMFS has

now completed an updated status review for steelhead that analyzes this

new information [Memorandum to William Stelle and William Hogarth from

M. Schiewe, December 18, 1997, Status of Deferred and Candidate ESUs of

West Coast Steelhead]. Copies of this memorandum are available upon

request (see ADDRESSES). Based on this updated review and other

information, NMFS now proposes to list the Upper Willamette River and

Middle Columbia River steelhead ESUs as threatened species under the

ESA.

Given the complicated background of this proposed rule, it is

important to understand how information is presented in this notice.

First, we discuss the life history and ESA policies applicable to

steelhead in general. Second, we describe NMFS' findings concerning the

geographic extent of the Upper Willamette and Middle Columbia River

ESUs. Third, we discuss the factors that have led to the decline of

these two ESUs, as well as existing conservation efforts that may

ameliorate risks to these species. Finally, we describe NMFS'

conclusions regarding the status of these two ESUs, along with

potential regulatory implications of a final listing.

Steelhead Life History

Steelhead exhibit one of the most complex suite of life history

traits of any salmonid species. Steelhead may exhibit anadromy (meaning

that they migrate as juveniles from fresh water to the ocean, and then

return to spawn in fresh water) or freshwater residency (meaning that

[[Page 11799]]

they reside their entire lives in fresh water). Resident forms are

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

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

have been conducted regarding the relationship between resident and

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

two life forms is poorly understood. Recently however, the scientific

name for the biological species that includes both steelhead and

rainbow trout was changed from Salmo gairdneri to O. mykiss. This

change reflects the premise that all trouts from western North America

share a common lineage with Pacific salmon.

Steelhead typically migrate to marine waters after spending 2 years

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

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

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

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

it is rare for steelhead to spawn more than twice before dying; most

that do so are females. Steelhead adults typically spawn between

December and June (Bell 1990). Depending on water temperature,

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

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

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

emerge from the gravel as young juveniles or ``fry'' and begin actively

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

to the ocean as ``smolts''.

Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two reproductive

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

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

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

steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition and

require several months to mature and spawn. Ocean maturing steelhead

enter fresh water with well developed gonads and spawn shortly after

river entry. These two reproductive ecotypes are more commonly referred

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

steelhead, respectively).

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

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

group, separated in the Fraser and Columbia River Basins by the Cascade

crest aproximately (Huzyk & Tsuyuki, 1974: Allendorf, 1975; Utter &

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

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

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

gairdneri. These genetic groupings apply to both anadromous and

nonanadromous forms of O. mykiss. Both coastal and inland steelhead

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

coastal steelhead while Idaho has only inland steelhead.

Historically, steelhead were distributed throughout the North

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

Peninsula. Presently, the species distribution extends from the

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

America, to at least as far as Malibu Creek in southern California.

There are infrequent anecdotal reports of steelhead continuing to occur

as far south as the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County (McEwan &

Jackson 1996). Historically, steelhead likely inhabited most coastal

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

streams in these states and Idaho. However, during this century, over

23 indigenous, naturally reproducing stocks of steelhead are believed

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

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

California. Forty-three stocks were identified by Nehlsen et al., 1991

as at moderate to high risk of extinction.

Consideration as a ``Species'' Under the ESA

To qualify for listing as a threatened or endangered species, the

identified populations of steelhead must be considered ``species''

under the ESA. The ESA defines a species to include ``any subspecies of

fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature''.

NMFS published a policy describing the agency's application of the ESA

definition of ``species'' to anadromous Pacific salmonid species (56 FR

58612, November 20, 1991). NMFS's policy provides that a Pacific

salmonid population will be considered distinct and, hence, a species

under the ESA if it represents an ESU of the biological species. A

population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) It

must be reproductively isolated from other conspecific population

units, and (2) it must represent an important component in the

evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The first criterion,

reproductive isolation, need not be absolute, but must be strong enough

to permit evolutionarily important differences to accrue in different

population units. The second criterion is met if the population

contributes substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the

species as a whole. Guidance on the application of this policy is

contained in a NOAA Technical Memorandum ``Definition of 'Species''

Under the Endangered Species Act: Application to Pacific Salmon,'' that

is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Reproductive Isolation

Genetic data provide useful indirect information on reproductive

isolation because they integrate information about migration and gene

flow over evolutionarily important time frames. During the status

review, NMFS worked in cooperation with the States of California,

Oregon, Idaho, and Washington to develop a genetic stock identification

database for steelhead. Natural and hatchery steelhead were collected

by NMFS, California Department of Fish and Game, Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG),

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) for protein electrophoretic analysis by NMFS and

WDFW. Existing NMFS data for Columbia and Snake River Basin steelhead

were also included in the database.

In addition to the new studies, published results from numerous

studies of genetic characteristics of steelhead populations were

considered. These included studies based on protein electrophoresis

(Huzyk & Tsuyuki, 1974; Allendorf, 1975; Utter & Allendorf, 1977;

Okazaki, 1984; Parkinson, 1984; Campton & Johnson, 1985; Milner & Teel,

1985; Schreck et al., 1986; Hershberger & Dole, 1987; Berg & Gall,

1988; Reisenbichler & Phelps, 1989; Reisenbichler et al., 1992; Currens

& Schreck, 1993; Waples et al., 1993; Phelps et al., 1994; Leider et

al., 1995). Supplementing these protein electrophoretic studies were

two studies based on mitochondrial DNA (Buroker, unpublished; Nielsen

1994) and chromosomal karyotyping studies conducted by Thorgard (1977

and 1983) and Ostberg and Thorgard, 1994.

Genetic information obtained from allozyme, DNA, and chromosomal

sampling indicate a strong differentiation between coastal and inland

subspecies of steelhead. Several studies have identified coastal and

inland forms of O. mykiss as distinct genetic life forms. Allendorf,

1975 first identified coastal and inland steelhead life forms in

Washington, Oregon, and

[[Page 11800]]

Idaho based on large and consistent allele frequency differences that

applied to both anadromous and resident O. mykiss. In the Columbia

River, it was determined that the geographic boundary of these life

forms occurs at or near the Cascade crest. Subsequent studies have

supported this finding (Utter & Allendorf, 1977; Okazaki, 1984; Schreck

et al., 1986; Reisenbichler et al., 1992). Recent genetic data from

WDFW further supports the major differentiation between coastal and

inland steelhead forms.

Few detailed studies have explored the relationship between

resident and anadromous O. mykiss residing in the same location.

Genetic studies generally show that, in the same geographic area,

resident and anadromous life forms are more similar to each other than

either is to the same form from a different geographic area. Recently,

Leider et al., 1995 found that results from comparisons of rainbow

trout in the Elwha and Cedar Rivers and Washington steelhead indicate

that the two forms are not reproductively isolated. Further, Leider et

al., 1995 also concluded that, based on preliminary analyses of data

from the Yakima and Big White Salmon Rivers, resident trout would be

genetically indistinguishable from steelhead. Based on these studies,

it appears that resident and anadromous O. mykiss from the same

geographic area may share a common gene pool, at least over

evolutionary time periods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hence a species) if (1) it is substantially reproductively isolated

from other conspecific population units, and (2) it represents an

important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species (56 FR

58612, November 20, 1991). NMFS believes available data suggest that

resident rainbow trout are in many cases part of steelhead ESUs.

However, the FWS, which has ESA authority for resident fish, maintains

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

snowy plover) and that absent evidence suggesting resident rainbow

trout need ESA protection, the FWS concludes that only the anadromous

forms of each ESU should be listed under the ESA (DOI, 1997; FWS,

1997).

In response to earlier listing proposals, NMFS received numerous

comments on the inclusion of summer and winter steelhead within the

same steelhead ESUs. In addition to the comments received, additional

genetic data has become available since the original status review.

NMFS' assessment of this new information follows.

While NMFS considers both life history forms (summer and winter

steelhead) to be important components of diversity within the species,

new genetic data reinforces previous conclusions that within a

geographic area, summer and winter steelhead typically are more

genetically similar to one another than either is to populations with

similar run timing in different geographic areas. This indicates that a

conservation unit that included summer-run populations from different

geographic areas but excluded winter-run populations (or vice-versa)

would be an inappropriate unit. The only biologically meaningful way to

have summer and winter steelhead populations in separate ESUs would be

to have a very large number of ESUs, most consisting of just one or a

very few populations. This would be inconsistent with the approach NMFS

has taken in defining ESUs in other anadromous Pacific salmonids.

Taking these factors into consideration, NMFS concludes that summer and

winter steelhead should be considered part of the same ESU in

geographic areas where they co-occur.

Summary of Proposed ESU Determinations

A summary of NMFS' ESU determinations for these species follows. A

more detailed discussion of ESU determinations is presented in the

``Status Review of West Coast Steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon,

and California'' and ``Status Review Update for Deferred and Candidate

ESUs of West Coast Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996a; NMFS, 1997a). Copies of

these documents are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

(1) Upper Willamette River ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies the Willamette River and its

tributaries, upstream from Willamette Falls. The Willamette River Basin

is zoogeographically complex. In addition to its connection to the

Columbia River, the Willamette River historically has had connections

with coastal basins through stream capture and headwater transfer

events (Minckley et al., 1986).

Steelhead from the upper Willamette River are genetically distinct

from those in the lower river. Reproductive isolation from lower river

populations may have been facilitated by Willamette Falls, which is

known to be a migration barrier to some anadromous salmonids. For

example, winter steelhead and spring chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha)

occurred historically above the falls, but summer steelhead, fall

chinook salmon, and coho salmon did not (Pacific Gas and Electric

(PGE), 1994).

The native steelhead of this basin are late-migrating winter

steelhead, entering fresh water primarily in March and April (Howell et

al., 1985), whereas most other populations of west coast winter

steelhead enter fresh water beginning in November or December. As early

as 1885, fish ladders were constructed at Willamette Falls to aid the

passage of anadromous fish. The ladders have been modified and rebuilt,

most recently in 1971, as technology has improved (Bennett, 1987; PGE,

1994). These fishways facilitated successful introduction of Skamania

stock summer steelhead and early-migrating Big Creek stock winter

steelhead to the upper basin. Another effort to expand the steelhead

production in the upper Willamette River was the stocking of native

steelhead in tributaries not historically used by that species. Native

steelhead primarily used tributaries on the east side of the basin,

with cutthroat trout predominating in streams draining the west side of

the basin.

Nonanadromous O. mykiss are known to occupy the Upper Willamette

River Basin; however, most of these nonanadromous populations occur

above natural and manmade barriers (Kostow, 1995). Historically,

spawning by Upper Willamette River steelhead was concentrated in the

North and Middle Santiam River Basins (Fulton, 1970). These areas are

now largely blocked to fish passage by dams, and steelhead spawning is

now distributed throughout more of the Upper Willamette River Basin

than in the past (Fulton, 1970). Due to introductions of non-native

steelhead stocks and transplantation of native stocks within the basin,

it is difficult to formulate a clear picture of the present

distribution of native Upper Willamette River steelhead, and their

relationship to nonanadromous and possibly residualized O. mykiss

within the basin.

(2) Middle Columbia River ESU

This inland steelhead ESU occupies the Columbia River Basin and

tributaries from above (and excluding) the Wind River in Washington and

the Hood River in Oregon, upstream to, and including, the Yakima River,

in Washington. Steelhead of the Snake

[[Page 11801]]

River Basin are excluded. Franklin and Dyrness (1973) placed the Yakima

River Basin in the Columbia Basin Physiographic Province, along with

the Deschutes, John Day, Walla Walla, and lower Snake River Basins.

Geology within this province is dominated by the Columbia River Basalt

formation, stemming from lava deposition in the Miocene epoch, overlain

by plio-Pleistocene deposits of glaciolacustrine origin (Franklin &

Dyrness, 1973). This intermontane region includes some of the driest

areas of the Pacific Northwest, generally receiving less than 40 cm of

rainfall annually (Jackson, 1993). Vegetation is of the shrub-steppe

province, reflecting the dry climate and harsh temperature extremes.

Genetic differences between inland and coastal steelhead are well

established, although some uncertainty remains about the exact

geographic boundaries of the two forms in the Columbia River.

Electrophoretic and meristic data show consistent differences between

steelhead from the middle Columbia and Snake Rivers. No recent genetic

data exist for natural steelhead populations in the upper Columbia

River, but recent WDFW data show that the Wells Hatchery stock from the

upper Columbia River does not have a close genetic affinity to sampled

populations from the middle Columbia River.

All steelhead in the Columbia River Basin upstream from The Dalles

Dam are summer-run, inland steelhead (Schreck et al., 1986;

Reisenbichler et al., 1992; Chapman et al., 1994). Steelhead in Fifteen

Mile Creek, OR, are genetically allied with inland O. mykiss, but are

winter-run. Winter steelhead are also found in the Klickitat and White

Salmon Rivers, WA.

Life history information for steelhead of this ESU indicates that

most middle Columbia River steelhead smolt at 2 years and spend 1 to 2

years in salt water (i.e., 1-ocean and 2-ocean fish, respectively)

prior to re-entering fresh water, where they may remain up to a year

prior to spawning (Howell et al., 1985; Bonneville Power Association

(BPA), 1992). Within this ESU, the Klickitat River is unusual in that

it produces both summer and winter steelhead, and the summer steelhead

are dominated by 2-ocean steelhead, whereas most other rivers in this

region produce about equal numbers of both 1-and 2-ocean steelhead.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS implementing regulations (50

CFR part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary

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

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

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

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

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

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

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

factors affecting its continued existence.

Several recent documents describe in more detail the impacts of

various factors contributing to the decline of steelhead and other

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

has prepared a supporting document that addresses the factors leading

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

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

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

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

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

identifies destruction and modification of habitat, overutilization for

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

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

discussion briefly summarizes findings regarding factors for decline

across the range of west coast steelhead.

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

of its Habitat or Range

Steelhead on the west coast of the United States have experienced

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

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

urbanization have degraded, simplified, and fragmented habitat. Water

diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower

purposes have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible

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

states have lost approximately 53 percent of all wetlands and the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

boulders and large wood (Federal Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

(FEMAT), 1993). Similarly, in Oregon, the abundance of large, deep

pools on private coastal lands has decreased by as much as 80 percent

(FEMAT, 1993). Sedimentation from land use activities is recognized as

a primary cause of habitat degradation in the range of west coast

steelhead.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Educational Purposes

Steelhead support an important recreational fishery throughout

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

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

impacts of recreational fishing on native anadromous stocks may be

heightened. NMFS has reviewed and evaluated the impacts of recreational

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

are not generally targeted in commercial fisheries. High seas driftnet

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

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

the large declines in abundance observed along most of the Pacific

coast over the past several decades.

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

where listed steelhead from the Middle Columbia River ESU are subject

to the same fisheries as unlisted, hatchery-produced steelhead, chinook

and coho salmon. Incidental harvest mortality in mixed-stock sport and

commercial fisheries may exceed 30 percent of listed populations.

C. Disease or Predation

Infectious disease is one of many factors that can influence adult

and juvenile steelhead survival. Steelhead are exposed to numerous

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

rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and marine environments.

Specific diseases such as bacterial kidney disease, ceratomyxosis,

columnaris, Furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic necrosis, redmouth

and black spot disease, Erythrocytic Inclusion Body Syndrome, and

whirling disease among others are present and are known to affect

steelhead and salmon (Rucker et al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987;

Foott et al., 1994; Gould & Wedemeyer, undated). Very little current or

[[Page 11802]]

historical information exists to quantify changes in infection levels

and mortality rates attributable to these diseases for steelhead.

However, studies have shown that native fish tend to be less

susceptible to pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al.,

1983; Sanders et al., 1992).

Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have

resulted in increased predator populations in numerous river systems,

thereby increasing the level of predation experienced by salmonids.

Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in areas experiencing

dwindling steelhead run sizes. NMFS recently published a report

describing the impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals

upon salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and

California (NMFS 1997c). This report concludes that in certain cases

where pinniped populations co-occur with depressed salmonid

populations, salmon populations may experience severe impacts due to

predation. An example of such a situation is Ballard Locks, Washington,

where sea lions are known to consume significant numbers of adult

winter steelhead. This study further concludes that data regarding

pinniped predation is quite limited, and that substantial additional

research is needed to fully address this issue. Existing information on

the seriously depressed status of many salmonid stocks is sufficient to

warrant actions to remove pinnipeds in areas of co-occurrence where

pinnipeds prey on depressed salmonid populations (NMFS, 1997c).

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

1. Federal Land Management Practices

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

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

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

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

ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within the

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

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

watershed and river basin scales and highlights the importance of

complementary salmon habitat conservation measures on non-Federal lands

within the subject ESUs.

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

Management adopted Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing

Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington,

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

developed in response to significant declines in naturally spawned

salmonid stocks, including steelhead, and widespread degradation of

anadromous fish habitat throughout public lands in Idaho, Washington,

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

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

for maintaining and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat conditions

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

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

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

ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within the

affected ESUs.

Interagency PACFISH implementation reports from 1995 and 1996

indicate PACFISH has not been consistently implemented and has not

achieved the level of conservation anticipated for the short-term.

Additionally, because PACFISH was expected to be replaced within 18

months, it required only minimal levels of watershed analysis and

restoration. The interim PACFISH strategy will be effective until a

long-term land management strategy is implemented. The Interior

Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) was intended

to be in place by the end of the 18-month PACFISH period. Current

projections indicate ICBEMP its implementation date will be delayed

until late 1998 or 1999. In effect, PACFISH will have been in place 2.5

times longer than designed and its long-term limitations have already

resulted in lost conservation opportunities for threatened and proposed

anadromous fishes.

2. State Land Management Practices

The Washington Department of Natural Resources implements and

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

are promulgated through the Forest Practices Board. These WFPRs contain

provisions that can be protective of steelhead if fully implemented.

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

of forest lands through watershed analysis, development of site-

specific land management prescriptions, and monitoring. Watershed

Analysis prescriptions can exceed WFPR minima for stream and riparian

protection. However, NMFS believes the WFPRs, including watershed

analysis, do not provide properly functioning riparian and instream

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

woody debris recruitment, tree retention to maintain stream bank

integrity and channel networks within floodplains, and chronic and

episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that maintain habitats that

are properly functioning for all life stages of steelhead.

The Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA), while modified in 1995 and

improved over the previous OFPA, does not have implementing rules that

adequately protect salmonid habitat. In particular, the current OFPA

does not provide adequate protection for the production and

introduction of large woody debris (LWD) to medium, small and non-fish

bearing streams. Small non-fish bearing streams are vitally important

to the quality of downstream habitats. These streams carry water,

sediment, nutrients, and LWD from upper portions of the watershed. The

quality of downstream habitats is determined, in part, by the timing

and amount of organic and inorganic materials provided by these small

streams (Chamberlin et al. in Meehan, 1991). Given the existing

depleted condition of most riparian forests on non-Federal lands, the

time needed to attain mature forest conditions, the lack of adequate

protection for non-riparian LWD sources in landslide-prone areas and

small headwater streams (which account for about half the wood found

naturally in stream channels) (Burnett and Reeves, 1997, citing Van

Sickle and Gregory, 1990; McDade et al., 1990; and McGreary, 1994) and

current rotation schedules (approximately 50 years), there is a low

probability that adequate LWD recruitment could be achieved under the

current requirements of the OFPA. Also, the OFPA does not adequately

consider and manage timber harvest and road construction on sensitive,

unstable slopes subject to mass wasting, nor does it address cumulative

effects.

Agricultural activity has had multiple and often severe impacts on

salmonid habitat. These include depletion of needed flows by irrigation

withdrawals, blocking of fish passage by diversion or other structures,

destruction of riparian vegetation and bank stability by grazing or

cultivation practices, and channelization resulting in loss of side

channel and wetland-related habitat (NMFS, 1996b).

Historically, the impacts to fish habitat from agricultural

practices have not been closely regulated. The Oregon Department of

Agriculture has recently completed guidance for development of

agricultural water quality management

[[Page 11803]]

plans (AWQMPs) (as enacted by State Senate Bill 1010). Plans that are

consistent with this guidance are likely to achieve state water quality

standards. It is open to question, however, whether they will

adequately address salmonid habitat factors, such as properly

functioning riparian conditions. Their ability to address all relevant

factors will depend on the manner in which they are implemented. AWQMPs

are anticipated to be developed at a basin scale and will include

regulatory authority and enforcement provisions. The Healthy Streams

Partnership schedules adoption of AWQMPs for all impaired waters by

2001.

Washington also has not historically regulated impacts of

agricultural activity on fish habitat overall, although there are some

special requirements in the Puget Sound area, and Department of Ecology

is currently giving close attention to impacts from dairy operations.

As in Oregon, development of TMDLs should over the long term improve

water quality; the extent to which other habitat impacts will be

ameliorated is unknown.

3. Dredge, Fill, and Inwater Construction Programs

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

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

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

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

the factors that must be considered in this determination is cumulative

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

assessing cumulative impacts or how much weight to assign them in

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

process to address the additive effects of the continued development of

waterfront, riverine, coastal, and wetland properties.

4. Water Quality Programs

The CWA is intended to protect beneficial uses, including fishery

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

protecting fishery resources, particularly with respect to non-point

sources of pollution.

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

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

state water quality standards. TMDLs are a method for quantitative

assessment of environmental problems in a watershed and identifying

pollution reductions needed to protect drinking water, aquatic life,

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

address all pollution sources, including point sources such as sewage

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

from roads, farm fields, and forests.

The CWA gives state governments the primary responsibility for

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

not meet this responsibility. State agencies in Oregon are committed to

completing TMDLs for coastal drainages within four years, and all

impaired waters within ten years. Similarly ambitious schedules are in

place, or being developed for Washington and Idaho.

The ability of these TMDLs to protect steelhead should be

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

them quickly in the short term and their efficacy in protecting

steelhead habitat will be unknown for years to come.

5. Hatchery and Harvest Management

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

programs have been implemented throughout the range of steelhead on the

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

fishing opportunities, the impacts of these programs on naturally

spawned stocks are not well understood. Competition, genetic

introgression, and disease transmission resulting from hatchery

introductions may significantly reduce the production and survival of

naturally spawned steelhead. Collection of native steelhead for

hatchery broodstock purposes often harms small or dwindling natural

populations. Artificial propagation can play an important role in

steelhead recovery through carefully controlled supplementation

programs.

Hatchery programs and harvest management have strongly influenced

steelhead populations in the Lower and Middle Columbia River Basin

ESUs. Hatchery programs intended to compensate for habitat losses have

masked declines in natural stocks and have created unrealistic

expectations for fisheries. Collection of natural steelhead for

broodstock and transfers of stocks within and between ESUs has

detrimentally impacted some populations.

The two state agencies (ODFW and WDFW) have adopted and are

implementing natural salmonid policies designed to limit hatchery

influences on natural, indigenous steelhead. Sport fisheries are based

on marked, hatchery-produced steelhead and sport fishing regulations

are designed to protect wild fish. While some limits have been placed

on hatchery production of anadromous salmonids, more careful management

of current programs and scrutiny of proposed programs is necessary in

order to minimize impacts on listed species.

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

Existence

Natural climatic conditions have exacerbated the problems

associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats.

Persistent drought conditions have reduced already limited spawning,

rearing and migration habitat. Climatic conditions appear to have

resulted in decreased ocean productivity which, during more productive

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

1996b).

Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Steelhead

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to

make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific

and commercial data available and after taking into account efforts

being made to protect the species. Therefore, in making its listing

determinations, NMFS first assesses the status of the species and

identifies factors that have lead to the decline of the species. NMFS

then assesses available conservation measures to determine if such

measures ameliorate risks to the species.

In judging the efficacy of existing conservation efforts, NMFS

considers the following: (1) The substantive, protective, and

conservation elements of such efforts; (2) the degree of certainty such

efforts will be reliably implemented; and (3) the presence of

monitoring provisions that permit adaptive management (NMFS, 1996c). In

some cases, conservation efforts may be relatively new and may not have

had time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases,

provisions for adequate monitoring and funding of conservation efforts

are essential to ensure intended conservation benefits are realized.

During its west coast steelhead status review, NMFS reviewed an

array of protective efforts for steelhead and other salmonids, ranging

in scope from regional strategies to local watershed initiatives. NMFS

has summarized some of the major efforts in a document entitled

``Steelhead Conservation Efforts: A Supplement to the Notice of

Determination for West Coast Steelhead under the Endangered Species

Act'' (NMFS, 1996d). NMFS has identified additional conservation

measures in the

[[Page 11804]]

States of Washington, Oregon that are not specifically addressed in

this earlier report. We summarize these additional conservation

measures below.

State of Washington Conservation Measures

The State of Washington is currently in the process of developing a

statewide strategy to protect and restore wild steelhead and other

salmon and trout species. In May of 1997, Governor Gary Locke and other

state officials signed a Memorandum of Agreement creating the Joint

Natural Resources Cabinet (Joint Cabinet). This body is comprised of

State agency directors or their equivalents from a wide variety of

agencies whose activities and constituents influence Washington's

natural resources. The goal of the Joint Cabinet is to restore healthy

salmon, steelhead and trout populations by improving those habitats on

which the fish rely. The Joint Cabinet's current activities include

development of the Lower Columbia Steelhead Conservation Initiative

(LCSCI), which is intended to comprehensively address protection and

recovery of steelhead in the lower Columbia River area.

The scope of the LCSCI includes Washington's steelhead stocks in

two transboundary ESUs that are shared by both Washington and Oregon.

The initiative area includes all of Washington's stocks in the Lower

Columbia River ESU (Cowlitz to Wind rivers) and the portion of the

Southwest Washington ESU in the Columbia River (Grays River to Germany

Creek). When completed, conservation and restoration efforts in the

LCSCI area will form a comprehensive, coordinated, and timely

protection and rebuilding framework. Benefits to steelhead and other

fish species in the LCSCI area will also accrue due to the growing bi-

state partnership with Oregon.

Advance work on the initiative was performed by WDFW. That work

emphasized harvest and hatchery issues and related conservation

measures. Consistent with creation of the Joint Cabinet, conservation

planning has recently been expanded to include major involvement by

other state agencies and stakeholders, and to address habitat and

tributary dam/hydropower components.

The utility of the LCSCI is to provide a framework to describe

concepts, strategies, opportunities, and commitments that will be

critically needed to maintain the diversity and long term productivity

of steelhead in the lower Columbia River for future generations. The

initiative does not represent a formal watershed planning process;

rather, it is intended to be complementary to such processes as they

may occur in the future. The LCSCI details a range of concerns

including natural production and genetic conservation, recreational

harvest and opportunity, hatchery strategies, habitat protection and

restoration goals, monitoring of stock status and habitat health,

evaluation of the effectiveness of specific conservation actions, and

an adaptive management structure to implement and modify the plan's

trajectory as time progresses. It also addresses improved enforcement

of habitat and fishery regulations, and strategies for outreach and

education.

The LCSCI is currently a ``work-in-progress'' and will evolve and

change over time as new information becomes available. Input will be

obtained through continuing outreach efforts by local governments and

other stakeholders. Further refinements to strategies, actions, and

commitments will occur using public and stakeholder review and input,

and continued interaction with the State of Oregon, tribes, and other

government entities, including NMFS. The LCSCI will be subjected to

independent technical review. In sum, these input and coordination

processes will play a key role in determining the extent to which the

eventual conservation package will benefit wild steelhead.

NMFS intends to continue working with the State of Washington and

stakeholders involved in the formulation of the LCSCI. Ultimately, when

completed, this conservation effort may ameliorate risks facing many

salmonid species in this region.

State of Oregon Conservation Measures

In April 1996, the Governor of Oregon completed and submitted to

NMFS a comprehensive conservation plan directed specifically at coho

salmon stocks on the Coast of Oregon. This plan, termed the Oregon Plan

for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) (formerly known as the Oregon Coastal

Salmon Restoration Initiative) was later expanded to include

conservation measures for coastal steelhead stocks (Oregon, 1998). For

a detailed description of the OPSW, refer to the May 6, 1997, listing

determination for Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62

FR 24602-24606). The essential tenets of the OPSW include the

following:

1. The plan comprehensively addresses all factors for decline of

coastal coho and steelhead, most notably, those factors relating to

harvest, habitat, and hatchery activities.

2. Under this plan, all State agencies whose activities affect

salmon are held accountable for coordinating their programs in a manner

that conserves and restores the species and their habitat. This is

essential since salmon and steelhead have been affected by the actions

of many different state agencies.

3. The Plan includes a framework for prioritizing conservation and

restoration efforts.

4. The Plan includes a comprehensive monitoring plan that

coordinates Federal, state, and local efforts to improve our

understanding of freshwater and marine conditions, determine

populations trends, evaluate the effects of artificial propagation, and

rate the OPSW's success in restoring the salmon.

5. The Plan recognizes that actions to conserve and restore salmon

must be worked out by communities and landowners--those who possess

local knowledge of problems and who have a genuine stake in the

outcome. Watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, and

other grassroots efforts are the vehicles for getting this work done.

6. The Plan is based upon the principles of adaptive management.

Through this process, there is an explicit mechanism for learning from

experience, evaluating alternative approaches, and making needed

changes in the programs and measures.

7. The Plan includes an Independent Multi-disciplinary Science Team

(IMST). The IMST's purpose is to provide an independent audit of the

OPSW's strengths and weaknesses. They will aid the adaptive management

process by compiling new information into a yearly review of goals,

objectives, and strategies, and by recommending changes.

8. The Plan requires that a yearly report be made to the Governor,

the legislature, and the public. This will help the agencies make the

adjustments described for the adaptive management process.

To implement the various monitoring programs associated with the

steelhead portion of the OPSW, the State of Oregon Legislature

appropriated over $1 million in January, 1998. This funding commitment

is in addition to funds previously allocated for the coho portion of

the OPSW.

Tribal Conservation Measures

A comprehensive salmon restoration plan for Columbia Basin salmon

was prepared by the Nez Perce, Warm Springs, Umatilla and Yakama Indian

Nations. This plan, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (The Spirit of the

[[Page 11805]]

Salmon)(CRITFC 1996) is more comprehensive than past draft recovery

plans for Columbia River basin salmon in that it proposes actions to

protect salmon not currently listed under the ESA. The tribal plan sets

goals and objectives to meet the multiple needs of these sovereign

nations, and provides guidance for management of tribal lands. NMFS

will work closely with the four tribes as conservation measures related

to Columbia Basin salmonids, particularly those at-risk populations are

further developed and implemented.

Proposed Status of Steelhead ESUs

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

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

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

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

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range.'' Thompson, 1991 suggested that conventional

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

useful in making this determination. In previous status reviews, NMFS

has identified a number of factors that should be considered in

evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU, including: (1) absolute

numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal distribution; (2)

current abundance in relation to historical abundance and current

carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in abundance; (4) natural

and human-influenced factors that cause variability in survival and

abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity (e.g., from strays

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

drought or changes in harvest management) that have predictable short-

term consequences for abundance of the ESU.

During the coastwide status review for steelhead, NMFS evaluated

both quantitative and qualitative information to determine whether any

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

types of information used in these assessments are described here,

followed by a summary of results for each ESU.

Quantitative Assessments

A significant component of NMFS' status determination was analyses

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

historical and recent run size estimates derived from dam and weir

counts and stream surveys. Of the 160 steelhead stocks on the west

coast of the United States for which sufficient data existed, 118 (74

percent) exhibited declining trends in abundance, while the remaining

42 (26 percent) exhibited increasing trends in abundance. Sixty-five of

the stock abundance trends analyzed were statistically significant. Of

these, 57 (88 percent) indicated declining trends in abundance and the

remaining 8 (12 percent) indicated increasing trends in abundance.

Aside from analyzing these data, NMFS also considered recent risk

assessment modeling conducted by ODFW.

Analyses of steelhead abundance indicate that across the species'

range, the majority of naturally reproducing steelhead stocks have

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

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

recent abundance estimates, stocks in the southern extent of the

coastal steelhead range appear to have declined significantly, with

widespread stock extirpations. In several areas, a lack of accurate run

size and trend data make estimating abundance difficult.

Qualitative Assessments

Although numerous studies have attempted to classify the status of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

interpretations of these terms to individual stocks, not to broader

geographic units such as those discussed here. Another significant

problem in applying previously published studies to this evaluation is

the manner in which stocks or populations were selected for inclusion

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

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

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

Nehlsen et al., 1991 considered salmon and steelhead stocks

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

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

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

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

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

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

information to classify them. Washington Department of Fisheries et

al., 1993 categorized all salmon and steelhead stocks in Washington on

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

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

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

Of the 141 steelhead stocks identified in Washington, 36 were

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

unknown.

The following summaries draw on these quantitative and qualitative

assessments to describe NMFS' conclusions regarding the status of each

steelhead ESU. A more detailed discussion of status determinations is

presented in the ``Status Review of West Coast Steelhead from

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California'' and ``Status Review Update

for Deferred and Candidate ESUs of West Coast Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996a;

NMFS, 1997a). Copies of these documents are available upon request (see

ADDRESSES).

Upper Willamette River ESU

Steelhead in the Upper Willamette River ESU are distributed in a

few, relatively small, natural populations. Over the past several

decades, total abundance of natural late-migrating winter steelhead

ascending the Willamette Falls fish ladder has fluctuated several times

over a range of approximately 5,000--20,000 spawners. However, the last

peak occurred in 1988, and this peak has been followed by a steep and

continuing decline. Abundance in each of the last 5 years has been

below 4,300 fish, and the run in 1995 was the lowest in 30 years.

Declines also have been observed in almost all natural populations,

including those with and without a substantial component of naturally

spawning hatchery fish. NMFS notes with concern the results from ODFW's

extinction assessment, which estimates that the Molalla River

population had a greater than 20 percent extinction probability in the

next 60 years, and that the upper South Santiam River population had a

greater than 5 percent extinction risk within the next 100 years

(Chilcote, 1997).

Steelhead native to the Upper Willamette River ESU are late-run

winter steelhead, but introduced hatchery stocks of summer and early-

run winter steelhead also occur in the upper Willamette River.

Estimates of the proportion of hatchery fish in natural

[[Page 11806]]

spawning escapements range from 5-25 percent. NMFS is concerned about

the potential risks associated with interactions between non-native

summer and wild winter steelhead, whose spawning areas are sympatric in

some rivers (especially in the Molalla and North and South Santiam

Rivers).

Listing Determination

Based on new information submitted by ODFW and others, NMFS

concludes Upper Willamette River steelhead warrant listing as a

threatened species. Recent abundance trends indicate naturally spawned

steelhead have declined to historically low levels in areas above

Willamette Falls. This low abundance, coupled with potential risks

associated with interactions between naturally spawned steelhead and

hatchery stocks is of great concern to NMFS.

Recent conservation planning efforts by the State of Oregon may

reduce risks faced by steelhead in this ESU in the future; however,

these efforts are still in their formative stages. Specifically, the

OPSW, while substantially implemented and funded on the Oregon Coast,

has not yet reached a similar level of development in inland areas.

Middle Columbia River Basin ESU

Current population sizes are substantially lower than historic

levels, especially in the rivers with the largest steelhead runs in the

ESU, the John Day, Deschutes, and Yakima Rivers. At least two

extinctions of native steelhead runs in the ESU have occurred (the

Crooked and Metolius Rivers, both in the Deschutes River Basin). In

addition, NMFS remains concerned about the widespread long- and short-

term downward trends in population abundance throughout the ESU. Trends

in natural escapement in the Yakima and Umatilla Rivers have been

highly variable since the mid to late 1970s, ranging from abundances

that indicate relatively healthy runs to those that are cause for

concern (i.e., from 2,000-3,000 steelhead during peaks to approximately

500 fish during the low points).

One of the most significant sources of risk to steelhead in the

Middle Columbia ESU is the recent and dramatic increase in the

percentage of hatchery fish in natural escapement in the Deschutes

River Basin. ODFW estimates that in recent years, the percentage of

hatchery strays in the Deschutes River has exceeded 70 percent, and

most of these are believed to be long-distance strays from outside the

ESU. Coincident with this increase in the percentage of strays has been

a decline in the abundance of native steelhead in the Deschutes River.

In combination with the trends in hatchery fish in the Deschutes River,

estimates of increased proportions of hatchery fish in the John Day and

Umatilla River Basins pose a risk to wild steelhead due to negative

effects of genetic and ecological interactions with hatchery fish. For

example, in recent years, most of the fish planted in the Touchet River

are from other ESU stocks. As a result, a recent analysis of this stock

by WDFW found that it was most similar genetically to Wells Hatchery

steelhead from the Upper Columbia River ESU.

Listing Determination

The new and updated information considered by NMFS suggest that

over the past 34 years, continued declines in steelhead abundance and

increases in the percentage of hatchery fish in natural escapements

indicate significantly higher risk than was apparent during the initial

status review. Taking this new information into consideration, NMFS

concludes that the Middle Columbia ESU warrants listing as a threatened

species. Recent conservation planning efforts by the States of

Washington and Oregon may reduce risks faced by steelhead in this ESU

in the future; however, these efforts are still in their formative

stages. Specifically, the State of Washington's LCSCI is still in a

developmental stage and various technical and financial aspects of the

plan need to be addressed (NMFS, 1998). Furthermore, this effort is

currently limited to lower Columbia River areas. The OPSW, while

substantially implemented and funded on the Oregon Coast, has not yet

reached a similar level of development in inland areas.

Proposed Determination

The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a

threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

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

listing determination be based solely on the best scientific and

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

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

made to protect such species.

Based on new information obtained from its coastwide assessment,

NMFS concludes that Upper Willamette River steelhead and Middle

Columbia River steelhead warrant listing as threatened species under

the ESA. The geographic boundaries (i.e., the watersheds within which

the members of the ESU spend their freshwater residence) for these ESUs

are described under ``ESU Determinations''.

In both proposed ESUs, only naturally spawned steelhead are

proposed for listing. Prior to the final listing determination, NMFS

will examine the relationship between hatchery and naturally spawned

populations of steelhead in these ESUs, and assess whether any hatchery

populations are essential for their recovery. This may result in the

inclusion of specific hatchery populations as part of a listed ESU in

NMFS' final determination.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or

indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all

individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Section 9 prohibitions apply automatically to endangered species; as

the following discussion explains, this is not the case for threatened

species.

Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary to implement

regulations ``to provide for the conservation of [threatened]

species,'' that may include extending any or all of the prohibitions of

section 9 to threatened species. Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits

violations of protective regulations for threatened species implemented

under section 4(d). Therefore, in the case of threatened species, NMFS

has discretion under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations

based on the contents of available conservation measures. NMFS has

already adopted 4(d) rules that exempt a limited range of activities

from take prohibitions. For example, the interim 4(d) rule for Southern

Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997)

excepts habitat restoration activities conducted in accordance with

approved plans and fisheries conducted in accordance with an approved

state management plan. In appropriate cases, 4(d) rules could contain a

narrower range of prohibitions applicable to activities such as

forestry, agriculture, and road construction when such activities are

conducted in accordance with approved state or tribal plans.

These examples show that NMFS may apply take prohibitions narrowly

in light of the strong protections provided in a state or tribal plan.

There may be other circumstances as well in which NMFS would use the

flexibility of section 4(d). For example, in some cases there may be a

healthy population of salmon or steelhead within an overall ESU that is

listed. In such a case, it may

[[Page 11807]]

not be necessary to apply the full range of prohibitions available in

section 9. NMFS intends to use the flexibility of the ESA to respond

appropriately to the biological condition of each ESU and the

populations within it, and to the strength of state and tribal plans in

place to protect them. Therefore, after further analysis, NMFS will

issue protective regulations pursuant to section 4(d) for the Upper

Willamette River and Middle Columbia River ESUs.

Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult

with NMFS on any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence

of a species proposed for listing and on actions likely to result in

the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

For listed species, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure

that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into consultation with NMFS.

Examples of Federal actions likely to affect steelhead in the

listed ESUs include authorized land management activities of the U.S.

Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management, as well as operation

of hydroelectric and storage projects of the Bureau of Reclamation and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Such activities include timber

sales and harvest, hydroelectric power generation, and flood control.

Federal actions, including the COE section 404 permitting activities

under the CWA, COE permitting activities under the River and Harbors

Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits issued by

the Environmental Protection Agency, highway projects authorized by the

Federal Highway Administration, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

licenses for non-Federal development and operation of hydropower, and

Federal salmon hatcheries, may also require consultation. These actions

will likely be subject to ESA section 7 consultation requirements that

may result in conditions designed to achieve the intended purpose of

the project and avoid or reduce impacts to steelhead and its habitat

within the range of the listed ESUs. It is important to note that the

current proposed listing applies only to the anadromous form of O.

mykiss; therefore, section 7 consultations will not address resident

forms of O. mykiss at this time.

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with

authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions (see

regulations at 50 CFR 222.22 through 222.24). Section 10(a)(1)(A)

scientific research and enhancement permits may be issued to entities

(Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that involves a directed

take of listed species.

NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A) research or enhancement permits

for other listed species (e.g., Snake River chinook salmon and

Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon) for a number of activities,

including trapping and tagging, electroshocking to determine population

presence and abundance, removal of fish from irrigation ditches, and

collection of adult fish for artificial propagation programs. NMFS is

aware of several sampling efforts for steelhead in the proposed ESUs,

including efforts by Federal and state fishery management agencies.

These and other research efforts could provide critical information

regarding steelhead distribution and population abundance.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to non-

Federal entities performing activities that may incidentally take

listed species. The types of activities potentially requiring a section

10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the operation and release of

artificially propagated fish by state or privately operated and funded

hatcheries, state or university research on species other than

steelhead, not receiving Federal authorization or funding, the

implementation of state fishing regulations, and timber harvest

activities on non-Federal lands.

Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions, Federal

agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on taking.

Recognition through listing promotes public awareness and conservation

actions by Federal, state, and local agencies, private organizations,

and individuals.

Several conservation efforts are underway that may help reverse the

decline of west coast steelhead and other salmonids. These include the

Northwest Forest Plan (on Federal lands within the range of the

northern spotted owl), PACFISH (on all additional Federal lands with

anadromous salmonid populations), Oregon's Plan for Salmon and

Watersheds (formerly known as the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration

Initiative), and Washington's Lower Columbia River Salmon Restoration

Initiative. NMFS is very encouraged by a number of these efforts and

believes they have or may constitute significant strides in the efforts

in the region to develop a scientifically well grounded conservation

plan for these stocks. Other efforts, such as the Middle Columbia River

Habitat Conservation Plan, are at various stages of development, but

show promise to ameliorate risks facing listed steelhead ESUs. NMFS

intends to support and work closely with these efforts--staff and

resources permitting--in the belief that they can play an important

role in the recovery planning process.

Based on information presented in this proposed rule, general

conservation measures that could be implemented to help conserve the

species are listed here. This list does not constitute NMFS'

interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f) of the ESA.

1. Measures could be taken to promote land management practices

that protect and restore steelhead habitat. Land management practices

affecting steelhead habitat include timber harvest, road building,

agriculture, livestock grazing, and urban development.

2. Evaluation of existing harvest regulations could identify any

changes necessary to protect steelhead populations.

3. Artificial propagation programs could be required to incorporate

practices that minimize impacts upon natural populations of steelhead.

4. Efforts could be made to ensure that existing and proposed dam

facilities are designed and operated in a manner that will lessen

adverse effects to steelhead populations.

5. Water diversions could have adequate headgate and staff gauge

structures installed to control and monitor water usage accurately.

Water rights could be enforced to prevent irrigators from exceeding the

amount of water to which they are legally entitled.

6. Irrigation diversions affecting downstream migrating steelhead

trout could be screened. A thorough review of the impact of irrigation

diversions on steelhead could be conducted.

NMFS recognizes that, to be successful, protective regulations and

recovery programs for steelhead will need to be developed in the

context of conserving aquatic ecosystem health. NMFS intends that

Federal lands and Federal activities play a primary role in preserving

listed populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. However,

throughout the range of the two ESUs proposed for listing, steelhead

habitat occurs and can be affected by activities on state, tribal, or

private land. Agricultural, timber, and urban

[[Page 11808]]

management activities on non-federal land could and should be conducted

in a manner that minimizes adverse effects to steelhead habitat.

NMFS encourages non-Federal landowners to assess the impacts of

their actions on potentially threatened or endangered salmonids. In

particular, NMFS encourages the establishment of watershed partnerships

to promote conservation in accordance with ecosystem principles. These

partnerships will be successful only if state, tribal, and local

governments, landowner representatives, and Federal and non-Federal

biologists all participate and share the goal of restoring steelhead to

the watersheds.

Critical Habitat

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent

prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently

with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. NMFS

intends to propose critical habitat for all previously listed and

currently proposed steelhead ESUs in a forthcoming Federal Register

notice. Copies of this notice will be available upon request (see

ADDRESSES).

NMFS Policies on Endangered and Threatened Fish and Wildlife

On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. FWS, published a

series of policies regarding listings under the ESA, including a policy

for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270), and a policy to

identify, to the maximum extent possible, those activities that would

or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA (59 FR

34272).

Role of peer review: The intent of the peer review policy is to

ensure that listings are based on the best scientific and commercial

data available. Prior to a final listing, NMFS will solicit the expert

opinions of three qualified specialists, concurrent with the public

comment period. Independent peer reviewers will be selected from the

academic and scientific community, tribal and other native American

groups, Federal and state agencies, and the private sector.

Identification of those activities that would constitute a

violation of section 9 of the ESA: The intent of this policy is to

increase public awareness of the effect of this listing on proposed and

ongoing activities within the species' range. NMFS will identify, to

the extent known at the time of the final rule, specific activities

that will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9,

as well as activities that will be considered likely to result in

violation. NMFS believes that, based on the best available information,

the following actions will not result in a violation of section 9:

(1) Possession of steelhead acquired lawfully by permit issued by

NMFS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the terms of an

incidental take statement pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.

(2) Federally approved projects that involve activities such as

silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam construction and

operation, discharge of fill material, stream channelization or

diversion for which consultation has been completed, and when such

activity is conducted in accordance with any terms and conditions given

by NMFS in an incidental take statement accompanied by a biological

opinion.

Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm the steelhead

and result in ``take'', include, but are not limited to:

(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of the species. Permits to

conduct these activities are available for purposes of scientific

research or to enhance the propagation or survival of the species.

(2) Unauthorized destruction/alteration of the species' habitat

such as removal of large woody debris or riparian shade canopy,

dredging, discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, diverting,

blocking, or altering stream channels or surface or ground water flow.

(3) Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants

(i.e., sewage, oil and gasoline) into waters or riparian areas

supporting the species.

(4) Violation of discharge permits.

(5) Interstate and foreign commerce (commerce across State lines

and international boundaries) and import/export without prior

obtainment of an endangered species permit.

This list is not exhaustive; rather, it is provided to give the

reader some examples of activities that may be considered by NMFS as

constituting a ``take'' of steelhead under the ESA and associated

regulations. Questions regarding whether specific activities constitute

a violation of section 9, and general inquiries regarding prohibitions

and permits, should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Public Comments Solicited

To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and effective as possible, NMFS is soliciting comments

and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.

Public hearings will be held in several locations in the range of the

proposed ESUs; details regarding locations, dates, and times will be

published in a forthcoming Federal Register document. NMFS recognizes

that there are serious limits to the quality of information available,

and, therefore, NMFS has executed its best professional judgement in

developing this proposal. NMFS will appreciate any additional

information regarding, in particular: (1) biological or other relevant

data concerning any threat to steelhead or rainbow trout; (2) the

range, distribution, and population size of steelhead in both

identified ESUs; (3) current or planned activities in the subject areas

and their possible impact on this species; (4) steelhead escapement,

particularly escapement data partitioned into natural and hatchery

components; (5) the proportion of naturally reproducing fish that were

reared as juveniles in a hatchery; (6) homing and straying of natural

and hatchery fish; (7) the reproductive success of naturally-

reproducing hatchery fish (i.e., hatchery-produced fish that spawn in

natural habitat) and their relationship to the identified ESUs; and (8)

efforts being made to protect naturally spawned populations of

steelhead and rainbow trout in Washington and Oregon.

NMFS also requests quantitative evaluations describing the quality

and extent of freshwater and marine habitats for juvenile and adult

steelhead as well as information on areas that may qualify as critical

habitat in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. Areas that include

the physical and biological features essential to the recovery of the

species should be identified. NMFS recognizes there are areas within

the proposed boundaries of these ESUs that historically constituted

steelhead habitat, but may not be currently occupied by steelhead. NMFS

requests information about steelhead in these currently unoccupied

areas and whether these habitats should be considered essential to the

recovery of the species or excluded from designation. Essential

features include, but are not limited to: (1) habitat for individual

and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air,

light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for reproduction and rearing of

offspring; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historic geographical and ecological

distributions of the species.

For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is

requesting

[[Page 11809]]

information describing: (1) the activities that affect the area or

could be affected by the designation, and (2) the economic costs and

benefits of additional requirements of management measures likely to

result from the designation.

NMFS will review all public comments and any additional information

regarding the status of the steelhead ESUs described herein and, as

required under the ESA, will complete a final rule within 1 year of

this proposed rule. The availability of new information may cause NMFS

to reassess the status of steelhead ESUs.

Public Hearings

Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the

Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person

so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to

list a species or to designate critical habitat (See 50 CFR

424.16(c)(3)). In a forthcoming Federal Register document, NMFS will

announce the dates and locations of public hearings on this proposed

rule to provide the opportunity for the public to give comments and to

permit an exchange of information and opinion among interested parties.

NMFS encourages the public's involvement in such ESA matters.

References

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request (see ADDRESSES).

Classification

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the

information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.

Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the

opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir.

1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from

environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.

As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the

ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered in determinations regarding

the status of species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are not applicable to the listing

process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under E.O.

12866.

At this time NMFS is not proposing protective regulations pursuant

to ESA section 4(d). In the future, prior to finalizing its 4(d)

regulations for the threatened ESUs, NMFS will comply with all relevant

NEPA and RFA requirements

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 227

Endangered and threatened wildlife, Exports, Imports, Marine

Mammals, Transportation.

Dated: February 26, 1998.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 227 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE

1. The authority citation for part 227 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1343; subpart B, Sec. 227.12 also

issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

2. In Sec. 227.4, paragraphs (v) and (w) are added to read as

follows:

Sec. 227.4 Enumeration of threatened species.

* * * * *

(v) Upper Willamette River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their

progeny) in the Willamette River, Oregon, and its tributaries above

Willamette Falls; and

(w) Middle Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Includes

all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in

streams from above (and excluding) the Wind River, Washington, and the

Hood River, Oregon, upstream to (and including) the Yakima River,

Washington. Excluded are steelhead from the Snake River Basin.

[FR Doc. 98-5473 Filed 3-9-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P