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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 227

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

Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for Two ESUs

of Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and California

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

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; notice of determination.

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

SUMMARY: Previously, NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of

west coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss, or O. mykiss) populations in

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, and identified 15

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) within this range. After

soliciting additional data to resolve scientific disagreements, NMFS

now issues a final rule to list two ESUs as threatened under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The threatened steelhead ESUs are located

in Washington, Oregon, and California (Lower Columbia River and Central

Valley, California ESUs). NMFS will issue shortly protective

regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA for these threatened ESUs.

NMFS has determined that the Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountains

Province (KMP), and Northern California ESUs do not warrant listing at

this time. Available scientific information and conservation measures

indicate these ESUs are now at a lower risk of extinction than at the

time of the proposed rule. However, NMFS remains concerned about the

status of steelhead in these areas; therefore, the Oregon Coast, KMP,

and Northern California ESUs warrant classification as candidate

species. NMFS will reevaluate the status of these ESUs within four

years to determine whether listing is warranted.

In the two ESUs identified as threatened, only naturally spawned

populations of steelhead (and their progeny) residing below naturally

and man-made impassable barriers (e.g., impassable waterfalls and dams)

are listed. NMFS has examined the relationship between hatchery and

natural populations of steelhead in these ESUs and has assessed whether

any hatchery populations are essential for their recovery. At this

time, no hatchery populations are deemed essential for recovery (and

hence listed) in either of the two listed ESUs.

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

mykiss.

DATES: Effective May 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Northwest

Region, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Species Background

Oncorhynchus mykiss exhibit one of the most complex suites of life

history traits of any salmonid species. Oncorhynchus mykiss may exhibit

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

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

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

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

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

have been conducted regarding the relationship between resident and

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

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

the biological species that includes both steelhead and rainbow trout

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

premise that all trouts from western North America share a common

lineage with Pacific salmon.

Steelhead typically migrate to marine waters after spending 2 years

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

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

year-olds. Unlike other Pacific salmon, steelhead are iteroparous,

meaning they are capable of spawning more than once before they die.

However, it is rare for steelhead to spawn more than twice before

dying; most that do so are females. Steelhead adults typically spawn

between December and June (Bell, 1990; Busby et al., 1996). Depending

on water temperature, steelhead eggs may incubate in ``redds'' (nesting

gravels) for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as ``alevins'' (a larval

life stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac

absorption, young juveniles or ``fry'' emerge from the gravel and begin

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

migrate to the ocean as ``smolts.''

Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two reproductive

ecotypes, based

[[Page 13348]]

on their state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry and the

duration of their spawning migration. These two ecotypes are termed

``stream maturing'' and ``ocean maturing.'' Stream maturing steelhead

enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition and require several

months to mature and spawn. Ocean maturing steelhead enter fresh water

with well developed gonads and spawn shortly after river entry. These

two reproductive ecotypes are more commonly referred to by their season

of freshwater entry (i.e., summer-run and winter-run steelhead,

respectively).

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

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

group, separated in the Fraser and Columbia River Basins approximately

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

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

1986; Reisenbichler et al., 1992). Behnke (1992) proposed classifying

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

m. gairdneri. These genetic groupings apply to both anadromous and

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

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

coastal steelhead while Idaho has only inland steelhead.

Historically, steelhead were distributed throughout the North

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

Peninsula. Presently, the species distribution extends from the

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

America, to approximately Malibu Creek in southern California. There

are infrequent anecdotal reports of steelhead occurring as far south as

the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County (McEwan and Jackson,

1996). Historically, steelhead likely inhabited most coastal streams in

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

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

indigenous, naturally reproducing stocks of steelhead are believed to

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

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

California. Forty-three stocks have been identified as being at

moderate or high risk of extinction (Nehlsen et al., 1991).

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to West Coast Steelhead

The history of petitions received regarding west coast steelhead is

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

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

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

response to this petition, NMFS assessed the best available scientific

and commercial data, including technical information from Pacific

Salmon Biological Technical Committees (PSBTCs) and interested parties

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

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

agencies, Indian tribes, industries, universities, professional

societies, and public interest groups) possessing technical expertise

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

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

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

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

from NMFS' Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers and

Southwest Regional Office, as well as a representative of the U.S.

Geological Survey Biological Resources Division (formerly the National

Biological Service), which conducted a coastwide status review for west

coast steelhead (Busby et al., 1996).

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

information and existing conservation measures, NMFS published a

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

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

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

threatened or endangered species; four were found not warranted for

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

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

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

notice published on the same day, NMFS determined substantial

scientific disagreement remained for the five proposed ESUs addressed

herein (62 FR 43974, August 18, 1997). In accordance with section

4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA, NMFS deferred its decision on these five

remaining steelhead ESUs for 6 months for the purpose of soliciting

additional data.

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

information concerning the status of the proposed ESUs. This new

information was considered by NMFS' BRT, and NMFS has now completed an

updated status review that analyzes this new information (Memorandum to

William Stelle and William Hogarth from M. Schiewe, December 18, 1997,

Status of Deferred and Candidate ESUs of West Coast Steelhead). During

this period, NMFS also assessed the status of existing hatchery stocks

to determine their ESU status (Memorandum from Michael Schiewe to

William Stelle and William Hogarth, January 13, 1998, Status Review

Update for Deferred ESUs of West Coast Steelhead: Hatchery

Populations). Copies of these memoranda are available upon request (see

ADDRESSES). Based on this updated status review and other information,

NMFS now issues its final determinations for these five proposed ESUs.

Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule

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

Washington to solicit comments on the proposed rule. One hundred

eighty-eight individuals presented testimony at these public hearings.

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

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

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

community, and other individuals. A number of comments addressed

specific technical issues pertaining to a particular geographic region

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

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

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

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

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

the ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR

34270). In accordance with this policy, NMFS solicited 22 individuals

to take part in a peer review of its west coast steelhead proposed

rule. All individuals solicited are recognized experts in the field of

steelhead biology and represent a broad range of interests, including

Federal, state, and tribal resource managers, private industry

consultants, and academia. Eight individuals took part in the peer

review of this action; comments from peer reviewers were considered by

NMFS' BRT and are summarized in the updated Status Review document

(NMFS, 1997a).

The following is a summary of the comments received in response to

the proposed rule:

[[Page 13349]]

Issue 1: Sufficiency and Accuracy of Scientific Information and

Analysis

Comment: Numerous commenters disputed the sufficiency and accuracy

of data which NMFS employed in its proposed rule to list 10 steelhead

ESUs as either threatened or endangered under the ESA. Several

commenters urged NMFS to delay any ESA listing decisions for steelhead

until additional scientific information is available concerning this

species.

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

listing determinations solely on the basis of the best available

scientific and commercial data after reviewing the status of the

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

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

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

represents the best scientific information presently available for the

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

exhaustive review of all available information relevant to the status

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

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

new data become available to change these conclusions, NMFS will act

accordingly.

Issue 2: Description and Status of Steelhead ESUs

Comment: A few commenters disputed NMFS' conclusions regarding the

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

for determining these boundaries. Most of these comments pertained to

the ESUs south of San Francisco Bay, suggesting that particular river

systems be excluded from listing because of the historical or

occasional absence of steelhead or rainbow trout.

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

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

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

joint policy, which is consistent with NMFS' policy, regarding the

definition of ``distinct population segments'' (61 FR 4722, February 7,

1996). The earlier policy is more detailed and applies specifically to

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

policy indicates that one or more naturally reproducing salmonid

populations will be considered to be distinct and, hence, species under

the ESA, if they represent an ESU of the biological species. To be

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

be reproductively isolated from other population units of the same

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

evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The first criterion,

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

enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to occur in

different population units. The second criterion is met if the

population contributes substantially to the ecological or genetic

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

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

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

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

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

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

discussion of individual ESU boundaries is provided below under

``Summary of ESU Determinations.''

Comment: Several commenters questioned NMFS' methodology for

determining whether a given steelhead ESU warranted listing. In most

cases, such commenters also expressed opinions regarding whether

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

provided substantive new information relevant to making risk

assessments.

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

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

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

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

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

management) that have predictable short-term consequences for abundance

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

provided under the section ``Summary of Conclusions Regarding Listed

ESUs.''

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

Comment: Many commenters identified factors they believe have

contributed to the decline of west coast steelhead. Factors identified

include overharvest by recreational fisheries, predation by pinnipeds

and piscivorous fish species, effects of artificial propagation, and

the deterioration or loss of freshwater and marine habitats.

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

contributed to the decline of West Coast steelhead. NMFS also

recognizes that natural environmental fluctuations have likely played a

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

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

hatchery practices, and habitat modification) have played an equally

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

induced impacts have likely reduced the species' resiliency to natural

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

1996a).

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

report describing the impacts of California sea lions and Pacific

harbor seals upon salmonids and on the coastal ecosystems of

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

that in certain cases where pinniped populations co-occur with

depressed salmonid populations, salmon populations may experience

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

Ballard Locks, Washington, where sea lions are known to consume

significant numbers of adult winter-run steelhead. This study further

concludes that data regarding pinniped predation are quite limited and

that substantial additional research is needed to fully address this

issue. Existing information on the seriously depressed status of many

salmonid stocks is sufficient to warrant actions to remove pinnipeds in

areas of co-occurrence where pinnipeds prey on depressed salmonid

populations (NMFS, 1997b). For additional information on this issue see

Summary of Factors Affecting Steelhead.

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

assessment underestimated the significant influence of natural

environmental fluctuations on salmonid populations. Several commenters

stated that ocean conditions are one of the primary factors for

decline. These commenters suggested that any listing

[[Page 13350]]

activity should be postponed until the complete oceanographic cycle can

be observed.

Response: Environmental changes in both marine and freshwater

habitats can have important impacts on steelhead abundance. For

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

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

steelhead populations from most geographic regions of the Pacific

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

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

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

habitats for steelhead throughout the region. These natural phenomena

put increasing pressure on natural populations already stressed by

anthropogenic factors, such as habitat degradation, blockage of

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

Improvement of cyclic or episodic environmental conditions (for

example, increases in ocean productivity or shifts from drought to

wetter conditions) can help alleviate extinction risk to steelhead

populations. However, NMFS cannot reliably predict future environmental

conditions, making it unreasonable to assume improvements in abundance

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

and other species of Pacific salmon have evolved over the centuries

with such cyclical environmental stresses. This species has persisted

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

presence of freshwater and estuarine refugia. As these refugia are

altered and degraded, Pacific salmon species are more vulnerable to

episodic events, such as shifts in ocean productivity and drought

cycles (NMFS, 1996a).

Issue 4: Consideration of Existing Conservation Measures

Comment: Several commenters argued that NMFS had not considered

existing conservation programs designed to enhance steelhead stocks

within a particular ESU. Some commenters provided specific information

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

conservation plans.

Response: NMFS has reviewed existing conservation plans and

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

concludes that existing conservation efforts in some cases have helped

ameliorate risks facing the species. These conservation efforts are

discussed in detail under the section Existing Conservation Efforts.

While several of the plans addressed in comments show promise for

ameliorating risks facing steelhead, some of the measures described in

comments have not been implemented. Some of these measures are also

geographically limited to individual river basins or political

subdivisions, thereby improving conditions for only a small portion of

the entire ESU.

Even though in two ESUs existing conservation efforts and plans are

not sufficient to preclude the need for listings at this time, they

are, nevertheless, valuable for improving watershed health and

restoring fishery resources. In those cases where well-developed,

reliable conservation plans exist, NMFS may choose to incorporate them

into the recovery planning process. In the case of threatened species,

NMFS also has flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor protective

regulations based on the contents of available conservation measures.

NMFS has already adopted a 4(d) rule recognizing state conservation

efforts that adequately address one or more factors contributing to the

decline of a threatened species. For example, the interim 4(d) rule for

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

1997) relied on an Oregon fishery management plan and regulations

rather than applying general take prohibitions to freshwater fishing

activity in the Oregon portion of the ESU. It also relied on habitat

restoration plans that meet specified standards. In appropriate cases,

4(d) rules could similarly rely on state or tribal forestry,

agriculture, road construction and maintenance, or other programs found

to provide adequate protections for threatened species.

These examples show that NMFS may apply modified take prohibitions

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

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

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

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

listed. In such a case it may not be necessary to apply the full range

of prohibitions available in section 9. NMFS intends to use the

flexibility of the ESA to respond appropriately to the biological

condition of each ESU and the populations within it and to the strength

of state and tribal plans in place to protect them.

Issue 5: Steelhead Biology and Ecology

Comment: Several commenters and a peer reviewer asserted that

resident rainbow trout should be included in listed steelhead ESUs.

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

presence of rainbow trout populations may ameliorate risks facing

anadromous populations within listed ESUs.

Response: In its August 9, 1996, proposed rule (61 FR 41541), NMFS

stated that it was the consensus of NMFS scientists, as well as

regional fishery biologists, that based on available genetic

information, resident fish should generally be considered part of the

steelhead ESUs. However, NMFS concluded that available data were

inconclusive regarding the relationship of resident rainbow trout and

steelhead. NMFS requested additional data in the proposed rule to

clarify this relationship and determine whether resident rainbow trout

should be included in listed steelhead ESUs.

In response to this request for additional information, many groups

and individuals expressed opinions regarding this issue. In most cases

these opinions were not supported by new information that resolves

existing uncertainty. Two state fishery management agencies (California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife (WDFW)) and one peer reviewer provided comments and

information supporting the inclusion of resident rainbow trout in

listed steelhead ESUs. In general, these parties also felt that rainbow

trout may serve as an important reservoir of genetic material for at-

risk steelhead stocks.

While conclusive evidence does not yet exist regarding the

relationship of resident and anadromous O. mykiss, NMFS believes

available evidence suggests that resident rainbow trout should be

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

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

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

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

anadromous fish but no longer do because they are currently above

human-made barriers and are considered essential for recovery of the

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

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

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

alone. Resident fish above long-standing natural barriers and those

that are derived from the introduction of non-native rainbow trout

would not be considered part of any salmonid ESU.

Several lines of evidence exist to support this conclusion. Under

certain conditions, anadromous and resident O.

[[Page 13351]]

mykiss are apparently capable not only of interbreeding, but also of

having offspring that express the alternate life history form, that is,

anadromous fish can produce nonanadromous offspring, and vice versa

(Shapovalov and Taft, 1954; Burgner et al., 1992). Mullan et al. (1992)

found evidence that, in very cold streams, juvenile steelhead had

difficulty attaining ``mean threshold size for smoltification'' and

concluded that ``Most fish here [Methow River, Washington] that do not

emigrate downstream early in life are thermally-fated to a resident

life history regardless of whether they were the progeny of anadromous

or resident parents.'' Additionally, Shapovalov and Taft (1954)

reported evidence of O. mykiss maturing in fresh water and spawning

prior to their first ocean migration; this life history variation has

also been found in cutthroat trout (O. clarki) and Atlantic salmon

(Salmo salar).

NMFS believes resident fish can help buffer extinction risks to an

anadromous population by mitigating depensatory effects in spawning

populations, by providing offspring that migrate to the ocean and enter

the breeding population of steelhead, and by providing a ``reserve''

gene pool in freshwater that may persist through times of unfavorable

conditions for anadromous fish. In spite of these potential benefits,

presence of resident populations is not a substitute for conservation

of anadromous populations. A particular concern is isolation of

resident populations by human-caused barriers to migration. This

interrupts normal population dynamics and population genetic processes

and can lead to the loss of a genetically based trait (anadromy). As

discussed in NMFS' ``species identification'' paper (Waples, 1991), the

potential loss of anadromy in distinct population segments may in and

of itself warrant listing the ESU as a whole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

where an ESU of a biological species is considered to be a DPS if (1)

it is substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific

population units, and (2) it represents an important component in the

evolutionary legacy of the species (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

NMFS believes available data suggest that resident rainbow trout are in

many cases part of steelhead ESUs. However, the FWS, which has ESA

authority for resident fish, maintains that behavioral forms can be

regarded as separate DPSs (e.g., western snowy plover) and that absent

evidence suggesting resident rainbow trout need ESA protection; the FWS

concludes that only the anadromous forms of each ESU should be listed

under the ESA (Department of Interior (DOI), 1997; FWS, 1997).

In its review of West Coast steelhead, NMFS'' BRT stated that

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

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

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

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

that steelhead recovery will not rely on the intermittent exchange of

genetic material between resident and anadromous forms (FWS, 1997). As

a result, without a clear demonstration of any risks to resident

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

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

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

steelhead ESUs at this time (FWS, 1997).

Comment: Several commenters and peer reviewers questioned NMFS''

inclusion of both summer- and winter-run steelhead in the same ESU.

These commenters suggested that summer- and winter-run steelhead be

segregated into individual ESUs based on life history differences.

Response: While NMFS considers both life history forms (summer-and

winter-run steelhead) to be important components of diversity within

the species, new genetic data reinforce previous conclusions that,

within a geographic area, summer-and winter-run steelhead typically are

more genetically similar to one another than either is to populations

with similar run timing in different geographic areas. This indicates

that an ESU that included summer-run populations from different

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

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

have summer- and winter-run steelhead populations in separate ESUs

would be to have a very large number of ESUs, most consisting of just

one or a very few populations. This would be inconsistent with the

approach NMFS has taken in defining ESUs in other anadromous Pacific

salmonids. Taking these factors into consideration, NMFS concludes that

summer- and winter-run steelhead should be considered part of the same

ESU in geographic areas where they co-occur.

Summary of ESU Determinations

The following is a summary of NMFS'' ESU determinations for these

species. A more detailed discussion of ESU determinations is presented

in the documents entitled ``Status Review Update for West Coast

Steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California'' (NMFS,

1997a) and ``Status Review Update for Deferred ESUs of West Coast

Steelhead: Hatchery Populations'' (NMFS, 1998a). Copies of these

documents are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

(1) Lower Columbia River ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies tributaries to the Columbia

River between the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers in Washington, inclusive, and

the Willamette and Hood Rivers in Oregon, inclusive. Excluded are

steelhead in the upper Willamette River Basin above Willamette Falls,

and steelhead from the Little and Big White Salmon Rivers in

Washington. This similarity results from the shared geology of the area

and the transportation of Columbia River sediments northward along the

Washington coast. Rivers draining into the Columbia River have their

headwaters in increasingly drier areas, moving from west to east.

Columbia River tributaries that drain the Cascade Mountains have

proportionally higher flows in late summer and early fall than rivers

on the Oregon coast.

Steelhead populations in this ESU are of the coastal genetic group

(Schreck et al., 1986; Reisenbichler et al., 1992; Chapman et al.,

1994), and a number of genetic studies have shown that they are part of

a different ancestral lineage than inland steelhead from the Columbia

River Basin. Genetic data also show steelhead from this ESU to be

distinct from steelhead from the upper Willamette River and coastal

streams in Oregon and Washington. WDFW data show genetic affinity

between the Kalama, Wind, and Washougal River steelhead. These data

show differentiation between the Lower Columbia River ESU and the

Southwest Washington and Middle Columbia River Basin ESUs. This ESU is

composed of both winter- and summer-run steelhead.

NMFS determines that no changes in the boundaries of the Lower

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

peer reviewers or from other commenters regarding the boundaries of

this ESU.

[[Page 13352]]

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU

Hatchery populations considered part of the ESU include late-

spawning Cowlitz Trout Hatchery stock (winter-run) and Clackamas River

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) stock # 122. For late-

spawning Cowlitz River steelhead, this decision was based on the

following: (1) Their April to late-May spawning period that mirrors the

spawn timing of wild winter-run steelhead in this system; (2) the 58-

chromosome count exhibited by this stock, which is indicative of native

Columbia River Basin origin, in contrast to the 59 or 60 chromosomes

seen in Chambers Creek steelhead; and (3) a genetic clustering with

native late-spawning winter-run steelhead in the Clackamas River.

Clackamas River ODFW hatchery stock # 122, which were recently

established, are part of the ESU based on its apparent origin from a

local wild population.

Hatchery populations not considered part of the ESU include

Chambers Creek/lower Columbia River mix (early-spawning winter-run),

Skamania Hatchery stock (summer-run), Eagle Creek National Fish

Hatchery (NFH) stock (Clackamas River ODFW stock # 19) (winter-

run), Clackamas River ODFW stock # 20 (winter-run), and Hood River ODFW

stock # 50 (winter-run). For both Chambers Creek/lower Columbia River

mix of early spawning steelhead hatchery stocks and the Eagle Creek NFH

stock (also known as Clackamas River ODFW stock # 19), this conclusion

is based on the substantial inclusion of original broodstock from

outside the ESU and on significant deviation in current run-timing

compared with native winter-run steelhead.

Available information indicates that a portion of the original

broodstocks for Skamania Hatchery stock (summer-run) and the Clackamas

River ODFW stock # 20 (winter-run) originated from outside the

ESU. Also, Skamania summer hatchery steelhead stock exhibits a 3-month

advanced spawn timing compared with wild summer-run steelhead in the

Washougal River. Skamania Hatchery summer-run steelhead were derived

from a combination of native Washougal River summer-run steelhead and

summer-run steelhead imported from the Klickitat River, which is in the

Middle Columbia River ESU. Clackamas River ODFW stock # 20 (raised at

Clackamas Hatchery) originated from the Eagle Creek NFH stock (ODFW

stock # 19), which was derived from a mixture of indigenous Clackamas

River steelhead, Big Creek Hatchery steelhead from the Southwest

Washington ESU, and Donaldson rainbow trout.

At this time, NMFS concludes that Hood River winter-run steelhead

ODFW stock # 50 does not warrant inclusion in this ESU. Insufficient

genetic data exist at this time to conclusively determine the stock's

ESU status.

(2) Oregon Coast ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies river basins on the Oregon

coast north of Cape Blanco, excluding rivers and streams that are

tributaries of the Columbia River. Most rivers in this area drain the

Coast Range Mountains, have a single peak in flow in December or

January, and have relatively low flow during summer and early fall. The

coastal region receives fairly high precipitation levels, and the

vegetation is dominated by Sitka spruce and western hemlock. Upwelling

off the Oregon coast is much more variable and generally weaker than in

areas south of Cape Blanco. While marine conditions off the Oregon and

Washington coasts are similar, the Columbia River has greater influence

north of its mouth, and the continental shelf becomes broader off the

Washington coast.

Recent genetic data from steelhead in this ESU are limited, but

they show a level of differentiation from populations from Washington,

the Columbia River Basin, and coastal areas south of Cape Blanco. Ocean

migration patterns also suggest a distinction between steelhead

populations north and south of Cape Blanco. Steelhead (as well as

chinook and coho salmon) from streams south of Cape Blanco tend to be

south-migrating rather than north-migrating (Everest, 1973; Nicholas

and Hankin, 1988; Pearcy et al., 1990; Pearcy, 1992).

The Oregon Coast ESU primarily contains winter-run steelhead; there

are only two native stocks of summer-run steelhead. Summer-run

steelhead occur only in the Siletz River, above a waterfall, and in the

North Umpqua River, where migration distance may prevent full

utilization of available habitat by winter-run steelhead. Alsea River

winter-run steelhead have been widely used for steelhead broodstock in

coastal rivers. Populations of nonanadromous O. mykiss are relatively

uncommon on the Oregon coast, as compared with other areas, occurring

primarily above migration barriers and in the Umpqua River Basin

(Kostow, 1995).

Little information is available regarding migration and spawn

timing of natural steelhead populations within this ESU. Age structure

appears to be similar to other west coast steelhead, dominated by 4-

year-old spawners. Iteroparity is more common among Oregon coast

steelhead than in populations to the north.

NMFS determines that no changes in the boundaries of the Oregon

Coast ESU are warranted. No new information was received from peer

reviewers or from other commenters regarding the boundaries of this

ESU.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU

At this time, NMFS has not identified hatchery populations

pertaining to this ESU.

(3) Klamath Mountains Province ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies river basins from the Elk River

in Oregon to the Klamath and Trinity Rivers in California, inclusive. A

detailed discussion of this ESU is presented in a previous NMFS status

review (Busby et al., 1994). Geologically, this region includes the

KMP, which is not as erosive as the Franciscan formation terrains south

of the Klamath River Basin. Dominant vegetation along the coast is

redwood forest, while some interior basins are much drier than

surrounding areas and are characterized by many endemic species.

Elevated stream temperatures are a factor affecting steelhead and other

species in some of the larger river basins. With the exception of major

river basins, such as the Rogue and Klamath, most rivers in this region

have a short duration of peak flows. Strong and consistent coastal

upwelling begins at about Cape Blanco and continues south into central

California, resulting in a relatively productive nearshore marine

environment.

Protein electrophoretic analyses of coastal steelhead have

indicated genetic discontinuities between the steelhead of this region

and those to the north and south (Hatch, 1990; Busby et al., 1993 and

1994). Chromosomal studies have also identified a distinctive karyotype

that has been reported only from populations within this ESU. Steelhead

within this ESU include both winter-run- and summer steelhead as well

as the unusual ``half-pounder'' life history (characterized by immature

steelhead that return to fresh water after only 2 to 4 months in salt

water, overwinter-run in rivers without spawning, then return to salt

water the following spring).

Among the remaining questions regarding this ESU is the

relationship between O. mykiss below and above Klamath Falls, OR.

Behnke (1992) has proposed that the two groups are in different

subspecies and that the upper group, a redband trout (O. m. newberrii),

[[Page 13353]]

exhibited anadromy until blocked by the Copco dams in the early 1900s.

However, Moyle (1976) stated that Klamath Falls was the upstream

barrier to anadromous fish prior to construction of the dams.

NMFS determines that no changes in the boundaries of the KMP ESU

are warranted. No new information was received from peer reviewers or

from other commenters regarding the boundaries of this ESU.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU

While NMFS has analyzed the relationship of hatchery stocks to

naturally spawned steelhead within the KMP ESU (NMFS, 1998a), this

discussion is omitted here since NMFS concludes that KMP steelhead do

not warrant listing at this time.

(4) Northern California ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies river basins from Redwood Creek

in Humboldt County, CA, to the Gualala River, inclusive. Dominant

vegetation along the coast is redwood forest, while some interior

basins are much drier than surrounding areas and are characterized by

many endemic species. This area includes the extreme southern end of

the contiguous portion of the Coast Range Ecoregion (Omernick, 1987).

Elevated stream temperatures are a factor in some of the larger river

basins (greater than 20 deg. Celsius (C)), but not to the extent that

they are in river basins farther south. Precipitation is generally

higher in this geographic area than in regions to the south, averaging

100-200 centimeters (cm) of rainfall annually (Donley et al., 1979).

With the exception of major river basins, such as the Eel, most rivers

in this region have peak flows of short duration. Strong and consistent

coastal upwelling begins at approximately Cape Blanco and continues

south into central California, resulting in a relatively productive

nearshore marine environment.

There are life history similarities between steelhead of the

Northern California ESU and the KMP ESU. This ESU includes both winter-

run- and summer steelhead, including what is presently considered to be

the southernmost population of summer-run steelhead, in the Middle Fork

Eel River. Half-pounder juveniles also occur in this geographic area,

specifically in the Mad and Eel Rivers. Snyder (1925) first described

the half-pounder from the Eel River; however, Cramer et al. (1995)

suggested that adults with the half-pounder juvenile life history may

not spawn south of the Klamath River Basin. As with the Rogue and

Klamath Rivers, some of the larger rivers in this area have migrating

steelhead year round, and seasonal runs have been named. River entry

ranges from August through June, and spawning from December through

April, with peak spawning in January in the larger basins and late

February and March in the smaller coastal basins.

NMFS determines that no changes in the boundaries of the Northern

California ESU are warranted. No new information was received from peer

reviewers or from other commenters regarding the boundaries of this

ESU.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU

While NMFS has analyzed the relationship of hatchery stocks to

naturally spawned steelhead within the KMP ESU (NMFS, 1998a), this

discussion is omitted here since NMFS concludes that Northern

California steelhead do not warrant listing at this time.

(5) Central Valley, California ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies the Sacramento and San Joaquin

Rivers and their tributaries. Excluded are steelhead from San Francisco

and San Pablo Bays which are part of the Central California Coast ESU.

In the San Joaquin Basin, the best available information suggests that

the current range of steelhead has been limited to the Stanislaus,

Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers (tributaries) and the mainstem San Joaquin

River to its confluence with the Merced River by human alteration of

formerly available habitat. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers offer

the only migration route to the drainages of the Sierra Nevada and

southern Cascade mountain ranges for anadromous fish. The distance from

the Pacific Ocean to spawning streams can exceed 300 km, providing

unique potential for reproductive isolation among steelhead. The

Central Valley is much drier than the coastal regions to the west,

receiving on average of only 10 to 50 cm of rainfall annually. The

valley is characterized by alluvial soils, and native vegetation was

dominated by oak forests and prairie grasses prior to agricultural

development. Steelhead within this ESU have the longest freshwater

migration of any population of winter-run steelhead. There is

essentially one continuous run of steelhead in the upper Sacramento

River. River entry ranges from July through May, with peaks in

September and February. Spawning begins in late December and can extend

into April (McEwan and Jackson, 1996).

There are two recognized taxonomic forms of native O. mykiss within

the Sacramento River Basin: Coastal steelhead/rainbow trout (O. m.

irideus, Behnke, 1992) and Sacramento redband trout (O. m. stonei,

Behnke, 1992). It is not clear how the coastal and Sacramento redband

forms of O. mykiss interacted in the Sacramento River prior to

construction of Shasta Dam in the 1940s. However, it appears the two

forms historically co-occurred at spawning time, but may have

maintained reproductive isolation.

Two questions were raised by commenters regarding the extent of the

Central Valley, California, ESU. These are (1) whether steelhead were

native to the San Joaquin River Basin, and (2) whether steelhead in the

Central Valley comprised a single ESU or multiple ESUs. New information

received during the 6-month deferral period has aided somewhat in

addressing these questions.

Recent observations resulting from monitoring efforts for chinook

salmon document steelhead juveniles and/or adults in the lower San

Joaquin River, the Stanislaus River, the Tuolumne River, and the Merced

River. These steelhead appear to represent natural production since

hatchery releases in recent years have been made only into the

Mokelumne River. CDFG presented evidence that steelhead historically

occurred in the San Joaquin River Basin, and, historically, there is no

evidence that have been any obvious barriers to colonization of the

basin by steelhead. NMFS notes that spring chinook salmon and steelhead

have somewhat similar ecological requirements and that the San Joaquin

River Basin historically supported large runs of spring chinook salmon.

From this, NMFS concludes that steelhead probably historically occurred

in the San Joaquin River Basin.

Ecological information provides additional insight into species

diversity within this region. First, the Central Valley as a whole can

be divided into three ecoregions based largely on elevation and

associated changes in climate and rainfall: (1) A mountainous region,

averaging about 1000 m elevation, that includes the headwaters of the

Sacramento and tributaries to the San Joaquin Rivers; (2) a region of

tablelands and hills at intermediate elevation, through which the

tributary rivers flow; and (3) the valley itself, which includes broad,

flat lands that border the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

Geologically, the upper Sacramento River Basin, which arises from the

volcanic Cascade Range, differs from the lower Sacramento and San

Joaquin River Basins, which flow out of

[[Page 13354]]

the northern and southern Sierra Nevada. The upper Sacramento River

Basin is also hydrologically distinct, and it supports native

subspecies of resident 0. mykiss. The southern part of the San Joaquin

River Basin is also very distinct ecologically. Limited run-timing

information suggests there may have been historic differences between

populations in the Sacramento River Basin, three distinct runs may have

occurred there as recently as 1947 (McEwan and Jackson, 1996),

including a summer-run in the American River (Cramer et al., 1995;

McEwan and Jackson, 1996) but the data are far from conclusive.

Currently, CDFG considers all Central Valley steelhead to be winter-run

steelhead (McEwan and Jackson, 1996), others call them fall-run

steelhead (Cramer et al., 1995).

Genetic data indicate that, as a group, Central Valley steelhead

are quite distinct from all coastal populations. However, existing data

are not very informative regarding historical relationships among

populations within the Central Valley. The single sample we have from

the San Joaquin River basin is genetically similar to samples from

Coleman Hatchery, Feather River Hatchery, and Deer and Mill Creeks in

the Sacramento River. It is not clear whether this reflects historical

relationships or more recent effects of stock transfers and/or straying

by hatchery fish.

After considering this information in the aggregate, NMFS concludes

that it is likely that, historically, more than one ESU of steelhead

occurred in the Central Valley. However, at this time, existing

scientific information does not permit the formulation of ESU

boundaries for more than one ESU in this region. Therefore, NMFS

concludes that steelhead in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins

(Central Valley) should be considered a single ESU until additional

information becomes available.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This ESU

Hatchery populations considered part of this ESU include the

Coleman NFH stock and Feather River Hatchery stock (winter-run). The

Coleman NFH and Feather River Hatchery steelhead stocks are part of the

ESU since broodstock histories and genetic evidence show these two

stocks to be similar to wild steelhead in Deer and Mill Creeks.

Hatchery populations not considered part of the ESU include the

Nimbus Hatchery stock and Mokelumne Hatchery stock. Nimbus Hatchery

steelhead cluster genetically with Eel River steelhead (Northern

California ESU), the source of much of the steelhead broodstock used to

found the Nimbus Hatchery stock. Nimbus Hatchery has provided the vast

majority of eggs to the Mokelumne Hatchery.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

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

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

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

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

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

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

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education

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

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

affecting its continued existence.

As noted earlier, NMFS received numerous comments regarding the

relative importance of various factors contributing to the decline of

West Coast steelhead. Several recent documents describe in more detail

the impacts of various factors contributing to the decline of steelhead

and other salmonids (e.g., NMFS, 1997c). NMFS has prepared a supporting

document that addresses the factors leading to the decline of this

species entitled ``Factors for Decline: A supplement to the notice of

determination for west coast steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996a). This report,

available upon request (see ADDRESSES), concludes that all of the

factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a role in

the decline of the species. The report identifies destruction and

modification of habitat, overutilization for recreational purposes, and

natural and human-made factors as being the primary causes for the

decline of West Coast steelhead. The following discussion briefly

summarizes findings regarding factors for decline across the range of

west coast steelhead. While these factors have been treated here in

general terms, it is important to underscore that impacts from certain

factors are more acute for specific ESUs. For example, impacts from

water diversion are more pervasive for the Central Valley, California,

ESU than for some coastal ESUs.

(1) The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of its Habitat or Range

Steelhead on the West Coast of the United States have experienced

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

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

urbanization have degraded, simplified, and fragmented habitat. Water

diversions for agriculture, flood control, domestic, and hydropower

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

Basins) have greatly reduced or eliminated historically accessible

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

states have lost approximately 53 percent of all wetlands and the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

boulders and large wood (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

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

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

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

a primary cause of habitat degradation in the range of West Coast

steelhead.

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

Education Purposes

Steelhead support an important recreational fishery throughout

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

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

impacts of recreational fishing on native anadromous stocks may be

heightened. NMFS has reviewed and evaluated the impacts of recreational

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

are not generally targeted in commercial fisheries. High seas driftnet

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

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

the large declines in abundance observed along most of the Pacific

coast over the past several decades.

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

where naturally spawned steelhead from the Upper Columbia and Snake

River Basin ESUs migrate at the same time and are subject to the same

fisheries as hatchery-produced steelhead, chinook,

[[Page 13355]]

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

commercial fisheries may exceed 30 percent of naturally spawned

populations.

(3) Disease or Predation

Infectious diseases constitute one of many factors that can

influence adult and juvenile steelhead survival. Steelhead are exposed

to numerous bacterial, protozoan, viral, and parasitic organisms in

spawning and rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and the

marine environments. Specific diseases, such as bacterial kidney

disease (BKD), ceratomyxosis, columnaris, furunculosis, infectious

hematopoietic necrosis virus, redmouth and black spot disease,

erythrocytic inclusion body syndrome, and whirling disease, among

others, are present and are known to affect steelhead and salmon

(Rucker et al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Foott et al., 1994; Gould

and Wedemeyer, undated). Very little current or historical information

exists to quantify changes in infection levels and mortality rates

attributable to these diseases for steelhead. However, studies have

shown that naturally spawned fish tend to be less susceptible to

pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et

al., 1992).

Introductions of non-native species and habitat modifications have

resulted in increased predator populations in numerous river systems,

thereby increasing the level of predation experienced by salmonids.

Predation by marine mammals is also of concern in some areas

experiencing dwindling steelhead run sizes.

(4) Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Federal Land and Water Management

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

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

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

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

ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within the

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

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

watershed and river basin scales and highlights the importance of

complementary salmon habitat conservation measures on non-Federal lands

within the subject ESUs.

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

Management adopted the Implementation of Interim Strategies for

Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in eastern Oregon and

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

strategy was developed in response to significant declines in naturally

reproducing salmonid stocks, including steelhead, and to the widespread

degradation of anadromous fish habitat throughout public lands in

Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and California outside the range of the

northern spotted owl. Like the NFP, PACFISH is an attempt to provide a

consistent approach for maintaining and restoring aquatic and riparian

habitat conditions which, in turn, are expected to promote the

sustained natural production of anadromous fish. However, as with the

NFP, PACFISH is limited by the extent of Federal lands, and Federal

land ownership is not uniformly distributed in watersheds within all

the affected ESUs.

Within the range of KMP steelhead, the majority of available

steelhead habitat is covered by the requirements of the NFP.

Furthermore, on May 6, 1997, Southern Oregon/Northern California coho

salmon were listed as a threatened species under the ESA (62 FR 24588)

resulting in some new habitat protections. These existing management

efforts have resulted in improvements in aquatic habitat conditions for

salmonids within this region.

Over the past 3 years, NMFS has consulted with the Arcata, Redding,

and Clear Lake U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Areas and

the Six Rivers, Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, and Mendocino National Forests

(Forests) on all ongoing and proposed activities that may affect coho

salmon and steelhead and their habitats. During this period of time,

NMFS reviewed thousands of activities throughout northern California

and helped develop numerous programmatic biological assessments (BAs)

with the BLM and the Forests. These BAs cover a wide range of

management activities, including forest and/or resource area-wide

routine and non-routine road maintenance, hazard tree removal, range

allotment management, watershed and instream restoration, special use

permits (e.g., mining, ingress/egress), timber sale programs (e.g.,

green tree, fuel reduction, thinning, regeneration, and salvage), and

BLM's land tenure adjustment program. Numerous other project-specific

BAs received consultations and conferences. These forest and resource

area-wide BAs include region-specific best management practices, all

necessary measures to minimize impacts for all listed/proposed

anadromous salmonids, monitoring, and environmental baseline checklists

for each project. These BAs have resulted in a more consistent approach

to management of public lands throughout the NFP and PACFISH areas.

On October 27, 1986, the Klamath Act (Pub. L. 99-552) was passed by

Congress authorizing a 20-year-long Federal-State cooperative Klamath

River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program for the rebuilding of

the river's fish resources. The Act created a 14-member Klamath River

Basin Fisheries Task Force and directs the U.S. Secretary of Interior

to cooperate with the Task Force in the creation and implementation of

a Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program

(KRBFTF, 1991). The Task Force members are appointed by, and represent,

the Governors of California and Oregon; the U.S. Secretaries of

Interior, Commerce and Agriculture; the California counties of Del

Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou and Trinity; Hoopa Valley, Karuk and Yurok

Indian tribal fishers; as well as by anglers and commercial fishermen.

The KMP Act also created an 11-member Klamath Fishery Management

Council to ``establish a comprehensive long-term plan and policy * * *

for the management of the in-river and ocean harvesting that affects or

may affect Klamath and Trinity River basin anadromous salmon

populations.'' The Council comprises essentially the same interests as

the Task Force, except for the four county representatives which hold

seats only on the Task Force.

In October 1984, the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife

Restoration Act (Act) was enacted by Congress. The Act appropriated $33

million over a 10-year period for design and construction of

restoration projects and $2.4 million annually for operation,

maintenance, and monitoring. The Act embodied in law an 11-point plan

to restore and maintain fish and wildlife resources in the basin at

levels which occurred prior to the construction of the Trinity River

Diversion, Central Valley Project. The Trinity River Basin Fish and

Wildlife Task Force was formed to investigate and develop an action

plan to identify and correct fish and wildlife problems in the Trinity

River basin. In 1982, the Task Force issued the Trinity River Basin

Fish and Wildlife Management Program Report, which outlined five major

goals to restore fish and wildlife. The report identified ten major

actions and associated costs to restore fish populations and

rehabilitate habitat. A 3-year action plan was issued by the

[[Page 13356]]

Task Force in 1988 and a second 3-year plan was issued in 1992. This

most recent plan identifies over 100 restoration, supplementation, and

monitoring activities to be completed over the next 3 years. Presently,

final flow measurements are being analyzed by FWS to determine

necessary flows and system capabilities for anadromous salmonids in the

basin, and an Environmental Impact Statement, and National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) report should be released in 1998. The

funding for this project expired at the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 1995

and was re-authorized through FY 1998. However, many of the identified

restoration activities have only just begun, and, unless this

legislation is re-authorized, they will not be completed.

The Pacific Gas and Electric's (PG&E) Potter Valley hydroelectric

project is a major diverter of water from the mainstem Eel River

located in the Northern California ESU. This water is diverted into the

Russian River basin to generate hydroelectric power and provide water

for agriculture and urban uses. Pursuant to a Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) licensing requirement, PG&E was required, in

consultation with FWS and CDFG, to develop and implement a 10-year

monitoring program and develop recommendations for modifications in the

flow release schedule or project structures and operations necessary to

protect and maintain fishery resources. This study was completed in

1996, as was construction of a $14 million fish screen facility at the

Van Arsdale Dam diversion on the Eel River. Based on the results of the

monitoring study, NMFS, FWS, CDFG, and PG&E have recently completed

negotiations on a plan to increase project flows to the Eel River by an

additional 15 percent (20 TAF), as well as to make non-flow related

capital improvements. This plan will be submitted to FERC by March 30,

1998, which will in turn trigger a NEPA review of the proposal. The

provision of additional instream flows in the Eel River, in conjunction

with the new fish screening facility, are expected to improve habitat

quality and benefit steelhead in this ESU by increasing survival. As

part of the proposal being carried forward to FERC, PG&E will also

implement or fund additional mitigation measures that will provide

benefits to both salmon and steelhead in the Eel River. These measures

include direct funding of $30,000 annually to CDFG, funding of

squawfish suppression in the Eel River, and funding of various

monitoring activities.

Central Valley steelhead are benefitting from two major

conservation initiatives which are being simultaneously implemented and

developed to conserve and restore anadromous fish resources, including

steelhead, in California's Central Valley. These include the Federal

Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) which was passed by

Congress in 1992 and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED Program)

which is a joint State/Federal effort implemented in 1995.

The CVPIA is specifically intended to remedy habitat and other

problems associated with the construction and operation of the Bureau

of Reclamation's (BOR's) Central Valley Project. The CVPIA has two key

features related to steelhead. First, it directs the Secretary of the

Interior to develop and implement a program that makes all reasonable

efforts to double natural production of anadromous fish in Central

Valley streams (Section 3406(b)(1)) by the year 2002. This plan, which

is called the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP), was initially

drafted in 1995 and subsequently revised in 1997. Funding has been

appropriated since 1995 to implement restoration projects identified in

the AFRP planning process. Second, the CVPIA dedicates up to 800,000

acre feet (AF) of water annually for fish, wildlife, and habitat

restoration purposes (Section 3406(b)(2)) and provides for the

acquisition of additional water to supplement the 800,000 AF (Section

3406(b)(3)). FWS, in consultation with other Federal and State

agencies, has directed the use of this dedicated water yield since

1993.

The AFRP addresses six anadromous fish species, including

steelhead, identified for restoration in the CVPIA. The revised 1997

plan presents the goals, objectives, and strategies of the AFRP;

describes processes the AFRP used to identify, develop, and select

restoration actions; and lists actions and evaluations determined at a

programmatic level to be reasonable to implement as part of the AFRP.

FWS intends to finalize this restoration plan in 1998 following

completion of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)

required by Section 3409 of the CVPIA. Additionally, FWS and BOR have

released guidelines in the form of two administrative proposals that

will provide guidance for several key aspects of the AFRP

implementation. A draft administrative proposal regarding the

development of the AFRP was released in June 1997. A final

administrative proposal on the management of section 3406(b)(2) water

and a set of flow-related actions for the next 5 years was released by

DOI in November, 1997. These plans will be updated to include new

information, consistent with the adaptive management approach described

in the AFRP. To make restoration efforts as efficient as possible, the

AFRP has committed to coordinate restoration efforts with those by

other groups or programs. DOI has committed to working with NMFS, CDFG,

and others to coordinate actions in this implementation and recovery

plans for anadromous fish and for listed and proposed species under the

ESA.

The CVPIA obligated $1.9 million in 1996 for 11 site-specific

restoration actions and evaluations authorized by the AFRP, and $9.7

million for over 30 restoration projects in 1997. In 1998, the AFRP's

projected budget for habitat restoration activities in the Central

Valley is $8.2 million. Continued long term funding of AFRP restoration

activities is currently authorized in the CVPIA. An estimated $20

million to $35 million will be spent on AFRP restoration actions per

year for 25 years ($500 million to $875 million estimated total), most

of which will be closely integrated with funding for activities

implemented through the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

The second conservation initiative that benefits Central Valley

steelhead and other species is the CALFED Program. In June 1994, state

and Federal agencies, including NMFS, signed a framework agreement that

pledged all agencies would work together to formulate water quality

standards to protect the Bay-Delta, coordinate State Water Project and

Central Valley Project operations in the Bay-Delta, and develop a long-

term Bay-Delta solution that would address ecosystem restoration and

other objectives. In December 1994, a diverse group of state and

Federal agencies, water agencies, and environmental organizations

signed the Bay-Delta Accord which set out specific interim (3-year

plan) measures for environmental protection, including the protection

of Central Valley anadromous salmonids. The CALFED Program, which began

in June 1995, is charged with the responsibility of developing a long-

term Bay-Delta solution. The 1994 Bay-Delta Accord was recently

extended through December 31, 1998.

Three types of environmental protection measures are detailed in

the Bay-Delta Accord: (1) Control of freshwater outflow in the Delta to

improve estuarine conditions in the shallow-water habitat of the Bay-

Delta estuary (Category I measures); (2) regulation of water project

operations

[[Page 13357]]

and flows to minimize harmful environmental impacts of water exports

(Category II measures); and (3) implementation of projects to address

non-flow related factors affecting the Bay-Delta ecosystem, such as

unscreened diversions, physical habitat degradation, and pollution

(Category III measures). Many of the Category I and II measures

identified in the agreement were implemented by a Water Quality Control

Plan that was adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in

1995. Efforts were also initiated to fund and implement Category III

non-flow projects beginning in 1995.

The CALFED Program completed Phase I in September 1996 with the

identification of problems confronting the Bay-Delta system, the

development of a mission statement and guiding principals, and the

development of three basic alternative approaches to solving the

problems. Currently in Phase II, the CALFED Program has refined the

preliminary alternatives and is conducting a comprehensive programmatic

environmental review with implementation strategies. In addition to the

development of three water conveyance and storage alternatives, the

CALFED Program has developed four common programs to resolve regional

problems: ecosystems quality, water quality, levee system

vulnerability, and water system reliability. A major element of the

CALFED Program is the Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan (ERPP) which

is intended to provide the foundation for long-term ecosystem and water

quality restoration and protection throughout the region. Since

adoption of the Bay-Delta Accord, urban water users have contributed

approximately $21 million and State Proposition 204 has generated an

additional $60 million for Category III non-flow habitat restoration

projects. Among the non-flow factors for decline that have been

targeted by the Category III program are unscreened diversions, waste

discharges and water pollution prevention, impacts due to poaching,

land derived salts, exotic species, fish barriers, channel alterations,

loss of riparian wetlands, and other causes of estuarine habitat

degradation. To ensure that Category III habitat restoration projects

are coordinated with the Federal CVPIA and implemented in accordance

with the draft ERPP, the CALFED Program's Restoration Coordination

Program administers Category III funds and coordinates its funding with

other related restoration programs and funding sources.

Continued funding of CALFED program activities and the Category III

program are assured through funds provided by State Proposition 204,

Federal funding through the DOI, and contributions by water development

agencies under Category III. The total cost for implementing the ERPP

component of the long-term CALFED Program has been estimated at $1.5

billion, of which about half should be available through State

Proposition 204 bonds and expected Federal appropriations. These funds

will be used to provide the initial funding necessary to begin

implementing the ERPP. The current ERPP implementation strategy assumes

that $390 million of Proposition 204 funding will be available for use

after the CALFED Program's long-term plan is formally adopted by the

CALFED agencies through filing of a Record of Decision for the Federal

EIS and certification of the EIS by the California Resources Agency in

late 1998.

Collectively, the CVPIA and CALFED conservation programs have the

potential to provide a comprehensive conservation response to the

extensive ecological problems facing steelhead and other salmonids in

the Central Valley. However, the scope, intensity and effectiveness of

the CALFED Program is still coming into focus. Therefore, NMFS

concludes that the conservation measures provided by these programs are

not currently sufficient to ensure recovery of steelhead. Nevertheless,

NMFS believes the level of risk faced by the Central Valley steelhead

ESU has diminished considerably since the 1996 listing proposal as a

result of habitat restoration and other measures that have recently

been implemented through the CALFED and CVPIA programs. NMFS is

committed to working with the State and CALFED agencies to build on

these programs to ensure that all risks to steelhead are adequately

addressed. Through the prioritization of restoration funds available

through the CALFED and CVPIA programs, NMFS can assist with the

establishment of objectives and targets and implementation strategies

which address many of the primary risk factors for Central Valley

steelhead.

In the San Joaquin River Basin of the Central Valley, collaboration

between water interests and state and Federal resource agencies,

including NMFS, has led to the development of a scientifically based,

adaptive fisheries management plan known as the Vernalis Adaptive

Management Plan (VAMP). The VAMP will provide environmental benefits

for fall-run chinook salmon smolts in the Delta and lower San Joaquin

River and its tributaries by (1) using current scientific knowledge to

enhance smolts survival by modifying flows; and (2) gathering

additional scientific information on the effects of various San Joaquin

River flows and Delta water export rates on the survival of salmon

smolts to permit adaptive changes. This 12-year plan will be

implemented through experimental flows in the San Joaquin Basin and

operational changes at the Delta pumping plants during the peak chinook

salmon smolts out-migration period (about April 15 to May 15). Initial

implementation of the VAMP is scheduled for spring 1998; however,

negotiations regarding some aspects of the program continue. The

current focus of VAMP is to provide better protection for fall chinook

in the San Joaquin basin. However, NMFS expects that the long-term

commitment of all participating parties to fully implement the plan

will provide ancillary benefits to Central Valley steelhead through

improved flow and passage conditions.

State Land Management

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)

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

private and State managed forests, and these rules are promulgated

through the State Board of Forestry (BOF). Timber harvest activities

have been documented to result in negative effects on streams and

streamside zones, including the loss of large woody debris, increased

sedimentation, loss of riparian vegetation, and the loss of habitat

complexity and connectivity. In the California portion of the KMP

steelhead ESU, a relatively small percentage of the major river basins

(i.e., the Smith, Klamath, and Trinity River basins) are composed of

private forest lands where timber harvest is managed by CDFG. In these

basins, private forest lands average approximately 18 percent of the

total acreage, with a range of 17 (Trinity River) to 23 (Smith River)

percent. In contrast, a much higher percentage of the acreage

comprising the major river basins in the Northern California ESU (i.e.,

Redwood Creek, Mad River, Eel River, Mattole River, Ten Mile River,

Noyo River, Big River, Albion River, Navarro River, Garcia River, and

Gualala River) are composed of private forest lands where timber

harvest is managed by CDFG. In these 11 river basins, private forest

lands average about 75 percent of the total acreage, with a range of 42

percent (Eel River) to 94 percent (Gualala River).

NMFS has reviewed the CFPRs to determine their adequacy for

protecting anadromous salmonids in California. Specifically, the review

determined that, although the CFPRs mandate

[[Page 13358]]

protection of sensitive resources such as salmonids, the CFPR

provisions and their implementation and enforcement, fall short of

accomplishing his objective. Specific problems with the CFPRs include

the inclusion of many protective provisions that are not supported by

or with scientific literature; (2) provisions that are scientifically

inadequate to protect salmonids including steelhead; (3) inadequate and

ineffective cumulative effects analysis; (4) dependency upon registered

professional foresters (RPFs) that may not possess the necessary level

of multi-disciplinary technical expertise to develop appropriate THPs;

(5) dependency by CDFG on other State agencies to review and comment on

THPs; (6) failure of CDFG to incorporate recommendations from other

agencies; and (7) inadequate enforcement due to staffing limitations.

On April 29, 1997, CDFG issued guidelines to RPF's for the

protection of coho salmon which had been recently listed under the ESA.

These ``coho considerations'' are an improvement over the CFPRs for the

protection of steelhead in addition to coho salmon, but they are

voluntary and not part of the CFPR provisions. Consequently,

implementation of these provisions is unpredictable.

The CFPRs could be an effective vehicle for protecting steelhead

and other species and reversing the factors for decline if there were

substantial changes made to the provisions and their implementation and

enforcement. Such changes include the following: (1) The provision for

scientific peer review of the CFPRs, including science-based

recommendations for modification of provisions; (2) development of

comprehensive cumulative effects analyses; (3) implementation of

mandatory provisions to protect anadromous fish; (4) additional and

specialized training of RPFs, increased funding and staffing to review

THPs; (5) improved enforcement of the CFPRs and THP requirements; and

(6) mandatory incorporation of other State agency comments and

modifications into THPs. Until a comprehensive scientific peer review

process is adopted and appropriate changes to the CFPRs and the THP

approval process are made, properly functioning habitat conditions will

not exist in the KMP and Northern California steelhead ESUs.

The State is currently funding a conservation planning effort in

Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Siskyou, and Trinity counties to review

and analyze all county General Plans, ordinances, and policies relating

to activities affecting salmon and steelhead. Examples of such

activities include riparian habitat maintenance and setbacks, riparian

water withdrawal, grading, erosion and sediment control, storm water

retention, floodplain development, and stream crossings. Gaps or

inconsistent policy application will be identified and General Plans or

ordinances will be modified to better protect salmon and steelhead.

The Washington Department of Natural Resources implements and

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

are promulgated through the Forest Practices Board. These WFPRs contain

provisions that can be protective of steelhead if fully implemented.

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

of forest lands through watershed analysis, development of site-

specific land management prescriptions, and monitoring. Watershed

analysis prescriptions can exceed WFPR minima for stream and riparian

protection. However, NMFS believes the WFPRs, including watershed

analysis, do not provide properly functioning conditions in riparian

and instream habitats. Specifically, the base WFPRs do not adequately

address large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, tree retention to

maintain stream bank integrity and channel networks within floodplains,

and chronic and episodic inputs of coarse and fine sediment that

maintain habitats that are properly functioning for all life stages of

steelhead.

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

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

adequately protect salmonid habitat. In particular, the current OFPA

does not provide adequate protection for the production and

introduction of LWD to medium, small and non-fish bearing streams.

Small non-fish bearing streams are vitally important to the quality of

downstream habitats. These streams carry water, sediment, nutrients,

and LWD from upper portions of the watershed. The quality of downstream

habitats is determined, in part, by the timing and amount of organic

and inorganic materials provided by these small streams (Chamberlin et

al. in Meehan, 1991). Given the existing depleted condition of most

riparian forests on non-Federal lands, the time needed to attain mature

forest conditions, the lack of adequate protection for non-riparian LWD

sources in landslide-prone areas and small headwater streams (which

account for about half the wood found naturally in stream channels)

(Burnett and Reeves, 1997 citing Van Sickle and Gregory, 1990; McDade

et al., 1990; and McGreary, 1994), and current rotation schedules

(approximately 50 years), there is a low probability that adequate LWD

recruitment could be achieved under the current requirements of the

OFPA. Also, the OFPA does not adequately consider and manage timber

harvest and road construction on sensitive, unstable slopes subject to

mass wasting, nor does it address cumulative effects.

Agricultural activity has had multiple and often severe impacts on

salmonid habitat. These include depletion of needed flows by irrigation

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

destruction of riparian vegetation and bank stability by grazing or

cultivation practices; and channelization resulting in loss of side

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

Historically, the impacts to fish habitat from agricultural

practices have not been closely regulated. The Oregon Department of

Agriculture has recently completed guidance for development of

agricultural water quality management plans (AWQMPs) (as enacted by

State Senate Bill 1010). The guidance focuses on achieving state water

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

adequately address salmonid habitat factors, such as properly

functioning riparian conditions. Their ability to address all relevant

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

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

regulatory authority and enforcement provisions. The Healthy Streams

Partnership schedules adoption of AWQMPs for all impaired waters by

2001.

Washington also has not historically regulated impacts of

agricultural activity on fish habitat overall, although there are some

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

is currently giving close attention to impacts from dairy operations.

As in Oregon, development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs; see

following discussion) should over the long-term improve water quality;

the extent to which other habitat impacts will be ameliorated is

unknown.

Impacts from agricultural and grazing practices have not

historically been closely regulated in California. This is an important

concern to NMFS because a substantial amount of acreage in the KMP and

Northern California ESU is comprised of farmland. Private lands, and

public lands not administered by the federal government, are now being

[[Page 13359]]

addressed by the California Rangeland Water Quality Management Plan

(CRWQMP) which was adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board

as a voluntary compliance effort in accordance with its Non-point

Source Management Plan. The emphasis of the CRWQMP is on outreach and

education with assistance from the Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS), University of California Cooperative Extension, and

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts (CSRCSs), and

the California Cattleman's Association. The Best Management Practices

(BMPs) contained in the CRWQMP are derived from the NRCS Field Office

Technical Guides.

Under this program, the NRCS, Cooperative Extension and CARCD

encourage rangeland owners to develop and implement ranch plans or

other documents detailing their management goals and practices. NRCS

and Cooperative extension provide training in this effort and the NRCS

can condition assistance on implementation of the BMPs set forth in the

CRWQMP. The Regional Water Control Boards promote implementation of the

CRWQMP by also encouraging landowners to develop plans and by requiring

ranch plans to be developed and implemented in accordance with the

CRWQMP for watershed listed under section 303(d) of the CWA as

requiring the development of TMDLs. As noted below, TMDLs will be

developed for most all streams in the Northern California and KMP

steelhead ESUs under the terms of a recent consent decree. Between

1995-1998, rangeland plans were developed under the CRWQMP for more

than 250,000 acres on the north coast ranging from San Francisco to the

Oregon border. The State plans to review the implementation status of

these plans at intervals of 3, 5 and 10 years, provided resources are

available. Efforts are currently in progress to incorporate existing

rangeland management plans in the Garcia River into the TMDL

development process for that watershed. NMFS is encouraged by these

ongoing efforts. Plans that are consistent with this guidance are

likely to result in meeting state water quality standards, but the

program is voluntary and it is uncertain to what extent their

implementation will contribute to improved habitat conditions and

riparian function.

Dredge, Fill, and Inwater Construction Programs

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

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

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

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

the factors that must be considered in this determination is cumulative

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

assessing cumulative impacts or how much weight to assign them in

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

process to address the additive effects of the continued development of

waterfront, riverine, coastal, and wetland properties.

The Corps of Engineers, State, and local governments recently

developed and implemented procedures reviewing, approving and

monitoring gravel mining activities in Del Norte and Humboldt counties

which are authorized under a Letter of Permission process. This process

now regulates gravel mining in a substantial portion of the north

coast, including all of the Klamath Mountains Province in California

and a substantial portion of the Northern California ESU (including the

Mad, Eel and Van Duzen Rivers). These procedures are designed to

provide substantially improved protection for anadromous fish and their

habitats, including steelhead. Important features of this new process

include: A prohibition on gravel mining in the active channel except in

limited instances, a restriction of gravel operations to the dry

season, monitoring of channel cross section to detect channel

degradation, fisheries monitoring, gravel mining on a sustained yield

basis, and watershed-level analysis of gravel mining. NMFS participated

in the development of these procedures and has concluded, through

section 7 consultation with the Corps, that these procedures will not

jeopardize the continued existence of coho salmon or steelhead in the

KMP and Northern California ESUs.

Water Quality Programs

The Federal CWA is intended to protect beneficial uses, including

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

adequately protecting fishery resources, particularly with respect to

non-point sources of pollution.

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

TMDLs for all water bodies that do not meet state water quality

standards. TMDLs are a method for quantitative assessment of

environmental problems in a watershed and identifying pollution

reductions needed to protect drinking water, aquatic life, recreation,

and other use of rivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs may address all

pollution sources including point sources such as sewage or industrial

plant discharges, and non-point discharges such as runoff from roads,

farm fields, and forests. Furthermore, TMDLs for water quality-limited

waterbodies may address several factors including, temperature levels,

sediment load, nutrient input, and dissolved oxygen levels.

The CWA gives state governments the primary responsibility for

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

not meet this responsibility. As a result of a recent consent decree,

EPA and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board)

have committed to preparing TMDLs for 18 river basins in California.

All of these river basins are located within the Northern California or

KMP steelhead ESUs, the majority of which (12) are located within the

Northern California ESU. The consent decree establishes a schedule for

developing TMDL criteria for listed rivers. Under this schedule, seven

river basins in the Northern California ESU will have TMDLs developed

within the next 2 years, with the remaining rivers having TMDLs

developed by 2002. TMDLs for rivers in the KMP steelhead ESU (e.g.,

Klamath, Trinity, Scott, and Shasta Rivers) will not be developed until

after 2001. This legally-binding schedule will result in significant

progress on improving the beneficial uses of these watersheds, where

the beneficial use has been identified as habitat for salmonids.

Currently, a sediment TMDL has been established for the Garcia

River in the Northern California steelhead ESU. This TMDL will

ultimately be adopted into the Water Quality Control Plan for the North

Coast Basin (Basin Plan) in 1998. The adoption of the Strategy into the

Basin Plan carries significant weight for compliance. The completion of

the Garcia River TMDL and the initiation of TMDLs for the other listed

rivers represent a significant step forward in improving watershed

health for steelhead and other salmonids on the north coast of

California.

State agencies in Oregon are committed to completing TMDLs for

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

years. Similarly ambitious schedules are being developed for

Washington.

The ability of these TMDLs to protect steelhead should be

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

them quickly in the short term, and their efficacy in protecting

steelhead habitat will be unknown for years to come. Furthermore, it is

essential EPA consults with NMFS on

[[Page 13360]]

the formulation of TMDLs in waters that contain listed salmonids. Such

consultations will help ensure TMDLs adequately address the needs of

these species.

State Hatchery and Harvest Management

In an attempt to mitigate the loss of habitat and to enhance

fishing opportunities, extensive hatchery programs have been

implemented throughout the range of steelhead on the West Coast. While

some of these programs have succeeded in providing fishing

opportunities, the impacts of these programs on native, naturally

reproducing stocks are not well understood. Competition, genetic

introgression, and disease transmission resulting from hatchery

introductions may significantly reduce the production and survival of

native, naturally reproducing steelhead (NMFS, 1996a). Collection of

native steelhead for hatchery broodstock purposes often harms small or

dwindling natural populations. Artificial propagation can play an

important role in steelhead recovery through carefully controlled

supplementation programs.

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

broodstock in hatcheries and widely transplanted in many coastal rivers

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

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

developed its Salmon and Steelhead Stock Management Policy. This policy

recognizes that such stock mixing is detrimental and seeks to maintain

the genetic integrity of all identifiable stocks of salmon and

steelhead in California, as well as to minimize interactions between

hatchery and natural populations. To protect the genetic integrity of

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

salmon and steelhead stream and to classify it according to its

probable genetic source and degree of integrity.

Hatchery programs and harvest management have strongly influenced

steelhead populations in the Lower Columbia River and Central Valley,

California, ESUs. Hatchery programs intended to compensate for habitat

losses have masked declines in natural stocks and have created

unrealistic expectations for fisheries. Collection of natural steelhead

for broodstock and transfers of stocks within and between ESUs have

detrimentally impacted some populations.

The three state agencies (ODFW, WDFG, and CDFG) have adopted and

are implementing natural salmonid policies designed to limit hatchery

influences on natural, indigenous steelhead. Sport fisheries now focus

on harvest of marked, hatchery-produced steelhead, and sport fishing

regulations are designed to protect wild fish. While some limits have

been placed on hatchery production of anadromous salmonids, more

careful management of current programs and scrutiny of proposed

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

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

Existence

Natural climatic conditions have exacerbated the problems

associated with degraded and altered riverine and estuarine habitats.

Persistent drought conditions have reduced already limited spawning,

rearing, and migration habitat. Climatic conditions appear to have

resulted in decreased ocean productivity which, during more productive

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

1996a).

Efforts Being Made To Protect West Coast Steelhead

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

listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and

commercial data available and after taking into account state efforts

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

determinations, NMFS first assesses the status of the species and

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

then assesses available conservation measures to determine whether such

measures ameliorate risks to the species.

In judging the efficacy of existing conservation efforts, NMFS

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

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

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

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

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

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

provisions for adequate monitoring and funding of conservation efforts

are essential to ensure intended conservation benefits are realized.

During its west coast steelhead status review, NMFS reviewed an

array of protective efforts for steelhead and other salmonids, ranging

in scope from regional strategies to local watershed initiatives. NMFS

has summarized some of the major efforts in a document entitled

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

Determination for West Coast Steelhead under the Endangered Species

Act'' (NMFS, 1996c). During the 6-month period of deferral, NMFS

identified additional conservation measures in the States of

Washington, Oregon, and California. We summarize these additional

conservation measures below.

State of Washington Conservation Measures

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

statewide strategy to protect and restore wild steelhead and other

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

state officials signed a Memorandum of Agreement creating the Joint

Natural Resources Cabinet (Joint Cabinet). This body consists of State

agency directors, or their equivalents, from a wide variety of agencies

whose activities and constituents influence Washington's natural

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

steelhead, and trout populations by improving those habitats on which

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

development of the Lower Columbia Steelhead Conservation Initiative

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

recovery of steelhead in the lower Columbia River area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

LCSCI area will form a comprehensive, coordinated, and timely

protection and rebuilding framework. Benefits to steelhead and other

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

state partnership with Oregon.

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

emphasized harvest and hatchery issues and related conservation

measures. Consistent with creation of the Joint Cabinet, conservation

planning has recently been expanded to include major involvement by

other state agencies and stakeholders and to address habitat and

tributary dam/hydropower components.

[[Page 13361]]

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

concepts, strategies, opportunities, and commitments that will be

critically needed to maintain the diversity and long-term productivity

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

initiative does not represent a formal watershed planning process;

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

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

including natural production and genetic conservation, recreational

harvest and opportunity, hatchery strategies, habitat protection and

restoration goals, monitoring of stock status and habitat health,

evaluation of the effectiveness of specific conservation actions, and

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

trajectory as time progresses. It also addresses improved enforcement

of habitat and fishery regulations and strategies for outreach and

education.

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

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

obtained through continuing outreach efforts by local governments and

other stakeholders. Further refinements to strategies, actions, and

commitments will occur using public and stakeholder review and input

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

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

independent technical review. In sum, these input and coordination

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

eventual conservation package will benefit wild steelhead.

NMFS intends to continue working with the state of Washington and

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

completed, this conservation effort may ameliorate risks facing many

salmonid species in this region. In the near term, for steelhead and

other listed species, individual components of the conservation effort

may be recognized through section 4(d) of the ESA. In this way

activities conducted in accordance with full, matured, and implemented

conservation efforts may be excepted from take under section 9 of the

ESA.

In conjunction with the LCSCI process, industry in the Lower

Columbia River ESU sponsored the review and assessment of existing

conservation programs in this region (Cramer, 1997). This assessment

provided a helpful summary of measures, which if fully implemented and

funded, may aid in conserving steelhead in this region. In particular,

NMFS found this assessment's analysis of impacts associated with trout

fisheries on juvenile steelhead helpful in analyzing existing state

harvest regulations.

State of Oregon Conservation Measures

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

NMFS a comprehensive conservation plan directed specifically at coho

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

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

Salmon Restoration Initiative) was later expanded to include

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

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

determination for Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (62

FR 24602). The essential tenets of the OPSW include the following:

a. The plan comprehensively addresses all factors for decline of

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

harvest, habitat, and hatchery activities.

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

salmon are held accountable for coordinating their programs in a manner

that conserves and restores the species and their habitat. This

activity is essential since salmon and steelhead have been affected by

the actions of many different state agencies.

c. The Plan includes a framework for prioritizing conservation and

restoration efforts.

d. The Plan includes a comprehensive monitoring plan that

coordinates Federal, state, and local efforts to improve understanding

of freshwater and marine conditions, determine populations trends,

evaluate the effects of artificial propagation, and rate the OPSW's

success in restoring the salmon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

experience, evaluating alternative approaches, and making needed

changes in the programs and measures.

g. The Plan includes an Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team

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

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

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

objectives, and strategies and by recommending changes.

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

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

make the adjustments described for the adaptive management process.

To implement the various monitoring and other programs associated

with the steelhead portion of the OPSW, the Oregon Legislative

Emergency Board allocated just under $2 million in January 1998. This

funding commitment is in addition to funds previously allocated for the

coho portion of the OPSW.

The state of Oregon recently implemented changes to its fishing

regulations that will help conserve steelhead in the Oregon portion of

the KMP ESU (State of Oregon, 1998). These regulations, adopted on

February 5, 1998, and in effect prior to this listing determination,

include the following: (1) Elimination of steelhead retention fisheries

in all areas of the KMP ESU except select areas in the Rogue River

basin; (2) creation of sanctuary areas for rearing steelhead where no

angling is permitted; (3) elimination of the use of bait in trout

fisheries that could negatively impact juvenile steelhead; (4)

implementation of season closures for trout species during juvenile

steelhead out-migration; and (5) modification of gear requirements to

protect juvenile steelhead in trout fisheries. NMFS has analyzed these

harvest regulation changes and finds that these harvest regulations,

coupled with existing hatchery management practices, will greatly

reduce mortality to adult and juvenile steelhead in the KMP ESUs (NMFS,

1998b). Current harvest regulations and hatchery programs will be

modified in the future if monitoring results indicate that changes are

needed. Such changes will be made after the State and NMFS confer on

them.

In addition to these recently adopted harvest regulations, the

state of Oregon has committed to: (1) Devise and fund monitoring

programs, in association with NMFS, to assess stock status and redirect

existing management programs if need be; (2) establish a process for

setting wild steelhead escapement goals; (3) continue to implement

marking of all hatchery steelhead; and (4) eliminate stocking of

hatchery trout in juvenile

[[Page 13362]]

steelhead rearing habitat. These commitments and additions to the OPSW

are captured in a letter from John Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon to

William Stelle, Jr., dated March 11, 1998 (Oregon, 1998).

State of California Conservation Measures

The state of California's program for steelhead conservation

consists of several major elements: (1) The CALFED Bay-Delta program,

including the integrated components of the CVPIA; (2) the Governor's

Watershed Restoration and Protection Council (WPRC) program, including

ongoing State efforts to implement the watershed planning and habitat

restoration objectives contained in Senate Bill (SB) 271; (3) CDFG

strategic management plans for steelhead in the KMP and Northern

California ESUs; and (4) a joint Memorandum of Agreement between NMFS

and the State. The following briefly summarizes these measures and

their benefits for steelhead.

(1) CALFED Bay-Delta Program and CVPIA

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program and CVPIA are discussed in detail

above under ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.'' Collectively,

these Central Valley programs have the potential to provide a

comprehensive conservation response to the extensive ecologic problems

facing at-risk salmonids, including Central Valley steelhead. However,

the scope, intensity, and effectiveness of the CALFED Program are still

coming into focus. Therefore, NMFS concludes that the conservation

measures provided for by this program are not currently sufficient to

ensure long-term recovery of steelhead.

NMFS reviewed and evaluated habitat restoration efforts implemented

by the CALFED and CVPIA programs to date, as well as other recently

implemented measures (NMFS, 1998c). Based on this review, NMFS

concludes that Central Valley steelhead have benefitted from improved

habitat protection resulting from the placement of new fish screens,

modifications of barriers to fish passage, and various habitat

acquisition and restoration projects. NMFS believes that the benefits

provided by these habitat improvements, and other measures recently

implemented, have diminished the risk faced by Central Valley steelhead

ESU. Furthermore, NMFS is committed to continue working with Federal

and state agencies to build on the CALFED and CVPIA programs to ensure

that all risks to steelhead are adequately addressed. Through the

prioritization of restoration monies under the CALFED and CVPIA

programs, NMFS can assist with the establishment of objectives and

targets, as well as implementation strategies, that address the primary

risk factors for Central Valley steelhead.

(2) WPRC Program and Implementation of SB 271

In July, 1997, California's Governor signed Executive Order W-159-

97 which created the WPRC. The WPRC, which is chaired by the Secretary

of Resources, is an umbrella body consisting of all State agencies that

have programs addressing anadromous salmonid protection and

restoration. Under State law, the WPRC is charged with (1) providing

oversight of all State activities aimed at watershed protection and

enhancement, including the conservation and restoration of anadromous

salmonids in California, and (2) directing the development of a

Watershed Protection Program that provides for anadromous salmonid

conservation in the State. The WPRC has established a 12-member, multi-

disciplinary science review panel to advise it in the development of

the watershed protection program.

The WPRC is currently in the process of comprehensively reviewing

and evaluating existing Statewide regulatory and non-regulatory

programs protecting anadromous salmonids and their habitat, as well as

state and local restoration program efforts that are ongoing or

proposed. An important outcome of this review is expected to be a

compilation of management, implementation, and monitoring improvements

that are needed to protect and conserve anadromous salmonids and their

habitat. NMFS has reviewed early workproducts generated by this review

process and will continue to participate in the review and the

development of the watershed protection program.

NMFS is encouraged to see the State taking a comprehensive,

watershed based approach to salmon management and restoration. However,

the WPRC process is still in progress and a Watershed Protection

Program has yet to be developed. The 1998 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

signed by NMFS and the Secretary of Resources and Director of the CDFG

(NMFS/California MOA 1998) ensures that NMFS will substantively

participate in the development of this program, including participation

on the scientific review panel that will advise the WPRC in the

development of the Program. An important initial focus of this

scientific review panel will be a review of California's forest

practice regulations and their implementation and enforcement to

determine their adequacy.

To support implementation of the Governor's Executive Order and the

WPRC's efforts to develop a Watershed Protection Program, CDFG began

implementing a Watershed Initiative with $3 million in SB 271 funds in

FY 1997-1998. This funding is currently being obligated, together with

a relatively limited amount of funds from other state sources (e.g.,

Proposition 70, Proposition 99, Commercial Salmon Stamp Account,

Steelhead Catch-Restoration Card, and Wildlife Conservation Board), for

coastal watershed projects through CDFG's Fishery Restoration Grants

Program. CDFG expects to allocate at least $1.3 million for watershed

and riparian habitat restoration, up to $425,000 for instream habitat

restoration, and up to $900,000 for watershed evaluation, assessment,

planning, restoration project maintenance and monitoring, and a wide

range of other activities. For FY 1998-1999 (beginning in July 1998),

CDFG anticipates spending $1.0 million for eight new positions to

assist in watershed planning efforts and grant proposal development,

and $7.0 million on grants for actual projects.

In 1997, the California legislature enacted SB 271 which provides

CDFG with $43 million over six years for habitat restoration and

watershed planning in coastal watersheds. This new funding allows CDFG

to significantly expand its existing habitat restoration program in

coastal watersheds, including KMP and Northern California steelhead

ESUs. Senate Bill 271 requires that 87.5 percent of the $43 million in

funding be spent on project grants for habitat restoration, watershed

planning and related programs, and permits CDFG to use the remainder

for contract administration activities and biological support staff

necessary to achieve the restoration objectives of the legislation.

Senate Bill 271 also specifies that projects be given highest priority

that, (1) emphasize the development of coordinated watershed

improvement activities, (2) restore habitat for salmon and/or steelhead

that are eligible for protection as listed or candidate species under

the State or Federal ESA, and (3) treat the causes of fish habitat

degradation. As part of this program, CDFG is currently funding $3.0

million in new projects this year, and will begin funding $7.0 million/

year in new projects for five years, beginning in FY 1998-1999

(starting July 1998). In addition, CDFG will use SB 271 funding to

support several new permanent

[[Page 13363]]

positions that will assist in administering the program and provide

technical support in the development of watershed plans and habitat

restoration projects.

In addition to the SB 271 funds, CDFG has committed to seeking

additional funding in the FY 1998-1999 budget cycle for a new steelhead

monitoring and adaptive management program (CDFG, 1998a and 1998b;

NMFS/California MOA 1998). CDFG anticipates spending over $1.6 million

to hire over 30 person-years of staff for this program in FY 1998-1999.

The NMFS/California MOA (see discussion on NMFS/California MOA)

provides additional assurances that the SB 271 program will provide

these benefits. The MOA allows NMFS to serve as an ex-officio member of

the Advisory Committee that will oversee implementation of SB 271,

including the allocation funds. Furthermore, the MOA commits CDFG to

direct a major portion of the new personnel and fiscal resources

provided by SB 271 to watershed restoration efforts in these ESUs

(NMFS/California MOA, 1998).

(3) Klamath Mountains Province and Northern California Strategic Plans

The state of California recently provided NMFS with strategic

management plans specifically designed to address steelhead stocks in

the KMP and Northern California ESUs on January 23, 1998, and February

5, 1998, respectively (CDFG, 1998a and 1998b). These strategic plans

describe substantial changes in CDFG's management of recreational

angling and steelhead hatchery programs, along with its monitoring,

assessment, and adaptive management programs for steelhead in these two

ESUs. In addition, both plans describe CDFG's ongoing efforts to

protect and enhance steelhead habitat. These management measures are

intended to provide immediate protection for steelhead populations in

these ESUs, while longer-term measures are implemented to protect

anadromous fish habitat on non-Federal lands through the State's

Watershed Protection Program. The following is a description of the

main components of the strategic management plans.

a. Harvest Measures

CDFG's strategic plans propose several harvest management actions

that are designed to increase escapement of adult steelhead and reduce

impacts on juvenile steelhead in the Northern California and KMP

steelhead ESUs. NMFS (1998d) has reviewed and analyzed these measures

and concludes that impacts to adult steelhead will be greatly reduced

as a result of these new measures. Impacts to juveniles will also be

significantly reduced due to fishing closures in all steelhead rearing

tributaries, expanded angling closures in mainstem areas through the

end of May, and various gear and bait restrictions.

On February 6, 1998, the state of California's Fish and Game

Commission (Commission) adopted emergency changes to the State's inland

fishing regulations, which became effective on February 12, 1998. These

regulation changes were intended to be consistent with the measures

outlined in the KMP and Northern California strategic plans (CDFG,

1998a and 1998b). NMFS reviewed and evaluated these emergency

regulation changes and determined that some of them did not adequately

protect wild juvenile steelhead (NMFS, 1998e). The State and NMFS

agreed to further modifications of the emergency regulations which were

adopted by the Commission on March 6, 1998, as amendments to the

emergency regulations. NMFS reviewed these modifications and concludes

that they will reduce threats to steelhead and will help conserve the

species in these ESUs (NMFS, 1998f).

b. Hatchery Measures

CDFG's strategic plans for KMP and Northern California steelhead

identify a wide range of existing and new hatchery management measures

that are intended to reduce the impacts of hatchery steelhead programs

on wild steelhead populations in these ESUs. These measures include the

following: (1) Release strategies that require a minimum 6'' size and

release at the hatchery; (2) marking all hatchery fish and conducting

spawning surveys to assess the extent hatchery fish stray into natural

spawning areas; (3) reductions in hatchery releases or other

modifications of hatchery practices if significant straying of hatchery

fish is found to occur; (4) a cap on hatchery production to current

levels; regular health checks during each rearing cycle and the

destruction of diseased fish that cannot be effectively treated; (5)

review of the existing operating procedures for all cooperative rearing

facilities permitted by the State; and (6) adoption of a requirement

that all cooperative facilities develop and submit 5-year management

plans to the State for approval.

NMFS has reviewed these existing and new hatchery management

measures and concludes they will substantially reduce potential impacts

to wild steelhead (NMFS, 1998d). However, NMFS continues to be

concerned with operations at the Mad River Hatchery since its winter-

run steelhead broodstock is non-indigenous to the Mad River. To address

this concern CDFG commits, in conjunction with NMFS, to, (1) undertake

a comprehensive review of the hatchery program, including its stocking

history and genetic analysis of current broodstock, and (2) develop a

plan to eliminate any adverse impacts of hatchery operations on

Northern California steelhead if necessary (NMFS/California MOA, 1998).

c. Steelhead Monitoring and Adaptive Management

In its strategic management plans for KMP and Northern California

steelhead, CDFG commits to implement ongoing and expanded monitoring

programs for assessing steelhead abundance in these ESUs (CDFG, 1998a

and 1998b; NMFS/California MOA, 1998). In addition, CDFG commits to

establishing a joint scientific and technical team including

representatives from California, Oregon as appropriate, and NMFS to

design appropriate detailed monitoring programs for steelhead (CDFG,

1998a and 1998b; NMFS/California MOA, 1998). NMFS considers these

monitoring efforts essential given the uncertain status of steelhead

populations in these ESUs, and believes that adequate State funding is

critical to implementing this program.

Through the MOA (see discussion on NMFS/California MOA), CDFG

further commits to seek adequate funding for this program (NMFS/

California MOA, 1998). To this end, CDFG has submitted a budget change

proposal for $1.6 million to initiate the program in FY 1998-1999

(starting July 1, 1998). Aside from State funding commitments, NMFS

commits to seek funding support for California's monitoring effort and

to provide technical assistance in its design and implementation (NMFS/

California MOA, 1998).

NMFS/California Memorandum of Agreement

NMFS evaluated a wide range of conservation efforts that California

has adopted or is in the process of developing and concludes these

efforts will provide substantial protections to KMP and Northern

California steelhead populations. In particular, NMFS concludes that

CDFG's harvest and hatchery management programs for KMP and Northern

California steelhead will contribute to increasing escapement of

adults, substantially reduce impacts on juveniles resulting in

increased survival, and reduce adverse impacts of hatchery populations

on wild fish

[[Page 13364]]

(NMFS 1998b and 1998d). In the near-term, NMFS expects these measures

will contribute to improved survival and population stability for

steelhead. Furthermore, CDFG's monitoring and adaptive management

programs will provide the ability to assess the status of steelhead

populations and their response to these management improvements.

However, NMFS remains concerned that the State's habitat protection

measures which are being evaluated as part of the WPRC's effort to

develop a Watershed Protection Program and the watershed restoration

program established by SB 271, are not presently adequate to secure

properly functioning habitat conditions over the long-term. To address

this concern, NMFS entered into a MOA with the WPRC, Resources Agency,

and CDFG (NMFS/California MOA, 1998).

Under the terms of the MOA, NMFS will provide the State with

guidance on its key programs that address habitat conditions affecting

steelhead in the KMP and Northern California ESUs. Specifically, the

MOA ensures that NMFS will substantially participate in (1) the ongoing

development of the WPRC's Watershed Protection Program, including

review of, and participation on, the multi-disciplinary scientific

review panel that is an integral part of the WPRC program development,

and (2) the implementation of the SB 271 watershed planning and habitat

restoration program as an ex-officio member of the Advisory Committee.

The MOA commits NMFS and the State, in conjunction with the

scientific review panel, to conduct an expedited review of California's

forest practice rules and their implementation and enforcement, in

order to assess their adequacy. In accordance with the provisions of

the MOA, the State will make changes in implementation and/or

enforcement of rules necessary to adequately conserve anadromous

salmonids, including steelhead, by December 31, 1998. Also, by December

31, 1998, the State, in consultation with NMFS, will recommend any rule

changes to the Board of Forestry that are necessary to adequately

conserve anadromous salmonids. Because of the preponderance of private

timber forested lands and timber harvest in the Northern California

ESU, NMFS believes this is a critically important provision of the MOA.

In addition to these key provisions, the MOA also commits CDFG to:

(1) Implement harvest and hatchery management changes contained in its

strategic management plans for KMP and Northern California steelhead,

including the emergency regulations adopted as a result of those plans;

(2) comply with existing Federal law including the adoption of State

fishing regulations that are consistent with Federal protective

regulations for listed coho salmon; (3) implement a monitoring and

adaptive management program for KMP and Northern California steelhead;

(4) direct a major portion of new personnel and fiscal resources

resulting from SB 271 funding for FY 1998-1999 to watershed protection

efforts in the Northern California ESU; and (5) seek funding in FY

1998-1999 for those activities identified in the State's Eel River

Action Plan that have the most immediate and direct benefit to

steelhead (NMFS/California MOA, 1998).

Status of Steelhead ESUs

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

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

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

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

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

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

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

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

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

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

include the following: (1) Absolute numbers of fish and their spatial

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

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

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

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

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

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

management) that have predictable short-term consequences for abundance

of the ESU.

During the coastwide status review for steelhead, NMFS evaluated

both quantitative and qualitative information to determine whether any

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

types of information used in these assessments are described in the

proposed rule, published August 9, 1996 (61 FR 41541). The following

summaries draw on these quantitative and qualitative assessments to

describe NMFS' conclusions regarding the status of each steelhead ESU.

A more detailed discussion of the status of these steelhead ESUs is

presented in the documents entitled ``Status Review Update for Deferred

and Candidate ESUs of West Coast Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1997a) and ``Status

Review Update for Deferred ESUs of West Coast Steelhead: Hatchery

Populations'' (NMFS, 1998a). Copies of these documents are available

upon request (see ADDRESSES).

(1) Lower Columbia River ESU

Based on its previous review of this ESU and on new data received

during the deferral period, NMFS identified several major concerns for

steelhead within this ESU. First, populations are at low abundance

relative to historical levels, placing this ESU at risk due to random

fluctuations in genetic and demographic parameters that are

characteristic of small populations. Second, there have been almost

universal, and in many cases dramatic, declines in steelhead abundance

since the mid-1980s in both winter-run and summer-run steelhead runs.

For example, on the basis of recent severe declines, WDFW has

identified a change in the status designation for Wind River summer-run

steelhead from ``depressed'' in 1992 to ``critical'' in 1997. In

addition, WDFW recently determined that, of 21 wild winter-run and

summer-run steelhead stocks on the northern side of this ESU, only two

are healthy and the remaining 19 are depressed or believed to be

depressed (WDF et al., 1993). NMFS also notes the results from ODFW's

extinction risk modeling, which predicts that the Kalama River summer-

run steelhead have a greater than 5 percent probability of extinction

within 100 years.

The primary exception to the declines within this ESU is the Toutle

River winter-run steelhead stock, which has increased following

decimation by the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, but which

remains at very low abundance. In some cases, chinook salmon

populations in the same streams have not shown such dramatic declines.

No clear explanation presently exists for these declines in steelhead,

but not chinook salmon.

NMFS remains concerned about the widespread occurrence of hatchery

fish in naturally spawning steelhead populations throughout this ESU.

Recent estimates of the proportion of hatchery fish on the winter-run

steelhead spawning grounds are over 80 percent in the Hood and Cowlitz

Rivers, 45 percent in the Sandy, Clackamas, and Kalama Rivers, and

approximately 75 percent for summer-run steelhead in the Kalama River.

Only three out of 14 populations for which data exist have low

estimates of percent hatchery fish in

[[Page 13365]]

natural escapements (i.e., 0 percent in the Washougal River summer

steelhead run and Panther and Trout Creeks of the Wind River Basin).

NMFS is unable to identify any natural populations of steelhead in this

ESU that could be considered ``healthy.'' Contributing to NMFS''

concern is new genetic data from WDFW which indicate that some

introgression has occurred between Puget Sound Chambers Creek Hatchery

stock and wild steelhead in this ESU.

Summer-run steelhead are native to the Hood, Lewis, Washougal and

Kalama Rivers in this ESU. However, summer-run fish have also been

introduced into the Sandy and Clackamas Rivers. Furthermore, ODFW has

estimated that naturally spawning winter-run steelhead populations have

been negatively impacted by introductions of non-native summer-run

steelhead due to interbreeding and/or competition (Chilcote, 1997).

Recently implemented changes in hatchery release practices by WDFW and

ODFW are generally positive; however, NMFS believes these changes have

relatively minor mitigating effects on overall risks due to widespread

artificial propagation and the history of stock transfers within this

ESU.

Listing Determination

Based on available information, NMFS concludes that steelhead in

the Lower Columbia ESU warrant listing as a threatened species. Recent

abundance information indicates that steelhead populations have

seriously declined within this ESU over the past several years. In the

Washington portion of this ESU, steelhead stocks have reached

historically low levels in several areas. Adding to this concern are

recent assessments by WDFW that indicate the majority of steelhead

stocks in this area are depressed or believed to be depressed.

Recent conservation planning efforts by the states of Washington

and Oregon, along with those of industry, may reduce risks faced by

steelhead in this ESU in the future; however, these efforts are still

in their formative stages. Specifically, the state of Washington's

LCSCI is still in a developmental stage and various technical and

financial aspects of the plan need to be addressed (NMFS, 1998g). The

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

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

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

NMFS concludes that the late-spawning Cowlitz River Trout Hatchery

stock (winter-run), and the late-spawning Clackamas River ODFW stock

#122 are not essential for recovery. At this time, sufficient numbers

of wild steelhead remain in the ESU as a whole that can be used in

recovery efforts. Therefore, inclusion of existing hatchery stocks in

the listed ESU is not necessary at this time.

(2) Oregon Coast ESU

In the initial coastwide status review, NMFS concluded that the

Oregon Coast ESU warranted listing as a threatened species based

primarily on two factors: (1) Pronounced and nearly universal short-

and long-term declines in abundance for populations throughout the ESU,

and (2) substantial contribution of non-native hatchery fish to natural

escapements in most basins. Abundance and trend estimates available at

the time of the status review were based on angler catch through 1992.

Subsequently, catch-and-release regulations for wild steelhead were

implemented for most coastal streams, so angler catch no longer

provides any information about wild steelhead abundance or trends.

Unfortunately, ODFW has not initiated any comprehensive monitoring

program to replace the angler catch data and as a result, NMFS is able

to review only recent abundance data for three of the over 40 steelhead

populations in this ESU.

The abundance of steelhead in the populations for which updated

data exists (North Umpqua River summer-and winter-run-runs and

Salmonberry River in the Nehalem River Basin) is moderate, and the

trends are stable or increasing. However, these populations are among

the few that showed relatively stable trends in the previous status

review, so there is reason to believe they may not be representative of

trends in the ESU as a whole (Chilcote, 1997). Spawner surveys from

three coastal rivers (Trask, Wilson, and Nestucca Rivers) suggest mixed

trends in abundance, but no expansions to total abundance estimates for

these streams were provided. Of particular concern to NMFS is the

absence of any recent information for a large number of streams that

showed sharp declines in the initial coastwide status review.

Additional information provides some indication that the proportion

of hatchery fish in natural escapements has declined in some of these

coastal steelhead populations in recent years. A review of recent

hatchery release information indicates that, compared with previous

years, smolt releases have increased in four streams, decreased in four

streams, and remained essentially unchanged in four streams. However,

release programs have also been terminated in four streams, so the net

effect has been some reduction in the number of smolts released. In

addition, ODFW reported the locations of hatchery releases have been

and will be modified in an effort to reduce the incidence of strays.

NMFS believes these recent changes in hatchery practices will reduce

risks to wild steelhead. However, significant opportunities for

deleterious effects remain as many programs continue to release non-

native fish and ODFW data show that hatchery fish stray into and spawn

in streams with no hatchery releases.

Listing Determination

Based on the best available information, NMFS concludes that

steelhead in the Oregon Coast ESU do not presently warrant listing as a

threatened species. Recently obtained abundance and hatchery data

indicate that naturally spawned steelhead are at a lower risk of

extinction than was concluded in the proposed rule. However, this

conclusion is tempered by the fact that abundance information in this

ESU is sparse and may not accurately portray the status of naturally

spawned steelhead in this region.

Recently implemented conservation efforts have reduced the degree

of risk facing this species. Specifically, habitat, hatchery and

harvest, and monitoring aspects of the Oregon Plan will likely provide

conservation benefits for this species. Furthermore, implementation of

the NFP has reduced risks associated with habitat destruction on

Federal lands within this ESU. However, NMFS remains concerned about

the overall lack of abundance and trend information for this ESU. NMFS

believes additional monitoring of this ESU is necessary before it is

eliminated from ESA consideration. Therefore, NMFS concludes that this

ESU warrants classification as a candidate species. NMFS will revisit

the status of this ESU within the next 4 years to determine whether ESA

protection is warranted.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

As described previously, NMFS concludes that the Oregon Coast ESU

does not currently warrant listing. Therefore, no hatchery stocks are

essential for recovery at this time.

(3) Klamath Mountains Province ESU

The KMP ESU includes a number of populations with different life

history attributes and very different indicators of stock health. The

Rogue River winter-

[[Page 13366]]

run steelhead run appears to be the most robust stock in the ESU, with

relatively high abundance, stable long-term trends, and a relatively

low hatchery contribution to overall abundance. The opposite pattern is

exhibited in the Klamath River, where returns of winter-run steelhead

to Iron Gate Hatchery have declined precipitously since 1990. In the

Trinity River, returns of naturally produced fish have remained

relatively stable since 1992, but in recent years there have also been

a very high percentage of naturally spawning hatchery fish. Outside the

Rogue and Klamath River Basins recent data on winter-run steelhead are

very sparse. Based on angler catch data through 1992, most of the non-

Rogue River populations in Oregon were declining, but more recent data

are not available. Smolts monitoring in the Elk River indicated a

relatively stable trend in smolts production over the period 1985-1996.

The usefulness of this information is limited by a lack of smolts-adult

survival for this population.

Available data indicate that summer-run steelhead populations in

this ESU are relatively small and show almost universal declines.

Extinction analyses by ODFW (Chilcote, 1997) identified the Middle

Rogue River summer-run steelhead run as having a sensitive status

(i.e., it had a greater than 5 percent probability of extinction in 100

years if survival rates are lower in the future than they have been

over the last 30 years). Summer snorkel surveys in the Klamath River

show consistent declines, but counts in the Trinity River are up in

recent years relative to lows in the mid-1980s. This latter pattern is

directly opposite to that found for most other steelhead populations

coastwide, which generally showed peaks of abundance in the mid-1980s.

As with the Oregon Coast steelhead ESU described above, NMFS is

concerned about the lack of recent abundance data for many steelhead

populations in the KMP ESU. In particular, the lack of reliable

abundance and trend information for winter-run steelhead in the

California portion of this ESU may lead to some bias in overall risk

assessment. Although the percentage of naturally spawning hatchery fish

is relatively low to moderate in Oregon streams in this ESU and the

number of hatchery fish planted is being reduced, the percentage of

hatchery strays of unknown origin spawning naturally in unplanted

Oregon streams remains a concern for Oregon streams. In California,

risks associated with hatchery operations in the Klamath and Trinity

Rivers are a concern due to the long-term high abundance of naturally

spawning hatchery fish in the Trinity River and the apparent inability

of the Iron Gate Hatchery stock to maintain itself.

The states of Oregon and California expressed disagreement with the

conclusions reached by NMFS in its KMP steelhead risk assessment. The

States contend that NMFS gave inappropriate weight to snorkel surveys

of summer-run steelhead in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers (California

and Oregon, 1998). The States contend such snorkel surveys account for

only one component of the entire spawning stock (spring migrating fish)

and that such surveys are not representative of the status of winter-

run steelhead in these areas. Furthermore, the States believe available

information indicates recent improvements in summer- and winter-run-run

steelhead status in the Rogue River, Oregon, and strong stock status in

the Smith River, California.

Listing Determination

Based on available information, NMFS concludes that steelhead in

the KMP ESU do not warrant listing as a threatened species at this

time. In arriving at this determination, NMFS carefully considered the

scientific conclusions of the BRT, existing and recently implemented

State conservation efforts, and Federal management programs such as the

NFP that have ameliorated risks to this species.

Available biological information indicates that some steelhead

populations within this ESU are stable and increasing, such as winter-

run steelhead in the Rogue River and summer-run steelhead in the

Trinity River, while other populations, such as summer-run steelhead in

the Middle Rogue River and winter-run steelhead in the Klamath River,

are declining. Complicating NMFS' risk assessment is the lack of long-

term data for steelhead populations within this ESU. Prior to 1992,

angler catch data were available for streams in the Oregon portion of

this ESU; however, these data have not been collected since then. Smolt

monitoring conducted in the Elk River from 1985 to 1996 indicates

stable trends in smolt production; however, the value of this data is

limited since no studies of smolt to adult survival have been conducted

for this population. In California, recent data on winter-run steelhead

are sparse. Furthermore, summer snorkel survey information from the

Klamath and Trinity Rivers may or may not reflect the actual status of

steelhead within this region.

NMFS believes existing conservation efforts implemented by the

states of Oregon and California have reduced threats to this species.

NMFS has assessed recent harvest regulation changes implemented by the

states of California and Oregon relating to juvenile and adult harvest

in this ESU and concludes these regulations will contribute to

steelhead conservation (NMFS, 1998b and 1998d). Monitoring efforts

implemented and committed to by the states of California and Oregon

should clarify the status of steelhead populations within this ESU and

permit a more conclusive determination regarding the status of this ESU

as a whole.

NMFS concludes that biological risks associated with habitat

modification and degradation on Federal lands have declined in recent

years with the implementation of the NFP, coupled with the consultation

requirements associated with the listing of coho salmon as a threatened

species in this region in 1997. While NMFS remains concerned about

habitat conditions on non-Federal lands in this ESU, the majority of

habitat in this area is under Federal management (about 64 percent).

Efforts are currently underway in Oregon to improve habitat conditions

on non-Federal lands. Recently implemented measures contained in the

OPSW should improve habitat conditions for steelhead and other

salmonids. In the California portion of this ESU, about 80 percent of

the land area is under Federal management and is covered by the

requirements of the NFP and ESA section 7 requirements for listed coho

salmon. While NMFS remains concerned about the condition of non-Federal

lands in this region, those areas comprise only 20 percent this ESU in

California. Furthermore, NMFS believes that provisions contained in the

California/NMFS MOA will result in stronger State/Federal partnerships

in these and other areas. NMFS views this MOA as an important step in

developing long-term conservation efforts that will benefit not only

KMP steelhead, but other anadromous salmonids as well.

Given the lack of reliable information concerning the status of

steelhead in this ESU, and available information indicating that

certain populations within this ESU may have declined substantially,

NMFS remains concerned about the status of steelhead in this ESU as a

whole. NMFS believes that additional monitoring of this ESU is

necessary before it is eliminated from ESA consideration. Therefore,

NMFS concludes that this ESU warrants as a candidate species. NMFS will

revisit the

[[Page 13367]]

status of this ESU within the next 4 years to determine if ESA

protection is warranted.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

As described above, NMFS concludes that the KMP ESU does not

currently warrant listing. Therefore, no existing hatchery populations

are essential for recovery of the ESU at this time.

(4) Northern California ESU

Steelhead abundance data available for this ESU are very limited,

particularly for winter-run-run steelhead and NMFS' BRT identified this

lack of data to be a risk factor for this ESU. The most complete data

set available in this ESU is a time series of winter-run steelhead dam

counts on the Eel River at Cape Horn Dam. Updated abundance data

through 1997 show moderately declining long- and short-term trends in

abundance; however, these data show a strong decline prior to 1970 and

no significant trend thereafter. Additional winter-run steelhead data

are available for Sweasy Dam on the Mad River which show a significant

decline, but the data set ends in 1963. For the seven populations where

recent trend data are available, the only runs showing recent increases

in abundance in this ESU are relatively small populations of summer-run

steelhead in the Mad River, which has high hatchery production, and

winter-run steelhead in Prairie Creek whose increase may be due to

increased monitoring or mitigation efforts. Abundance data in this ESU,

particularly for winter-run steelhead populations are limited. The BRT

noted, however, that steelhead are considered to be widely distributed

throughout the region.

Risks associated with interactions between wild and hatchery

steelhead in the Northern California ESU were also of concern to the

BRT. Of particular concern to the BRT was the potentially deleterious

impact to wild steelhead from past hatchery practices at the Mad River

hatchery, primarily from transfers of non-indigenous Mad River hatchery

fish to other streams in the Northern California ESU and the production

of non-indigenous summer-run steelhead. These potentially deleterious

hatchery practices ended for summer-run steelhead in 1996 (NMFS,

1998a).

Habitat degradation and other factors were also of concern to the

BRT in its evaluation of the long-term risks to this ESU. Specific

factors identified by the BRT were dams on the upper Eel and Mad

Rivers, the likely existence of minor blockages throughout the ESU, the

continuing impacts of catastrophic flooding on the 1960s, and

reductions in riparian and instream habitat and increased sedimentation

from logging. The BRT also cited poaching of summer-run steelhead and

predation from squawfish in the Eel River as factors for concern. NMFS'

supplemental review of factors affecting west coast steelhead also

identified additional factors including water diversion and extraction,

agriculture, and mining (NMFS, 1996a).

Listing Determination

Based on available information, NMFS concludes that steelhead in

the Northern California ESU do not warrant listing as a threatened

species at this time. In arriving at this determination, NMFS carefully

considered the scientific conclusions of the BRT, existing and recently

implemented State conservation efforts, and Federal management programs

such as the NFP that have ameliorated risks to this species.

The limited abundance data for steelhead in this ESU (Upper Eel

River; Cape Horn Dam) indicate that some winter-run populations have

declined, but most of this decline occurred prior to 1970. Since 1970,

abundance has remained depressed relative to historic abundance levels

(1930s and 1940s), but with no significant downward trend. Presence/

absence information indicates that juvenile O. mykiss are broadly

distributed throughout this ESU; however, the unknown origin of these

juveniles makes this information difficult to interpret (i.e., observed

juveniles may be hatchery steelhead, rainbow trout, or wild steelhead).

Based on the limited abundance data for steelhead in this ESU, the

fact that recent data show mixed trends in abundance of steelhead of

unknown origin, and the apparent widespread distribution of steelhead,

NMFS concludes that there is a high degree of uncertainty about the

current status of this ESU even though populations seem to be

depressed. The lack of long-term and comprehensive monitoring data for

steelhead in this ESU limits NMFS' ability to assess risk, a fact the

BRT recognized as a significant problem.

NMFS analyzed the conservation measures and regulation changes

described in CDFG's strategic management plan and concludes these

measures will contribute to conservation of steelhead in this ESU (NMFS

1998b and 1998d). NMFS further concludes that the provisions in the

NMFS/California MOA that provide for a comprehensive evaluation of the

Mad River Hatchery and the implementation of a plan to eliminate any

adverse impacts will contribute to the conservation of this ESU.

Finally, monitoring efforts implemented and committed to by CDFG,

including the establishment of a scientific and technical team to

develop and evaluate this program, is expected to clarify the status of

steelhead populations in this ESU and permit a more conclusive

determination regarding the status of this ESU as a whole.

Although NMFS concludes that harvest and hatchery management

improvements implemented or soon to be implemented by the State will

help conserve steelhead in this ESU, and that new monitoring will

improve our understanding of the status of this ESU, habitat protection

and restoration are essential to ensuring the long-term survival of

steelhead in this ESU.

Federal conservation efforts in this ESU are relatively limited,

but do address some important risk factors. About 20 percent of the

habitat within this ESU is under Federal management, including Redwood

National Park in the lower end of Redwood Creek, and portions of the

Mendocino National Forest in the upper reaches of the Eel and Mad

Rivers. Although these Federal lands are limited, NMFS concludes that

biological risks associated with habitat modification and degradation

on Federal lands have declined in this ESU due to implementation of the

NFP, coupled with the completion of numerous section 7 consultations.

NMFS concludes that conservation measures addressing habitat

conditions on non-Federal lands do not currently provide for properly

functioning habitat conditions needed to conserve Northern California

steelhead over the long-term. However, the State's coastal conservation

efforts, including its strategic plan for Northern California

steelhead, the WPRC's watershed protection program, and the SB 271

habitat restoration program, contain measures that NMFS concludes will

improve habitat conditions on non-Federal lands within this ESU.

Specifically, NMFS has carefully reviewed the SB 271 program and

concludes that its implementation will help conserve steelhead in this

ESU by promoting the development of watershed protection plans and the

restoration of degraded habitat conditions (NMFS, 1998c). In addition,

the NMFS/California MOA provides an assurance that these conservation

efforts will be implemented.

Continued review of California's forest practice rules and their

implementation and enforcement is critical to achieving properly

[[Page 13368]]

functioning habitat conditions for steelhead in this ESU since timber

harvest on private lands is a major land management activity in this

ESU. As discussed above, by December 31, 1998, under the terms of the

NMFS/California MOA, the State will make changes in implementation and/

or enforcement, as necessary, and will make recommendations to the

Board of Forestry for rules changes if they are determined necessary to

adequately conserve anadromous salmonids.

During the period the California forest practice rules and other

State programs are under review through the WPRC program, NMFS believes

harvest and hatchery measures that are currently being implemented will

provide conservation benefits for steelhead in this ESU. However, if

these State conservation processes and efforts are not fully

implemented, or the provisions of the NMFS/California MOA are not fully

met, NMFS will act promptly to change the ESA status of this ESU to the

extent warranted.

Since the determination not to list the Northern California ESU

relies heavily on the continued implementation of State conservation

measures and implementation of the NMFS/California MOA, NMFS intends to

review this listing determination no later than 4 years from the date

this notice is published, or at any time sooner if substantive new

information such as new biological data resulting from the State's

monitoring program warrants consideration. Therefore, NMFS concludes

that the Northern California ESU warrants classification as a candidate

species under the ESA and will continue to monitor its status as well

as the efficacy of the State's conservation measures and compliance

with the MOA.

(5) Central Valley, California ESU

No new abundance data for the Central Valley was received since the

ESU was proposed for listing as an endangered species in 1996.

Therefore, NMFS' current risk assessment is based on the data available

at the time of the coastwide status review, supplemented by new

qualitative information about the presence of steelhead in the San

Joaquin River Basin.

Various reports indicate that naturally spawning steelhead are

distributed throughout a number of streams in the Central Valley

region, but that they occur in small numbers. Furthermore, many

populations are of non-native, mixed, or uncertain origin. In 1994, the

recent total run size to the upper Sacramento River basin is probably

less than 10,000 steelhead per year, and it is believed that fewer than

2,000 of those fish were the result of natural production from native

populations (based on counts at Red Bluff Diversion Dam). In

particular, the status of native steelhead in the American River is in

considerable doubt; new genetic data indicate that a sample of natural

fish from the river and a sample of fish from the nearby Nimbus

Hatchery are genetically similar to samples from the Eel River on the

coast of Northern California. Presumably, this reflects a lasting

influence from transfers of Eel River stock steelhead into the Nimbus

Hatchery in a number of previous years.

Newly compiled information exists on the presence of steelhead in

streams in the San Joaquin River Basin. This information indicates

steelhead smolts occur in the lower San Joaquin and Stanislaus Rivers

and adult steelhead occur in the Stanislaus and Merced Rivers. The only

steelhead hatchery program operating in the San Joaquin River Basin is

on the Mokelumne River, and no recent releases of juvenile steelhead

have been made in other rivers in the basin; therefore, these results

were viewed as an indication that at least some natural production of

steelhead occurs in several streams in the San Joaquin River Basin.

The BRT identified long-term declines in abundance, small

population sizes in the Sacramento River, and the high risk of

interbreeding between hatchery and naturally spawned steelhead as major

concerns for steelhead in this ESU. Addition, the BRT emphasized the

significant loss of historic habitat, degradation of remaining habitat

from water diversions, reduction in water quality and other factors,

and the lack of monitoring data on abundance as other important risk

factors for this ESU. NMFS (1996) review of factors for decline for

this ESU noted many of these same factors as well as harvest impacts.

Listing Determination

Based on available information, NMFS concludes that steelhead in

the Central Valley ESU warrant listing as a threatened species at this

time. In arriving at this determination, NMFS carefully considered the

scientific conclusions of the BRT, existing and recently implemented

State conservation efforts, and Federal management programs such as the

CVPIA that have ameliorated risks to this species.

Significant steps have been taken over the past two years in the

Central Valley towards the largest ecological restoration project yet

undertaken in the United States. The CALFED Program and the CVPIA AFRP,

in coordination with other Central Valley efforts, have implemented

numerous habitat restoration actions that benefit Central Valley

steelhead. The majority of these recent restoration actions address key

factors for decline and emphasis has been placed on addressing

tributary drainages with high potential for steelhead production.

Additional actions during the past two years that benefit Central

Valley steelhead include new efforts to enhance fisheries monitoring

and conservation actions to address artificial propagation. Based on a

review of these and other conservation efforts in the Central Valley,

NMFS concludes that risks to Central Valley steelhead have diminished

since the completion of the status review in 1996 (NMFS, 1998c).

NMFS is uncertain whether implementation of these Central Valley

restoration programs are adequate to ensure long-term recovery of

Central Valley steelhead at this time. However, the level of risk faced

by the Central Valley steelhead ESU has diminished considerably since

the completion of the August 1996 assessment by the NMFS biological

review team. Considering the conservation actions implemented during

the past 2 years and the direction of the Central Valley restoration

efforts under the CALFED Program and CVPIA, NMFS concludes that Central

Valley steelhead warrant listing as a threatened species at this time.

If new information indicates a substantial change in the biological

status of this ESU or the direction of restoration efforts in the

Central Valley is judged to be inadequate, this determination will be

reconsidered.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the Recovery of the ESU

NMFS concludes that neither the Coleman NFH nor Feather River

Hatchery steelhead stocks are essential for recovery at present. While

these stocks may be needed in future recovery programs, NMFS concludes

that these stocks need to be analyzed more carefully before they are

contemplated for use in recovery programs. In the case of the Coleman

NFH stock, NMFS notes most of the original broodstock was taken at dams

in the upper Sacramento River and that most historical production

occurred above Shasta Dam. The Feather River Hatchery stock was founded

from eggs taken from native Feather River steelhead that numbered no

more than 100 to 200 wild fish at the time this stock originated. Based

on the genetic clustering with Coleman NFH steelhead and wild steelhead

in Deer and Mill Creeks, transplants of out-of-

[[Page 13369]]

basin steelhead into this system may not have been effective.

Determination

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

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

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

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

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

that listing determinations be based solely on the best scientific and

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

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

made to protect such species.

Based on results from its coastwide asse

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.