[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 57 (Thursday, March 25, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14517-14528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6817]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 980225046-9070-03; I.D. 021098B]
RIN 0648-AK54
Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for Two ESUs
of Steelhead in Washington and Oregon
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) populations in Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and California, and identified 15 Evolutionarily
Significant Units (ESUs) within this range. NMFS now issues a final
rule to list two ESUs as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). The listed ESUs include the Middle Columbia River ESU located in
Washington and Oregon, and the Upper Willamette River ESU located in
Oregon.
In both threatened ESUs, only naturally spawned populations of
steelhead residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-
standing, natural waterfalls) are listed. NMFS examined the
relationship between hatchery and natural populations of steelhead in
these ESUs and determines none of the identified hatchery populations
are essential for recovery at this time.
At this time, NMFS is listing only anadromous life forms of O.
mykiss.
NMFS will issue any protective regulations deemed necessary under
section 4(d) of the ESA for the listed ESUs in a separate rulemaking.
Even though NMFS does not now issue protective regulations for these
ESUs, Federal agencies are required under section 7 of the ESA to
consult with NMFS if any activity they authorize, fund, or carry out
may affect listed steelhead.
DATES: Effective May 24, 1999.
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, or Chris
Mobley, 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Reference materials regarding this listing determination can also
be obtained from the internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov.
Species Background
Biological and life history information for steelhead can be found
in NMFS' recent status assessments (Busby et al., 1996; NMFS, 1999a and
1999b) and in the Federal Register notice announcing the listing
proposal (63 FR 11797, March 10, 1998).
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
41541). 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 and Oregon. 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. 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 41541, 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 or endangered under the ESA (62 FR 43937, August 18,
1997). In a separate notice published on the same day, NMFS determined
substantial scientific disagreement remained for five proposed ESUs (62
FR 43974, August 18, 1997). In accordance with section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of
the ESA, NMFS deferred its decision on these remaining steelhead ESUs
for 6 months, until February 9, 1998, for the purpose of soliciting
additional data. On March 19, 1998, NMFS published a final rule listing
two ESUs as threatened (63 FR 13347, March 19, 1998). In this notice
NMFS also determined the remaining three ESUs (Oregon Coast, Klamath
Mountains Province, and Northern California) did not warrant listing
(Id.).
On March 10, 1998, NMFS published a proposed listing determination
for Middle Columbia River and Upper Willamette River steelhead ESUs (63
FR
[[Page 14518]]
11798). This proposed rule was based on an updated status review
completed for previously deferred ESUs [Memorandum to William Stelle
and William Hogarth from M. Schiewe, December 18, 1997, Status of
Deferred and Candidate ESUs of West Coast Steelhead]. In response to
the proposed rule, NMFS received comments and scientific information
from affected states, tribes, and others which were recently considered
by NMFS' BRT. NMFS has now completed an updated status review that
analyzes this new information (NMFS, 1999a). Copies of this memorandum
are available upon request (see ADDRESSES). Based on this updated
review and other information, NMFS now lists the Upper Willamette River
and Middle Columbia River steelhead ESUs as threatened species under
the ESA.
Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule
NMFS held 21 public hearings in California, Oregon, Idaho, and
Washington to solicit comments on this and other salmonid listing
proposals (63 FR 16955, April 7, 1998; 63 FR 30455, June 4, 1998).
During the 112-day public comment period, NMFS received 28 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, 1999a).
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 a total of 35
individuals to take part in a peer review of the current and previous
west coast steelhead proposed rules. 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 these findings; comments from peer
reviewers were considered by NMFS' BRT and are summarized in the
relevant Status Review documents (e.g., NMFS 1997a).
A summary of comments received in response to this proposed rule is
presented here.
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 two steelhead
ESUs as threatened 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, 1999a),
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. If, in the future, new data become available to
change these conclusions, NMFS will act accordingly.
Issue 2: Description and Status of Steelhead ESUs
Comment: Several commenters disputed NMFS' conclusions regarding
the geographic boundaries for some of the ESUs and questioned NMFS'
basis for determining these boundaries.
Response: NMFS has published a policy describing how it applies 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 NOAA Technical Memorandum entitled ``Definition of
'Species' Under the Endangered Species Act: Application to Pacific
Salmon'' (Waples, 1991) and in a recent scientific paper by Waples
(1995).
The National Research Council (NRC) has recently addressed the
issue of defining species under the ESA (NRC, 1995). Their report found
that protecting distinct population segments (DPS) is soundly based on
scientific evidence, and recommends applying an ``Evolutionary Unit''
(EU) approach in describing these segments. The NRC report describes
the high degree of similarity between the EU and ESU approaches
(differences being largely a matter of application between salmon and
other vertebrates), and concluded that either approach would lead to
similar DPS descriptions most of the time.
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
[[Page 14519]]
predictable short-term consequences for abundance of the ESU. A more
detailed discussion of status of individual ESUs is provided in this
document under ``Summary of Conclusions Regarding Listed ESUs.''
Issue 3: Factors Contributing to the Decline of West Coast
Steelhead
Comment: Many commenters identified factors they believe have
contributed to the decline of west coast steelhead. Factors identified
include overharvest by recreational fisheries, predation by pinnipeds
and piscivorous fish species, effects of artificial propagation, and
the deterioration or loss of freshwater and marine habitats.
Response: NMFS agrees that many factors, past and present, have
contributed to the decline of West Coast steelhead. NMFS also
recognizes that natural environmental fluctuations have likely played a
role in the species' recent declines. However, NMFS believes other
human-induced impacts (e.g., incidental catch in certain fisheries,
hatchery practices, and habitat modification) have played an equally
significant role in this species' decline. Moreover, these human-
induced impacts have likely reduced the species' resiliency to natural
factors for decline such as drought 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, 1999c). This report concludes
that in certain cases where pinniped populations co-occur with
depressed salmonid populations, salmon populations may experience
severe impacts due to predation. An example of such a situation is
Ballard Locks, Washington, where sea lions are known to consume
significant numbers of adult winter steelhead. This study further
concludes that data regarding pinniped predation 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
the ``Summary of Factors Affecting Steelhead'' later in this document.
Comment: 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.
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) may 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
such episodic events 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 two 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 later in this document under ``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 and are only recently proposed. 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 existing conservation efforts and plans in the listed
ESUs 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) of the ESA to tailor the
protective regulations based on the contents of available conservation
measures. NMFS has already adopted 4(d) rules that except a limited
range of activities from section 9 take prohibitions. For example, the
interim 4(d) rule for Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon
(62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997) excepts habitat restoration activities
conducted in accordance with approved plans and fisheries conducted in
accordance with an approved state management plan. In appropriate
cases, 4(d) rules could contain limited take prohibitions applicable to
such activities as forestry, agriculture, and road construction when
such activities are conducted in accordance with NMFS approved state or
tribal conservation plans.
These examples show that NMFS may apply modified ESA section 9
prohibitions where NMFS approved state or tribal conservation plans
exist. 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 conservation plans in place to protect
them.
Issue 5: Steelhead Biology and Ecology
Comment: Several commenters 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
[[Page 14520]]
populations may ameliorate risks facing anadromous populations within
listed ESUs.
Response: In its August 9, 1996, proposed rule (61 FR 41541), NMFS
stated that based on available genetic information, it was the
consensus of NMFS scientists, as well as regional fishery biologists,
that resident fish should generally be considered part of the steelhead
ESUs. However, NMFS concluded that available data were inconclusive
regarding the relationship of resident rainbow trout and steelhead.
NMFS requested additional data in the proposed rule to clarify this
relationship and determine if resident rainbow trout should be included
in listed steelhead ESUs.
In response to this request for additional information, many groups
and individuals expressed opinions regarding this issue. In most cases
these opinions were not supported by new information that resolves
existing uncertainty. Two state fishery management agencies (Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife(ODFW)) provided comments and information supporting the
inclusion of resident rainbow trout in listed steelhead ESUs. In
general, these parties also felt that rainbow trout may serve as an
important reservoir of genetic material for at-risk steelhead stocks.
While conclusive evidence does not yet exist regarding the
relationship of resident and anadromous O. mykiss, NMFS believes
available evidence suggests that resident rainbow trout should be
included in listed steelhead ESUs in certain cases. Such cases include
(1) where resident O. mykiss have the opportunity to interbreed with
anadromous fish below natural or man-made barriers, or (2) where
resident fish of native lineage once had the ability to interbreed with
anadromous fish but no longer do because they are currently above
human-made barriers, and they are considered essential for recovery of
the ESU. Whether resident fish that exist above any particular man-made
barrier meet these criteria must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by
NMFS. 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. 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,
the presence of resident populations is not a substitute for
conservation of anadromous populations. A particular concern is
isolation of resident populations by human-caused barriers to
migration. This interrupts normal population dynamics and population
genetic processes and can lead to loss of a genetically based trait
(anadromy). As discussed in NMFS' ``species identification'' paper
(Waples, 1991), the potential loss of anadromy in distinct population
segments may, in and of itself, warrant listing the 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 of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife'' (DPS) 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, FWS, which has ESA
authority for resident fish, maintains that behavioral forms can be
regarded as separate DPSs (e.g., as when the agency listed coastal, but
not interior, populations of the western snowy plover).
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. The FWS
believes that steelhead recovery will not rely on the intermittent
exchange of genetic material between resident and anadromous forms
(FWS, 1997). As a result, without a clear demonstration of any risks to
resident rainbow trout or the need to protect rainbow trout to recover
steelhead in the foreseeable future, the FWS concludes that only the
anadromous forms of O. mykiss should be included in the listed
steelhead ESUs at this time (Department of the Interior, 1997; FWS,
1997).
Comment: Several commenters 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 steelhead) to be important components of diversity within the
species, new genetic data reinforces previous conclusions that within a
geographic area, summer and winter steelhead typically are more
genetically similar to one another than either is to populations with
similar run timing in different geographic areas. This indicates that
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 steelhead populations in separate ESUs would be to have a
very large number of ESUs, most consisting of just one or a very few
populations. This would be inconsistent with the approach NMFS has
taken in defining ESUs in other anadromous Pacific salmonids. Taking
these factors into consideration, NMFS concludes that summer and winter
steelhead should be considered part of the same ESU in geographic areas
where they co-occur.
Summary of Steelhead ESU Determinations
The following is a summary of NMFS' ESU determinations for the
species. A more detailed discussion of ESU determinations is presented
in the
[[Page 14521]]
``Status Review Update for Deferred and Candidate ESUs of West Coast
Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1997a) and ``Updated Review of the Status of the
Upper Willamette River and Middle Columbia River ESUs of Steelhead''
(NMFS, 1999a). Copies of these documents are available upon request
(see ADDRESSES).
NMFS also evaluated the relationship between hatchery and natural
populations of steelhead in these ESUs (NMFS, 1999b). In examining this
relationship, NMFS scientists consulted with hatchery managers to
determine whether any hatchery populations are similar enough to
native, naturally spawned fish to be considered part of the biological
ESU.
(1) Upper Willamette River ESU
This steelhead ESU occupies the Willamette River and its
tributaries, upstream from Willamette Falls to the Calapooia River,
inclusive. This is a revision of the proposed ESU boundary in that NMFS
now refines the range of this ESU to exclude rivers upstream of the
Calapooia River.
The Willamette River Basin is zoogeographically complex. In
addition to its connection to the Columbia River, the Willamette River
historically has had connections with coastal basins through stream
capture and headwater transfer events (Minckley et al., 1986).
Steelhead from the upper Willamette River are genetically distinct
from those in the lower river. Reproductive isolation from lower river
populations may have been facilitated by Willamette Falls, which is
known to be a migration barrier to some anadromous salmonids. For
example, winter steelhead and spring chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha)
occurred historically above the falls, but summer steelhead, fall
chinook salmon, and coho salmon did not (PGE, 1994).
The native steelhead of this basin are late-migrating winter
steelhead, entering fresh water primarily in March and April (Howell et
al., 1985), whereas most other populations of west coast winter
steelhead enter fresh water beginning in November or December. As early
as 1885, fish ladders were constructed at Willamette Falls to aid the
passage of anadromous fish. The ladders have been modified and rebuilt,
most recently in 1971, as technology has improved (Bennett, 1987; PGE,
1994). These fishways facilitated successful introduction of Skamania
stock summer steelhead and early-migrating Big Creek stock winter
steelhead to the upper basin. Another effort to expand the steelhead
production in the upper Willamette River was the stocking of native
steelhead in tributaries not historically used by that species. Native
steelhead primarily used tributaries on the east side of the basin,
with cutthroat trout predominating in streams draining the west side of
the basin.
Resident O. mykiss are known to occupy the Upper Willamette River
Basin; however, most of these populations occur above natural and
manmade barriers (Kostow, 1995). Historically, spawning by Upper
Willamette River steelhead was concentrated in the North and Middle
Santiam River Basins (Fulton, 1970). These areas are now largely
blocked to fish passage by dams, and steelhead spawning is now
distributed throughout more of the Upper Willamette River Basin than in
the past (Fulton, 1970). Due to introductions of non-native steelhead
stocks and transplantation of native stocks within the basin, it is
difficult to formulate a clear picture of the present distribution of
native Upper Willamette River steelhead, and their relationship to
nonanadromous and possibly residualized O. mykiss within the basin.
Substantive comments from ODFW on this ESU addressed the boundaries
of the ESU and the relationship between the native steelhead of the
middle basin and the resident trout of the upper basin (i.e., McKenzie
and Middle Fork Willamette Rivers) (Greer, 1998). Additionally, NMFS
was able to evaluate new genetic information pertinent to this ESU.
Recently developed resident trout genetic data from the McKenzie
and Middle Fork Willamette River Basins showed no genetic continuity
with known hatchery trout (Cape Cod stock) or any Willamette River
steelhead population. Additionally, ODFW has been unable to achieve
success in their attempts to establish steelhead populations in these
subbasins. These factors combine to give credence to the theory that,
for some unidentified reason, the upper reaches of the Willamette River
Basin are not suitable to support steelhead populations, although
resident trout and chinook salmon have been successful there.
NMFS reviewed the steelhead distribution described by Fulton
(1970); however, aside from this, little new information was added to
that presented by Busby et al. (1996). NMFS concludes that this ESU was
comprised of the native late-run winter steelhead and that the historic
distribution of the ESU did not extend upstream of the Calapooia River.
NMFS also concludes that steelhead had some historic distribution in
westside tributaries to the Willamette River (e.g., Gales Creek in the
Tualatin River Basin) but that current distribution of winter-run
steelhead in westside tributaries is somewhat unclear. Based on limited
genetic analysis, the recent samples from westside tributaries do not
appear to reflect populations derived from this ESU (NMFS, 1999a).
However, information provided by the State of Oregon indicates that
winter-run steelhead may in fact presently occur in several westside
tributaries (Kostow, 1995; NMFS, 1999a).
Based on the best available scientific information, NMFS concludes
that westside tributaries to the Willamette River warrant inclusion in
this ESU at this time, although some uncertainty remains regarding this
conclusion. While westside tributaries are included in the ESU, it is
important to note that the listed ESU consists of naturally spawned,
winter-run steelhead. Where distinguishable, naturally spawned, summer-
run steelhead are not included in the listed ESU.
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to the ESU
NMFS identified three hatchery stocks associated with the Upper
Willamette River ESU (NMFS, 1999b). After reviewing the best available
information regarding the relationship between hatchery and natural
populations in this ESU, NMFS concludes that the North Santiam River
(ODFW Stock 21) hatchery stock should be considered part of the ESU.
However, the Big Creek (ODFW Stock 13) and Skamania/Foster/McKenzie
ODFW stocks are not considered part of the ESU. The listing status of
these hatchery stocks is described later in this document under
``Status of Steelhead ESUs.''
(2) Middle Columbia River ESU
This inland steelhead ESU occupies the Columbia River Basin and
tributaries from above the Wind River in Washington and the Hood River
in Oregon (exclusive), upstream to, and including, the Yakima River, in
Washington. Steelhead of the Snake River Basin are excluded. Franklin
and Dyrness (1973) placed the Yakima River Basin in the Columbia Basin
Physiographic Province, along with the Deschutes, John Day, Walla
Walla, and lower Snake River Basins. Geology within this province is
dominated by the Columbia River Basalt formation, stemming from lava
deposition in the Miocene epoch, overlain by plio-Pleistocene deposits
of glaciolacustrine origin (Franklin & Dyrness, 1973). This
intermontane region includes some of the driest areas of the Pacific
Northwest, generally receiving less than 40 centimeters of rainfall
annually (Jackson, 1993). Vegetation is of the
[[Page 14522]]
shrub-steppe province, reflecting the dry climate and harsh temperature
extremes.
Genetic differences between inland and coastal steelhead are well
established, although some uncertainty remains about the exact
geographic boundaries of the two forms in the Columbia River.
Electrophoretic and meristic data show consistent differences between
several middle Columbia River steelhead populations and Snake River
steelhead. No recent genetic data exist for natural steelhead
populations in the upper Columbia River, but recent WDFW data show that
the Wells Hatchery stock from the upper Columbia River does not have a
close genetic affinity to sampled populations from the middle Columbia
River.
All steelhead in the Columbia River Basin upstream from The Dalles
Dam are summer-run, inland steelhead (Schreck et al., 1986;
Reisenbichler et al., 1992; and Chapman et al., 1994). Steelhead in
Fifteenmile Creek, Oregon, are genetically allied with inland O.
mykiss, but are winter-run. Winter steelhead are also found in the
Klickitat and White Salmon Rivers, Washington.
Life history information for steelhead of this ESU indicates that
most middle Columbia River steelhead smolt at 2 years and spend 1 to 2
years in salt water (i.e., 1-ocean and 2-ocean fish, respectively)
prior to re-entering fresh water, where they may remain up to a year
prior to spawning (Howell et al., 1985; BPA, 1992). Within this ESU,
the Klickitat River is unusual in that it produces both summer and
winter steelhead, and the summer steelhead are dominated by 2-ocean
steelhead, whereas most other rivers in this region produce about equal
numbers of both 1- and 2-ocean steelhead.
The proposed listing of the Middle Columbia River ESU generated
substantive comments from ODFW (Greer, 1998) and the Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO) (Calica,
1998). These comments, while summarized here, are discussed in detail
in the status review update (NMFS, 1999a).
NMFS previously concluded that native, resident O. mykiss
populations that have the opportunity to interbreed with anadromous O.
mykiss should be included in the steelhead ESUs (Busby et al., 1996).
While ODFW and CTWSRO presented anecdotal accounts of spawning
interactions between resident trout and steelhead in the Deschutes
River (i.e., Zimmerman and Reeves, 1996; 1997; and 1998), such studies
did not provide much evidence of this. NMFS concludes that, given the
opportunity for reproductive interaction, co-occurring resident trout
are included within this steelhead ESU.
In its comments, ODFW recommended that NMFS realign the proposed
ESU to exclude winter steelhead from it; however, this recommendation
is not supported by any new scientific data. Currently available data
indicate that these are inland steelhead populations. An intensive
genetic survey of these steelhead populations might provide useful
information to further clarify the relationship between coastal and
inland steelhead. NMFS concludes that no change in the ESU boundaries
are warranted based solely on the presence of a winter-run life
history.
Recently obtained genetic data raises some question about the
boundaries of the Middle Columbia River ESU. However, NMFS concludes
that this new information is too uncertain at this stage to warrant
revising the proposed ESU boundaries. NMFS will revise these boundaries
in the future when additional data support such a revision.
Hatchery Populations Pertaining to the ESU
NMFS identified two hatchery stocks associated with the Middle
Columbia River ESU (NMFS, 1999b). After reviewing the best available
information regarding the relationship between hatchery and natural
populations in this ESU, NMFS concludes that both the Deschutes River
(ODFW Stock 66) and Umatilla River (ODFW Stock 91) hatchery stocks
should be considered part of the ESU. The listing status of these
hatchery stocks is described later in this document under ``Status of
Steelhead ESUs.''
Summary of Factors Affecting Steelhead
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS listing regulations (50 CFR
part 424) set forth procedures for listing species. The Secretary of
Commerce must determine, through the regulatory process, if a species
is endangered or threatened based upon any one or a combination of the
following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made
factors affecting its continued existence.
Several recent documents describe in more detail the impacts of
various factors contributing to the decline of steelhead and other
salmonids (e.g., 63 FR 11798; NMFS, 1999a). Relative to west coast
steelhead, NMFS prepared a supporting document that addresses the
factors leading to the decline of this species entitled ``Factors for
Decline: A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast
Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1996b). This report, available upon request (see
ADDRESSES), concludes that all of the factors identified in section
4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a role in the decline of the species.
The report identifies destruction and modification of habitat,
overutilization for recreational purposes, and natural and human-made
factors as being the primary reasons for the decline of west coast
steelhead.
Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Steelhead
Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is
required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available and after taking into account
efforts being made to protect a species. During the status review for
west coast steelhead and for other salmonids, NMFS reviewed protective
efforts ranging in scope from regional strategies to local watershed
initiatives; some of the major efforts are summarized in the March 10,
1998 proposed rule (63 FR 11798) as well as 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 proposed rule period, NMFS identified
additional conservation measures in the States of Washington and
Oregon. These additional conservation measures are summarized here.
Two Federal planning efforts affect aquatic habitat on Federal
lands within the range of these ESUs. These Federal efforts in some
cases provide substantial protection for aquatic communities and are
therefore considered in NMFS' listing determination. Federal forest
lands in the Upper Willamette River ESU (and some areas of the Middle
Columbia River ESU) are managed under U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land and Resource Management Plans or
Land Use Plans which are amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP).
The NFP is a Federal interagency cooperative program that was
implemented to provide a coordinated management direction for the lands
administered by the USFS and BLM. A major part of the Plan,
implementation of an Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) on Federal
land, is expected to reverse the trend of aquatic ecosystem degradation
and contribute toward fish habitat recovery. Coordination among
[[Page 14523]]
the Federal land management agencies, NMFS, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the FWS should ensure that the ACS
objectives are achieved.
Prior to implementing the Record of Decision for the President's
Forest Plan, little or no riparian protection was afforded for the fish
and their habitat. One of the most important substantive protective
measures implemented through the Plan are riparian reserves. These are
buffered strips of land that, depending on stream class and type of
watershed, range from 300 ft (91m) on perennial streams to 50 ft (15 m)
on ephemeral streams.
Some Federal lands in the Middle Columbia River ESU are managed
under USFS and BLM Land and Resource Management Plans or Land Use Plans
which are amended by PACFISH. PACFISH provides objectives, standards
and guidelines that are applied to all Federal land management
activities such as timber harvest, road construction, mining, grazing
and recreation. The USFS and BLM implemented PACFISH in 1995 and
intended it to provide interim protection to anadromous fish habitat
while a longer term, basin scale aquatic conservation strategy was
developed in the Interior Columbia Basin, Ecosystem Managment Project
(ICBEMP). It is intended that ICBEMP will have a Final Environmental
Impact Statement and Record of Decision by early 2000.
For other ESUs already listed in the Interior Columbia Basin (Snake
River chinook, Snake River steelhead, and Upper Columbia River
steelhead), NMFS has required in section 7 consultation, several
components that are in addition to the PACFISH strategy (NMFS 1995;
NMFS 1998). NMFS, USFS, and BLM intend these additional components to
bridge the gap between interim PACFISH direction and the longterm
strategy envisioned for ICBEMP. NMFS anticipates that these components
will also be carried forward in the ICBEMP direction. These components
include (but are not limited to) implementation monitoring and
accountability, a system of watersheds that are prioritized for
protection and restoration, improved and monitored grazing systems,
road system evaluation and planning requirements, mapping and analysis
of unroaded areas, multi-year restoration strategies, and batching and
analyzing projects at the watershed scale. Given the timeframe for
ICBEMP, NMFS will likely conduct similar additional section 7
consultations for the Land and Resource Management plans within the
Middle Columbia River ESU and will then consult on ICBEMP when it is
complete.
In the range of both the Middle Columbia River and Upper Willamette
River ESUs, several notable efforts have recently been initiated.
Harvest, hatchery, and habitat protections under state control are
evolving under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW). The
OPSW is a long-term effort to protect all at-risk wild salmonids
through cooperation between state, local and Federal agencies, tribal
governments, industry, private organizations, and individuals. Parts of
the OPSW are already providing benefits, including an aggressive
program by the Oregon Department of Transportation to inventory,
repair, and replace road culverts that block fish from reaching
important spawning and rearing areas. The OPSW also encourages efforts
to improve conditions for salmon through non-regulatory means,
including significant efforts by local watershed councils. An
Independent Multi-disciplinary Science Team provides scientific
oversight to OPSW components and outcomes. A recent Executive Order
from Governor Kitzhaber reinforced his expectation that all state
agencies will make improved environmental health and salmon recovery
part of their mission.
Protecting and restoring fish and wildlife habitat and population
levels in the Willamette River Basin, promoting proper floodplain
management, and enhancing water quality is the focus of the recently
formed Willamette Restoration Initiative (WRI). The WRI creates a
mechanism through which residents of the basin are mounting a
concerted, collaborative effort to restore watershed health. In
addition, habitat protection and improved water quality in the
Portland/Vancouver metropolitan areas are getting unprecedented
attention from local jurisdictions. The regional government, Metro,
recently adopted an aggressive stream and floodplain protection
ordinance designed to protect functions and values of floodplains, and
natural stream and adjacent vegetated corridors. All jurisdictions in
the region must amend their land use plans and implementing ordinances
to comply with the Metro ordinance within 18 months. Metro also has a
green spaces acquisition program that addresses regional biodiversity,
and is giving protection to significant amounts of land, some of it on
the Sandy River or on tributaries to the Willamette River. The City of
Portland has identified those activities which impact salmonids and is
now using that information to reduce impacts of existing programs and
to identify potential enhancement actions. The City will shortly be
making significant improvements in its storm water management program,
a key to reducing impacts on salmonid habitat.
In the lower Columbia River, salmonid populations were seriously
depleted long before increasing predator populations posed any
significant threat to their long-term survival. Various development and
management actions have interrupted the natural balance between
predator and prey populations, and this situation now poses a risk to
struggling salmonid populations. For example, steps have already been
taken this year by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), FWS, ODFW,
and NMFS to relocate at least 90 percent of a Caspian tern colony away
from areas in the lower Columbia where their primary food is juvenile
salmonids.
The State of Washington is currently in the process of developing a
statewide strategy to protect and restore wild steelhead and other
salmon and trout species. In May of 1997, Governor Gary Locke and other
state officials signed a Memorandum of Agreement creating the Joint
Natural Resources Cabinet (Joint Cabinet). This body is comprised of
state agency directors or their equivalents from a wide variety of
agencies whose activities and constituents influence Washington's
natural resources. The goal of the Joint Cabinet is to restore 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.
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 help to 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.
NMFS and FWS are also engaged in an ongoing effort to assist in the
development of multiple species Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) for
state and privately owned lands in Oregon and Washington. While section
7 of the ESA addresses species protection associated
[[Page 14524]]
with Federal actions and lands, Habitat Conservation Planning under
section 10 of the ESA addresses species protection on private (non-
Federal) lands. HCPs are particularly important since significant
portions of habitat in the range of both steelhead ESUs is in non-
Federal ownership. The intent of the HCP process is to ensure that any
incidental taking of listed species will not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival of the species, reduce conflicts between listed
species and economic development activities, and to provide a framework
that would encourage ``creative partnerships'' between the public and
private sectors and state, municipal, and Federal agencies in the
interests of endangered and threatened species and habitat
conservation.
NMFS will continue to evaluate state, tribal, and non-Federal
efforts to develop and implement measures to protect and begin the
recovery of steelhead populations within these ESUs. Because a
substantial portion of land in these ESUs is in state or private
ownership, conservation measures on these lands will be key to
protecting and recovering steelhead populations in these ESUs. NMFS
recognizes that strong conservation benefits will accrue from specific
components of many non-Federal conservation efforts.
While NMFS acknowledges that many of the ongoing protective efforts
are likely to promote the conservation of steelhead and other
salmonids, some are very recent and few address steelhead conservation
at a scale that is adequate to protect and conserve entire ESUs. NMFS
concludes that existing protective efforts are inadequate to preclude a
listing for these ESUs. However, NMFS will continue to encourage these
and future protective efforts and will work with Federal, state, and
tribal fisheries managers to evaluate, promote, and improve efforts to
conserve steelhead populations.
Status of Steelhead ESUs
Section 3 of the ESA defines the term ``endangered species'' as
``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' The term ``threatened species'' is
defined as ``any species which is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.'' Thompson (1991) suggested that conventional
rules of thumb, analytical approaches, and simulations may all be
useful in making this determination. In previous status reviews (e.g.,
Weitkamp et al., 1995), NMFS has identified a number of factors that
should be considered in evaluating the level of risk faced by an ESU,
including: (1) absolute numbers of fish and their spatial and temporal
distribution; (2) current abundance in relation to historical abundance
and current carrying capacity of the habitat; (3) trends in abundance;
(4) natural and human-influenced factors that cause variability in
survival and abundance; (5) possible threats to genetic integrity
(e.g., from strays or outplants from hatchery programs); and (6) recent
events (e.g., a drought or changes in harvest management) that have
predictable short-term consequences for abundance of the ESU.
During the coastwide status review for steelhead, NMFS evaluated
both quantitative and qualitative information to determine whether any
proposed ESU is threatened or endangered according to the ESA. The
types of information used in these assessments are described in the
proposed rule, published August 9, 1996 (61 FR 41541). The assessments
also considered whether any of the hatchery populations identified in
``Summary of Steelhead ESU Determinations'' should be considered
essential for the recovery of a listed ESU. 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 ``Status Review Update for Deferred and Candidate ESUs of West
Coast Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1997a) and ``Updated Review of the Status of
the Upper Willamette River and Middle Columbia River ESUs of
Steelhead'' (NMFS, 1999a). Copies of these documents are available upon
request (see ADDRESSES).
(1) Upper Willamette River ESU
Steelhead in the Upper Willamette River ESU are distributed in a
few, relatively small, natural populations. Over the past several
decades, total abundance of natural late-migrating winter steelhead
ascending the Willamette Falls fish ladder has fluctuated several times
over a range of approximately 5,000 to 20,000 spawners. However, the
last peak occurred in 1988, and this peak has been followed by a steep
and continuing decline. Abundance in each of the last 5 years has been
below 4,300 fish, and the run in 1995 was the lowest in 30 years.
Declines also have been observed in almost all natural populations,
including those with and without a substantial component of naturally
spawning hatchery fish. NMFS notes with concern the results from ODFW's
extinction assessment, which estimates that the Molalla River
population had a greater than 20 percent extinction probability in the
next 60 years, and that the upper South Santiam River population had a
greater than 5 percent extinction risk within the next 100 years
(Chilcote, 1997).
Steelhead native to the Upper Willamette River ESU are late-run
winter steelhead, but introduced hatchery stocks of summer and early-
run winter steelhead also occur in the upper Willamette River.
Estimates of the proportion of hatchery fish in natural spawning
escapements range from 5 to 25 percent. NMFS is concerned about the
potential risks associated with interactions between non-native summer
and wild winter steelhead, whose spawning areas are sympatric in some
rivers (especially in the Molalla and North and South Santiam Rivers).
The percentage of hatchery fish in natural spawning escapements is
considered relatively low in most rivers in the Upper Willamette River
Basin. Declines in winter steelhead runs, regardless of degree of
hatchery influence, suggest that causes other than artificial
propagation are primarily responsible for reduced abundances.
NMFS remains concerned about the lack of historical abundance
estimates for winter steelhead in the Upper Willamette River ESU. It
may be possible that population sizes were never large above Willamette
Falls, and that the winter steelhead in this ESU are capable of
persisting at relatively low abundance. Although not as extreme as is
the case for spring chinook salmon, the proportion and total amount of
historical steelhead spawning habitat that has been blocked by dams and
water diversions is high in the Upper Willamette River ESU. It is
possible that several consecutive years of poor ocean conditions and
recent harvest pressure in the lower Columbia River have pushed the
winter steelhead populations in the Upper Willamette River drainage to
the limit of their resiliency.
Listing Determination
Based on new information submitted by ODFW and others, NMFS
concludes Upper Willamette River steelhead warrant listing as a
threatened species. NMFS is concerned about the universally declining
trends in abundance in the relatively small-to-moderate sized runs of
winter steelhead in this ESU. Recent abundance trends indicate
naturally spawned steelhead have declined to historically low levels in
areas above Willamette Falls. This
[[Page 14525]]
low abundance, coupled with potential risks associated with
interactions between naturally spawned steelhead and hatchery stocks is
of great concern to NMFS.
Recent conservation planning efforts by the State of Oregon may
reduce risks faced by steelhead in this ESU in the future; however,
these efforts are still in their formative stages. Specifically, the
OPSW, while substantially implemented and funded on the Oregon Coast,
has not yet reached a similar level of development in inland areas.
Furthermore, while the NFP has reduced habitat degradation on Federal
lands within this ESU, less than 20 percent of land areas in this
region are under Federal ownership and hence covered by this management
plan.
Status of Hatchery Populations
NMFS concludes that none of the hatchery steelhead stocks
identified as part of this ESU (see ``Summary of Steelhead ESU
Determinations'') should be listed since they are not currently
essential for its recovery (NMFS, 1999b).
(2) Middle Columbia River Basin ESU
Current population sizes are substantially lower than historic
levels, especially in the rivers with the largest steelhead runs in the
ESU: the John Day, Deschutes, and Yakima Rivers. At least two
extinctions of native steelhead runs in the ESU have occurred (the
Crooked and Metolius Rivers, both in the Deschutes River Basin). Trends
in natural escapement in the Yakima and Umatilla Rivers have been
highly variable since the mid-late 1970s, ranging from abundances that
indicate relatively healthy runs to those that are cause for concern
(i.e., from 2,000 to 3,000 steelhead during peaks to approximately 500
fish during the low points).
One of the most significant sources of risk to steelhead in the
Middle Columbia ESU is the recent and dramatic increase in the
percentage of hatchery fish in natural escapement in the Deschutes
River Basin. ODFW estimates that in recent years, the percentage of
hatchery strays in the Deschutes River has exceeded 70 percent, and
most of these are believed to be long-distance strays from outside the
ESU. Coincident with this increase in the percentage of strays has been
a decline in the abundance of native steelhead in the Deschutes River.
In combination with the trends in hatchery fish in the Deschutes River,
estimates of increased proportions of hatchery fish in the John Day and
Umatilla River Basins pose a risk to wild steelhead due to negative
effects of genetic and ecological interactions with hatchery fish. For
example, in recent years, most of the fish planted in the Touchet River
are from out of ESU stocks. As a result, a recent analysis of this
stock by WDFW found that it was most similar genetically to Wells
Hatchery steelhead from the Upper Columbia River ESU.
NMFS remains concerned about the widespread declines in abundance
in the steelhead populations in this ESU. The serious declines in
abundance in the John Day River Basin are especially troublesome,
because the John Day River has supported the largest populations of
naturally spawning summer steelhead in the ESU. Populations in the
Yakima River Basin are at a small fraction of historical levels, with
the majority of production coming from a single stream (Satus Creek).
The number of naturally spawning fish in the Umatilla River has been
relatively stable in recent years, but this has been accomplished with
substantial supplementation of natural spawning by hatchery-reared
fish. Naturally produced steelhead have declined precipitously in the
Deschutes River over the past decade. The most optimistic observation
that can be made for steelhead in this area is that some populations
have shown resiliency to bounce back from even more depressed levels in
the past (e.g., the late 1970s).
The continued increase of stray steelhead into the Deschutes River
Basin is also a major source of concern to NMFS. ODFW and CTWSRO
estimate that 60 to 80 percent of the naturally spawning population is
composed of strays, which greatly outnumber naturally produced fish.
Although the level of reproductive success of these stray fish has not
been evaluated, the levels are so high that major genetic and
ecological effects on natural populations are possible. Recent efforts
underway by the CTWSRO and ODFW to determine the origin of strays and
the proportion of strays that are spawning naturally in the Deschutes
River may prove useful in focusing management efforts to address this
serious issue.
ODFW argues that resident fish in the Deschutes River play a more
substantial role in overall population dynamics and abundance of O.
mykiss than is the case in other streams within this ESU or in most
other steelhead ESUs. Further, they argue that the resident populations
in the Deschutes River are robust and provide a substantial buffer
against extinction. Evaluating the role of resident fish in extinction
risk analysis for steelhead ESUs is very complex. Comprehensive
abundance information for resident fish is not available, but if the
data presented by ODFW for Nena Creek/North Junction are
representative, the overall abundance of resident fish in the Deschutes
River may be fairly high. Some spawning between resident and anadromous
fish has been observed, but there appears to be substantial
microhabitat partitioning of reproduction between the forms based on
size, timing, and location. Available information is limited, but it
does not provide evidence that resident fish contribute significantly
to anadromous returns. A tentative conclusion is that, within the
Deschutes River Basin, the two forms are closely linked over
evolutionary time frames, but the ability of the resident form to
substantially affect demographic/genetic processes in steelhead
populations in the short term is doubtful. To the extent that the
resident form has been producing steelhead offspring in this ESU, the
effect of that production has not been sufficient to stave off
continued declines in steelhead populations. Furthermore, if there is
substantial and continuing gene flow between resident and anadromous
forms, that would suggest that the high stray rates of non-native
hatchery steelhead also pose a genetic risk to resident fish in the
Deschutes River. Not enough information currently exists to determine
whether the relative abundances of the two life history forms should be
viewed positively (e.g., the relatively high abundance of the resident
form in those streams can act to buffer the anadromous form from
declines) or negatively (e.g., the resident form is outcompeting or
interbreeding with the anadromous form) in risk evaluations.
Listing Determination
NMFS concludes the Middle Columbia ESU warrants listing as a
threatened species. Continued declines in steelhead abundance and
increases in the percentage of hatchery fish in natural escapements
pose significant threats to this ESU.
Recent conservation planning efforts by the States of Washington
and Oregon may reduce risks faced by steelhead in this ESU in the
future; however, these efforts are still in their formative stages.
Federal management efforts, including the NFP, PACFISH, and forthcoming
ICEBMP, address important habitat-related risk factors for this ESU.
However, only about 24 percent of the land area within this ESU is
under Federal management and subject to these management efforts.
Status of Hatchery Populations
NMFS concludes that none of the hatchery steelhead stocks
identified as part of this ESU (see ``Summary of Steelhead ESU
Determinations'') should
[[Page 14526]]
be listed since they are not currently essential for its recovery
(NMFS, 1999b).
Determinations
Based on new information and comments received during the proposed
rule, NMFS concludes that Upper Willamette River steelhead and Middle
Columbia River steelhead warrant listing as threatened species under
the ESA. The geographic boundaries (i.e., the watersheds within which
the members of the ESU spend their freshwater residence) for these ESUs
are described under ``Summary of Steelhead ESU Determinations.''
In both threatened steelhead ESUs, NMFS is listing only naturally
spawned populations residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g.,
long-standing, natural waterfalls). NMFS' intent in listing only
``naturally spawned'' populations is to protect steelhead stocks that
are indigenous to (i.e., part of) the ESU. In this listing
determination, NMFS has identified various non-indigenous populations
that co-occur with fish in the listed ESUs. The agency recognizes the
difficulty of differentiating between indigenous and non-indigenous
fish, especially when the latter are not readily distinguishable with a
mark (e.g., fin clip). Also, matings in the wild of either type would
generally result in progeny that would be treated as listed fish (i.e.,
they would have been naturally spawned in the geographic range of the
listed ESU and have no distinguishing mark). Therefore, to reduce
confusion regarding which steelhead are considered listed within an
ESU, NMFS will treat all naturally spawned fish as listed for purposes
of the ESA. Efforts to determine the conservation status of an ESU
would focus on the contribution of indigenous fish to the listed ESU.
It should be noted that NMFS will take actions necessary to minimize or
prevent non-indigenous steelhead from spawning in the wild unless the
fish are specifically part of a recovery effort.
NMFS has also evaluated the relationship between hatchery and
natural populations of steelhead in the listed ESUs (described
previously in ``Summary of Steelhead ESU Determinations'' and ``Status
of Steelhead ESUs''). None of the hatchery populations are being listed
because, while some are considered part of the ESUs, none are deemed
essential for the recovery of either ESU (NMFS, 1999b).
The determination that a hatchery stock is not ``essential'' for
recovery does not preclude it from playing a role in recovery. Any
hatchery population that is part of the ESU is available for use in
recovery if conditions warrant. In this context, an ``essential''
hatchery population is one that is vital to incorporate into recovery
efforts (for example, if the associated natural population(s) were
extinct or at high risk of extinction). Under such circumstances, NMFS
would consider taking the administrative action of listing existing
hatchery fish.
NMFS' ``Interim Policy on Artificial Propagation of Pacific Salmon
Under the Endangered Species Act'' (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993)
provides guidance on the treatment of hatchery stocks in the event of a
listing. Under this policy, ``progeny of fish from the listed species
that are propagated artificially are considered part of the listed
species and are protected under the ESA.'' In the case of hatchery
steelhead populations considered to be part of the Upper Willamette
River ESU or Middle Columbia River ESU, the protective regulations that
NMFS will issue shortly may except take of naturally spawned listed
fish for use as broodstock as part of an overall conservation program.
According to the interim policy, the progeny of these hatchery-wild or
wild-wild crosses would also be listed. Given the requirement for an
acceptable conservation plan as a prerequisite for collecting
broodstock, NMFS determines that it is not necessary to consider the
progeny of intentional hatchery-wild or wild-wild crosses as listed.
In addition, NMFS believes it is desirable to incorporate naturally
spawned fish into these hatchery populations to ensure that their
genetic and life history characteristics do not diverge significantly
from the natural populations. NMFS therefore concludes that it is not
inconsistent with NMFS' interim policy, nor with the policy and
purposes of the ESA, to consider these progeny as part of the ESU but
not listed.
At this time, NMFS is listing only anadromous life forms of O.
mykiss.
Prohibitions and Protective Measures
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or
indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all
individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 9 prohibitions apply automatically to endangered species, as
described in the following discussion, this is not the case for
threatened species.
Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary of Commerce to
implement regulations ``to provide for the conservation of [threatened]
species,'' that may include extending any or all of the prohibitions of
section 9 to threatened species. Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits
violations of protective regulations for threatened species implemented
under section 4(d). NMFS will issue shortly protective regulations
pursuant to section 4(d) for the listed ESUs.
Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult
with NMFS on any actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a species proposed for listing and on actions likely to result in
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
For listed species, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure
that activities they authorize, fund, or conduct are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must enter into consultation with NMFS.
Examples of Federal actions likely to affect steelhead in the
listed ESUs include authorized land management activities of the USFS
and BLM, as well as operation of hydroelectric and storage projects of
the Bureau of Reclamation and COE. Such activities include timber sales
and harvest, hydroelectric power generation, and flood control. Federal
actions, including the COE section 404 permitting activities under the
Clean Water Act, COE permitting activities under the River and Harbors
Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits issued by
EPA, highway projects authorized by the Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses for nonfederal
development and operation of hydropower, and Federal salmon hatcheries,
may also require consultation. These actions will likely be subject to
ESA section 7 consultation requirements that may result in conditions
designed to achieve the intended purpose of the project and avoid or
reduce impacts to steelhead and its habitat within the range of the
listed ESUs. It is important to note that the current listing applies
only to the anadromous form of O. mykiss; therefore, section 7
consultations will not address resident forms of O. mykiss at this
time.
There are likely to be Federal actions ongoing in the range of the
listed ESUs at the time these listings become effective. Therefore,
NMFS will review all ongoing actions that may affect the listed species
with Federal agencies and will complete formal or informal
consultations, where requested or necessary, for such actions pursuant
to ESA section 7(a)(2).
[[Page 14527]]
Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide NMFS with
authority to grant exceptions to the ESA's ``taking'' prohibitions.
Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and enhancement permits may be
issued to entities (Federal and non-Federal) conducting research that
involves a directed take of listed species.
NMFS has issued ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) research or enhancement
permits for other listed species (e.g., Snake River chinook salmon and
Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon) for a number of activities,
including trapping and tagging, electroshocking to determine population
presence and abundance, removal of fish from irrigation ditches, and
collection of adult fish for artificial propagation programs. NMFS is
aware of several sampling efforts for steelhead in the listed ESUs,
including efforts by Federal and state fishery management agencies.
These and other research efforts could provide critical information
regarding steelhead distribution and population abundance.
ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued to
non-Federal entities performing activities that may incidentally take
listed species. The types of activities potentially requiring a section
10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit include the release of artificially
propagated fish by state or privately operated and funded hatcheries,
state or university research on species other than steelhead, not
receiving Federal authorization or funding, the implementation of state
fishing regulations, and timber harvest activities on nonfederal lands.
Take Guidance
On July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272) NMFS and FWS published a policy
committing the agencies to identify, to the maximum extent practicable
at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would
not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on
proposed and on-going activities within the species' range. NMFS
believes that, based on the best available information, the following
actions will not result in a violation of section 9: (1) Possession of
steelhead from the listed ESUs acquired lawfully by permit issued by
NMFS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the terms of an
incidental take statement pursuant to section 7 of the ESA; and (2)
federally funded or approved projects that involve activities such as
silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam construction and
operation, discharge of fill material, stream channelization or
diversion for which a section 7 consultation has been completed, and
when such an activity is conducted in accordance with any terms and
conditions provided by NMFS in an incidental take statement accompanied
by a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. As described
previously in this notice, NMFS may adopt 4(d) protective regulations
that except other activities from section 9 take prohibitions for
threatened species.
Activities that NMFS believes could potentially harm, injure or
kill steelhead in the listed ESUs and result in a violation of section
9 of the ESA include, but are not limited to: (1) land-use activities
that adversely affect steelhead habitat in this ESU (e.g., logging,
grazing, farming, road construction in riparian areas, and areas
susceptible to mass wasting and surface erosion); (2) destruction or
alteration of steelhead habitat in the listed ESUs, such as removal of
large woody debris and ``sinker logs'' or riparian shade canopy,
dredging, discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, diverting,
blocking, or altering stream channels or surface or ground water flow;
(3) discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants (e.g.,
sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting listed
steelhead; (4) violation of discharge permits; (5) pesticide and
herbicide applications; (6) interstate and foreign commerce of
steelhead from the listed ESUs and import/export of steelhead from
listed ESUs without an ESA permit, unless the fish were harvested
pursuant to legal exception; (7) collecting or handling of steelhead
from listed ESUs (permits to conduct these activities are available for
purposes of scientific research or to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species); and (8) introduction of non-native species
likely to prey on steelhead in these ESUs or displace them from their
habitat. This list is not exhaustive. It is intended to provide some
examples of the types of activities that might or might not be
considered by NMFS as constituting a take of listed steelhead under the
ESA and its regulations. Questions regarding whether specific
activities will constitute a violation of this rule, and general
inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits, should be directed to
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Effective Date of Final Listing
Given the cultural, scientific, and recreational importance of this
species, and the broad geographic range of these listings, NMFS
recognizes that numerous parties may be affected by this listing.
Therefore, to permit an orderly implementation of the consultation
requirements associated with this action, this final listing will take
effect May 24, 1999.
Conservation Measures
Conservation benefits are provided to species listed as endangered
or threatened under the ESA through increased recognition, recovery
actions, Federal agency consultation requirements, and prohibitions on
taking. Increased recognition through listing promotes public awareness
and conservation actions by Federal, state, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals.
Several conservation efforts are underway that may reverse the
decline of west coast steelhead and other salmonids. NMFS is encouraged
by these significant efforts, which could provide all stakeholders with
an approach to achieving the purposes of the ESA-protecting and
restoring native fish populations and the ecosystems upon which they
depend that are less regulatory. NMFS will continue to encourage and
support these initiatives as important components of recovery planning
for steelhead and other salmonids.
To succeed, protective regulations and recovery programs for
steelhead will need to focus on conserving aquatic ecosystem health.
NMFS intends that Federal lands and Federal activities play a primary
role in preserving listed populations and the ecosystems upon which
they depend. However, throughout the range of the listed ESUs,
steelhead habitat occurs and can be affected by activities on state,
tribal or private land.
Conservation measures that could be implemented to help conserve
the species are listed here (the list is generalized and does not
constitute NMFS' interpretation of a recovery plan under section 4(f)
of the ESA). Progress on some of these is being made to differing
degrees in specific areas.
1. Measures could be taken to promote practices that are more
protective of (or restore) steelhead habitat across a variety of land
and water management activities. Activities affecting this habitat
include timber harvest; agriculture; livestock grazing and operations;
pesticide and herbicide applications; construction and urban
development; road building and maintenance; sand and gravel mining;
stream channelization; dredging and dredged spoil disposal; dock and
marina construction; diking and bank stabilization; dam construction/
operation; irrigation withdrawal,
[[Page 14528]]
storage, and management; mineral mining; wastewater/pollutant
discharge; wetland and floodplain alteration; habitat restoration
projects; and woody debris/structure removal from rivers and estuaries.
Each of these activities could be modified to ensure that watersheds
and specific river reaches are adequately protected in the short- and
long-terms.
2. Fish passage could be restored at barriers to migration through
the installation or modification of fish ladders, upgrade of culverts,
or removal of barriers.
3. Harvest regulations could be modified to protect listed
steelhead populations affected by both directed harvest and incidental
take in other fisheries.
4. Artificial propagation programs could be modified to minimize
negative impacts (e.g., genetic introgression, competition, disease,
etc.) upon native populations of steelhead.
5. Predator control/relocation programs could be implemented in
areas where predators pose a significant threat to steelhead.
6. Measures could be taken to improve monitoring of steelhead
populations and their habitat.
7. Federal agencies such as the USFS, BLM, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, COE, U.S. Department of Transportation, and U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation could review their management programs and use
their discretionary authorities to formulate conservation plans
pursuant to section 7(a)(1) of the ESA.
NMFS encourages non-Federal landowners to assess the impacts of
their actions on threatened or endangered salmonids. In particular,
NMFS encourages state and local governments to use their existing
authorities and programs, and encourages the formation of watershed
partnerships to promote conservation in accordance with ecosystem
principles. These partnerships will be successful only if state,
tribal, and local governments, landowner representatives, and Federal
and non-Federal biologists all participate and share the goal of
restoring steelhead and salmon to the watersheds.
Critical Habitat
Section 4(b)(6)(C) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent,
critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a
species unless such critical habitat is not determinable at that time.
On February 5, 1999, NMFS published a proposed critical habitat rule
for all listed and proposed steelhead ESUs (64 FR 5740). Copies of this
critical habitat proposed rule are available upon request (see
ADDRESSES).
Classification
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F.2d 825 (6th Cir.
1981), NMFS has categorically excluded all ESA listing actions from
environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are not applicable to the listing
process. Similarly, this final rule is exempt from review under E.O.
12866.
This rule has been determined to be major under the Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.)
At this time NMFS is not promulgating protective regulations
pursuant to ESA section 4(d). In the future, prior to finalizing its
4(d) regulations for the threatened steelhead ESUs, NMFS will comply
with all relevant NEPA and RFA requirements.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES) and can also be obtained from the internet at
www.nwr.noaa.gov.
Threatened Species Regulations Consolidation
In the proposed rule issued on March 10, 1998 (63 FR 11774), Upper
Willamette River steelhead was designated the letter (v) and Middle
Columbia River steelhead the letter (w) in Sec. 227.4. Since March 10,
1998, NMFS issued a final rule consolidating and reorganizing existing
regulations regarding implementation of the ESA. In this
reorganization, Sec. 227.4 has been redesignated as Sec. 223.102;
therefore, Upper Willamette River steelhead is designated in this final
rule as paragraph (a)(14) and Middle Columbia River steelhead as
paragraph (a)(15) of Sec. 223.102. The regulatory text of the proposed
rule remains unchanged in this final rule.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine
mammals, Transportation.
Dated: March 15, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is
amended as follows:
PART 223-THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.; 31
U.S.C. 9701.
2. In Sec. 223.102, paragraphs (a)(14) and (a)(15) are added to
read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(14) Upper Willamette River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Includes all naturally spawned populations of winter-run steelhead in
the Willamette River, Oregon, and its tributaries upstream from
Willamette Falls to the Calapooia River, inclusive;
(15) Middle Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams from
above the Wind River, Washington, and the Hood River, Oregon
(exclusive), upstream to, and including, the Yakima River, Washington.
Excluded are steelhead from the Snake River Basin.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-6817 Filed 3-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
