Draft Pre-Decisional Document for Agency Review Purposes Only: Do Not Distribute 

DRAFT 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation 

Biological Opinion on the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Proposed Pesticides General Permit 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Protected Resources 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

 
ii

Consultation History ................................................................................................................................................. 8

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................. 10

Pesticides General Permit ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Obtaining Authorization under the PGP ............................................................................................................ 12

Protective Measures ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Limitations on Coverage .................................................................................................................................... 24

Overview of NMFS’ Assessment Framework ........................................................................................................ 25

Application of this Approach to this Consultation .................................................................................................. 25

Evidence Available for the Consultation ................................................................................................................ 29

ACTION AREA ......................................................................................................................................................... 30

STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ............... 31

Species and Critical Habitat Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Proposed Action .................................. 34

Endangered and Threatened Marine Mammals .................................................................................................. 34

Endangered and Threatened Sea Turtles ............................................................................................................ 35

Endangered and Threatened Marine Fish ........................................................................................................... 36

Endangered and Threatened Marine Invertebrates ............................................................................................. 37

Johnson’s Seagrass ............................................................................................................................................. 38

Climate Change....................................................................................................................................................... 38

Species and Critical Habitat Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Proposed Action ......................................... 42

Anadromous Fish Species .................................................................................................................................. 42

Southern Pacific Eulachon Southern .................................................................................................................. 42

Sturgeon ............................................................................................................................................................. 44

Salmonid Anadromous Fish Species .................................................................................................................. 50

Chum Salmon ..................................................................................................................................................... 64

Coho Salmon ...................................................................................................................................................... 68

Sockeye Salmon ................................................................................................................................................. 74

Steelhead ............................................................................................................................................................ 78
iii

Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................................................... 97

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale ................................................................................................................................... 97

Killer Whale Southern Resident Species.......................................................................................................... 101

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE .......................................................................................................................... 103

The Changing Landscapes of the United States ............................................................................................... 104

Status and Trends of Waters of the United States ............................................................................................ 106

Integration and Synthesis of the Environmental Baseline ................................................................................ 110

EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................................... 112

Potential Stressors ................................................................................................................................................. 113

Use Patterns to be Authorized by the Proposed Permit .................................................................................... 114

Pesticide Occurrence in Rivers and Streams .................................................................................................... 117

Degradate Occurrence ...................................................................................................................................... 118

Environmental Mixtures ................................................................................................................................... 118

Consequences of Exposing Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat ................................................... 119

Components of the Proposed PGP Designed to Minimize or Prevent Exposure ............................................. 130

Evaluation of Those Components of the Proposed PGP Designed to Minimize or Prevent Exposure ............ 140

Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 151

INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................ 151

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 153

Listed Species and Critical Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 153

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................ 154

RPA Element 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 155

Rationale .......................................................................................................................................................... 156

RPA Element 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 158

Rationale .......................................................................................................................................................... 158

RPA Element 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 159

Rationale .......................................................................................................................................................... 159
iv

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 160

Amount or Extent of Take .................................................................................................................................... 160

Reasonable and Prudent Measures ........................................................................................................................ 161

Terms and Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 162

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 162

REINITIATION NOTICE ...................................................................................................................................... 163

LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................................................... 164
v

LIST of TABLES 

Table 1. Proposed Annual Area Thresholds Required for Decision makers to File NOIs ............................. 14

Table 2. Species Listed as Threatened and Endangered and Proposed for Listing and their Designated 

Critical Habitat (Denoted by Asterisk) in the Action Area. Double Asterisks Denote Proposed Critical 

Habitat. ....................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Table 3. Phenomena associated with projections of global climate change including levels of confidence 

associated with projections (adapted from IPCC 2001 and Campbell-Lendrum Woodruff 2007) ................ 40

Table 4. Persistence of Some Commonly Used Pesticides in Surface Water and Aquatic Sediments (After 

Mackay et al., 1997) ............................................................................................................................................... 114

Table 5. Percentage of Operators to be Authorized by the Permit per Location and Type ......................... 116

Table 6. Summary of detections of chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion in filtered stream samples 

collected in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington streams (Gilliom et al., 2006) ................................ 118

Table 7. Example of listed ingredients on labels of some products containing chlorpyrifos, diazinon and 

malathion (after NMFS 2008a) .............................................................................................................................. 121

Table 8. Classification of the 171 active ingredients by class of pesticide. Ingredients that are listed in 

bold type are discussed in greater detail in the document ............................................................................... 123

Table 9. Mixture concentrations resulting in 100% mortality of juvenile coho following 96h exposures 

(after NMFS 2008a) ................................................................................................................................................ 128

Table 10. State Designated Uses that Explicitly Address Listed Species ...................................................... 134

Table 11. EPA’s FIFRA Standard Test Endpoints. ............................................................................................ 136

Table 12. EPA Estimated Number of Operators to be Affected by the PGP1 ................................................ 141

Table 13. Types and Current Number of NPDES General Permits ................................................................ 145

Table 14. Number and Relative Proportion of Inspected Permittees According to Permit Type ................ 145

Table 15. Frequency and Relative Rate of Permit Violations for Minor Dischargers with and without 

Inspections ............................................................................................................................................................... 146

Table 16. Frequency and Relative Rate of Permit Effluent Limit Violations with and without Inspections 146

Table 17. Relative Distribution of Enforcement Actions among Different Permit Types .............................. 147

Table 18. Relative Distribution of Enforcement Actions Among Permits with Effluent Violations ............... 147
6

1 APPENDICES 

2 

3 

4 APPENDIX A: List of Pesticides Pollutants Authorized by the PGP 

5 APPENDIX B: Definition of Adverse Incidents from the Proposed PGP 

6 

7 

8 
7

9 National Marine Fisheries Service 

10 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation 

11 Biological Opinion 

12 

13 Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

14 

15 Activities Considered: EPA’s Issuance of the Office of Water’s National Pollution Discharge 

16 Elimination System, Pesticides General Permit under the Clean Water 

17 Act for the District of Columbia, Idaho, Massachusetts and New 

18 Hampshire, all Indian lands and Federal lands in Delaware, Vermont 

19 and Washington State 

20 

21 Consultation Conducted by: Endangered Species Division of the Office of Protected Resources, 

22 National Marine Fisheries Service 

23 

24 Approved by: __________________________________________________ 

25 

26 Date: ___________________________________________________ 

27 

28 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) requires each 

29 Federal agency to insure that any action they authorize, fund or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

30 existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 

31 habitat of such species. When a Federal agency’s action “may affect” a protected species, that agency is required to 

32 consult formally with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS; 

33 together, “the Services”), depending upon the endangered species, threatened species, or designated critical habitat 

34 that may be affected by the action (50 CFR 402.14(a)). Federal agencies are exempt from this general requirement if 

35 they have concluded that an action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” endangered species, threatened 

36 species, or designated critical habitat and NMFS or the FWS concur with that conclusion (50CFR 402.14(b)). 

37 This document represents NMFS’ Biological Opinion (Opinion) on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

38 (EPA’s) issuance of its Pesticides General Permit and its effects on threatened and endangered species and their 

39 designated critical habitat. This Opinion is based on our review of the EPA’s Biological Evaluation for the 

40 Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Pesticides General Permit (PGP), reviews of the effectiveness of the 

41 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and compliance for existing general permits, 

42 pesticide risk assessments and Section 7 consultations on pesticide uses, species status reviews, listing documents, 

43 recovery plans, reports on the status and trends of water quality, past and current research and population dynamics 

44 modeling, published and unpublished scientific information and other sources of information as discussed in greater 

45 detail in the Approach to the Assessment section of this Opinion. This Opinion has been prepared in accordance with 

46 Section 7 of the ESA and associated implementing regulations. 

47 

48 
8

49 Consultation History 

50 On January 9, 2009, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) vacated EPA’s 2006 NPDES Pesticides 

51 Rule (National Cotton Council, et al., v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927). That rule stated that a National Pollution Discharge 

52 Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, as authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), is not required for: 1) the 

53 application of pesticides directly to waters of the U.S. to control pests; and 2) the application of pesticides to control 

54 pests that are present over –including near– waters where a portion of the pesticides will unavoidably be deposited 

55 to the waters of the U.S. to target the pests provided that those applications are consistent with existing Federal 

56 Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requirements. 

57 On June 8, 2009, the Sixth Circuit granted EPA a two-year stay of the order to provide the Agency time to develop a 

58 general permit in order to guide States with delegated authority to develop their own NPDES permits and to provide 

59 outreach and education to regulated entities. 

60 On February 22, 2010, the Supreme Court declined an industry group's request to review the Sixth Circuit decision. 

61 Therefore all point-source discharges of pesticides into waters of the U.S. were to require an NPDES permit by 

62 April 9, 2011. 

63 On November 3, 2009, EPA initiated informal consultation with NMFS on EPA’s development of its NPDES 

64 Pesticides General Permit (PGP) pursuant to the Sixth Circuit’s decision. 

65 On February 3, 2010, EPA held a meeting with the Services. At that meeting the Services and EPA agreed that EPA 

66 could use a list of representative pesticides and their uses in the representative states of MA and ID for their 

67 Biological Evaluation (BE). 

68 Between April 6, and June 7, 2010, NMFS reviewed and commented on portions of EPA’s draft permit and draft 

69 BE. On June 10, 2010, NMFS sent EPA comments and concerns on the draft permit. These included: 1) Concerns 

70 over why chlorine and bromine were not evaluated in the BE; 2) A request for information on the four pesticide use 

71 patterns within the case study states; 3) Concerns that data from the EPA’s ECOTOX database indicated that species 

72 evaluated in the BE were much more sensitive to pesticides than the draft BE analyses suggested. 

73 On July 30, 2010, EPA requested formal Section 7 consultation and sent a final BE and set of responses to NMFS’ 

74 concerns. 

75 On August 30, 2010, NMFS notified EPA that it could not initiate formal consultation because NMFS had not 

76 received all of the information necessary to initiate formal consultation on the proposed action as outlined in the 

77 regulations governing interagency consultations (50CFR §402.14). Specifically NMFS stated that in order to 

78 complete the initiation package, EPA must provide: 1) A complete description of the action being considered; 2) A 

79 complete description of the specific area that may be affected by the action; 3) A complete description of the manner 

80 in which the action may affect any endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction or critical habitat, 

81 and an analysis of any cumulative effects; 4) Any other relevant studies or other information available on the action, 

82 the affected listed species, or critical habitat. 

83 On September 15, 2010, NMFS participated in a conference call at EPA’s request. NMFS reiterated its information 

84 needs required to initiate formal consultation to EPA. 

85 On October 20, 2010, NMFS notified EPA that as of October 14, 2010, either EPA had provided all information 

86 required for initiating consultation or this information was otherwise accessible for NMFS’ consideration and 
9

87 reference. Therefore, NMFS was confirming the initiation of formal consultation on this action and that NMFS 

88 expected to provide EPA with a final Biological Opinion no later than February 25, 2011. 

89 On November 10, 2010 and December 8, 2010, EPA informed NMFS that EPA intended to change some permit 

90 provisions. 

91 On December 16, 2010, NMFS and EPA met to discuss EPA’s planned changes to the proposed general permit . 

92 On January 10, 2011, NMFS notified EPA via a conference call that NMFS was likely to reach a jeopardy 

93 determination for listed species, and destruction or adverse modification to designated critical habitat determinations 

94 on the proposed action. 

95 On January 19, 2011, NMFS gave the EPA a draft list of potential Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) that 

96 NMFS believes would allow EPA’s action to proceed in compliance with ESA Section 7 (a)(2). 

97 On March 1, 2011 NMFS sent a draft Biological Opinion to EPA. 

98 On March 2, 2011, EPA filed a motion with the Sixth Circuit seeking an extension until October 31 for the purpose 

99 of, among other things, to complete consultation. As part of that motion, EPA and NMFS filed declarations 

100 committing to meet or confer by telephone at least once weekly through April 15 to attempt to reach consensus on 

101 reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

102 From March 4 through April 29, these meetings and conference calls occurred at least once weekly, and additional 

103 informal discussion occurred frequently through this time period. Additional discussion continued after April 29 

104 when needed. 

105 On March 9, 2011 NMFS sent EPA detailed species location information so that EPA could identify overlap with its 

106 proposed general permit and the range of ESA listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction. 

107 On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted EPA's request for an extension of the 

108 deadline for when permits will be required for pesticide pollutant discharges into U.S. waters from April 9, 2011 to 

109 October 31, 2011. 

110 On April 1, 2011, EPA posted a pre-publication version of its draft final pesticide general permit for discharges of 

111 pesticide applications to U.S. waters on its website. 

112 On June 17, 2011 at EPA’s request, NMFS provided a draft Opinion to EPA in order for EPA to solicit public 

113 comments. 

114 A complete record of this consultation history is on file with NMFS. 

115 
10

116 BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

117 Description of the Proposed Action 

118 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water proposes to authorize point source discharges of 

119 pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters of the United States by issuing a Pesticides General Permit (PGP) for 

120 four use patterns: 

121 1. Mosquito (larvicides and adulticides) and other flying insect pest control; 

122 2. Aquatic weed, algae and pathogen control; 

123 3. Aquatic nuisance animal and pathogen control; and 

124 4. Forest canopy pest and pathogen control. 

125 The proposed PGP will authorize discharges of point source pesticide pollutants on, over, or near waters of the 

126 United States from these four use patterns in those States and Territories where the EPA is the permitting authority: 

127 Alaska, American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, Idaho, Johnston Atoll, Massachusetts, Midway Island, New 

Hampshire, New Mexico, Northern Mariana Islands, Oklahoma1 128 , Puerto Rico, and Wake Island. However, NMFS’ 

129 Opinion is limited to discharges that occur in the District of Columbia, Idaho, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 

130 all Indian lands and Federal lands in Delaware, Vermont and Washington State. 

131 The EPA also proposes to use the PGP to authorize discharges of pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters of the 

132 United States resulting from pesticide applications on Federal lands located in Colorado, Delaware, Vermont and 

133 Washington, as well as Indian lands nationwide. The statutory authority for the proposed action is the National 

134 Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342 et seq.; CWA). The 

135 purpose of the proposed general permit is to satisfy the goals and policies of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251). The EPA 

136 proposes to use the PGP to authorize discharges of pesticide pollutants on, over, or near waters of the United States 

137 for five years (at the end of that five-year period, the EPA can choose to extend, suspend, revoke, or modify the 

138 proposed PGP). 

139 The sixth Circuit Court of Appeals defined “pesticide pollutants” as all biological pesticides and those chemical 

140 pesticides that leave a residue (National Cotton Council, et al., v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927). A “pesticide residue” 

includes any discarded, superfluous, refuse or excess chemical pesticide2 141 . The EPAs Biological Evaluation states 

142 that the EPA defines pollutants requiring a CWA permit with respect to pesticides as all biological pesticides, the 

143 excess of a chemical pesticide that is applied to control pests over water and then falls into the water, and the 

144 residuals of chemical pesticides applied directly to the water [40 CFR 122.2]. A pesticide residue includes any 

145 discarded, superfluous, refuse or excess chemical pesticide that no longer serves a pesticide function. This definition 

146 is based on the Sixth Circuit Court’s vacating of the EPA's 2006 NPDES final pesticide rule. In that rule, EPA 

 

1

 Both Alaska and Oklahoma have partial NPDES programs but are not authorized to issue NPDES permits for these 

applications. The State of Alaska has been authorized to administer the NPDES program but is not obligated to assume 

permitting responsibilities for discharges from pesticide applications until November, 2011. 2

 See Appendix A for a list of pesticides covered by the proposed general permit. 
11

147 defined pesticide residues to "include excess amounts of pesticide that do not reach a target organism and materials 

148 that remain after the application has completed its intended task" [71 FR 227]. The Court agreed with EPAs 

149 definition of pesticide residue as pollutants but extended this to include all biological pesticides because the CWA 

150 specifies pollutants to include chemical "wastes" and biological "materials." The distinction between the use of the 

151 terms "wastes" and "materials" was recognized as Congress' intent to treat biological and chemical pesticides 

152 differently. However, the EPA argued that pesticide residues are not subject to the NPDES permitting program 

153 because “at the time of discharge to a water of the United States, the material in the discharge must be both a 

154 pollutant, and from a point source" [71 FR 227]. The court disagreed, concluding that requiring a temporal 

155 connection to a pollutant discharge to a point source "does not follow the plain language of the Clean Water Act" 

156 and "is also contrary to the purpose of the permitting program, which is “to prevent harmful discharges into the 

157 Nation’s waters.” 

158 The pits BE for the PGP the EPA states that it assumes that "all chemical pesticides will leave a residue once the 

159 product has performed its intended purpose.” Because of this, we define all chemical pesticides –including 

160 degradates, adjuvants, surfactants and other additives in the formulations of those pesticides– as pesticide pollutants, 

161 regardless of the time frame over which the pesticide performs its intended task. 

162 NMFS must also consider the effects of interrelated and interdependent actions of the proposed action. 

163 Interdependent actions are actions having no independent utility apart from the proposed action [50 CFR §402-02]. 

164 They are typically a consequence of the proposed action. For example, if our consultation were evaluating the 

165 effects of building a road, an interdependent action would be the planned construction of homes and other structures 

166 that would not be accessible without the presence of that road. Interrelated actions are actions that are part of a larger 

167 action and depend on the larger action for their justification [50 CFR §402-02]. They are actions that are typically 

168 associated with the proposed action. In the case of the PGP, NMFS has identified the discharges of pesticide on, 

169 over or near waters of the U.S as interrelated actions because the general permit authorizes the discharge of pesticide 

170 residues which result from the application of pesticide to control pest species. 

171 Although the proposed general permit would authorize discharges of pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters of 

172 the United States under the CWA, these pesticide application uses were originally evaluated and registered and are 

173 regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended by the Food Quality 

174 Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003. The EPA 

175 administers the CWA and FIFRA through the Office of Water and the Office of Pesticide Programs, respectively. 

176 The EPA proposes to require such discharges to be authorized under the CWA and be subject to the terms of the 

177 proposed general permit but is not proposing to make any significant changes to pesticide uses currently authorized 

178 and labeled under FIFRA. 

179 Requiring a CWA permit for these discharges provides EPA with the authority to enforce CWA requirements that 

180 may not have been addressed under FIFRA, including the ability of citizens to sue for permit violations. Therefore, 

181 in addition to understanding the proposed PGP it is also important to understand the CWA and FIFRA and the way 

182 that EPA administers each act in order to evaluate the EPA’s decision making process and determine whether the 

183 EPA has insured that endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction are not likely to be jeopardized or 

184 designated critical habitat for those species is not likely to be destroyed or adversely modified by activities 

185 authorized by the issuance of the proposed general permit. The following pages describe the proposed PGP and 

186 pertinent aspects of the CWA and FIFRA. 
12

187 Pesticides General Permit 

188 The proposed PGP would authorize point-source discharges of pesticide pollutants into a wide variety of aquatic 

189 habitats from the application of pesticides on, over, or near waters of the United States for the four use patterns 

190 described in the preceding subsection: (1) Mosquito (larvicides and adulticides) and other flying insect pest control; 

191 (2) aquatic weed, algae and pathogen control; (3) aquatic nuisance animal and pathogen control; and (4) forest 

192 canopy pest and pathogen control. In this Opinion we use these terms interchangeably. 

193 The proposed permit would cover all “operators,” who are defined as: (1) any entity associated with the application 

194 of pesticides, or who has day-to-day control of the application; or (2) any entity with control over the decision to 

195 perform pesticide applications including the ability to modify those decisions. For the purposes of the proposed 

196 permit, EPA defines “applicators” as those entities who perform the application of a pesticide or who has day-to-day 

197 control of the application. “Decision makers” are defined as those entities with control over the decision to perform 

198 pesticide applications including the ability to modify those decisions that result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. 

199 This proposed permit would not affect the existing CWA exemptions for irrigation agriculture return flows or 

200 agricultural stormwater runoff. These discharges are excluded from the definition of a point source under Section 

201 502 (14) of the CWA. Agricultural stormwater runoff and irrigation agriculture return flows do not require NPDES 

202 permits. Therefore, runoff from irrigation agriculture return flows and agricultural stormwater are not considered in 

203 this Opinion. 

204 Obtaining Authorization under the PGP 

205 As proposed, this proposed permit covers all “operators,” For the purposes of the proposed general permit, the EPA 

206 defines “applicators” as those entities who perform the application of a pesticide or who has day-to-day control of 

207 the application. “Decision makers” are defined as those entities with control over the decision to perform pesticide 

208 applications including the ability to modify those decisions that result in a discharge on, over or near waters of the 

209 United States. 

210 The PGP eligibility requirements apply to any “operator” who discharges pesticides on, over, or near waters of the 

211 United States. for the four use patterns described in the previous section. If a decision maker: (1) Is a State or 

212 Federal facility; (2) is a mosquito, irrigation and aquatic weed control or other pest control district; (3) intends to 

213 discharge into designated outstanding national resource (Tier 3) waters, or; (4) has reason to believe that it will 

exceed the annual treatment thresholds3 214 established by the EPA as described in the permit, that decision maker is 

215 required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage. 

216 As proposed, the NOIs will contain a section that directs the decision maker to self-certify whether pesticide 

217 application activities will overlap with the distribution of endangered or threatened species or designated critical 

218 habitat, and if so: 

219 1. Whether their pesticide applications have undergone ESA Section 7 consultations or if the operator has 

220 received an ESA Section 10(a)(1)(b) permit and; 

 

3

 According to the EPA in their BE for the PGP, “To determine the appropriate thresholds that would trigger the NOI 

requirement, EPA’s Office of Water; Office of Pesticides, Pollution, and Toxic Substances; and Regional Offices, engaged in 

discussions with USDA, and representatives from industries including pesticide registrants, applicators, and land managers. 

Based on these discussions and EPA’s best professional judgment, EPA developed annual treatment area thresholds that 

differentiate between applications to small areas and those treatments to larger areas which are believed to have a greater 

potential for impact on Waters of the US.“
13

221 2. To provide a list of those endangered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat whose 

222 distributions overlap with treatment areas. 

223 In addition to these two criteria, NOIs would contain information from the decision makers that identify: 1) The 

224 name, address, type and contact information of the operator expected to discharge pollutants, and the; 2) The 

225 pesticide use patterns and planned locations of these applications. The decision maker would be authorized to 

226 discharge pesticide pollutants by the proposed general permit no earlier than 10 days after EPA posts a receipt of a 

227 complete and accurate NOI. EPA has not yet explained how it will evaluate these NOIs for accuracy. 

228 Other decision makers who do not expect to exceed the annual treatment thresholds, but otherwise meet the 

229 eligibility requirements, would be automatically authorized to discharge pesticides on, over or near waters of the 

230 United States without being required to submit an NOI. However, they would still be subject to the terms of the 

231 proposed permit. If a decision maker that was previously not required to submit an NOI discovers that they will 

232 exceed a treatment threshold, that decision maker must submit an NOI at least 10 days prior to exceeding the 

233 threshold in order to be authorized by the proposed permit. The proposed annual treatment area thresholds for the 

234 four use patterns under this permit are listed in Table 1. 

235 Calculations of total treatment areas are to include the area of the applications made to waters of the United States 

236 and conveyances at the time of pesticide application. Individual applications for mosquito and other flying insect 

237 pest control or forest canopy pest control are cumulative on an annual basis. That is, if the total cumulative annual 

238 treatment area for all application is to exceed any treatment threshold, a decision maker must file an NOI. 

239 This is not the case for aquatic weed and algae control or aquatic nuisance animal control. For these use patterns, the 

240 application areas are not considered cumulative. That is, a decision maker may make multiple pesticide applications 

241 onto an aquatic habitat, but as long as no single application exceeds a treatment threshold, that decision maker 

242 would not be required to file an NOI. 

243 Timing 

244 Any decision maker that meets an NOI requirement threshold must submit an NOI by January 9, 2012. However, 

245 any discharges to waters of the United States made by that decision maker before that date would be eligible for 

246 coverage under the permit. Decision makers requesting first-time coverage under the PGP must wait 30 days before 

247 discharging pesticides. If a decision maker expects to treat an area not identified in the previous NOI, that decision 

248 maker must submit an NOI at least 10 days before discharging. That operator would be authorized by the PGP no 

249 earlier than 10 days after EPA posts receipt of the complete and accurate NOI. Unless there is a change in location 

250 or use pattern, one NOI suffices for the five year duration of the permit. The NOI does not contain any requirement 

251 for notification of which pesticide product may be used or the exact location or timing of each individual discharge. 

252 

253 

254 

255 

256 

257 
14

Table 1. Proposed Annual Area Thresholds Required for Decision makers to File NOIs

Mosquitoes and Other Flying Insect Pests1 6,400 acres of treatment area (adulticides) 

640 acres (larvicides) 

Aquatic Weed and Algae Control2 

 In Water 80 acres of treatment area 

 At Water's Edge 20 linear miles of treatment area 

Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control3

 

 In Water 80 acres of treatment area 

 At Water's Edge 20 linear miles of treatment area 

Forest Canopy Pest Control4 6,400 acres of treatment area 

 All Federal and State Agencies with a responsibility to control mosquitoes for public health, nuisance control or animal 

welfare, as well as Mosquito Control Districts (or similar Pest Control Districts), are required to file NOIs regardless of 

treatment area. 

All Federal and State Agencies with a responsibility to control aquatic nuisance vegetation, as well as Weed Control Districts 

(or similar Pest control Districts), are required to file NOIs regardless of treatment area. 

The control of nuisance aquatic animals usually requires that their treatment covers entire or large portions of water bodies. All 

Federal and State Agencies with a responsibility to control aquatic nuisance animals are required to file NOIs regardless of 

treatment area. 

Forest canopy pest suppression programs are designed to aerially blanket large tracts of terrain, throughout which operators may 

not be able to see waters of the United States beneath the canopy. All Federal and State Agencies with a responsibility to control 

forest canopy pests are required to file NOIs regardless of treatment area.

258 Emergencies 

The PGP allows for immediate pesticide pollutant discharges for declared pest emergency situations4 259 . There are four 

260 types of exemptions of Federal and State Agencies for use of pesticides under emergency conditions: specific, 

261 quarantine, public health and crisis exemptions. This exemption is based on a rule under Section 18 of FIFRA. 

262 1. Specific exemption. A specific exemption may be authorized in an emergency condition to avert: 

263 a. A significant economic loss, or; 

264 b. A significant risk to: 

265 i. Endangered species, 

266 ii. Threatened species, 

267 iii. Beneficial organisms, or 

268 iv. The environment. 

269 2. Quarantine exemption. A quarantine exemption may be authorized in an emergency condition to control 

270 the introduction or spread of any pest that is an invasive species, or is otherwise new to or not theretofore 

271 known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout the United States and its territories. 

 

4 51 FR 1902, Jan. 15, 1986, as amended at 71 FR 4495, Jan. 27, 2006 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi 

bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=4495&dbname=2006_register
15

272 3. Public health exemption. A public health exemption may be authorized in an emergency condition to 

273 control a pest that will cause a significant risk to human health. 

274 4. Crisis exemption. A crisis exemption may be utilized in an emergency condition when the time from 

275 discovery of the emergency to the time when the pesticide use is needed is insufficient to allow for the 

276 authorization of a specific, quarantine or public health exemption. 

277 In these cases all decision makers must file an NOI no later than 30 days after beginning a discharge in response to a 

278 declared pest emergency. 

279 Outstanding National Resource Waters (Tier 3) 

280 The PGP authorizes pesticide pollutant discharges into designated Tier 3 waters. States, Territories or Tribes 

281 designate outstanding national resource waters “Tier 3” and they generally include the highest quality waters of the 

282 United States The current version of the proposed general permit requires that any discharges to these waters require 

283 an NOI along with an explanation of why such discharges are necessary. The proposed general permit states: 

284 “Except for pesticide applications that do not degrade water quality or only degrade water quality 

285 on a short-term or temporary basis, you are not eligible for coverage under this permit for 

286 discharges from a pesticide application to waters designated by a state, territory, or tribe as Tier 3 

287 (Outstanding National Resource Waters) for antidegradation purposes under Title 40 of the Code 

288 of Federal Regulations (CFR) 131.12(a)(3) (a list of Tier 3 waters in geographic areas covered 

289 under this permit is on EPA’s website at www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides).” 

290 The EPA has not defined what is meant by pesticides applications that “do not degrade water quality or only degrade 

291 water quality on a short-term or temporary basis,” nor is there a list of designated Tier 3 waters on the website listed 

292 in the proposed general permit as of the date of this Opinion. 

293 The EPA’s rationale is as follows: 

294 “In some cases, in order to protect Tier 3 water quality (e.g., from invasive species) or to protect 

295 public health (e.g., from mosquito-borne illness outbreaks), pesticide application may be necessary 

296 to Tier 3 waters. The CWA says that WQS’ [Water Quality Standards] shall be such as to protect 

297 the public health and welfare, enhance the quality of the water and serve the purposes of the act.’ 

298 The national interpretation with respect to the Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW) 

299 provision of the antidegradation policy is that it means no new or increased discharges. The only 

300 exception to this is discussed in the preamble to the water quality standards regulation to indicate 

301 that States may allow some limited activities which result in temporary and short-term changes in 

302 water quality. The preamble further discusses the rationale for why we revised the wording in the 

303 ONRW paragraph of the regulation. It clearly indicates that the change was made to allow for 

304 these temporary activities to occur and did not extend the notion of ‘significant’ changes to 

305 ONRW waters.” 

306 When a decision maker expects to discharge pesticide pollutants into any Tier 3 water, that decision maker must 

307 submit an NOI at least 10 days before discharging unless these discharges are in response to a designated pest 

308 emergency. In such a case, the decision maker must submit an NOI no later than 30 days after discharging, but no 

309 earlier than January 9, 2012. For discharges made into Tier 3 waters not in response to declared pest emergencies, 

310 the operator would be authorized under the proposed general permit 10 days after EPA posts receipt of the complete 

311 and accurate NOI. Operators discharging into Tier 3 waters in response to a designated pest emergency would be 

312 authorized immediately. 
16

313 Any decision maker that expects to discharge into any Tier 3 water not specifically identified in their most recently 

314 submitted NOI must submit an NOI at least 10 days before discharging into the newly identified Tier 3 water. That 

315 operator would be authorized under the proposed general permit no earlier than 10 days after EPA posts receipt of 

316 the new complete and accurate NOI. These requirements do not apply if such Tier 3 discharges are in response to a 

317 declared pest emergency, in which case the emergency discharge NOI requirements mentioned previously would 

318 apply. 

319 Protective Measures 

320 The EPA proposes several measures intended to minimize any environmental effects resulting from these 

321 discharges, including: the identification of overlap of endangered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat 

322 and pesticide applications in the NOI process, technology based effluent limitations, compliance with existing water 

323 quality standards, decision maker self-reporting of adverse incidents and annual reporting. 

324 The NOI Process 

325 As mentioned before, decision makers who are to exceed one or more of the annual treatment area thresholds must 

326 file an NOI. Also, irrigation and aquatic weed control or other pest control districts, Federal agencies, State facilities 

327 and those intending to discharge into designated Tier 3 waters must file NOIs. The NOIs are to contain a section 

328 where the decision maker is to self-certify whether its pesticide application activities will overlap with the 

329 distribution of listed species or designated critical habitat, and if so, must state: 1) if these applications have 

330 undergone ESA Section 7 consultations or received an ESA Section 10 permit and, 2) which of these endangered or 

331 threatened species, or designated critical habitat overlap with treatment areas. In addition to ESA listed species 

332 concerns, NOIs contain information from the decision makers that identify: 1) The name, address, type and contact 

333 information of the operator expected to discharge pollutants, and; 2) Pesticide use patterns and planned locations of 

334 these applications. The proposed general permit would cover the decision maker no earlier than 10 days after EPA 

335 posts a receipt of a complete and accurate NOI. Decision makers requesting first-time coverage under the PGP must 

336 wait 30 days before discharging pesticides. 

337 Technology Based Effluent Limitations 

338 Operators would be required to implement control measures to minimize the discharge of pesticide pollutants to 

339 waters of the United States through the use of technology based effluent limitations to the extent technologically 

340 available and economically achievable and practicable. All operators must: 

341 1. To the extent determined by the decision maker, use only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide 

342 applications necessary to control the target pest, using equipment and application procedures appropriate for 

343 this task. 

344 2. Maintain pesticide application equipment in proper operating condition, including requirements to calibrate, 

345 clean and repair such equipment and prevent leaks, spills or other unintended discharges. 

346 3. Assess weather conditions in the treatment area to insure application is consistent with all applicable Federal 

347 requirements. 

348 Pesticide Management Measures 

349 Decision makers must minimize the discharge of pesticides through the use of pesticide management measures. 

350 Pesticide management measures are defined as: “any practice used to meet the effluent limitations that comply with 

351 manufacturer specifications, industry standards and recommended industry practices related to the application of 
17

352 pesticides, relevant legal requirements and other provisions that a prudent operator would implement to reduce or 

353 eliminate pesticide pollutant discharges to waters of the United States To the extent any decision maker determines 

354 the amount of pesticide or frequency of pesticide application, the decision maker must use only the amount of 

355 pesticide and frequency of pesticide application necessary to control the target pest. Any operator must review or 

356 modify pest management measures if: 

357 1. An unauthorized discharge occurs 

358 2. Operators become aware that the measures are not sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards 

359 3. Monitoring activities indicate a failure to: 

360 a. Use the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application necessary to control the target 

361 pest, using equipment and application procedures appropriate for this task 

362 b. Maintain pesticide application equipment in proper operating condition by calibrating, cleaning 

363 and repairing such equipment and preventing leaks, spills or other unintended discharges 

364 c. Assess weather conditions 

365 4. An inspection by EPA, State, Tribal or local entities reveal modifications are necessary to meet applicable 

366 water quality standards 

367 5. An operator is made aware of an adverse incident 

368 An operator must make such changes before or –if not practicable– as soon as possible before discharging again. 

369 Additional Pesticide Management Measures for Decision Makers Required to Submit NOIs 

370 In addition to these pesticide management measures, all decision makers who are required to submit NOIs must also 

371 implement the following pesticide management measures. 

372 Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control 

373 1. Identify the Problem 

374 Prior to the first pesticide application, and at least once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide 

application for that calendar year, for each pest management area5 375 , decision makers must do the following: 

376  Establish densities for larval and adult mosquito or flying insect pest populations or identify environmental 

condition(s), either current or based on historical data, to serve as action threshold(s) 6 377 for implementing 

378 pest management measures; 

 

5

 In its draft permit, the EPA defines Pest Management Area as “The area of land, including any water, for which an operator has 

responsibility for and is authorized to conduct pest management activities as covered by this permit (e.g., for an operator that is a 

mosquito control district, the pest management area is the total area of the district).” 

6 Action Threshold – the point at which pest populations or environmental conditions cannot be tolerated necessitating that pest 

control action be taken based on economic, human health, aesthetic, or other effects. An action threshold may be based on current 

and/or past environmental factors that are or have been demonstrated to be conducive to pest emergence and/or growth, as well as 

past and/or current pest presence. Action thresholds are those conditions that indicate both the need for control actions and the 

proper timing of such actions.
18

379  Identify target pest(s) to develop pest management measures based on developmental and behavioral 

380 considerations for each pest; 

381  Identify known breeding sites for source reduction, larval control program, and habitat management; 

382  Analyze existing surveillance data to identify new or unidentified sources of mosquito or flying insect pest 

383 problems as well as sites that have recurring pest problems, and; 

384  In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use other available 

385 data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions. 

386 2. Pest Management Options 

387 The decision maker must evaluate the following management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to 

388 non-target organisms, feasibility and cost effectiveness: 

389  No action 

390  Prevention 

391  Mechanical or physical methods 

392  Cultural methods 

393  Biological control agents 

394  Pesticides 

395 3. Pesticide Use 

396 Decision makers must: 

397  Conduct larval and/or adult surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem or evaluate 

398 existing larval surveillance data, environmental conditions, or data from adjacent area prior to each 

399 pesticide application to assess the pest management area and to determine when the action threshold(s) is 

400 met; 

401  Reduce the impact on the environment and on non-target organisms by applying the pesticide only when 

402 the action threshold(s) has been met; 

403  In situations or locations where practicable and feasible for efficacious control, use larvicides as a preferred 

404 pesticide for mosquito or flying insect pest control when the larval action threshold(s) has been met, and; 

405  In situations or locations where larvicide use is not practicable or feasible for efficacious control, use 

406 adulticides for mosquito or flying insect pest control when the adult action threshold(s) has been met. 

407 Aquatic Weed, Algae and Pathogen Pest Control 

408 1. Identify the Problem 

409 Prior to the first pesticide application, and at least once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide 

410 application for that calendar year, for each pest management area decision makers must: 

411  Identify areas with pest problems and characterize the extent of the problems, including, for example, water 

412 use goals not attained (e.g. wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation and recreation); 

413  Identify target pest(s); 

414  Identify possible factors causing or contributing to the pest problem (e.g., nutrients, invasive species, etc); 

415  Establish any pest-and site-specific action threshold, and; 
19

416  In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use other available 

417 data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions.

418 2. Pest Management Options 

419 The decision maker must evaluate the following management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to 

420 non-target organisms, feasibility and cost effectiveness: 

421  No action 

422  Prevention 

423  Mechanical or physical methods 

424  Cultural methods 

425  Biological control agents 

426  Pesticides 

427 3. Pesticide Use 

428 Decision makers must: 

429  Conduct surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem prior to each pesticide application 

430 to assess the pest management area and to determine when the action threshold(s) is met, and; 

431  Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by applying the pesticide only when the 

432 action threshold has been met. 

433 Animal Pest and Pathogen Control 

434 This part applies to discharges from the application of pesticides for control of animal pests as defined in Part 1.1.1. 

435 1. Identify the Problem 

436 Prior to the first pesticide application, and at least once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide 

437 application for that calendar year, for each pest management area decision makers must: 

438  Identify areas with pest problems and characterize the extent of the problems, including, for example, water 

439 use goals not attained (e.g. wildlife habitat, fisheries, vegetation and recreation); 

440  Identify target pest(s); 

441  Identify possible factors causing or contributing to the problem (e.g., nutrients, invasive species); 

442  Establish any pest-and site-specific action threshold, and; 

443  In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use other available 

444 data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions. 

445 2. Pest Management Options 

446 The decision maker must evaluate the following management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to 

447 non-target organisms, feasibility and cost effectiveness: 

448  No action 

449  Prevention 

450  Mechanical or physical methods 
20

451  Cultural methods 

452  Biological control agents 

453  Pesticides 

454 3. Pesticide Use 

455 Decision makers must: 

456  Conduct surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem prior to each application to assess 

457 the pest management area and to determine when the action threshold(s) is met, and; 

458  Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by evaluating site restrictions, application 

459 timing and application method in addition to applying the pesticide only when the action threshold(s) has 

460 been met. 

461 Forest Canopy Pest and Pathogen Control 

462 1. Identify the Problem 

463 Prior to the first pesticide application, and at least once each calendar year thereafter prior to the first pesticide 

464 application for that calendar year, for each pest management area decision makers must: 

465  Establish any pest-and site-specific action threshold; 

466  Identify target pest(s) to develop pest management measures based on developmental and behavioral 

467 considerations for each pest; 

468  Identify current distribution of the target pest and assess potential distribution in the absence of pest 

469 management measures, and; 

470  In the event there are no data for the pest management area in the past calendar year, use other available 

471 data as appropriate to meet the permit conditions. 

472 2. Pest Management Options 

473 The decision maker must evaluate the following management options, considering impact to water quality, impact to 

474 non-target organisms, feasibility and cost effectiveness: 

475  No action 

476  Prevention 

477  Mechanical or physical methods 

478  Cultural methods 

479  Biological control agents 

480  Pesticides 

481 3. Pesticide Use 

482 The decision maker must: 

483  Conduct surveillance in an area that is representative of the pest problem prior to each application to assess 

484 the pest management area and to determine when the pest action threshold is met; 
21

485  Reduce the impact on the environment and non-target organisms by evaluating the restrictions, application 

486 timing, and application methods in addition to applying the pesticide only when the action threshold(s) has 

487 been met, and; 

488  Evaluate using pesticides against the most susceptible developmental stage. 

489 Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations 

490 All operators would be required to control discharges to meet applicable numeric and narrative State, Territory, or 

491 Tribal water quality standards. If at any time the permittee becomes aware, or the EPA determines, that the 

492 discharge causes or contributes to an excursion of applicable water quality standards, the permittee must take 

493 corrective action. 

494 Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) 

495 Decision makers that exceed NOI thresholds (except for those made in response to a declared pest emergency) and 

496 are “large entities” must prepare a PDMP to document the selection and implementation of the control measures 

497 employed to comply with the effluent limitations described above. The permit defines “large entities” as: (1) Any 

498 public entity that serves a population greater than 10,000, or; (2) A private enterprise that exceeds the Small 

499 Business Administration size standard as identified at: http://www.sba.gov/content/table-small-business-size500 standards. Decision makers are required to retain a copy of the current PDMP, along with all supporting documents. 

501 These materials must be readily available upon request. The following information must be provided in the PDMP: 

502 1. Pesticide discharge management team information 

503 2. Problem identification 

504 3. Pest management options evaluation 

505 4. Spill and adverse incident response procedures 

506 5. Documentation to support eligibility considerations under other Federal laws 

507 6. Signature requirements. 

508 Record Keeping and Annual Reports 

509 All operators must keep records of: 

510 1. Adverse incident reports 

511 2. Any rationale for not reporting incidents as adverse 

512 3. A copy of corrective action determinations 

513 4. A copy of any spill or other non-permitted discharges 

514 In addition to the record keeping requirements for all operators, any decision maker that is not a “large entity” and is 

515 required to submit an NOI must also keep records of: 

516 1. A copy of the NOI and any correspondence with EPA about the NOI 

517 2. Documentation of equipment calibration (only if the decision maker is the applicator) 

518 3. Information on each treatment area 

519 Any decision maker that is a “large entity” and is required to submit an NOI must also keep records of: 
22

520 1. A copy of the NOI and any correspondence with EPA about the NOI 

521 2. A copy of the PDMP 

522 3. A copy of annual reports submitted to EPA 

523 4. Documentation of equipment calibration (only if the decision maker is the applicator) 

524 5. Information on each treatment area 

525 Any decision maker that is a “large entity” and is required to submit an NOI must also submit an annual report to 

526 EPA. The annual report must contain: 

527 1. Operator contact information 

528 2. NPDES permit tracking number 

529 3. For each treatment area: 

530 a. Description of the treatment area 

531 b. Identification of any waters receiving discharged pesticides 

532 c. Pesticide use patterns 

533 d. Total amount by application method of each pesticide product 

534 e. Whether this pest control activity was addressed in the operator’s PDMP prior to pesticide 

535 application 

536 f. Any adverse incidents and a description of any corrective actions 

537 Permit Inspections and Oversight 

538 The operator would be required to allow EPA or an authorized representative to: 

539 1. “Enter the premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be 

540 kept under the conditions of the permit” 

541 2. “Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of the 

542 permit” 

543 3. “Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), 

544 practices, or operations regulated or required under the permit” 

545 4. “Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise 

546 authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or parameters at any location” 

547 Monitoring 

548 All operators would be required to monitor: 

549 1. The amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide applications necessary to control the target pest, using 

550 equipment and application procedures appropriate for this task 

551 2. Pesticide application activities to insure pesticide application equipment is maintained in proper operating 

552 conditions by calibrating, cleaning and repairing such equipment and preventing leaks, spills or other 

553 unintended discharges 
23

554 3. Weather conditions in the treatment area to insure application is consistent with all applicable Federal 

555 requirements 

If a reportable spill occurs7 556 , the operator must contact the National Response Center immediately. The operator must 

557 document and retain information on the spill within 30 days. 

558 The permit would also require visual monitoring assessments for adverse incidents. These visual assessments of the 

559 application site must be performed during any operator post-application surveillance or efficacy check or during any 

560 pesticide application when safety and feasibility allows. Adverse incidents are defined in the permit as follows 

561 (emphasis is EPA’s): 

562 An unusual or unexpected incident that an operator has observed upon inspection or of which the operator 

563 otherwise becomes aware, in which: 

564 1. There is evidence that a person or non-target organism has been exposed to a pesticide residue, and

565 2. The person or non-target organism suffered a toxic or adverse effect. 

566 The phrase toxic adverse effects includes effects that occur within waters of the United States on non-target 

567 plants, fish or wildlife that are unusual or unexpected as a result of exposure to a pesticide residue, and may 

568 include: 

569 a. Distressed or dead juvenile and small fishes 

570 b. Washed up or floating fish 

571 c. Fish swimming abnormally or erratically 

572 d. Fish lying lethargically at water surface or in shallow water 

573 e. Fish that are listless or nonresponsive to disturbance 

574 f. Stunting, wilting or desiccation of non-target submerged or emergent aquatic plants 

575 g. Other dead or visibly distressed non-target aquatic organisms 

576 Any operator that has observed or been made aware of any adverse incident must notify EPA within 24 hours of that 

577 operator becoming aware of such an incident. If an operator is unable to notify EPA within 24 hours that operator 

578 must do so as soon as possible and provide a rationale as to why the incident could not be reported earlier. The 

579 operator must then provide a written report to EPA within 30 days. 

580 If an operator observes or is otherwise made aware of an adverse incident involving a listed resource, that operator 

581 must immediately contact either USFWS or NMFS depending on whose jurisdiction the listed resource is under. 

582 Corrective Actions 

583 Situations Requiring Revision of Control Measures 

584 If any of the following situations occur, operators must review and revise the evaluation and selection of their 

585 control measures as necessary to insure that the situation is eliminated and will not be repeated in the future: 

586 1. An unauthorized discharge associated with the application occurs 

 

7

 See; 40 CFR 110, 40 CFR 117, 40 CFR 302
24

587 2. The operator becomes aware that its control measures are not sufficient to meet applicable water quality 

588 standards; 

589 3. Monitoring activities indicate that: 

590 a. The operator failed to use the lowest amount of pesticide product per application and optimum 

591 frequency of pesticide applications necessary to control the target pest 

592 b. The operator failed to perform regular maintenance activities to reduce unintended discharges of 

593 pesticides 

594 c. The operator failed to maintain pesticide application equipment in proper operating condition 

595 d. An inspection or evaluation by an EPA official, or local, State, Territorial or Tribal entity 

596 determines that modifications to the control measures are necessary to meet the non-numeric 

597 effluent limits 

598 e. The operator observes or are otherwise made aware of an adverse incident 

599 If an operator determines that changes to its control measures are necessary, such changes must be made before the 

600 next pesticide application if practicable, or if not, as soon as possible thereafter. 

601 Effect of Corrective Action 

602 The occurrence of a situations requiring revision of control measures (as defined above) may constitute a violation 

603 of the permit. Correcting the situation does not necessarily absolve the operator of liability. The EPA will consider 

604 the appropriateness and promptness of corrective action in determining enforcement responses to permit violations. 

605 The EPA or a court may impose additional requirements and schedules of compliance. 

606 Limitations on Coverage 

607 Impaired Waters 

608 States, Territories and Tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters under section 303(d) of the CWA. 

609 These impaired waters do not meet water quality standards that the States, Territories and Tribes have set for them. 

610 The proposed PGP would not authorize the discharge of a pesticide pollutant to any impaired Water of the U.S. that 

611 is impaired by the specific pesticide, or degradates of the pesticide, to be permitted to be discharged. In this case, the 

612 operator would have to obtain coverage under an individual permit for such a discharge or chose some other means 

613 of pest management. 

614 Discharges Covered under other Permits 

615 If a proposed discharge is already authorized under another permit, the operator is ineligible for coverage by the 

616 PGP permit. If the intended discharge was included in a permit that has been or is in the process of being denied, 

617 terminated or revoked by EPA in the past five years, the proposed discharge is ineligible for coverage under this 

618 permit. 

619 

620 
25

621 Approach to the Assessment 

622 Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) requires Federal agencies, in 

623 consultation with NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Services), to insure that any action they authorize, 

624 fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 

625 result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of endangered or threatened species. Section 

626 7(a)(2) of the ESA also requires the Services and Federal action agencies to use the best scientific and commercial 

627 data available during those consultations. 

628 Overview of NMFS’ Assessment Framework 

629 NMFS uses a series of sequential analyses to determine whether Federal agencies have insured that actions they 

630 authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species 

631 under its jurisdiction, or to critical habitat that has been designated for those species. The first analysis identifies 

632 those physical, chemical or biotic aspects of proposed actions that are likely to have individual, interactive, or 

633 cumulative direct and indirect effect on the environment (we use the term “potential stressors” for these aspects of 

634 an action). As part of these analyses, we identify the spatial extent of any potential stressors and recognize that the 

635 spatial extent of those stressors may change with time (the spatial extent of these stressors is the “action area” for a 

636 consultation). During the consultation, we examine any measures an action agency proposes to use to reduce or 

637 eliminate the number stressors or their intensity. 

638 The second analysis determines whether endangered species, threatened species, or designated critical habitat are 

639 likely to occur in the same space and at the same time as these potential stressors. If we conclude that such co640 occurrence is likely, we then try to estimate the nature of that co-occurrence (these represent our exposure analyses). 

641 In this step of our analyses, we try to identify the number, age (or life stage), and gender of the individuals that are 

642 likely to be exposed to an Action’s effects and the populations or subpopulations those individuals represent. During 

643 the consultation, we examine any measures an action agency proposes to use to insure that endangered or threatened 

644 species or designated critical habitat are not likely to be exposed to particular stressors or to reduce the intensity, 

645 duration, frequency, or geographic extent of any exposure. 

646 Once we identify which listed resources (endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat) are 

647 likely to be exposed to potential stressors associated with an action and the nature of that exposure, in the third step 

of our analyses we examine the scientific and commercial data available8 648 to determine whether and how those listed 

649 resources are likely to respond given their exposure (these represent our response analyses). In the final steps of our 

650 analyses we establish the risks those responses pose to ESA listed species and designated critical habitat (these 

651 represent our risk analyses). 

652 Application of this Approach to this Consultation 

653 In this case, we have consulted with, and provided assistance to, the EPA so that they can insure that discharges of 

654 pesticides pollutants that would be authorized by their proposed PGP is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

655 existence of endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction, or to destroy or adversely modify critical 

 

8

 Although Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires us to use the best scientific and 

commercial data available, at this stage of our analyses, we consider all lines of evidence, including the best scientific and 

commercial data as well as traditional ecological knowledge from Native American tribes and Pacific Islanders.. 
26

656 habitat that has been designated for those species. However, because of the spatial and temporal scope of the 

657 proposed PGP, we were faced with substantial uncertainty about the number, location, timing, frequency and 

658 intensity of the discharges that would be authorized by the permit, the formulations associated with the discharges 

659 and the methods operators or applicators would employ during those discharges. The magnitude of this uncertainty 

660 made it impossible for us to assess whether or to what degree EPA had insured that specific discharges complied 

661 with the requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

662 Instead, we treated EPA’s proposed permit as a “program” that would authorize a wide array of activities 

663 (discharges of pesticide pollutants) and asked whether and to what degree the EPA structured this “program” so that 

664 it could insure that individual discharges and the collection of discharges were not likely to jeopardize the continued 

665 existence of endangered and threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction or result in the destruction or adverse 

666 modification of critical habitat that has been designated for those species. Here, “program structure” refers to the 

667 decision-making processes, applications of standards and criteria (including standards of information and treatment 

668 of uncertainty), feedback loops (through monitoring and enforcement), and controls (including permit conditions) 

669 that agencies employ to ensure that agency decisions to authorize fund, or carry out specific actions or a class of 

670 actions are likely to fulfill the mandates of the program before the agency authorizes, funds, or carries out those 

671 actions. Generally, an agency’s decision-making process involves formal procedures (such as, regulatory procedures 

672 and public noticing requirements), information standards (that is, agency “guidelines,” and the judgments agency 

673 personnel make when they confront conflicting information and make judgments in the face of uncertainty). 

674 When we conduct programmatic examinations of proposals such as the PGP, we ask whether or to what degree the 

675 Federal action agency (in this case, the EPA) has constructed a decision-making process that would consider the 

676 information, standards and criteria that NMFS would normally consider during consultations on specific actions. We 

677 also ask whether that decision-making process is likely to produce outcomes that would reliably prevent or minimize 

678 endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction and those species’ designated critical habitat from being 

679 exposed to physical, chemical, or biotic stressors that would directly or indirectly reduce the reproductive success of 

680 endangered or threatened individuals increase the extinction risks of the population(s) those individual might 

681 represent, or increase the extinction risks of the species those populations comprise. Specifically, we ask: 

682 1. Has the EPA structured the proposed PGP so that the EPA will know or be able to reliably estimate the 

683 probable individual and cumulative effects of the discharges of pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters 

684 of the U.S.? For example, has the EPA structured the PGP so that the EPA will know or be able to reliably 

685 estimate the probable number of discharges that would be authorized by the program? Has the EPA 

686 structured the proposed PGP so that the EPA will know or be able to reliably estimate the probable location 

687 and timing of the discharges of pesticide pollutants that would be authorized by the program? 

688 2. Has the EPA structured the proposed PGP so that the EPA will know or be able to reliably estimate the 

689 physical, chemical, or biotic stressors that are likely to be produced as a direct or indirect result of the 

690 discharges of pesticide pollutants that would be authorized by the PGP (that is, the stressors produced by 

691 the actual discharges of pesticide pollutants on, over, or near waters of the U.S.)? 

692 Alternatively, has the EPA structured the PGP so that the EPA will know or be able to determine reliably 

693 whether or to what degree physical, chemical, or biotic stressors that are not authorized by the PGP have 

694 been produced as a direct or indirect result of the discharges of pesticide pollutants that would be 

695 authorized by the permit; or, has the EPA’s Office of Water structured the PGP so that the EPA will know 

696 or be able to reliably estimate that discharges of pesticide pollutants that would be authorized by the 
27

697 proposed general permit have not occurred in concentrations, frequencies, or for durations that exceed the 

698 authorization of the proposed permit? 

699 3. Has the EPA structured the PGP so that the EPA will know or be able to determine reliably whether or to 

700 what degree operators, applicators, or decision makers have complied with the conditions, restrictions or 

701 mitigation measures the proposed general permit requires when they discharge pesticide pollutants on, over 

702 or near waters of the U.S.? 

703 4. Has the EPA structured the PGP so that the EPA will know or be able to reliably estimate whether or what 

704 degree specific endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat are likely to be exposed to 

705 (a) potentially harmful concentrations of the pesticide pollutants the proposed general permit would 

706 authorize to be discharged on, over, or near waters of the U.S.; (b) Potentially harmful mixtures of the 

707 pesticide pollutants the proposed general permit would authorize to be discharged on, over, or near waters 

708 of the U.S., or; (c) to the ecological consequences of discharging pesticide pollutants on, over, or near 

709 waters of the U.S.? 

710 5. Has the EPA structured the PGP so that the EPA will continuously identify, collect, and analyze any 

711 information that suggests that the discharges of pesticide pollutants on, over, or near waters of the United 

712 States may have exposed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat to pesticide 

713 pollutants at concentrations, intensities, durations, or frequencies that are known or suspected to produce 

714 physical, physiological, behavioral, or ecological responses that have potential individual or cumulative 

715 adverse consequences for individual organisms or constituent elements of critical habitat? 

716 6. Has the EPA structured the PGP so that the EPA will employ an analytical methodology that considers (a) 

717 the status and trends of endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat; (b) the demographic 

718 and ecological status of populations and individuals of those species given their exposure to pre-existing 

719 stressors in different drainages and watersheds; (c) the direct and indirect pathways by which endangered or 

720 threatened species or designated critical habitat might be exposed to the discharges of pesticide pollutants 

721 on, over, or near waters of the U.S.; and (d) the physical, physiological, behavior, sociobiological, and 

722 ecological consequences of exposing endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat to 

723 pesticide pollutants at concentrations, durations, or frequencies that are known or suspected to produce 

724 physical, physiological, behavioral, or ecological responses, given their pre-existing demographic and 

725 ecological condition? 

726 7. Has the EPA structured the PGP so that the EPA will be able to minimize or prevent endangered or 

727 threatened species or designated critical habitat from being exposed to discharges of pesticide pollutants (a) 

728 at concentrations, durations, or frequencies that are potentially harmful to individual listed organisms, 

729 populations, or the species; (b) in mixtures that are potentially harmful to individual listed organisms, 

730 populations, or the species; or (c) to ecological consequences that are potentially harmful to individual 

731 listed organisms, populations, the species or Primary Constituent Elements of designated critical habitat? 

732 How quickly would the EPA be able to implement preventive measures? 

733 Our assessment focused on whether and to what degree the EPA structured the PGP in ways that would prevent 

734 endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that has been designated for those species from being exposed to 

735 pesticide pollutants because exposures commonly trigger a cascade of events with ultimate consequences difficult to 

736 prevent. For example, once individual plants and animals are exposed to a pesticide pollutant, their responses to the 

737 exposure is controlled by the concentration, duration and frequency associated with the exposure, their sensitivity to 
28

738 the pesticide pollutant, other physical, chemical, or biotic stressors that they are exposed to in the same time interval, 

739 their pre-existing physiological State and their constitutional endowment. Because it is so difficult to prevent free740 ranging organisms from responding to anthropogenic stressors once they have been exposed, the most effective 

741 management measures are designed to influence the exposure itself. For that reason, our assessment focuses on 

742 whether and to what degree the PGP prevents endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat from 

743 being exposed to pesticide pollutants that would be authorized by the proposed Pesticide General Permit. 

744 A Federal agency’s failure to insure that their actions comply with the requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 

745 may not be sufficient such that endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat would necessarily be 

746 adversely affected as a result of that failure. To address this possibility, we supplement our assessment by assessing 

747 the probable consequences of the actions that would be authorized, funded or carried out by the Federal agency’s 

748 program for endangered and threatened species and critical habitat that has been designated for those species. 

749 Specifically, we: 

750 1. Examine the four use patterns that would be authorized by the proposed PGP: 1) Mosquito (larvicides and 

751 adulticides) and other flying insect pest control; (2) Aquatic weed, algae and pathogen control; (3) Aquatic 

752 nuisance animal and pathogen control; and (4) Forest canopy pest and pathogen control. 

753 These analyses summarize (a) Each use pattern; (b) The geographic distribution of use patterns (including 

754 geographic differences in pesticides — as formulated — used); (c) Seasonal patterns associated with the 

755 different use patterns in the different geographic areas; (d) The pesticides (formulations) typically used 

756 with each pattern (particularly “pesticide pollutants”); (e) Any information on application rates with the 

757 different use patterns (and with different formulations); and (f) Identify those components of the 

758 formulations that would constitute “pollutants.” 

759 2. We determine the degree of spatial overlap between use patterns, listed species and designated critical 

760 habitat. 

761 These analyses describe spatial overlap and any specific evidence (reports or studies) that particular 

762 endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat have been or are likely to be exposed to 

763 those use patterns. However, this does not represent a detailed exposure analysis: we are merely 

764 establishing whether or to what degree endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat 

765 overlap, in space and time (some pesticides may be used when migratory species are not in an area, for 

766 example). Given spatial and temporal overlap, we then have reason to ask whether or to what degree EPA’s 

767 proposed PGP can insure that these species or critical habitat are not likely to be exposed. 

768 3. We conducted a detailed review of the literature available on the physical, physiological, behavioral, social, 

769 and ecological responses of endangered or threatened species or constituent elements of critical habitat 

770 given exposure to ingredients of pesticide formulations (active or otherwise), degradates or metabolites of 

771 those formulations, or to the ecological effects (that is, effects resulting from changes in populations of 

772 prey, predators, competitors, symbionts, etc.) of those formulations. Rather than discuss the literature for 

773 each species, it would be equally effective to organize the data using species groups (for example, Pacific 

774 Salmon; Sturgeon; Sea Turtles; etc.). 

775 4. We summarize the probable consequences of the responses identified in the preceding section for 

776 endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat. Rather than discuss the literature for each 
29

777 species, it would be only be necessary to discuss the risks of exposing species groups (for example, Pacific 

778 Salmon; Sturgeon; Sea Turtles; etc.).

779 In this Opinion, we will present the results of these analyses before we present the results of our review and evaluate 

780 EPA’s proposed PGP using the sequence of seven questions we identified at the beginning of this section. We use 

781 the results of these combined analyses to determine whether and to what degree the EPA structured the PGP in ways 

782 that would prevent jeopardy to endangered or threatened species or destruction or adverse modification of critical 

783 habitat that has been designated for those species. 

784 Evidence Available for the Consultation 

785 We relied on two bodies of evidence for this consultation. We used the first body of evidence to determine whether 

786 or to what degree the EPA structured the PGP so that EPA could insure that discharges of pesticide pollutants on, 

787 over, or near waters of the United States were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 

788 threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat that has been designated for 

789 those species. After examining the proposed action for elements that insure against jeopardy, we used a second body 

790 of evidence to assess the probable consequences of PGP-authorized discharges of pesticide pollutants on, over, or 

791 near waters of the United States on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that has been designated for 

792 those species. 

793 To build this first body of evidence, we searched for, gathered, and analyzed published and unpublished sources that 

794 examine the effectiveness of EPA’s NPDES program and whether or to what degree the program has had (1) 

795 adverse consequences for natural flora and fauna that have some dependency on the quality of waters of the United 

796 States or (2) adverse consequences for species that have been listed as endangered or threatened. In particular, we 

797 considered information contained in EPA’s Biological Evaluation for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 

798 Pesticides General Permit (PGP) and reviews of the effectiveness of the NPDES program and of existing general 

799 permits. We also considered previous ESA Section 7 consultations on pesticide uses, species status reviews, listing 

800 documents, recovery plans, reports on the status and trends of water quality, past and current research and 

801 population dynamics modeling. 

802 We supplemented this information by searching for NPDES compliance data in the Permit Compliance System 

803 (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICISNPDES) databases9 804 of EPA’s Online Tracking Information System. These databases track the number of inspections 

805 and enforcement actions over five years along with the number of quarters in non compliance and the frequency of 

806 effluent exceedances over three years. We collected the data on January 5, 2011, which contained data that were 

807 current as of October 21, 2010. 

808 Our search targeted general and individual permits for entities where EPA was the permitting authority as identified 

809 in the Description of the Proposed Action section of this Biological Opinion. The ICIS-NPDES query was run with 

810 Compliance Status set to “on” since facilities with compliance status set to “off “ may have violations that have not 

811 yet been entered into the database. The search also selected only active permits, which are those designated as 

812 “effective” or under “administrative continuation.” Data were analyzed to evaluate the compliance and enforcement 

813 patterns of EPA’s existing general and individual permits. To avoid bias from permits with multiple inspections due 

 

9

 The PCS was the original tracking mechanism for NPDES permits and currently includes data for 21 states. State by state, the 

data in PCS is being migrated into the newer ICIS-NPDES. The ICIS-NPDES currently tracks data for the remaining states not 

represented in PCS, U.S. territories, the Navajo Nation, and the St. Regis Tribe. 
30

814 to compliance and enforcement actions, the frequency data were converted into presence/absence of inspection, 

815 compliance and enforcement events. 

816 We used a second body of evidence to assess the probable consequences of authorizing discharges of pesticide 

817 pollutants on, over, or near waters of the United States on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that 

818 has been designated for those species. To assemble this body of information, we searched peer-reviewed scientific 

819 literature, master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, government reports and studies and reports from commercial 

820 vendors. Specifically, we searched the National Library of Medicine’s Hazardous Substance Data Bank, TOXNET, 

821 Toxline, EXTOXNET pesticide information profiles and EPA’s National Information System for the Regional 

822 Integrated Pest Management Centers (http://www.ipmcenters.org/Ecotox/DataAccess.cfm) for papers on the toxicity 

823 of representatives of the 171 active ingredients whose discharges would be authorized by the proposed PGP. 

824 We supplemented those searches with searches of web-sites maintained by the Departments of Agriculture and 

825 mosquito control authorities of the six States, territories and Indian lands that would be included in the proposed 

826 PGP. We specifically focused on data in the States of Idaho, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire because those 

827 States overlap greatly with the distributions of clusters of endangered and threatened species under NMFS’ 

828 jurisdiction (listed species of Pacific salmon in the case of Idaho and listed sturgeon in the case of Massachusetts 

829 and New Hampshire). We searched those sites for information on the active ingredients or formulations those States, 

830 Territories, and Tribal governments employ for the four use patterns included in the PGP, data on concentrations of 

831 active ingredients, degradates, and mixtures on surface waters within the jurisdictional boundaries of those areas 

832 where the EPA is the permitting authority, and data on the consequences of exposing endemic fish and wildlife to 

833 those concentrations. These searches focused on identifying recent information on the biology, ecology, distribution, 

834 status and trends of the threatened and endangered species considered in this Opinion. We considered the results of 

835 these searches based on the quality of their study design, sample sizes and study results. 

836 Action Area 

837 EPA has defined the action area for the PGP consultation as all waters of the United States (as defined in 40 CFR 

838 122.2) in States and Territories where the EPA is the permitting authority: Alaska, American Samoa, District of 

839 Columbia, Guam, Idaho, Johnston Atoll, Massachusetts, Midway Island, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Northern 

840 Mariana Islands, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico and Wake Island. In addition, the action area also includes all waters of the 

841 United States receiving discharges from pesticide applications on Federal lands in Colorado, Delaware, Vermont 

842 and Washington, as well as Indian lands nationwide. This area includes waters from the line of ordinary low water 

843 along the coast extending seaward to a distance of three miles. 

844 Because endangered or threatened species that are under the jurisdiction of NMFS do not occur in all of these 

845 geographic areas (for example, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, and many Indian lands), the Action Area for this 

846 consultation encompasses the areas where the geographic areas where EPA is the permitting authority overlaps with 

847 the distribution of endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction. As a result, we do not include New 

848 Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado or Indian lands that do not overlap with the distribution of endangered or threatened 

849 species under NMFS’ jurisdiction in the Action Area for this Opinion. 

850 Although degradates and metabolites of some of the pesticide pollutants considered in this Opinion might be 

851 transported more than three miles from our coastline at some concentration, the data we would need to follow a 
31

852 pesticide as it is transported from a particular application site to reservoirs in coastal waters and the open ocean are 

853 not available to us. Similarly, the data we would need to trace pesticides found in the tissues of marine and coastal 

854 animals back to particular terrestrial applications are not available. Without some data or other information, we can 

855 only acknowledge the probability of this kind of transport in our Opinion; we do not extend the action area more 

856 than three miles from the coast of the coastal states, territories, and possessions included in the proposed PGP. 

857 Status of the Species and Critical Habitat and Environmental Baseline 

In this section of this Opinion we describe the threatened and endangered species10 858 and their designated critical 

859 habitat that occur in the action area and may be exposed to the direct or indirect effects of discharges of pesticide 

860 pollutants authorized by the proposed PGP. All listed species within NMFS’ jurisdiction are “aquatic” or “aquatic 

861 dependent” and may occur within portions of the action area. NMFS has determined that the following species and 

862 critical habitat “may be affected” by EPA’s proposed PGP (Table 2). 

Table 2. Species Listed as Threatened and Endangered and Proposed for Listing and their Designated Critical Habitat 

(Denoted by Asterisk) in the Action Area. Double Asterisks Denote Proposed Critical Habitat. 

 Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Cetaceans 

Beluga whale* (Cook Inlet) Delphinapterus leucas Endangered 

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered 

Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Endangered 

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Endangered 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered 

Killer Whale (Southern Resident*) Orcinus orca Endangered 

North Atlantic right whale* Eubalaena glacialis Endangered 

North Pacific right whale* Eubalaena japonica Endangered 

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered 

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Endangered 

 

Pinnipeds

Hawaiian monk seal*† Monachus schauinslandi Endangered 

Steller sea lion (Eastern population*) Eumetopias jubatus Threatened 

 

10 We use the word “species” as it has been defined in section 3 of the ESA, which include “species, subspecies, and any distinct

population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1533)”. Pacific 

salmon that have been listed as endangered or threatened were listed as “evolutionarily significant units (ESU)” which NMFS 

uses to identify distinct population segments (DPS) of Pacific salmon. Any ESU or DPS is a “species” for the purposes of the 

ESA. 
32

Table 2. Species Listed as Threatened and Endangered and Proposed for Listing and their Designated Critical Habitat 

(Denoted by Asterisk) in the Action Area. Double Asterisks Denote Proposed Critical Habitat. 

 Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Steller sea lion (Western population*) Endangered 

Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi Threatened 

Spotted seal (southern population) Phoca largha Threatened 

Marine Turtles 

Green sea turtle (Florida & Mexico’s Pacific coast colonies)* Chelonia mydas Endangered 

Green sea turtle (All other areas)* Threatened 

Hawksbill sea turtle* Eretmochelys imbricate Endangered 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered 

Leatherback sea turtle* (also **) Dermochelys coriacea Endangered 

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened 

Olive ridley sea turtle (Mexico’s Pacific coast breeding colonies) Lepidochelys olivacea Endangered 

Olive ridley sea turtle (All other areas) Threatened 

Marine and Anadromous Fish 

Atlantic salmon (Gulf of Maine)* Salmo salar Endangered 

Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Endangered 

Canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger Threatened 

Pacific eulachon/smelt (Southern**) Thaleichthys Pacificus Threatened 

Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Threatened 

Chinook salmon (California coastal *) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened 

Chinook salmon (Central Valley spring-run*) Threatened 

Chinook salmon (Lower Columbia River*) Threatened 

Chinook salmon (Upper Columbia River spring-run*) Threatened 

Chinook salmon (Puget Sound*) Threatened 

Chinook salmon (Sacramento River winter-run*) Endangered 

Chinook salmon (Snake River fall-run*) Threatened 

Chinook salmon (Snake River spring/summer-run*) Threatened 

Chinook salmon (Upper Willamette River*) Threatened 

Chum salmon (Columbia River*) Oncorhynchus keta Threatened 
33

Table 2. Species Listed as Threatened and Endangered and Proposed for Listing and their Designated Critical Habitat 

(Denoted by Asterisk) in the Action Area. Double Asterisks Denote Proposed Critical Habitat. 

 Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Chum salmon (Hood Canal summer-run*) Threatened 

Coho salmon (Central California coast*) Oncorhynchus kisutch Endangered 

Coho salmon (Lower Columbia River) Threatened 

Coho salmon (Southern Oregon & Northern California coast*) Threatened 

Coho salmon (Oregon coast*) Threatened 

Green sturgeon (Southern*) Acipenser medirostris Threatened 

Gulf sturgeon* Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened 

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered 

Smalltooth sawfish* Pristis pectinata Endangered 

Sockeye salmon (Ozette Lake*) Oncorhynchus nerka Threatened 

Sockeye salmon (Snake River*) Endangered 

Steelhead (Central California coast*) Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened 

Steelhead (California Central Valley*) Threatened 

Steelhead (Lower Columbia River*) Threatened 

Steelhead (Middle Columbia River*) Threatened 

Steelhead (Northern California*) Threatened 

Steelhead (Puget Sound) Threatened 

Steelhead (Snake River*) Threatened 

Steelhead (South-Central California Coast*) Threatened 

Steelhead (Southern California*) Endangered 

Steelhead (Upper Columbia River*) Threatened 

Steelhead (Upper Willamette River*) Threatened 

 

 Marine Invertebrates 

Black abalone** Haliotis cracherodii Endangered 

White abalone Haliotis sorenseni Endangered 

Elkhorn coral* Acropora palmata Threatened 

Staghorn coral* Acropora cervicornis Threatened 

Marine Plant 
34

Table 2. Species Listed as Threatened and Endangered and Proposed for Listing and their Designated Critical Habitat 

(Denoted by Asterisk) in the Action Area. Double Asterisks Denote Proposed Critical Habitat. 

 Common Name Scientific Name Status 

Johnson’s seagrass* Halophila johnsonii Threatened 

† 863 Proposed for revision (74 FR 27988). 

864 NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have joint jurisdiction over sea turtles, gulf sturgeon and Atlantic 

865 salmon. To avoid redundancy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is generally responsible for endangered and 

866 threatened sea turtles above mean higher high water (when they are on their nesting beaches as opposed to when 

867 they are in or beyond the surf zone) and for Gulf sturgeon and Atlantic salmon when they are in fresh water (as 

868 opposed to when they are in estuarine or marine water). Because the FWS is responsible for assessing the effects of 

869 Federal actions on gulf sturgeon and Atlantic salmon while they are in fresh water and the proposed action 

870 constitutes such a Federal action, the FWS is responsible for assessing the effects of EPA’s proposal on gulf 

871 sturgeon, Atlantic salmon, and critical habitat that has been designated for gulf sturgeon pursuant to Section 7 (a)(2) 

872 of the Act. We do not consider these species further in this Opinion. 

873 Species and Critical Habitat Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Proposed Action 

874 As described in the Approach to the Assessment, NMFS uses two criteria to identify those endangered or threatened 

875 species or critical habitat that are not likely to be adversely affected by discharges of pesticide pollutants that would 

876 be authorized by the proposed PGP. The first criterion is exposure or some reasonable expectation of a co877 occurrence between one or more discharges of the pesticide pollutants that would be authorized by the proposed 

878 PGP and a particular listed species or designated critical habitat. If we conclude that a listed species or designated 

879 critical habitat is not likely to be exposed to those discharges through direct or indirect exposure pathways, we must 

880 conclude that the critical habitat is not likely to be adversely affected by those activities. The second criterion is the 

881 probability of a response given exposure, which considers susceptibility: species that may be exposed to the 

882 discharges of pesticide pollutants that would be authorized by the proposed PGP, but that exposure is not likely to 

883 have adverse physical, physiological, behavioral or ecological consequences for individuals that are likely to be 

884 exposed. We applied these criteria to the species listed at the beginning of this section; the subsections that 

885 immediately following this introductory paragraph summarize the results of those evaluations. 

886 Based upon our analyses, we concluded that many of the endangered or threatened species listed in Table 2 are 

887 either not likely to be exposed to discharges of pesticide pollutants that would be authorized by the proposed PGP or 

888 are not likely to respond upon being exposed to those pesticide pollutants. Specifically, we would not expect the 

889 following threatened or endangered species to respond physically, physiologically, behaviorally, or ecologically 

890 given exposure to discharges associated with the proposed PGP: 

891 Endangered and Threatened Marine Mammals 

892 Blue whales, bowhead whales, fin whales, humpback whales, North Atlantic right whales, North Pacific right 

893 whales, sei whales, sperm whales, Guadalupe fur seals, Hawaiian monk seals, spotted seal, western population of 

894 Steller sea lion, and eastern population of Steller sea lion all occur or have been reported to occur within three miles 

895 of the coast of one or more of the states, territories, or possessions that are included in the proposed PGP. As a 

896 result, they occur within the Action Area for this consultation. Nevertheless, these species are either not likely to be 

897 exposed to the direct or indirect effects of the discharges that would be authorized by the proposed PGP or they are 
35

898 not likely to respond given exposure. 

899 In North America, bowhead whales occur in the Beaufort, Bering and Chukchi Seas. Discharges associated with the 

900 four use patterns authorized by the proposed PGP have not traditionally occurred in coastal areas of the U.S. 

901 portions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas or the freshwater rivers that drain into the U.S. portions of the Beaufort 

902 and Chukchi Seas, so bowhead whales are not likely to be exposed to pesticide residues in those geographic areas. 

903 Similarly, discharges of pesticide pollutants are not likely to occur in coastal areas of the Bering Sea, although they 

904 might occur in rivers that drain into the Bering Sea from the U.S. (for example, discharges associated with forest 

905 treatments in the upper Yukon or Kuskokwim River basins). However, because wintering bowhead whales do not 

906 appear to feed while wintering (like other large whales), they are not likely to be exposed to pesticide pollutants 

907 through their diets or because of changes in the distribution or abundance of their forage base while in the Bering 

908 Sea. As a result, we conclude that bowhead whales are not likely to be exposed to the direct or indirect effects of the 

909 proposed action and we will not discuss this species further in this Opinion. 

910 Because they breathe air (rather than respire through gills or similar anatomical structures), blue whales, fin whales, 

911 humpback whales, North Atlantic right whales, North Pacific right whales, sei whales, sperm whales, Guadalupe fur 

912 seals, Hawaiian monk seals, members of the western population of Steller sea lions, members of the eastern 

913 population of Steller sea lions and spotted seals would only be exposed to pesticide pollutants through their diets or 

914 because of changes in the distribution or abundance of their prey (tropic exposure). Because the distances that would 

915 separate the foraging areas of these species from discharges of pesticide pollutants are substantial and any pesticide 

916 pollutants would be degraded by exposure to sunlight, microbial action, and chemical processes in the freshwater 

917 ecosystems,, estuaries, and coastal areas before they would enter the diets or affect the prey base of these species, 

918 residual concentrations of those pesticide pollutants would probably be below concentrations that would have no 

919 observed adverse effect on the marine mammals or their prey. As a result, we conclude that these species might be 

920 exposed to residual concentrations of pesticide pollutants associated with the proposed PGP, but they are not likely 

921 to be exposed at concentrations that are likely produce adverse physical, chemical, physiological, behavioral or 

922 ecological responses in those species. As a result, these species are not likely to be adversely affected by the 

923 proposed action and we will not discuss them further in this Opinion. 

924 Endangered and Threatened Sea Turtles 

925 Green sea turtles, hawksbill sea turtles, Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, leatherback sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, 

926 olive ridley sea turtles all occur or have been reported to occur within three miles of the coast of one or more of the 

927 states, territories, or possessions that are included in the proposed PGP. As a result, they occur within the Action 

928 Area for this consultation. Nevertheless, these species are either not likely to be exposed to the direct or indirect 

929 effects of the discharges that would be authorized by the proposed PGP or they are not likely to respond given 

930 exposure. 

931 Because, like marine mammals, sea turtles breathe air they could only be exposed to pesticide pollutants through 

932 their diets or because of changes in the distribution or abundance of their prey (tropic exposure). Because the 

933 distances that would separate the foraging areas of these species from discharges of pesticide pollutants are 

934 substantial and any pesticide pollutants would be degraded by exposure to sunlight, microbial action, and chemical 

935 processes in the freshwater ecosystems, estuaries, and coastal areas before they would enter the diets or affect the 

936 prey base of these species, concentrations of those pesticide pollutants would probably be below concentrations that 

937 would have no observed adverse effect on the sea turtles or their prey. As a result, we conclude that these species 

938 might be exposed to concentrations of pesticide pollutants associated with the proposed PGP, but they are not likely 

939 to be exposed at concentrations that are likely produce adverse physical, chemical, physiological, behavioral or 
36

940 ecological responses in those species. As a result, these species are not likely to be adversely affected by the 

941 proposed action and we will not discuss them further in this Opinion. 

942 Endangered and Threatened Marine Fish 

943 Bocaccio, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, and smalltooth sawfish all occur or have been reported to occur in 

944 coastal waters of the Action Area for this consultation. Nevertheless, these species are either not likely to be exposed 

945 to the direct or indirect effects of the discharges that would be authorized by the proposed PGP or they are not likely 

946 to respond given exposure. 

947 Adult Georgia Basin bocaccio are most common at depths between 50 and 250 meters (160 and 820 feet); Georgia 

948 Basin yelloweye rockfish are most common at depths between 91 and 180 meters (300 to 580 feet), although they 

949 may occur in waters 50 to 475 meters (160 and 1,400 feet) deep; and canary rockfish are most common at depths 

950 between 50 and 250 meters (160 and 820 feet) and may occur at depths of 425 meters (1,400 feet). The larvae of 

951 these rockfish occur over areas that extend several hundred miles offshore where they are passively dispersed by 

952 ocean currents and remain in larval form and as small juveniles for several months (Moser and Boehlert, 1991; Auth 

953 and Brodeur, 2006). They appear to concentrate over the continental shelf and slope, but have been captured more 

954 than 250 nautical miles offshore of the Oregon coast (Richardson et al., 1980; Moser and Boehlert, 1991). Larval 

955 rockfish have been reported to be uniformly distributed at depths of 13, 37 and 117 meters below surface, so they 

956 occur at depths that would bring them into sound fields produced by mid-frequency active sonar (Lenarz et al., 

957 1991). Larval bocaccio had highest abundance at depths of 13 meters, but were also captured in the 117-meter 

958 samples. Larval canary rockfish were captured at all three depths, but their densities were highest at the 37- and 177-

959 meter depths (Lenarz et al., 1991). 

960 Because of the small size of the adult, breeding population of endangered and threatened rockfish, the large area 

961 over which those larvae are likely to disperse, and their low relative frequency (that is, their density as a percent of 

962 the density of the larvae of the more abundance species of rockfish), the density of larvae of endangered or 

963 threatened rockfish will be very small offshore. Of the three species, Georgia Basin bocaccio are likely to have the 

964 smallest densities because the size of the adult, breeding population in this species is very small and they have the 

965 lowest fecundities of the three species. Nevertheless, the density of Georgia Basin canary rockfish and Georgia 

966 Basin yelloweye rockfish are also very small relative to the densities of other, non-listed rockfish that have much 

967 larger adult population sizes and fecundities that overlap with those of yelloweye rockfish (which are the most 

968 fecund of the endangered or threatened rockfish). 

969 Because of their geographic distribution and distance from source of pesticide applications, these species are not 

970 likely to be exposed to the direct or indirect effects of the discharges that would be authorized by the proposed PGP 

971 or they are not likely to be exposed at concentrations that would elicit adverse physical, chemical, physiological, 

972 behavioral or ecological responses. As a result, these species are not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed 

973 action and we will not discuss them further in this Opinion. 

974 Smalltooth sawfish are tropical, marine and estuarine fish that inhabit shallow waters of inshore bars, mangrove 

975 edges and seagrass beds, although they are occasionally found in deeper coastal waters (NMFS, 2000). Historically, 

976 this species was common in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico and along the eastern seaboard of the United 

977 States to North Carolina (rare sightings of this sawfish occurred as far north as New York). Their current range is 

978 limited to peninsular Florida, where they are only found with any regularity off the extreme southern portion of the 

979 peninsula (off Everglades National Park and Florida Bay). 

980 The proposed PGP would not apply to any of the states within the geographic distribution of smalltooth sawfish, but 
37

981 it would apply to Indian lands within southern Florida (for example, Miccosukee Tribal lands and Seminole Tribal 

982 lands). Any discharges of pesticide pollutants on those Tribal lands would have to be transported through Everglades 

983 National Park or Big Cypress National Park where they would be degraded by exposure to sunlight, microbial action 

984 and chemical processes in the wetlands that form those parks before they would enter the diets or affect smalltooth 

985 sawfish or their prey base. Because of those processes, concentrations of these pesticide pollutants would probably 

986 be below concentrations that would have no observed adverse effect on smalltooth sawfish or their prey. As a result, 

987 we conclude that smalltooth sawfish might be exposed to concentrations of pesticide pollutants associated with the 

988 proposed PGP, but they are not likely to be exposed at concentrations that are likely produce adverse physical, 

989 chemical, physiological, behavioral or ecological responses in this species. As a result, smalltooth sawfish are not 

990 likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action and we will not discuss them further in this Opinion. 

991 Endangered and Threatened Marine Invertebrates 

992 Elkhorn coral, staghorn coral, black abalone, and white abalone all occur or have been reported to occur in coastal 

993 waters of the Action Area for this consultation. Nevertheless, these species are either not likely to be exposed to the 

994 direct or indirect effects of the discharges that would be authorized by the proposed PGP or they are not likely to 

995 respond given exposure. 

996 Elkhorn and staghorn coral are found on coral reefs in southern Florida (particularly the Florida Keys), the Bahamas, 

997 and throughout the Caribbean (Puerto Rico, St. John, St. Thomas, and St. Croix). The northern limit for elkhorn 

998 coral is Biscayne National Park, Florida, and it extends south to Venezuela; it is not found in Bermuda. The northern 

999 limit for staghorn coral is around Boca Raton, Florida. 

1000 The proposed PGP would not apply to Florida, but it would apply to Indian lands within southern Florida (for 

1001 example, Miccosukee Tribal lands and Seminole Tribal lands). In Florida, any discharges of pesticide pollutants on 

1002 those Tribal lands would have to be transported through Everglades National Park or Big Cypress National Park 

1003 where they would be degraded by exposure to sunlight, microbial action and chemical processes in the wetlands that 

1004 form those parks before they would enter Florida Bay where they might interact with the Florida Keys. Because of 

1005 those processes, concentrations of these pesticide pollutants would probably be below concentrations that would 

1006 have no observed adverse effect on these coral. In Puerto Rico, the location of the elkhorn and staghorn corals are 

1007 far enough from the location of potential discharge sites, the pesticide residues would be degraded by exposure to 

1008 sunlight, microbial action, and chemical processes before they would enter the coastal waters in which the coral are 

1009 located. As a result, we conclude that elkhorn and staghorn coral might be exposed to concentrations of pesticide 

1010 pollutants associated with the proposed PGP, but they are not likely to be exposed at concentrations that are likely 

1011 produce adverse physical, chemical, physiological, behavioral or ecological responses in this species. As a result, 

1012 elkhorn and staghorn coral are not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action and we will not discuss 

1013 them further in this Opinion. 

1014 Historically, black abalone occurred from about Point Arena in northern California to Bahia Tortugas and Isla 

1015 Guadalupe, Mexico. Black abalone are rare north of San Francisco and south of Punta Eugenia, and unconfirmed 

1016 sightings have been reported as far north as Coos Bay, Oregon. The northernmost documented record of black 

1017 abalone (based on museum specimens) is from Crescent City (Geiger, 2004). Most experts agree that the current 

1018 range of black abalone extends from Point Arena (Mendocino County, California, USA) south to Northern Baja 

1019 California, Mexico. Black abalone may exist, but are considered extremely rare, north of San Francisco to Crescent 

1020 City, California, USA and south of Punta Eugenia to Cabo San Lucas, Baja California, Mexico (P. Raimondi, 

1021 personal communication). 

1022 Historically, white abalone occurred from Point Conception, California to Punta Abreojos, Baja California, Mexico. 
38

1023 They are the deepest-living of the west coast abalone species (Hobday and Tegner, 2000): they had been caught at 

1024 depths of 20-60 m (66-197 ft) but had been reported as having had the highest abundance at depths of 25-30 m (80-

1025 100 ft (Cox, 1960). At these depths, white abalone are found in open low relief rock or boulder habitat surrounded 

1026 by sand (Tutschulte, 1976). Over the past 30 years, the white abalone populations have declined precipitously in 

1027 abundance primarily as a result of exploitation. Surveys conducted at Tanner and Cortez Banks have yielded 

1028 numbers of white abalone in the low hundreds (Butler et al., 2006). 

1029 Because of their geographic distribution and distance from source of pesticide applications, these species are not 

1030 likely to be exposed to the direct or indirect effects of the discharges that would be authorized by the proposed PGP 

1031 or they are not likely to be exposed at concentrations that would elicit adverse physical, chemical, physiological, 

1032 behavioral or ecological responses. As a result, these species are not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed 

1033 action and we will not discuss them further in this Opinion. 

1034 Johnson’s Seagrass 

1035 Johnson’s seagrass and the critical habitat for this species occur in Indian River lagoon along the Atlantic coast of 

1036 southern Florida. The proposed PGP would not apply to Florida, but it would apply to Indian lands within southern 

1037 Florida (for example, Miccosukee Tribal lands and Seminole Tribal lands). Any discharges of pesticide pollutants on 

1038 those Tribal lands would have to be transported through Everglades National Park or Big Cypress National Park, not 

1039 east to Indian River lagoon. As a result, Johnson’s seagrass are not likely to be exposed to the proposed action and, 

1040 therefore, is not likely to be adversely affected by the proposal. We will not discuss this species further in this 

1041 Opinion. 

Climate Change11 1042 

1043 There is now widespread consensus within the scientific community that atmospheric temperatures on earth are 

1044 increasing (warming) and that these increases will continue for at least the next several decades (IPCC, 2001). The 

1045 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that average global land and sea surface temperature 

1046 has increased by 0.6°C (± 0.2) since the mid-1800s, with most of the change occurring since 1976. This temperature 

1047 increase is greater than what would be expected given the range of natural climatic variability recorded over the past 

1048 1,000 years (Crowley and Berner, 2001). The IPCC reviewed computer simulations of the effect of greenhouse gas 

1049 emissions on observed climate variations that have been recorded in the past and evaluated the influence of natural 

1050 phenomena such as solar and volcanic activity. Based on their review, the IPCC concluded that natural phenomena 

1051 are insufficient to explain the increasing trend in land and sea surface temperature, and that atmospheric warming 

1052 observed over the last 50 years is probably attributable to human activities (IPCC, 2001). Climatic models estimate 

1053 that global temperatures would increase between 1.4 to 5.8°C from 1990 to 2100 if humans do nothing to reduce 

1054 greenhouse gas emissions from current levels (IPCC, 2001). 

1055 In the Northeast, annual average temperatures have increased by 2°F since 1970, with winter temperatures 

1056 increasing by up to 4°F (Karl et al., 2009). Over the same time interval, the Northeast has experienced more days 

1057 with temperatures greater than 90°F, a longer growing season, increased heavy precipitation, more winter 

1058 precipitation falling as rain than as snow, reduced snowpack, earlier breakup of winter ice on lakes and rivers, earlier 

1059 spring snowmelt resulting in earlier peak river flows, rising sea surface temperatures and sea level. 

 

11 The threats posed by the direct and indirect effects of global climatic change are or will be common to all of the species we 

discuss in this Opinion. Because of this commonality, we present this single narrative rather than in each of the species-specific 

narratives that appear later in this section of our Opinion. 
39

1060 Over the next several decades, the Northeast is expected to experience temperatures increases of another 2.5 to 4°F 

1061 during the winter season and 1.5 to 3.5°F during the summer season as a result of carbon emissions that have already 

1062 occurred (Burakowski et al., 2008; Karl et al., 2009). Forecasts beyond the middle of this century are sensitive to the 

1063 level of carbon emissions produced today. If carbon emissions are not reduced, the length of the winter snow season 

1064 would be cut in half across northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, and reduced to a week or 

1065 two in southern parts of the region; the Northeast would have fewer cold days during the winter and experience 

1066 more precipitation (Hayhoe et al., 2007; Karl et al., 2009). 

1067 Cities in the Northeast that currently experience temperatures greater than 100°F for a few days each summer would 

1068 experience an average of 20 days of such temperatures each summer; some cities in the Northeast -- Hartford, 

1069 Connecticut, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for example -- would experience an average of 30 days of such 

1070 temperatures each summer (Karl et al., 2009). Hot summer conditions would arrive three weeks earlier and last three 

1071 weeks longer into the fall. Droughts lasting from one- to three-months are projected to occur as frequently as once 

1072 each summer in the Catskill and Adirondack Mountains, and across the New England states. Finally, sea levels in 

1073 this region are projected to rise more than the global average, which would increase coastal flooding and coastal 

1074 erosion (Kirshen et al., 2008; Karl et al., 2009). 

1075 In the Pacific Northwest, annual average temperatures have increased by about 1.5°F over the past century with 

1076 some areas experiencing increases of up to 4°F (Karl et al., 2009; Littell et al., 2009; Elsner and Hamlet, 2010). 

1077 Higher temperatures during the cool season (October through March) have caused more precipitation to fall as rain 

1078 rather than snow and contribute to earlier snowmelt. The amount of snowpack remaining on April 1, which is a key 

1079 indicator of natural water storage available for the warm season, has declined substantially throughout the Northwest 

1080 region. In the Cascade Mountains, for example, the snowpack remaining on April 1 declined by an average of 25 

1081 percent over the past 40 to 70 years; most of this decline is attributed to the 2.5°F increase in temperatures during 

1082 the winter season over the time interval (Payne et al., 2004; Christensen et al., 2007). 

1083 Over the next century, average temperatures in the Northwest Region are projected to increase by another 3 to 10°F, 

1084 with higher emissions scenarios resulting in warming in the upper end of this range (Christensen et al., 2007; Karl et 

1085 al., 2009). Increases in winter precipitation and decreases in summer precipitation are projected by many climate 

1086 models, though these projections are less certain than those for temperature. 

1087 There is consensus within the scientific community that warming trends will continue to alter current weather 

1088 pattern and patterns of natural phenomena that are influenced by climate, including the timing and intensity of 

1089 extreme events such as heat-waves, floods, storms, and wet-dry cycles. Oceanographic models project a weakening 

1090 of the thermohaline circulation resulting in a reduction of heat transport into high latitudes of Europe, an increase in 

1091 the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet, and a decrease in the Greenland ice sheet, although the magnitude of these 

1092 changes remain unknown (Schmittner et al., 2005; Levermann et al., 2007). As ice melts in the Earth’s polar regions 

1093 in response to increases in temperature, increases in the distribution and abundance of cold water are projected to 

1094 influence oceanic currents, which would further alter weather patterns. In addition to influencing atmospheric 

1095 temperatures and weather patterns, increases in greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere have begun to increase 

1096 rates of carbon capture and storage in the oceans: as carbon dioxide levels in the oceans increase, the waters will 

1097 become more acidic, which would affect the physiology of large marine animals and cause structures made of 

1098 calcium carbonate (for example, corals) to dissolve (IPCC, 2001; Royal Society of London, 2005). 

1099 Climate change is projected to have substantial direct and indirect effects on individuals, populations, species, and 

1100 the structure and function of marine, coastal, and terrestrial ecosystems in the foreseeable future (McCarthy et al., 

1101 2001; Parry et al., 2007) (see Table 3). Climate-mediated changes in the global distribution and abundance are 
40

1102 expected to reduce the productivity of the oceans by affecting keystone prey species in marine ecosystems such as 

1103 phytoplankton, krill, cephalopods. 

1104 Increasing atmospheric temperatures have already contributed to changes in the quality of the freshwater, coastal 

1105 and marine ecosystems that are essential to the survival and recovery of salmon populations and have contributed to 

1106 the decline of populations of endangered and threatened species (Mantua et al., 1997; Karl et al., 2009; Littell et al., 

1107 2009). Since the late 1970s, sea surface temperatures have increased and coastal upwelling -which is recognized as 

1108 an important mechanism governing the production of both phytoplankton and zooplankton- has decreased resulting 

1109 in reduced prey availability and poorer marine survival of Pacific salmon. Changes in the number of Chinook 

1110 salmon escaping into the Klamath River between 1978 and 2005 corresponded with changes in coastal upwelling 

1111 and marine productivity and the survival of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and Oregon coho salmon 

1112 has been predicted using indices of coastal ocean upwelling (Karl et al., 2009; Littell et al., 2009; Elsner and 

1113 Hamlet, 2010). The majority (90%) of year-to-year variability in marine survival of hatchery reared coho salmon 

1114 between 1985 and 1996 can be explained by coastal oceanographic conditions. 

Table 3. Phenomena associated with projections of global climate change including levels of confidence associated 

with projections (adapted from IPCC 2001 and Campbell-Lendrum Woodruff 2007) 

Phenomenon 

Confidence in Observed Changes 

(observed in the latter 20th

Century) 

Confidence in Projected 

Changes (during the 21st

Century) 

Higher maximum temperatures and a greater number 

of hot days over almost all land areas Likely Very likely 

Higher minimum temperatures with fewer cold days 

and frost days over almost all land areas Very likely Very likely 

Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land 

areas Very likely Very likely 

Increased heat index over most land areas Likely over many areas Very likely over most areas 

More intense precipitation events 

Likely over many mid- to highlatitude areas in Northern 

Hemisphere 

Very likely over many areas 

Increased summer continental drying and associated 

probability of drought Likely in a few areas 

Likely over most mid-latitude 

continental interiors (projections 

are inconsistent for other areas) 

Increase in peak wind intensities in tropical cyclones Not observed Likely over some areas 

Increase in mean and peak precipitation intensities in 

tropical cyclones Insufficient data Likely over some areas 

1115 

1116 Changes in temperature and precipitation projected over the next few decades are projected to decrease snow pack, 

1117 affect stream flow and water quality throughout the Pacific Northwest region (Stewart et al., 2004; Knowles et al., 

1118 2006; Mote et al., 2008; Rauscher et al., 2008). Warmer temperatures are expected to reduce snow accumulation 

1119 and increase stream flows during the winter, cause spring snowmelt to occur earlier in the year causing spring 

1120 stream flows to peak earlier in the year, and reduced summer stream flows in rivers that depend on snow melt (most 

1121 rivers in the Pacific Northwest depend on snow melt). As a result, seasonal stream flow timing will likely shift 

1122 significantly in sensitive watersheds (Littell et al., 2009). 

1123 The States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, are likely to experience increased forest growth over the next few 
41

1124 decades followed by decreased forest growth as temperature increases overwhelm the ability of trees to make use of 

1125 higher winter precipitation and higher carbon dioxide. In coastal areas, climate change is forecast to increase coastal 

1126 erosion and beach loss (caused by rising sea levels), increase the number of landslides caused by higher winter 

1127 rainfall, inundate areas in southern Puget Sound around the city of Olympia, Washington (Littell et al., 2009). 

1128 Rising stream temperatures will likely reduce the quality and extent of freshwater salmon habitat. The duration of 

1129 periods that cause thermal stress and migration barriers to salmon is projected to at least double by the 2080s for 

1130 most analyzed streams and lakes (Littell et al., 2009). The greatest increases in thermal stress (including diseases 

1131 and parasites which thrive in warmer waters) would occur in the Interior Columbia River Basin and the Lake 

1132 Washington Ship Canal. The combined effects of warming stream temperatures and altered stream flows will very 

1133 likely reduce the reproductive success of many salmon populations in Washington watersheds, but impacts will vary 

1134 according to different life-history types and watershed-types. As more winter precipitation falls as rain rather than 

1135 snow, higher winter stream flows scour streambeds, damaging spawning nests and washing away incubating eggs 

1136 for Pacific Northwest salmon. Earlier peak stream flows flush young salmon from rivers to estuaries before they are 

1137 physically mature enough for transition, increasing a variety of stressors including the risk of being eaten by 

1138 predators. 

1139 As a result of these changes, about one third of the current habitat for either the endangered or threatened Northwest 

1140 salmon species will no longer be suitable for them by the end of this century as key temperature thresholds are 

1141 exceeded (Littell et al., 2009). As summer temperatures increase, juvenile salmon are expected to experience 

1142 reduced growth rates, impaired smoltification and greater vulnerability to predators. 

1143 Ocean acidification caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere poses a more 

1144 wide-spread threat because virtually every major biological function has been shown to respond to acidification 

1145 changes in seawater, including photosynthesis, respiration rate, growth rates, calcification rates, reproduction, and 

1146 recruitment (London, 2005; Smith, 2008). 

1147 At the same time as these changes in regional weather patterns and ocean productivity are expected to occur, the 

1148 oceans are expected to being increasingly acidic. Over the past 200 years, the oceans have absorbed about half of the 

1149 CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning and other human activities. This increase n carbon dioxide has led to a 

1150 reduction of the pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30 percent increase in the concentration of 

1151 hydrogen ions in the ocean. If global emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities continue to increase, the 

1152 average pH of the oceans is projected to fall by 0.5 units by the year 2100 (Royal Society of London, 2005). 

1153 Although the scale of these changes would vary regionally, this resulting pH would be lower than the oceans have 

1154 experienced over at least the past 420,000 years and the rate of change is probably one hundred times greater than 

1155 the oceans have experienced at any time over that time interval. More importantly, it will take tens of thousands of 

1156 years for ocean chemistry to return to a condition similar to that occurring at pre-industrial times (Royal Society of 

1157 London, 2005). 

1158 Marine species such as fish, larger invertebrates, and some zooplankton take up oxygen and lose respired carbon 

1159 dioxide through their gills. Increased carbon dioxide levels and decreased pH would have a major effect on this 

1160 respiratory gas exchange system because oxygen is much harder to obtain from surface seawater than it is from air 

1161 (primarily because concentrations of oxygen are lower in water). The processes involved in supplying oxygen to the 

1162 gills means that more carbon dioxide is removed from these aquatic animals than is removed from air breathing 

1163 animals of a similar size. This more ready removal of carbon dioxide from body fluids means that the level and 

1164 range of CO2 concentration in the bodies of water-breathing animals are much lower than is the case for air-
42

1165 breathing animals. As a result, large water breathing marine animals are more sensitive to changes in the carbon 

1166 dioxide concentration in the surrounding seawater than are large air-breathing animals. 

1167 This has important implications because higher ambient levels of carbon dioxide would acidify the body tissues and 

1168 fluids of these species and affect the ability of their blood to carry oxygen. Experimental studies have demonstrated 

1169 that acidosis of tissues decrease cellular energy use, lower respiratory activity, and lower rates of protein synthesis 

1170 (Pörtner et al., 2000; Pörtner et al., 2004)(Pörtner et al 2000, 2004). These changes would reduce the performance 

1171 of almost every physiological process of larger animals including their growth and reproduction (Langenbuch and 

1172 Pörtner, 2002, 2003). By itself, this effect of climate change poses severe risks for endangered and threatened 

1173 anadromous and marine species. In combination with changes in seasonal temperatures, formation of snow pack in 

1174 terrestrial ecosystems, upwelling phenomena, and ocean productivity, ocean acidification would lead us to expect 

1175 the status of endangered and threatened anadromous, coastal, and marine species to trend toward increasing decline 

1176 over the next three or four decades. 

1177 

1178 Species and Critical Habitat Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Proposed Action 

1179 The species’ narratives that follow focus on attributes of a species’ life history and distribution that influence the 

1180 manner and likelihood that a particular species may be exposed to the proposed action, as well as the species 

1181 potential response and risk when exposure occurs. Subsequent narratives summarize a larger body of information on 

1182 worldwide distribution, as well as localized movements within fresh water, estuarine, intertidal, and ocean waters, 

1183 population structure, feeding, diving and social behaviors. 

1184 Each species’ narrative is followed by a description of its critical habitat (if applicable) with particular emphasis on 

1185 any essential features of the habitat that may be exposed to the proposed action and may warrant special attention. 

1186 Anadromous Fish Species 

1187 Southern Pacific Eulachon Southern 

1188 Eulachon are small smelt native to eastern North Pacific waters from the Bering Sea to Monterey Bay, California, or 

1189 from 61o N to 31o N (1944; Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Minckley et al., 1986; Hay and McCarter, 2000). Eulachon that 

1190 spawn in rivers south of the Nass River of British Columbia to the Mad River of California comprise the southern 

1191 population of Pacific eulachon. This species is designated based upon timing of runs and genetic distinctions (Hart 

1192 and McHugh, 1944; McLean et al., 1999; Hay and McCarter, 2000; McLean and Taylor, 2001; Beacham et al., 

1193 2005). 

1194 Adult eulachon are found in coastal and offshore marine habitats (Allen and Smith, 1988; Hay and McCarter, 2000; 

1195 Willson et al., 2006). Larval and post larval eulachon prey upon phytoplankton, copepods, copepod eggs, mysids, 

1196 barnacle larvae, worm larvae, and other eulachon larvae until they reach adult size (WDFW and ODFW, 2001). The 

1197 primary prey of adult eulachon are copepods and euphausiids, malacostracans and cumaceans (Smith and Saalfeld, 

1198 1955; Barraclough, 1964; Drake and Wilson, 1991; Sturdevant et al., 1999; Hay and McCarter, 2000) 

1199 Although primarily marine, eulachon return to freshwater to spawn. Adult eulachon have been observed in several 

1200 rivers along the west coast (Odemar, 1964; Moyle, 1976b; Minckley et al., 1986; Emmett et al., 1991; Jennings, 

1201 1996; Wright, 1999; Larson and Belchik, 2000; Musick et al., 2000; WDFW and ODFW, 2001). For the southern 

1202 population of Pacific eulachon, most spawning is believed to occur in the Columbia River and its tributaries as well 

1203 as in other Oregonian and Washingtonian rivers (Emmett et al., 1991; Musick et al., 2000; WDFW and ODFW, 

1204 2001). Southern species fish likely take less time to mature than do fish from more northerly rivers and generally 
43

1205 spawn earlier in southern portions of their range than in northern rivers (Clarke et al., 2007). 

1206 Spawning takes place at differential time and temperatures, depending upon the river system involved (Willson et 

1207 al., 2006). In the Columbia River and further south, spawning occurs from late January to March, although river 

1208 entry occurs as early as December (Hay and McCarter, 2000). The peak of eulachon runs in Washington State is 

1209 from February through March. Alaskan runs occur in May and river entry may extend into June (Hay and McCarter, 

1210 2000). Females lay eggs over sand, course gravel or detritial substrate. Eggs attach to gravel or sand and incubate for 

1211 30 to 40 days after which larvae drift to estuaries and coastal marine waters (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). 

1212 Eulachon generally die following spawning (Scott and Crossman, 1973). The maximum known lifespan is 9 years of 

1213 age, but 20 to 30% of individuals live to 4 years and most individuals survive to 3 years of age, although spawning 

1214 has been noted as early as 2 years of age (Barraclough, 1964; Parente and Snyder, 1970; Langer et al., 1977; 

1215 Wydoski and Whitney, 1979a; Barrett et al., 1984; Hugg, 1996; Hay and McCarter, 2000; WDFW and ODFW, 

1216 2001). The age distribution of spawners varies between river and from year-to-year (Willson et al., 2006). 

1217 Status and Trends 

1218 The southern population of Pacific eulachon was listed as threatened on March 18, 2010 (75 FR 13012). It is 

1219 considered to be at moderate risk of extinction throughout its range because of a variety of factors, including 

1220 predation, commercial and recreational fishing pressure (directed and bycatch), and loss of habitat. Further 

1221 population decline is anticipated to continue as a result of climate change and bycatch in commercial fisheries. 

1222 However, because of their fecundity, eulachon are assumed to have the ability to recover quickly if given the 

1223 opportunity (Bailey and Houde, 1989). 

1224 Eulachon formerly experienced widespread, abundant runs and have been a staple of Native American diets for 

1225 centuries along the northwest coast. However, such runs that were formerly present in several California rivers as 

1226 late as the 1960s and 1970s (i.e., Klamath River, Mad River and Redwood Creek) no longer occur (Larson and 

1227 Belchik, 2000). This decline likely began in the 1970s and continued until, in 1988 and 1989, the last reported 

1228 sizeable run occurred in the Klamath River and no fish were found in 1996, although a moderate run was noted in 

1229 1999 (Larson and Belchik, 2000; Moyle, 2002). Eulachon have not been identified in the Mad River and Redwood 

1230 Creek since the mid-1990s (Moyle, 2002). 

1231 Critical Habitat 

1232 Critical habitat has been proposed for the southern population of Pacific eulachon (76 FR 515). 

1233 Threats 

1234 Natural threats. Numerous predatory fishes, marine mammals, birds and terrestrial mammals prey on eulachon 

1235 (Clemens et al., 1936; Hart, 1973; Scott and Crossman, 1973; Jeffries, 1984; Drake and Wilson, 1991; Yang and 

1236 Nelson, 1999; Willson et al., 2006). The high fat content of eulachon make them a valuable prey for white sturgeon 

1237 in the Columbia and Fraser rivers during winter (Willson et al., 2006). 

1238 Anthropogenic threats. Fisheries harvests are likely a major contributor to eulachon decline. The best available 

1239 information for catches comes from the Columbia River, where catches have been as high as 5.7 million pounds per 

1240 year, but averaged near 2 million pounds from 1938 to 1993 (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). Since 1993, catches 

1241 have not exceeded 1 million pounds annually and the median catch has been 43,000 pounds (97.7% reduction in 

1242 catch), even when effort is accounted for (WDFW and ODFW, 2001). Bycatch from fishing along U.S. and 

1243 Canadian coasts has also been high, composing up to 28% of the total catch by weight (Hay and McCarter, 2000; 

1244 DFO, 2008). 
44

1245 Construction projects have also had a negative impact on eulachon stocks. Dams, such as the Bonneville Dam on the 

1246 Hood River, have blocked eulachon from moving into former spawning habitat (Smith and Saalfeld, 1955). Such 

1247 damming projects also alter sedimentation and flow dynamics that eulachon have developed around in their 

1248 evolution. River substrate composition, likely critical to successful spawning, is also altered by dams. The 

1249 impoundment of water tends to raise water temperatures; a factor that spawning eulachon are particularly sensitive 

1250 to (NMFS, 2008c). Eulachon ecotoxicological studies show high contaminant burdens, particularly of arsenic and 

1251 lead (Futer and Nassichuk, 1983; Rogers et al., 1990; EPA, 2002). 

1252 Sturgeon 

1253 Sturgeon (Acipenseridae) are one of the oldest Osteichthyes (bony fish) families in existence. They are native to 

1254 rivers and coastal areas of North America. The two listed sturgeon, discussed below, are part of the genus Acipenser

1255 and share some common characteristics. Members of the genus have a characteristic external morphology 

1256 distinguished by the inferior mouth typical of bottom-feeders. Most species are anadromous, although a few species 

1257 are entirely fresh water and many species can survive if they become land-locked. Both listed species (discussed 

1258 below) are anadromous and tend to remain in coastal waters. As an anadromous fish, sturgeon spawn in fresh water 

1259 and feed and rear in marine or estuarine waters. Sturgeon are capable of many reproductive cycles and tend to be 

1260 very long-lived. 

1261 Threats 

1262 Natural Threats. Birds and larger freshwater fish feed on eggs and larvae, while sharks, pinnipeds and other large 

1263 predators prey on marine adult and subadult fish. 

1264 Anthropogenic Threats. In general sturgeon have declined from the combined effects from the construction of dam 

1265 and water diversion projects, dredging and blasting, water pollution and fisheries. As a result of their longevity, slow 

1266 rate of growth and delayed maturation, and bottom-feeding habits, in general sturgeon have a life history that makes 

1267 them susceptible to over-harvest and exposure to (and the accumulation of) contaminants. Many sturgeon also do 

1268 not spawn on an annual basis, but may spawn every other year or even more infrequently. Thus even small increases 

1269 in mortality can affect population productivity (Heppell, 2007). The body form and feeding habits of sturgeon may 

1270 expose them to a different suite of contaminants than pelagic fish due to their affinity with bottom sediments. 

1271 Exposure pathways would include a dissolved or water borne exposure, but for sediment-associated contaminants 

1272 the sediment exposure pathway may be more significant. Benthic dwelling fish may be exposed through the direct 

1273 contact with sediment, exposed to the boundary layer over the sediment, and commonly have a higher rate of 

1274 incidental ingestion and exposure through direct consumption of sediments. 

1275 Southern Green Sturgeon 

1276 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

1277 Green sturgeon occur along the west coast of North America from Mexico to the Bering Sea (Adams et al., 2002; 

1278 Colway and Stevenson, 2007). Distinguished primarily according to genetic differences and spawning locations, 

1279 NMFS recognizes two species of green sturgeon: a northern species whose populations are relatively healthy, and a 

1280 Southern species that has undergone significant decline (Adams et al., 2007). NMFS listed the Southern species of 

1281 green sturgeon as threatened in 2006 (71 FR 17757). 

1282 Green sturgeon are considered one of the most marine-oriented sturgeon species, spending much of their lives in 

1283 coastal marine waters, estuaries and bays. Early life stages rear in fresh water, and adults return to fresh water when 

1284 they are 15 years old or older to spawn. Across the species’ range only three rivers contain documented spawning 
45

1285 (Moyle et al., 1992; CDFG, 2002). Outside of natal rivers, the distribution of southern green sturgeon and northern 

1286 green sturgeon overlap. Both the northern species and southern species of green sturgeon occupy coastal estuaries 

1287 and coastal marine waters from southern California to Alaska, including Humbolt Bay, the lower Columbia River 

1288 estuary, Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor and southeast Alaska. In general, green sturgeon are more common north of 

1289 Point Conception, California. 

1290 Green sturgeon are spring spawners and initiate spawning migrations as early as March. Fish in the Klamath River 

1291 have been observed initiating migrations between April and June, Rogue River fish between May and July, whereas 

1292 Heubein et al., (2009) observed Sacramento River fish making their upstream migrations between March and April. 

1293 Spawning generally occurs in deep pools of large rivers or off-channel coves (Moyle et al., 1992; Moyle et al., 

1294 1995; Rien et al., 2001; Heublein et al., 2009). Fish then tend to aggregate in deep pools, where they will over1295 summer before outmigrating in the fall, although some fish have been observed outmigrating relatively soon after 

1296 presumed spawning events (Heublein et al., 2009). In the Sacramento River adult green sturgeon spawn in late 

1297 spring and early summer (Heublein et al., 2009). It appears that specific habitat for spawning includes large 

1298 cobblestones (where eggs can settle between), although spawning is known to occur over clean sand or bedrock. 

1299 Green sturgeon are a long-lived fish and likely live for 60 to 70 years (Moyle, 2002). Age at first maturation for 

1300 green sturgeon is at least 15 years old, after which adults likely return every 2 to 5 years to spawn (Adams et al., 

1301 2002; Van Eenennaam et al., 2006). Most male spawners are young (17 to 18 years) while females on the spawning 

1302 grounds are often older (27 to 28 years). 

1303 Green sturgeon spend their first 1 to 4 years in their natal streams and rivers (Nakamoto et al., 1995; Beamesderfer 

1304 and Webb, 2002), although they are believed to be physiologically adapted to sea water survival at 6 months of age 

1305 (Allen and Cech, 2007; Allen and J.J. Cech, 2007; Allen et al., 2009). Larvae are active at night, a behavior that 

1306 likely reduces predation and avoids being moved downstream more than necessary (Cech Jr. et al., 2000). Green 

1307 sturgeon larvae grow very rapidly, reaching about 300 mm by age one (Deng, 2000). While in fresh water, juveniles 

1308 feed on a variety of fishes and invertebrates (Moyle et al., 1992). One juvenile from the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

1309 estuary was found to have preyed most commonly upon opisthobranch mollusks (Philline sp.), with bay shrimp 

1310 (Crangon sp.) and overbite clams (Potamocorbula amurensis) as secondary prey. Other juveniles in the Sacramento 

1311 River delta feed on opossum shrimp (Neomysis mercedis) and Corophium amphipods (Radtke, 1966). 

1312 Upon outmigration from fresh water, subadult green sturgeon disperse widely along through continental shelf waters 

1313 of the west coast within the 110 meter contour (Moyle et al., 1992; Erickson and Hightower, 2007). It appears that 

1314 green sturgeon generally distribute north of the river mouth from whence they emerge as juveniles during fall and 

1315 move into bays and estuaries during summer and fall (Moser and Lindley, 2007; Israel et al., 2009). The limited 

1316 feeding data available for subadult and adult green sturgeon show that they consume benthic invertebrates including 

1317 shrimp, clams, chironomids, copepods, mollusks, amphipods and small fish ((Houston, 1988; Moyle et al., 1992). 

1318 Sturgeon use electroreception to locate prey. Olfaction and taste may also be important to foraging, while vision is 

1319 thought to play a minor role in prey capture (Miller, 2004). 

1320 Status and Trends 

1321 NMFS listed the southern population of the North American green sturgeon as threatened on April 7, 2006 (71 FR 

1322 17757). Trend data for green sturgeon is severely limited. Available information comes from two predominant 

1323 sources, fisheries and tagging. Only three data sets were considered useful for the population time series analyses by 

1324 NMFS’ biological review team: the Klamath Yurok Tribal fishery catch, San Pablo sport fishery tag returns and 

1325 Columbia River commercial landings (NMFS, 2005c). Using San Pablo sport fishery tag recovery data, the 

1326 California Department of Fish and Game produced a population time series estimate for the southern species. San 
46

1327 Pablo data suggest that green sturgeon abundance may be increasing, but the data showed no significant trend. The 

1328 data set is not particularly convincing, however, as it suffers from inconsistent effort and since it is unclear whether 

1329 summer concentrations of green sturgeon provide a strong indicator of population performance (NMFS, 2005c). 

1330 Although there is not sufficient information available to estimate the current population size of southern green 

1331 sturgeon, catch of juveniles during State and Federal salvage operations in the Sacramento delta are low in 

1332 comparison to catch levels before the mid-1980s. 

1333 Critical Habitat 

1334 On October 9, 2009, NMFS designated critical habitat for southern green sturgeon (74 FR 52300). The geographical 

1335 area identified as critical habitat is based upon the overlapping distribution of the southern and northern species, and 

1336 encompasses all areas where the presence of southern green sturgeon have been confirmed or where their presence is 

1337 likely. Therefore the geographical area defined as critical habitat is the entire range of the biological species, green 

1338 sturgeon, from the Bering Sea, AK, to Ensenada, Mexico. Specific fresh water areas include the Sacramento River, 

1339 Feather River, Yuba River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Specific coastal bays and estuaries include 

1340 estuaries from Elkhorn Slough, California, to Puget Sound, Washington. Coastal marine areas include waters along 

1341 the entire biological species’ range within a depth of 60 fathoms. The principal biological or physical constituent 

1342 elements essential for the conservation of southern green sturgeon in fresh water include: food resources; substrate 

1343 of sufficient type and size to support viable egg and larval development; water flow, water quality such that the 

1344 chemical characteristics support normal behavior, growth and viability; migratory corridors; water depth; and 

1345 sediment quality. Primary constituent elements of estuarine habitat include food resources, water flow, water 

1346 quality, migratory corridors, water depth and sediment quality. The specific primary constituent elements of marine 

1347 habitat include food resources, water quality and migratory corridors. 

1348 Critical habitat of the Southern species of green sturgeon is threatened by several anthropogenic factors. Four dams 

1349 and several other structures currently are impassible for green sturgeon to pass on the Sacramento, Feather and San 

1350 Joaquin rivers, preventing movement into spawning habitat. Threats to these riverine habitats also include increasing 

1351 temperature, insufficient flow that may impair recruitment, the introduction of striped bass that may eat young 

1352 sturgeon and compete for prey, and the presence of heavy metals and contaminants in the river. 

1353 Final Protective Regulations 

1354 The final 4(d) rule for southern green sturgeon was issued June 2, 2010, and became effective July 2, 2010 (75 FR 

1355 30714). Under this rule, the prohibitions listed under ESA sections 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) are applied for the 

1356 Southern species, including all the ESA section 9(a)(1)(B) and 9(a)(1)(C) prohibitions except for: 1) Certain Federal, 

1357 State or private-sponsored research or monitoring activities; 2) Emergency fish rescue and salvage activities; 3) 

1358 Habitat restoration activities; 4) Commercial and recreational fisheries activities, if conducted under approved 

1359 Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plans, and; 5) Certain Tribal fishery management activities. 

1360 Threats

1361 Natural Threats. Green sturgeon eggs and larvae are likely preyed upon by a variety of larger fish and animals, 

1362 while sub-adult and adult sturgeon may occasionally be preyed upon by shark sea lions, or other large body 

1363 predators (NMFS, 2005c). 

1364 Anthropogenic Threats. The principle threat to southern green sturgeon comes from a drastic reduction in available 

1365 spawning area from impassible barriers (e.g., Oroville, Shasta and Keswick dams). Other threats include potentially 

1366 lethal temperature limits, harvest, entrainment by water projects and toxins and invasive species (Adams et al., 

1367 2007; Erickson and Webb, 2007; Lackey, 2009). Since this species is composed of a single spawning population 

1368 within the Sacramento River, stochastic variation in environmental conditions and significant fluctuations in 
47

1369 demographic rates increases the risk of extinction for this species. 

1370 Studies from other sturgeon species indicate that sturgeon readily bioaccumulate contaminants. White sturgeon from 

1371 the Kootenai River have been found to contain aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, 

1372 manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, zinc, DDE, DDT, PCBs and other organochlorines (Kruse and Scarnecchia, 

1373 2001). Mercury has also been identified from white sturgeon of the lower Columbia River (Webb et al., 2006). 

1374 Numerous organochlorines, including DDT, DDD, DDE, chlordane and dieldrin have also been identified in these 

1375 fish (Foster et al., 2001). Observed concentrations are likely sufficient to influence reproductive physiology. 

1376 Shortnose Sturgeon 

1377 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

1378 Shortnose sturgeon occur along the Atlantic Coast of North America, from the St. John River in Canada, south to the 

1379 St. Johns River in Florida. NMFS’ recovery plan (1998c) recognized 19 wild populations based on their strong 

1380 fidelity to their natal streams and several captive populations (from a Savannah River broodstock) that are 

1381 maintained for educational and research purposes (NMFS, 1998c). 

1382 Shortnose sturgeon are generally anadromous, but may migrate between fresh and salt water for reasons other than 

1383 spawning. They can also maintain freshwater resident populations. In general, shortnose sturgeon are benthic fish 

1384 that occupy the deep channel sections of large rivers or estuarine waters of their natal rivers and will migrate 

1385 considerable distances. Dadswell (1979 in Dadswell et al. 1984) observed shortnose sturgeon traveling up 160 km 

1386 between tagging and recapture in the St. John estuary and it is not uncommon for adults to migrate 200 km or more 

1387 to reach spawning areas (Kynard, 1997). After spawning in the spring, adults tend to migrate rapidly downstream to 

1388 feeding areas in the estuary or to tidally influenced fresh water (see Dadswell et al., 1984a). 

1389 Young-of-the year shortnose sturgeon move downstream after hatching, remaining in fresh water for about 1 year 

1390 (Kynard, 1997). Initially, young shortnose sturgeon will reside short distances from spawning areas and as they 

1391 grow will tend to move further downstream (see Dadswell et al., 1984a). By age 3 or older juvenile sturgeon will 

1392 spend a large portion of their year at the salt- and fresh water interface of coastal rivers (NMFS, 1998b). 

1393 Habitat use in fresh water during summer and winter months overlaps between adult and age-1 shortnose sturgeon 

1394 (O'Herron II et al., 1993; Kynard et al., 2000; Moser et al., 2000). Kynard et al., (2000) found that both age classes 

1395 preferred deep-water curves with sand and cobble to higher velocity runs, particularly during winter months and 

1396 shifted to channel habitat as water temperatures rose in summer months. In the Connecticut River and the 

1397 Merrimack, Kynard et al., (2000) found shortnose generally used water about 3 meters deep, ranging from less than 

1398 a meter to about 15 meters deep. 

1399 Female shortnose sturgeon spawn every three to five years. Males spawn every other year, although some may 

1400 spawn in consecutive years (Dovel et al., 1992; Collins and Smith, 1993; Kieffer and Kynard, 1993; NMFS, 1998a). 

1401 Spawning typically occurs during the spring, between mid-March and late May. Spawning areas are often located 

1402 just below the fall line at the farthest accessible upstream reach of the river (NMFS, 1998a). 

1403 Male shortnose sturgeon in southern rivers will first spawn between ages 2 and 5, while fish as far north as the St. 

1404 John River, Canada first spawn at about 10 to 11 years of age (Dadswell et al., 1984a; NMFS, 1998a). Age at first 

1405 spawning for female shortnose sturgeon varies from about age 6 to 18 years, like males, varying on a latitudinal 

1406 cline (Dadswell et al., 1984a; NMFS, 1998a). In general, fish in the northern portion of the species’ range live 

1407 longer than individuals in the southern portion of the species’ range (Gilbert, 1989). The maximum age reported for 
48

1408 a shortnose sturgeon in the St. John River in New Brunswick is 67 years (for a female), 40 years for the Kennebec 

1409 River, 37 years for the Hudson River, 34 years in the Connecticut River, 20 years in the Pee Dee River and 10 years 

1410 in the Altamaha River (Gilbert, 1989). Male shortnose sturgeon appear to have shorter life spans than females 

1411 (Gilbert, 1989). 

1412 Like all sturgeon, shortnose have ventrally located, sucker-like mouths, structured for feeding on benthos. Foraging 

1413 generally occurs in areas with abundant macrophytes, where juvenile and adult shortnose sturgeon feed on 

1414 amphipods, polychaetes and gasteropods (Dadswell et al., 1984b; Moser and Ross, 1995; NMFS, 1998a). Sturgeon 

1415 use electroreception to identify prey. Olfaction and taste are also likely important to foraging, while vision is thought 

1416 to play a minor role (Miller, 2004). As adults, a significant portion of a shortnose sturgeon’s diet may consist of 

1417 freshwater mollusks (Dadswell et al., 1984b). Based on observations by Kynard et al., (2000), shortnose sturgeon 

1418 will consume the entire mollusk, excreting the shell after ingestion. 

1419 Status and Trends 

1420 Shortnose sturgeon were listed as endangered on March 11, 1967, under the Endangered Species Preservation Act 

1421 (32 FR 4001) and remained on the endangered species list with enactment of the ESA of 1973, as amended. 

1422 Pollution and overfishing, including bycatch in the shad fishery, were listed as principal reasons for the species' 

1423 decline. Shortnose sturgeon are listed as an endangered species throughout all of its range 

1424 Northern shortnose sturgeon population abundances are generally larger than southern populations (Kynard, 1997). 

1425 Updated population estimates also suggest that three of the largest populations (Kennebec, Hudson and Delaware 

1426 River) may be increasing or stable, although data is limited. The New York (Hudson River) shortnose sturgeon 

1427 population is the largest extant population of this species and, based on available data, appears to have increased 

1428 (Bain et al., 2000). The most recent population estimate indicates this population consists of about 61,000-shortnose 

1429 sturgeon (95% confidence interval [CI] was between 52,898 and 72,191 fish (Bain et al., 2000). A comparison of the 

1430 Bain estimate to the 1979/1980 population estimate of spawning adults by Dovel et al., (1992); about 13,000 fish) 

1431 led Bain et al., (2000) to conclude that the population had made a dramatic increase (about 400% increase) between 

1432 1979 and 1997. While still evidence of an increasing population, a comparison of total population estimates 

1433 (30,000:60,000) would suggest the population has only doubled in size during the study years. Similarly, the 

1434 Kennebec River population appears to be increasing. The most recent estimate for this population is about 9,500 fish 

1435 (Squiers, 2003), suggesting the population has increased by about 30% in about a twenty year period. 

1436 Data from the Delaware River suggest that the population may be stable. Brundage and O’Herron (2006) estimate 

1437 that the current population for the Delaware River is 12,047 adult fish (1999-2003; 95% CI: 10,757-13,589), which 

1438 is similar to the 1981/84 estimate by Hastings et al., (1987) of 12,796 fish (95% CI: 10,288-16367). The recent 

1439 capture of several fish that were tagged as adults by Hastings et al., (1987) suggests that older fish may comprise a 

1440 substantial portion of the Delaware River population. Based on studies from other sturgeon species we know of no 

1441 evidence of senescence in sturgeon and we would expect that these fish are reproductively active (Paragamian et al., 

1442 2005). Despite their longevity, the viability of sturgeon populations is sensitive to variability in juvenile recruitment 

1443 and survival (Anders et al., 2002; Gross et al., 2002; Secor et al., 2002). Although interannual variation in juvenile 

1444 recruitment would be expected as a result of stochastic factors that influence spawning and egg/larval survival, if the 

1445 mean population size does not change over the long-term it then it would appear there is sufficient juvenile survival 

1446 to provide at least periodic recruitment into the adult age classes. Data on juvenile recruitment or age-1+ survival 

1447 would, however, establish whether this population is at a stable equilibrium. 

1448 South of Chesapeake Bay, populations are relatively small compared to their northern counterparts. The largest of 

1449 the southern populations of shortnose sturgeon is the Altamaha River population. Population estimates have been 
49

1450 calculated several times for sturgeon in the Altamaha since 1993. Total population estimates shown pretty sizeable 

1451 interannual variation is occurring; estimates have ranged from as low as 468 fish in 1993 to over 6,300 fish in 2006 

1452 (NMFS, 1998a; DeVries, 2006). The Ogeechee River is the next most studied river south of Chesapeake Bay and 

1453 abundance estimates indicate that the shortnose sturgeon population in this river is considerably smaller than that in 

1454 the Altamaha River. The highest point estimate in 1993 using a modified Schnabel technique resulted in a total 

1455 population estimate of 361 shortnose sturgeon (95% CI: 326-400). In contrast the most recent survey resulted in an 

1456 estimate of 147 shortnose sturgeon (95% CI: 104-249), suggesting that the population may be declining. 

1457 Throughout the species range there are other extant populations, or at least evidence that several other basins are 

1458 used periodically. That is, shortnose sturgeon have been documented in the St. Johns River (FL), the St. Mary’s 

1459 River, Chesapeake Bay, Potomac River, Piscataqua River, the Housatonic River and others. Some basins probably 

1460 previously contained shortnose populations, but recent sampling has been largely unsuccessful. Despite the 

1461 occasional observations of shortnose sturgeon, populations may be extinct in several basins (e.g., St. John’s (FL), St. 

1462 Mary’s, Potomac, Housatonic and Neuse rivers). Those few fish that have been observed in these basins are 

1463 generally presumed to be immigrants from neighboring basins. In some cases, (e.g. Chesapeake Bay) migratory 

1464 information collected from tagged fish and genetic evidence confirms that fish captured in Chesapeake Bay were 

1465 part of the Delaware River population (Grunwald et al., 2002; Wirgin et al., 2005). 

1466 Threats

1467 Natural Threats. Yellow perch, sharks and seals are predators of shortnose sturgeon juveniles (NMFS, 1998a). The 

1468 effects of disease and parasites are generally unknown. 

1469 Anthropogenic Threats. Historic fishery harvests, as well as the incidental harvest in current fisheries, have had 

1470 lasting effects on shortnose sturgeon. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries shortnose sturgeon 

1471 commonly were harvested incidental to Atlantic sturgeon, the larger and more commercially valuable of these two 

1472 sympatric sturgeon species (NMFS, 1998a). The effects of these harvests may have latent and long-lasting impacts 

1473 on some populations. At present there is no legal directed fishing effort for shortnose sturgeon in the U.S., although 

1474 some illegal poaching is suspected. Additionally, shortnose sturgeon are often caught incidental to other fisheries. 

1475 For instance, shortnose are caught incidentally by bass anglers, and incidentally to alewife/gaspereau and shad 

1476 fisheries in the St. John River in Canada, shad fisheries in the Altamaha River, Hudson River, and others 

1477 (COSEWIC, 2005). 

1478 Habitat alterations from discharges, dredging or disposal of material into waterways and other developmental 

1479 activities along riverine and estuarine systems threaten shortnose sturgeon habitat. Periodic maintenance of harbors 

1480 and rivers likely results in the direct take of some sturgeon, but perhaps of greater impact is the manner in which 

1481 dredging alters benthic topography and community structure and water quality (increase in suspended sediments). 

1482 Shoreline development may increase the potential of ship strikes. In the Bay of Fundy, a tidal turbine killed at least 

1483 three Atlantic salmon in the 1980s and may be a threat to shortnose sturgeon as well (Dadswell and Rulifson, 1994). 

1484 Although currently the only example of this type of turbine in North America, increasing interests in finding 

1485 alternative energy sources is expected to result in an increase in the number of marine turbines along the coast. 

1486 Shortnose sturgeon and other benthic organisms are regularly in direct contact with legacy pollutants, as well as a 

1487 suite of common contaminants added from more current industrial and agricultural practices. Studies demonstrate 

1488 that shortnose sturgeon carry a wide number of potentially hazardous contaminants. Individuals from the Delaware 

1489 River contain numerous metals (mercury, aluminum, antimony, barium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper, iron, 

1490 magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium and zinc), PCDDs, PCDFs, PCBs, DDE, DDD, bis 

1491 (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, di-n-butylphthalate and chlordane (ERC, 2002). Most of these metals, PCDDs, PCDFs and 
50

1492 PCBs were also found in shortnose sturgeon in the Kennebec River (ERC, 2003). 

1493 Critical Habitat 

1494 NMFS has not designated critical habitat for shortnose sturgeon. 

1495 Salmonid Anadromous Fish Species 

1496 Protective Regulations for Threatened Salmonid Species 

1497 Since 1997 NMFS promulgated a total of 29 limits to the ESA section 9(a) take prohibitions for 21 threatened 

1498 Pacific salmon and steelhead species (62 FR 38479, July 18, 1997; 65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000; 65 FR 42485, July 

1499 10, 2000; 67 FR 1116, January 9, 2002; 73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008). On June 28, 2005, as part of the final 

1500 listing determinations for 16 species of West Coast salmon, NMFS amended and streamlined the 4(d) protective 

1501 regulations for threatened salmon and steelhead (70 FR 37160). NMFS took this action to provide appropriate 

1502 flexibility to ensure that fisheries and artificial propagation programs are managed consistently with the 

1503 conservation needs of threatened salmon and steelhead. Under this change, the section 4(d) protections apply to 

1504 natural and hatchery fish with an intact adipose fin, but not to ESA listed hatchery fish that have had their adipose 

1505 fin removed prior to release into the wild. 

1506 Additionally, NMFS made several simplifying and clarifying changes to the 4(d) protective regulations including 

1507 updating an expired limit (§ 223.203(b)(2)), providing a temporary exemption for ongoing research and 

1508 enhancement activities, and applying the same set of 14 limits to all threatened Pacific salmon and steelhead species. 

1509 These limits are: 

1510 1. Activities conducted in accordance with ESA section 10 incidental take authorization (50 CFR § 

1511 223.203(b)(1)) 

1512 2. Ongoing scientific and conservation activities for which a permit application has been timely submitted, 

1513 and treaty and non-treaty fisheries for which a comanager’s management plan has been timely submitted (§ 

1514 223.203(b)(2)) 

1515 3. Emergency actions related to injured, stranded, or dead salmonids (§ 223.203(b)(3)) 

1516 4. Fishery management activities (§ 223.203(b)(4)) 

1517 5. Hatchery and genetic management programs (§ 223.203(b)(5)) 

1518 6. Activities in compliance with joint Tribal/State plans (§ 223.203(b)(6)) 

1519 7. Scientific research activities conducted or permitted by the States (§ 223.203(b)(7)) 

1520 8. State, local and private habitat restoration activities (§ 223.203(b)(8)) 

1521 9. Properly screened water diversion devices (§ 223.203(b)(9)) 

1522 10. Routine road maintenance activities (§ 223.203(b)(10)) 

1523 11. Certain park pest management activities (§ 223.203(b)(11)) 
51

1524 12. Certain municipal, residential, commercial and industrial development and redevelopment activities (§ 

1525 223.203(b)(12)) 

1526 13. Forest management activities on State and private lands within the State of Washington (§ 223.203(b)(13)) 

1527 14. Activities undertaken consistent with an approved Tribal resource management plan (§ 223.204). 

1528 Chinook Salmon 

1529 Description of the Species 

1530 Chinook salmon are the largest of the Pacific salmon and historically ranged from the Ventura River in California to 

1531 Point Hope, Alaska in North America, and in northeastern Asia from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia 

1532 (Healey, 1991). In this section, we discuss the distribution, status and critical habitats of the nine species of 

1533 endangered and threatened Chinook salmon separately, and summarize their common dependence on waters of the 

1534 United States. However, because Chinook salmon species share many characteristics, we begin this section 

1535 describing those common characteristics. 

1536 Chinook salmon exhibit one of the most varied and complex life history strategies. The “stream-type” of Chinook 

1537 salmon resides in freshwater for a year or more following emergence and the “ocean-type” migrates to the ocean 

1538 within their first year. The ocean-type typifies populations north of 56oN (Healey, 1991). The Chinook salmon life 

1539 cycle spans fresh and marine waters. Chinook salmon are semelparous (i.e. they die after spawning). Spawning 

1540 migrations generally occur in the spring and fall, and temperature and stream flow can significantly influence the 

1541 timing of migrations and spawning and the selection of spawning habitat (Geist et al., 2009; Hatten and Tiffan., 

1542 2009). Spawning typically occurring earlier in the spring/summer at northern latitudes and later in southern latitudes 

1543 (Healey, 1991). 

1544 While in fresh water, juvenile Chinook salmon are often found in the lower reaches of a river near its estuary in 

1545 areas of low water velocity. As they grow, they tend to move to deeper waters where the velocity is higher (Healey, 

1546 1991). Generally, Chinook salmon outmigrants (smolts) are about 2 to 5 inches long when they enter saline (often 

1547 brackish) waters. The process of smoltification enables salmon to adapt to the ocean environment (Wedemeyer et 

1548 al., 1980). Several factors can affect smoltification process, not only at the interface between fresh water and salt 

1549 water, but higher in the watershed the process of transformation begins long before fish enter salt waters including: 

1550 exposure to chemicals such as heavy metals and elevated water temperatures (Wedemeyer et al., 1980). 

1551 Chinook salmon feed on a variety of prey organisms depending upon life stage. Adult oceanic Chinook salmon eat 

1552 small fish, amphipods and crab megalops (Healey, 1991). Fish, in particular herring, make up the largest portion of 

1553 an adult Chinook salmon’s diet. In estuaries, Chinook salmon smolts tend to feed on chironomid larvae and pupae, 

1554 Daphnia, Eogammarus, Corphium and Neomysis, as well as juvenile herring, sticklebacks and other small fish. In 

1555 fresh water, Chinook salmon juveniles feed on adult and larval insects including terrestrial and aquatic insects such 

1556 as dipterans, beetles, stoneflies, chironomids and plecopterans (Healey, 1991). 

1557 Threats 

1558 Natural Threats. Chinook salmon are prey for pelagic fishes, birds and marine mammals, including harbor seals, sea 

1559 lions and killer whales. There have been recent concerns that the increasing size of tern, seal and sea lion 

1560 populations in the Pacific Northwest may have reduced the survival of some salmon species. 
52

1561 Anthropogenic Threats. Salmon survive only in aquatic ecosystems and, therefore, depend on the quantity and 

1562 quality of those ecosystems. Chinook salmon have declined under the combined effects of multiple anthropogenic 

1563 stressors. Examples of these include fishery over-harvest, competition from hatchery fish and non-native species, the 

1564 effects of dams, water diversions, destruction or degradation of riparian habitat and land use practices that destroy or 

1565 degrade wetland and riparian ecosystems (Buhle et al., 2009). 

1566 Salmon along the west coast of the U.S. share many of the same threats. Therefore, anthropogenic threats for all 

1567 species and populations are summarized here. Population declines have resulted from several human-mediated 

1568 causes, but the greatest negative influence has likely been the establishment of waterway obstructions such as dams, 

1569 power plants and sluiceways for hydropower, agriculture, flood control and water storage. These structures have 

1570 blocked salmon migration to spawning habitat or resulted in direct mortality and have eliminated entire salmon runs 

1571 as a result. While some of these barriers remain, others have been reengineered, renovated or removed to allow for 

1572 surviving runs to access former habitat, but success has been limited. These types of barriers alter the natural 

1573 hydrograph of basins, both upstream and downstream of the structure and significantly reduce the availability and 

1574 quality of spawning and rearing habitat (Hatten and Tiffan., 2009). Many streams and rivers, particularly in urban or 

1575 suburban areas, suffer from streamside development, which contributes sediment, chemical pollutants from pesticide 

1576 applications and automobile or industrial activities, altered stream flows, loss of streamside vegetation and 

1577 allochthonous materials to name a few. These factors can directly cause mortality, reduce reproductive success or 

1578 affect the health and fitness of all salmon life stages. 

1579 Fishing pressure has also negatively affected salmon populations. Fishing reduces the number of individuals within 

1580 a population and can lead to uneven exploitation of certain populations and size classes (Reisenbichler, 1997). 

1581 Targeted fishing of larger individuals results in excluding the most fecund individuals from spawning 

1582 (Reisenbichler, 1997). Genetic changes that promote smaller body sizes have occurred in heavily exploited 

1583 populations in response to size-selective harvest pressures (Reisenbichler, 1997). Fishing pressure can reduce age at 

1584 maturity in fished populations as the fished populations compensate for the reductions in the numbers of spawning 

1585 adults (Reisenbichler, 1997). 

1586 Pacific salmon species are exposed to a number of contaminants throughout their range and life history cycle. 

1587 Exposure to pollution is also of significant concern for all life stages, but is likely particularly significant for 

1588 freshwater life stages. Organic pollutants, particularly PCBs, DDT and its congeners, pesticides and endocrine 

1589 disruptors are of particular concern. These chemicals can inhibit smell, disrupt reproductive behavior and 

1590 physiology, impair immune function and lead to mortality through impairment of water balance when traveling 

1591 between fresh and salt water systems (Varanasi et al., 1993). Diffuse and extensive population centers contribute 

1592 increased contaminant volumes and variety from such sources as wastewater treatment plants and sprawling 

1593 development. Urban runoff from impervious surfaces and roadways often contains oil, copper, pesticides, PAHs and 

1594 other chemical pollutants and flow into surface waters. Point and nonpoint pollution sources entering rivers and their 

1595 tributaries affect water quality in available spawning and rearing habitat for salmon. Juvenile salmonids that inhabit 

1596 urban watersheds often carry high contaminant burdens, which is partly attributable to the biological transfer of 

1597 contaminants through the food web (Varanasi et al., 1993). 

1598 Changes in hydrological regimes are closely linked to salmon abundance (Hicks et al., 1991). From studies that have 

1599 examined the effects of changes in land use patterns, we know that changes in hydrology can profoundly affect 

1600 salmon abundance and the amount and availability of quality habitat. Hydrology is strongly correlated to early 

1601 survival and can lead to the displacement of young fish as well as altering immigration and emigration timing which 

1602 impacts the relative abundance of salmon within a watershed, as well as the relative abundance of age-classes (Hicks
53

1603 et al., 1991; Gregory and Bisson, 1997). Such ecosystem changes are also likely to alter macroinvertebrate 

1604 communities and habitats, affecting important forage for salmon and trout (McCarthy et al., 2009; Williams et al., 

1605 2009). 

1606 California Coastal Chinook Salmon 

1607 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

1608 The California Coastal Chinook salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from 

1609 rivers and streams south of the Klamath River to the Russian River, California. Seven artificial propagation 

1610 programs are part of this species. California Coastal Chinook salmon are a fall-run, ocean-type fish. A spring-run 

1611 (river-type) component existed historically, but is now considered extinct (Bjorkstedt et al., 2005). 

1612 Status and Trends 

1613 NMFS listed California Coastal Chinook salmon as threatened on September 16, 1999 (64 FR 50393) and they 

1614 retained their threatened status on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). California Coastal Chinook salmon were listed due 

1615 to the combined effect of dams that prevent them from reaching spawning habitat, logging, agricultural activities, 

1616 urbanization and water withdrawals in the river drainages that support them. Historical estimates of escapement, 

1617 based on professional opinion and evaluation of habitat conditions, suggest abundance was roughly 73,000 in the 

1618 early 1960s with the majority of fish spawning in the Eel River (Good et al., 2005). Since its original listing and 

1619 status review, little new data are available or suitable for analyzing trends or estimating changes in this population’s 

1620 growth rate (Good et al., 2005). 

1621 Long-term trends in Sprowl and Tomki creeks (tributaries of the Eel River), however, are negative. Good et al.,

1622 (2005) caution against making inferences on the basin-wide status of these populations as they may be weak because 

1623 the data likely include unquantified variability due to flow-related changes in spawners’ use of mainstem and 

1624 tributary habitats. 

1625 Critical Habitat 

1626 NMFS designated critical habitat for California Coastal Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52488). 

1627 Specific geographic areas designated include the following CALWATER hydrological units: Redwood Creek, 

1628 Trinidad, Mad River, Eureka Plain, Eel River, Cape Mendocino, Mendocino Coast and the Russian River. These 

1629 areas are important for the species’ overall conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. The 

1630 critical habitat designation for this species identifies primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to 

1631 support one or more Chinook salmon life stages. Specific sites include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing 

1632 sites, freshwater migration corridors, nearshore marine habitat and estuarine areas. The physical or biological 

1633 features that characterize these sites include water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage 

1634 conditions and floodplain connectivity. The critical habitat designation (70 FR 52488) contains additional details on 

1635 the sub-areas that are included as part of this designation and the areas that were excluded from designation. 

1636 In total, California Coastal Chinook salmon occupy 45 watersheds (freshwater and estuarine). The total area of 

1637 habitat designated as critical includes about 1,500 miles of stream habitat and about 25 square miles of estuarine 

1638 habitat, mostly within Humboldt Bay. This designation includes the stream channels within the designated stream 

1639 reaches and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where the ordinary high1640 water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. In estuarine areas the lateral extent is 

1641 defined by the extreme high water because extreme high tide areas encompass those areas typically inundated by 

1642 water and regularly occupied by juvenile salmon during the spring and summer, when they are migrating in the 
54

1643 nearshore zone and relying on cover and refuge qualities provided by these habitats and while they are foraging. Of 

1644 the 45 watershed reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for California Coastal Chinook salmon, eight 

1645 watersheds received a low rating of conservation value, 10 received a medium rating and 27 received a high rating 

1646 of conservation value for the species. 

1647 Critical habitat in this species consists of limited quantity and quality summer and winter rearing habitat, as well as 

1648 marginal spawning habitat. Compared to historical conditions, there are fewer pools, limited cover and reduced 

1649 habitat complexity. The limited instream cover that does exist is provided mainly by large cobble and overhanging 

1650 vegetation. Instream large woody debris, needed for foraging sites, cover and velocity refuges is especially lacking 

1651 in most of the streams throughout the basin. NMFS has determined that these degraded habitat conditions are, in 

1652 part, the result of many human-induced factors affecting critical habitat including dam construction, agricultural and 

1653 mining activities, urbanization, stream channelization, water diversion and logging, among others. 

1654 Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon 

1655 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

1656 The Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run 

1657 Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries in California. This species includes one artificial 

1658 propagation program. Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon species includes Chinook salmon entering the 

1659 Sacramento River from March to July and spawning from late August through early October, with a peak in 

1660 September. Spring-run fish in the Sacramento River exhibit an ocean-type life history, emigrating as fry, sub1661 yearlings and yearlings. Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon require cool freshwater while they mature over 

1662 the summer. 

1663 Status and Trends 

1664 NMFS originally listed Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon as threatened on September 16, 1999 (64 FR 

1665 50393), a classification this species retained on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). This species was listed because dams 

1666 isolate them from most of their historic spawning habitat and the habitat remaining to them is degraded. Historically, 

1667 spring-run Chinook salmon were predominant throughout the Central Valley occupying the upper and middle 

1668 reaches (1,000 to 6,000 feet) of the San Joaquin, American, Yuba, Feather, Sacramento, McCloud and Pit Rivers, 

1669 with smaller populations in most tributaries with sufficient habitat for over-summering adults (Stone, 1874; Rutter, 

1670 1904; Clark, 1929). 

1671 The Central Valley drainage as a whole is estimated to have supported spring-run Chinook salmon runs as large as 

1672 700,000 fish between the late 1880s and the 1940s (Fisher, 1994), although these estimates may reflect an already 

1673 declining population, in part from the commercial gillnet fishery that occurred in this species (Good et al., 2005). 

1674 Before construction of Friant Dam, nearly 50,000 adults were counted in the San Joaquin River alone (Fry, 1961). 

1675 Following the completion of Friant Dam, the native population from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries (i.e., 

1676 the Stanislaus and Mokelumne Rivers) was extirpated. Spring-run Chinook salmon no longer exist in the American 

1677 River due to the operation of Folsom Dam. Naturally spawning populations of Central Valley spring-run Chinook 

1678 salmon currently are restricted to accessible reaches of the upper Sacramento River, Antelope Creek, Battle Creek, 

1679 Beegum Creek, Big Chico Creek, Butte Creek, Clear Creek, Deer Creek, Feather River, Mill Creek and Yuba River 

1680 (CDFG, 1998). Since 1969, the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon species (excluding Feather River fish) 

1681 has displayed broad fluctuations in abundance ranging from 25,890 in 1982 to 1,403 in 1993 (Good et al., 2005). 

1682 As noted by Good et al., (2005), the average abundance for the species was 12,499 for the period of 1969 to 1979, 
55

1683 12,981 for the period of 1980 to 1990 and 6,542 for the period of 1991 to 2001. In 2003 and 2004, total run size for 

1684 the species was 8,775 and 9,872 adults respectively, well above the 1991 to 2001 average. Evaluating the species as 

1685 a whole, however, masks significant changes that are occurring among populations that comprise the species 

1686 (metapopulation). For example, the mainstem Sacramento River population has undergone a significant decline 

1687 while the abundance of many tributary populations increased. Average abundance of Sacramento River mainstem 

1688 spring-run Chinook salmon recently declined from a high of 12,107 for the period 1980 to 1990, to a low of 609 for 

1689 the period 1991 to 2001, while the average abundance of Sacramento River tributary populations increased from a 

1690 low of 1,227 to a high of 5,925 over the same periods. 

1691 Abundance time series data for Mill, Deer, Butte and Big Chico creeks spring-run Chinook salmon confirm that 

1692 population increases seen in the 1990s have continued through 2001(Good et al., 2005). Habitat improvements, 

1693 including the removal of several small dams and increases in summer flows in the watersheds, reduced ocean 

1694 fisheries, and a favorable terrestrial and marine climate, have likely contributed to this. All three spring-run Chinook 

1695 salmon populations in the Central Valley have long-and short-term positive population growth. 

1696 Critical Habitat 

1697 NMFS designated critical habitat for Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 

1698 52488). Specific geographic areas designated include the following CALWATER hydrological units: Tehama, 

1699 Whitmore, Redding, Eastern Tehama, Sacramento Delta, Valley-Putah-Cache, Marysville, Yuba, Valley-American, 

1700 Colusa Basin, Butte Creek and Shasta Bally hydrological units. These areas are important for the species’ overall 

1701 conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. The critical habitat designation for this species 

1702 identifies primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to support one or more Chinook salmon life 

1703 stages. Specific sites include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, 

1704 nearshore marine habitat and estuarine areas. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include 

1705 water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and floodplain connectivity. The 

1706 critical habitat designation (70 FR 52488) contains additional details on the sub-areas that are included as part of this 

1707 designation and the areas that were excluded from designation. 

1708 In total, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon occupy 37 watersheds (freshwater and estuarine). The total area 

1709 of habitat designated as critical includes about 1,100 miles of stream habitat and about 250 square miles of estuarine 

1710 habitat in the San Francisco-San Pablo-Suisun Bay complex. This designation includes the stream channels within 

1711 the designated stream reaches and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where 

1712 the ordinary high-water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. In estuarine areas 

1713 the lateral extent is defined by the extreme high water because extreme high tide areas encompass those areas 

1714 typically inundated by water and regularly occupied by juvenile salmon during the spring and summer, when they 

1715 are migrating in the nearshore zone and relying on cover and refuge qualities provided by these habitats and while 

1716 they are foraging. Of the 37 watersheds reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for Central Valley spring1717 run Chinook salmon, seven watersheds received a low rating of conservation value, three received a medium rating 

1718 and 27 received a high rating of conservation value for the species. 

1719 Factors contributing to the downward trends in this species include: reduced access to spawning/rearing habitat 

1720 behind impassable dams, climatic variation, water management activities, hybridization with fall-run Chinook 

1721 salmon, predation and harvest (CDFG, 1998). Several actions have been taken to improve and increase the primary 

1722 constituent elements of critical habitat for spring-run Chinook salmon. These include improved management of 

1723 Central Valley water, implementing new and improved screen and ladder designs at major water diversions along 

1724 the mainstem Sacramento River and tributaries, removal of several small dams on important spring-run Chinook 
56

1725 salmon spawning streams and changes in ocean and inland fishing regulations to minimize harvest. Although 

1726 protective measures and critical habitat restoration likely have contributed to recent increases in spring-run Chinook 

1727 salmon abundance, the species is still below levels observed from the 1960s through 1990. Many threats still exist. 

1728 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon 

1729 The Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon 

1730 from the Columbia River and its tributaries from its mouth at the Pacific Ocean upstream to a transitional point 

1731 between Washington and Oregon, east of the Hood River and the White Salmon River and includes the Willamette 

1732 River to Willamette Falls, Oregon, exclusive of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Clackamas River. 

1733 Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon have three life history types, including early fall runs (tules), late fall runs 

1734 (brights) and spring-runs. Spring and fall runs have been designated as part of a Lower Columbia River Chinook 

1735 salmon species. The Cowlitz, Kalama, Lewis, White Salmon and Klickitat Rivers are the major river systems on the 

1736 Washington side and the lower Willamette and Sandy Rivers are foremost on the Oregon side. The eastern boundary 

1737 for this species occurs at Celilo Falls, which corresponds to the edge of the drier Columbia Basin Ecosystem and 

1738 historically may have been a barrier to salmon migration at certain times of the year. Fall Chinook salmon typically 

1739 enter the Columbia River in August through October to spawn in the mainstem of the large rivers (Kostow, 1995). 

1740 Spring Chinook salmon enter freshwater in March through June to spawn in upstream tributaries and generally 

1741 emigrate from fresh water as yearlings. 

1742 Status and Trends 

1743 NMFS originally listed Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon as threatened on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308); 

1744 NMFS reaffirmed the threatened status of Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). 

1745 Historical records of Chinook salmon abundance are sparse, but cannery records suggest a peak run of 4.6 million 

1746 fish (43 million pounds) in 1883 (Lichatowich, 1999). Although fall-run Chinook salmon are still present throughout 

1747 much of their historical range, they are still subject to large-scale hatchery production, relatively high harvest and 

1748 extensive habitat degradation. The Lewis River late-fall-run Chinook salmon population is the healthiest and has a 

1749 reasonable probability of being self-sustaining. Abundances largely declined during 1998 to 2000 and trend 

1750 indicators for most populations are negative, especially if hatchery fish are assumed to have a reproductive success 

1751 equivalent to that of natural-origin fish (Good et al., 2005). Most populations for which data are available have a 

1752 long-term declining population trend (Good et al., 2005). 

1753 Critical Habitat 

1754 NMFS designated critical habitat for Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). 

1755 Designated critical habitat includes all Columbia River estuarine areas and river reaches proceeding upstream to the 

1756 confluence with the Hood Rivers as well as specific stream reaches in a number of tributary subbasins. These areas 

1757 are important for the species’ overall conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. The 

1758 critical habitat designation for this species identifies primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to 

1759 support one or more Chinook salmon life stages. Specific sites include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing 

1760 sites, freshwater migration corridors, nearshore marine habitat and estuarine areas. The physical or biological 

1761 features that characterize these sites include water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage 

1762 conditions and floodplain connectivity. Of 52 subbasins reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for the 

1763 Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon species, 13 subbasins were rated as having a medium conservation value, 

1764 four were rated as low, and the remaining subbasins (35), were rated as having a high conservation value to Lower 

1765 Columbia River Chinook salmon. Factors contributing to the downward trends in this species are 
57

1766 hydromorphological changes resulting from hydropower development, loss of tidal marsh and swamp habitat and 

1767 degraded freshwater and marine habitat from industrial harbor and port development and urban development. 

1768 Limiting factors identified for this species include reduced access to spawning/rearing habitat in tributaries, hatchery 

1769 impacts, loss of habitat diversity and channel stability in tributaries, excessive fine sediment in spawning gravels, 

1770 elevated water temperature in tributaries and harvest impacts. 

1771 Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Salmon 

1772 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

1773 The Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of 

1774 Chinook salmon in all river reaches accessible to Chinook salmon in Columbia River tributaries upstream of Rock 

1775 Island Dam and downstream of Chief Joseph Dam in Washington, excluding the Okanogan River. Six artificial 

1776 propagation programs are part of this species. Spring-run Chinook salmon currently spawn in only three river basins 

1777 above Rock Island Dam: the Wenatchee, Entiat and Methow Rivers (Good et al., 2005). 

1778 Status and Trends 

1779 NMFS listed Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon as endangered on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308), 

1780 and reaffirmed their status as endangered on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160), because they had been reduced to small 

1781 populations in three watersheds. Based on redd count data series, spawning escapements for the Wenatchee, Entiat 

1782 and Methow rivers have declined an average of 5.6%, 4.8% and 6.3% per year, respectively, since 1958. In the most 

1783 recent 5-year geometric mean (1997 to 2001), spawning escapement for naturally produced fish was 273 for the 

1784 Wenatchee population, 65 for the Entiat population, and 282 for the Methow population, only 8% to 15% of the 

1785 minimum abundance thresholds, although escapement increased substantially in 2000 and 2001 in all three river 

1786 systems. Based on 1980-2004 returns, the average annual growth rate for this species is estimated at 0.93 (meaning 

1787 the population is not replacing itself; Fisher and Hinrichsen 2006). Assuming that population growth rates were to 

1788 continue at 1980 to 2004 levels, Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon populations are projected to 

1789 have very high probabilities of decline within 50 years. Population viability analyses for this species (using the 

1790 Dennis Model) suggest that these Chinook salmon face a significant risk of extinction: a 75 to 100% probability of 

1791 extinction within 100 years (given return rates for 1980 to present). 

1792 Hatchery influence and genetic diversity are significant issues for the continued survival of Upper Columbia River 

1793 Chinook salmon. This is a result of reduced genetic diversity from homogenization of populations that occurred 

1794 under the Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project from 1939 to 1943. Stray hatchery fish and a high proportion of 

1795 hatchery fish during spawning have contributed to the high genetic diversity risk. 

1796 Critical Habitat 

1797 NMFS designated critical habitat for Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 

1798 FR 52630). The designation includes all Columbia River estuaries and river reaches upstream to Chief Joseph Dam 

1799 and several tributary subbasins. This designation includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches 

1800 and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where the ordinary high-water line is 

1801 not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. These areas are important for the species’ overall 

1802 conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. The critical habitat designation for this species 

1803 identifies primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to support one or more Chinook salmon life 

1804 stages. Specific sites include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, 

1805 nearshore marine habitat and estuarine areas. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include 

1806 water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and floodplain connectivity. The 
58

1807 Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon species has 31 watersheds within its range. Five watersheds 

1808 received a medium rating and 26 received a high rating of conservation value to the species. The Columbia River 

1809 rearing/migration corridor downstream of the spawning range was rated as a high conservation value. Factors 

1810 contributing to the downward trends in this species include mainstem Columbia River hydropower system mortality, 

1811 tributary riparian degradation and loss of in-river wood, altered tributary floodplain and channel morphology, 

1812 reduced tributary stream flow and impaired passage and harvest impacts. 

1813 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon 

1814 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

1815 The Puget Sound Chinook salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers 

1816 and streams flowing into Puget Sound including the Straits of Juan De Fuca from the Elwha River, eastward, 

1817 including rivers and streams flowing into Hood Canal, South Sound, North Sound and the Strait of Georgia in 

1818 Washington. Twenty-six artificial propagation programs are part of the species. The Puget Sound species is 

1819 comprised of 31 historical populations, of which 22 or more are believed to be extant and nine are considered 

1820 extinct. 

1821 Chinook salmon in this area generally have an “ocean-type” life history. Puget Sound populations include both 

1822 early-returning and late-returning Chinook salmon spawners described by Healey (1991). However, within these 

1823 generalized behavioral forms, significant variation occurs in residence time in fresh water and estuarine 

1824 environments. For example, Hayman et al., (1996) described three juvenile Chinook salmon life histories with 

1825 varying residency times in the Skagit River system in northern Puget Sound. Chinook salmon utilize nearshore 

1826 Puget Sound habitats year-round, although they can be far from their natal river systems (Brennan et al., 2004). 

1827 Status and Trends 

1828 NMFS listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon as threatened in 1999 (64 FR 14308); that status was reaffirmed on June 

1829 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). This species has lost 15 spawning aggregations (nine from the early-run type) that were 

1830 either independent historical populations or major components of the remaining 22 existing independent historical 

1831 populations identified (Good et al., 2005). The disproportionate loss of early-run life history diversity represents a 

1832 significant loss of the evolutionary legacy of the historical species. 

1833 Data reported by Good et al., (2005) indicate that long term trends in abundance for this species are split with about 

1834 half of the populations declining and the other half increasing. In contrast, the short-term trend for four populations 

1835 is declining. The overall long-term trend in abundance indicates that, on average, populations are just replacing 

1836 themselves. Estimates of the short-term median population growth rate (λ) (data years 1990-2002) indicate an even 

1837 split between populations that are growing and those that are declining, although estimates would be lower for 

1838 several populations if the fraction of naturally spawning hatchery fish were available for all populations within the 

1839 species. For available data, when λ is calculated assuming that hatchery fish have the equivalent success of natural 

1840 spawners then the largest estimated decline occurs in the Green River. Populations with the largest positive short 

1841 and long-term trends include the White River and the North Fork Nooksack River (Good et al., 2005). Lambda for 

1842 the Skagit River, which produces the most Chinook salmon in this species, has increased slightly. Overall, the recent 

1843 analysis by Good et al., (2005) illustrated that there has not be much change in this species since NMFS’ first status 

1844 review (Busby et al., 1996). Individual populations have improved, while others have declined. However, the lack of 

1845 information on the fraction of naturally spawning, hatchery-origin fish for 10 of the 22 populations that comprise 

1846 this species limits our understanding of the trends in naturally spawning fish for a large portion of the species. 
59

1847 The estimated total run size of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound in the early 1990s was 240,000 fish, representing a 

1848 loss of nearly 450,000 fish from historic numbers. During a recent 5-year period, the geometric mean of natural 

1849 spawners in populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon ranged from 222 to just over 9,489 fish. Most populations 

1850 had natural spawners numbering in the hundreds (median recent natural escapement is 766), and of the six 

1851 populations with greater than 1,000 natural spawners, only two have a low fraction of hatchery fish. The populations 

1852 with the greatest estimated component of hatchery fish tend to be in mid to southern Puget Sound, Hood Canal and 

1853 the Strait of Juan de Fuca regions. Estimates of the historical equilibrium abundance, based on pre-European 

1854 settlement habitat conditions, range from 1,700 to 51,000 potential Puget Sound Chinook salmon spawners per 

1855 population. The historical estimates of spawner capacity are several orders of magnitude higher than spawner 

1856 abundances currently observed throughout the species (Good et al., 2005). 

1857 Critical Habitat 

1858 NMFS designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). The 

1859 specific geographic area includes portions of the Nooksack River, Skagit River, Sauk River, Stillaguamish River, 

1860 Skykomish River, Snoqualmie River, Lake Washington, Green River, Puyallup River, White River, Nisqually River, 

1861 Hamma Hamma River and other Hood Canal watersheds, the Dungeness/Elwha Watersheds and nearshore marine 

1862 areas of the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound, Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This designation includes the 

1863 stream channels within the designated stream reaches and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high 

1864 water line. In areas where the ordinary high water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull 

1865 elevation. 

1866 The designation for this species includes sites necessary to support one or more Chinook salmon life stages. These 

1867 areas are important for the species’ overall conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. 

1868 Specific primary constituent elements include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater 

1869 migration corridors, nearshore marine habitat and estuarine areas. The physical or biological features that 

1870 characterize these sites include water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and 

1871 floodplain connectivity. Of 49 subbasins (5th field Hydrological Units) reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical 

1872 habitat for the Puget Sound species, nine subbasins were rated as having a medium conservation value, 12 were 

1873 rated as low, and the remaining subbasins (40), where the bulk of Federal lands occur for this species, were rated as 

1874 having a high conservation value to Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Factors contributing to the downward trends in 

1875 this species are hydromorphological changes (such as diking, revetments, loss of secondary channels in floodplains, 

1876 widespread blockages of streams and changes in peak flows), degraded freshwater and marine habitat affected by 

1877 agricultural activities and urbanization and upper river tributaries widely affected by poor forest practices. Changes 

1878 in habitat quantity, availability, diversity, flow, temperature, sediment load and channel stability are common 

1879 limiting factors in areas of critical habitat. 

1880 Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon 

1881 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

1882 The Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of winter-run 

1883 Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries in California. Two artificial propagation programs are 

1884 included in this species. 

1885 This species consists of a single spawning population that enters the Sacramento River and its tributaries in 

1886 California from November to June and spawns from late April to mid-August, with a peak from May to June (Good

1887 et al., 2005). Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon historically occupied cold, headwater streams, such as 
60

1888 the upper reaches of the Little Sacramento, McCloud and lower Pit Rivers. Young winter-run Chinook salmon 

1889 venture to sea in November and December, after only four to seven months in fresh water (Groot and Margolis., 

1890 1991). 

1891 Status and Trends 

1892 NMFS listed Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon as endangered on January 4, 1994 (59 FR 440), and 

1893 reaffirmed their status as endangered on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160), because dams restrict access to a small 

1894 fraction of their historic spawning habitat and the habitat remaining to them is degraded. Sacramento River winter1895 run Chinook salmon consist of a single self-sustaining population which is entirely dependent upon the provision of 

1896 suitably cool water from Shasta Reservoir during periods of spawning, incubation and rearing. 

1897 Construction of Shasta Dams in the 1940s eliminated access to historic spawning habitat for winter-run Chinook 

1898 salmon in the basin. Winter-run Chinook salmon were not expected to survive this habitat alteration (Moffett, 1949). 

1899 However, cold water releases from Shasta Dam have created conditions suitable for winter Chinook salmon for 

1900 roughly 60 miles downstream from the dam. As a result the species has been reduced to a single spawning 

1901 population confined to the mainstem Sacramento River below Keswick Dam, although some adult winter-run 

1902 Chinook salmon were recently observed in Battle Creek, a tributary to the upper Sacramento River. 

1903 Quantitative estimates of run-size are not available for the period before 1996, the completion of Red Bluff 

1904 Diversion Dam. However, winter-runs may have been as large as 200,000 fish based upon commercial fishery 

1905 records from the 1870s (Fisher, 1994). The California Department of Fish and Game estimated spawning 

1906 escapement of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon at 61,300 (60,000 in the mainstem, 1,000 in Battle 

1907 Creek and 300 in Mill Creek) in the early 1960s. During the first 3 years of operation of the county facility at the 

1908 Red Bluff Diversion Dam (1967 to 1969), the spawning run of winter-run Chinook salmon averaged 86,500 fish. 

1909 From 1967 through the mid-1990s, the population declined at an average rate of 18% per year, or roughly 50% per 

1910 generation. The population reached critically low levels during the drought of 1987 to 1992; the 3-year average run 

1911 size for the period of 1989 to 1991 was 388 fish. Based on the Red Bluff Diversion Dam counts, the population has 

1912 been growing rapidly since the 1990s. Mean run size from 1995-2000 has been 2,191, but have ranged from 364 to 

1913 65,683 (Good et al., 2005). Most recent estimates indicate that the short term trend is 0.26, while the population 

1914 growth rate is still less than 1(Good et al., 2005). The draft recovery goal for the species is an average of 10,000 

1915 female spawners per year and a population growth rate >1.0, calculated over 13 years of data (Good et al., 2005). 

1916 Critical Habitat 

1917 NMFS designated critical habitat for Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon on June 16, 1993 (58 FR 

1918 33212). The following areas consisting of the water, waterway bottom and adjacent riparian zones: the Sacramento 

1919 River from Keswick Dam, Shasta County (river mile 302) to Chipps Island (river mile 0) at the westward margin of 

1920 the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and other specified estuarine waters. These areas are important for the species’ 

1921 overall conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. Factors contributing to the downward 

1922 trends in this species include reduced access to spawning/rearing habitat, possible loss of genetic integrity through 

1923 population bottlenecks, inadequately screened diversions, predation at artificial structures and by nonnative species, 

1924 pollution from Iron Mountain Mine and other sources, adverse flow conditions, high summer water temperatures, 

1925 unsustainable harvest rates, passage problems at various structures and vulnerability to drought (Good et al., 2005). 
61

1926 Snake River Fall-Run Chinook Salmon 

1927 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

1928 The Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of fall-run Chinook 

1929 salmon in the mainstem Snake River below Hells Canyon Dam, and in the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, 

1930 Imnaha River, Salmon River and Clearwater River subbasins. Four artificial propagation programs are part of this 

1931 species. 

1932 Historically, the primary fall-run Chinook salmon spawning areas occurred on the upper mainstem Snake River 

1933 (Connor et al., 2005). A series of Snake River dams blocked access to the upper reaches, which significantly 

1934 reduced spawning and rearing habitat. Consequently, salmon now reside in waters that are generally cooler than pre1935 dam habitats. Currently, natural spawning occurs at the upper end of Lower Granite Reservoir to Hells Canyon 

1936 Dam, the lower reaches of the Imnaha, Grande Ronde, Clearwater and Tucannon rivers and small mainstem sections 

1937 in the tailraces of the lower Snake River hydroelectric dams. 

1938 Adult Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon enter the Columbia River in July and August, and spawning occurs from 

1939 October through November. Juveniles emerge from the gravels in March and April of the following year, moving 

1940 downstream from natal spawning and early rearing areas from June through early autumn. Prior to dam construction, 

1941 fall Chinook salmon were primarily ocean-type (migrated downstream and reared in the mainstem Snake River 

1942 during their first year). However, today both an ocean-type and reservoir-type occur (Connor et al., 2005). The 

1943 reservoir-type juveniles overwinter in pools created by dams before migrating to sea; this response is likely due to 

1944 early development in cooler temperatures which prevents rapid growth. Phenotypic characteristics have shifted in 

1945 apparent response to environmental changes from hydroelectric dams (Connor et al., 2005). Migration downstream 

1946 appears to be influenced by flow velocity within both river and reservoir systems (Tiffan et al., 2009). 

1947 Status and Trends 

1948 NMFS originally listed Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon as endangered in 1992 (57 FR 14653) but reclassified 

1949 their status as threatened on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). Estimated annual returns for the period 1938 to 1949 was 

1950 72,000 fish, and by the 1950s, numbers had declined to an annual average of 29,000 fish (Bjornn and Horner 1980). 

1951 Numbers of Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon continued to decline during the 1960s and 1970s as approximately 

1952 80% of their historic habitat was eliminated or severely degraded by the construction of the Hells Canyon complex 

1953 (1958 to 1967) and the lower Snake River dams (1961 to 1975). Counts of natural-origin adult Snake River fall-run 

1954 Chinook salmon at Lower Granite Dam were 1,000 fish in 1975, and ranged from 78 to 905 fish (with an average of 

1955 489 fish) over the ensuing 25-year period (Good et al., 2005). Numbers of natural-origin Snake River fall-run 

1956 Chinook salmon have increased over the last few years, with estimates at Lower Granite Dam of 2,652 fish in 2001, 

1957 2,095 fish in 2002, and 3,895 fish in 2003. 

1958 Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon have exhibited an upward trend in returns over Lower Granite Dam since the 

1959 mid 1990s. Returns classified as natural-origin spawners exceeded 2,600 fish in 2001, compared to a 1997 to 2001 

1960 geometric mean natural-origin count of 871 (35% of the proposed delisting abundance criteria of 2,500 natural 

1961 spawners averaged over 8 years). Both the long- and short-term trends in natural returns are positive. Harvest 

1962 impacts on Snake River fall Chinook salmon declined after listing and have remained relatively constant in recent 

1963 years. Mainstem conditions for sub-yearling Chinook migrants from the Snake River have generally improved since 

1964 the early 1990s. The hatchery component, derived from outside the basin, has decreased as a percentage of the run at 

1965 Lower Granite Dam from the 1998/99 status reviews (5-year average of 26.2%) to 2001 (8%). This reflects an 

1966 increase in the Lyons Ferry component, systematic removal of marked hatchery fish at the Lower Granite trap, and 
62

1967 modifications to the Umatilla supplementation program to increase homing of fall Chinook salmon release groups. 

1968 Hatcheries stocking fish to the Snake River fall run produce genetic affects in the population due to three major 

1969 components: natural-origin fish (which may be progeny of hatchery fish), returns of Snake River fish from the 

1970 Lyons Ferry Hatchery program and strays from hatchery programs outside the Snake River. 

1971 Critical Habitat 

1972 NMFS designated critical habitat for Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon on December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543). 

1973 This critical habitat encompasses the waters, waterway bottoms and adjacent riparian zones of specified lakes and 

1974 river reaches in the Columbia River that are or were accessible to ESA listed Snake River salmon (except reaches 

1975 above impassable natural falls and Dworshak and Hells Canyon Dams). These areas are important for the species’ 

1976 overall conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. Adjacent riparian zones are defined as 

1977 those areas within a horizontal distance of 300 feet from the normal line of high water of a stream channel or from 

1978 the shoreline of a standing body of water. Designated critical habitat includes the Columbia River from a straight 

1979 line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (Oregon side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (Washington 

1980 side) and including all river reaches from the estuary upstream to the confluence of the Snake River and all Snake 

1981 River reaches upstream to Hells Canyon Dam. Critical habitat also includes several river reaches presently or 

1982 historically accessible to Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon. Limiting factors identified for Snake River fall-run 

1983 Chinook salmon include: mainstem lower Snake and Columbia hydrosystem mortality, degraded water quality, 

1984 reduced spawning and rearing habitat due to mainstem lower Snake River hydropower system, harvest impacts, 

1985 impaired stream flows, barriers to fish passage in tributaries, excessive sediment and altered floodplain and channel 

1986 morphology (NMFS, 2005b). 

1987 Snake River Spring/Summer-Run Chinook Salmon 

1988 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

1989 The Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of 

1990 spring/summer-run Chinook salmon in the mainstem Snake River and the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, 

1991 Imnaha River and Salmon River subbasins. Fifteen artificial propagation programs are part of the species. The 

1992 Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team has identified 32 populations in five major population groups 

1993 (Upper Salmon River, South Fork Salmon River, Middle Fork Salmon River, Grande Ronde/Imnaha, Lower Snake 

1994 Mainstem Tributaries) for this species. Historic populations above Hells Canyon Dam are considered extinct 

1995 (ICBTRT, 2003). 

1996 Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon have a stream-type life history. Spawning occurs in late summer 

1997 and early fall and eggs incubate over the following winter and hatch in late winter and early spring of the following 

1998 year. Juveniles mature in the river for one year before migrating to the ocean in the spring of their second year. 

1999 Larger outmigrants have a higher survival rate during outmigration (Zabel and Williams, 2002; Zabel and Achord, 

2000 2004). Depending on tributary and the specific habitat conditions, juveniles may migrate widely from natal reaches 

2001 into alternative summer-rearing or overwintering areas. Spawners return to spawn primarily as 4- and 5-year-olds 

2002 after 2 to 3 years in the ocean. 

2003 Status and Trends 

2004 NMFS originally listed Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon as threatened on April 22, 1992 (57 FR 

2005 14653), and reaffirmed their status as threatened on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). Although direct estimates of 

2006 historical annual Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon returns are not available, returns may have declined 

2007 by as much as 97% between the late 1800s and 2000. According to Matthews and Waples (1991), total annual Snake 
63

2008 River spring/summer Chinook salmon production may have exceeded 1.5 million adult fish in the late 1800s. Total 

2009 (natural plus hatchery origin) returns fell to roughly 100,000 spawners by the late 1960s (Fulton, 1968). The 1997 to 

2010 2001 geometric mean total return for the summer run component at Lower Granite Dam was slightly more than 

2011 6,000 fish, compared to the geometric mean of 3,076 fish for the years 1987 to 1996 (Good et al., 2005). Good et 

2012 al., (2005) reported that risks to individual populations within the species may be greater than the extinction risk for 

2013 the entire species due to low levels of annual abundance and the extensive production areas within the Snake River 

2014 basin. Although the average abundance in the most recent decade is more abundant than the previous decade, there 

2015 is no obvious long-term trend. 

2016 Critical Habitat 

2017 NMFS designated critical habitat for Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon on October 25, 1999 (64 FR 

2018 57399). This critical habitat encompasses the waters, waterway bottoms and adjacent riparian zones of specified 

2019 lakes and river reaches in the Columbia River that are or were accessible to ESA listed Snake River salmon (except 

2020 reaches above impassable natural falls and Dworshak and Hells Canyon Dams). Adjacent riparian zones are defined 

2021 as those areas within a horizontal distance of 300 feet from the normal line of high water of a stream channel or 

2022 from the shoreline of a standing body of water. Designated critical habitat includes the Columbia River from a 

2023 straight line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (Oregon side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty 

2024 (Washington side) and including all river reaches from the estuary upstream to the confluence of the Snake River 

2025 and all Snake River reaches upstream to Hells Canyon Dam; the Palouse River from its confluence with the Snake 

2026 River upstream to Palouse Falls, the Clearwater River from its confluence with the Snake River upstream to its 

2027 confluence with Lolo Creek; the North Fork Clearwater River from its confluence with the Clearwater river 

2028 upstream to Dworshak Dam. Critical habitat also includes several river reaches presently or historically accessible to 

2029 Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon. These areas are important for the species’ overall conservation by 

2030 protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. Limiting factors identified for this species include hydrosystem 

2031 mortality, reduced stream flow, altered channel morphology and floodplain, excessive fine sediment and degraded 

2032 water quality (NMFS, 2006). 

2033 Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon 

2034 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2035 The Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run 

2036 Chinook salmon in the Clackamas River and in the Willamette River, and its tributaries, above Willamette Falls, 

2037 Oregon. Seven artificial propagation programs are part of the species. 

2038 Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon occupy the Willamette River and its tributaries. All spring-run Chinook 

2039 salmon in the species, except those entering the Clackamas River, must pass Willamette Falls. In the past, this 

2040 species included sizable numbers of spawning salmon in the Santiam River, the middle fork of the Willamette River, 

2041 and the McKenzie River, as well as smaller numbers in the Molalla River, Calapooia River and Albiqua Creek. 

2042 Historically, access above Willamette Falls was restricted to the spring when flows were high. In autumn, low flows 

2043 prevented fish from ascending past the falls. The Upper Willamette spring-run Chinook salmon are one of the most 

2044 genetically distinct Chinook salmon groups in the Columbia River Basin. Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon 

2045 enter the Columbia River and estuary earlier than other spring Chinook salmon species (Meyers et al., 1998). Fall2046 run Chinook salmon spawn in the Upper Willamette but are not considered part of the species because they are not 

2047 native. 
64

2048 Status and Trends 

2049 NMFS originally listed Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon as threatened on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308), 

2050 and reaffirmed their status as threatened on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). The total abundance of adult spring-run 

2051 Chinook salmon (hatchery-origin plus natural-origin fish) passing Willamette Falls has remained relatively steady 

2052 over the past 50 years (ranging from approximately 20,000 to 70,000 fish), but it is an order of magnitude below the 

2053 peak abundance levels observed in the 1920s (approximately 300,000 adults). Until recent years, interpretation of 

2054 abundance levels has been confounded by a high but uncertain fraction of hatchery-produced fish. Although the 

2055 number of adult spring-run Chinook salmon crossing Willamette Falls is in the same range (about 20,000 to 70,000 

2056 adults) it has been for the last 50 years, a large fraction of these are hatchery produced. Estimates of the percentage 

2057 of hatchery fish range according to tributary, several of which exceed 70% (Good et al., 2005). The Calapooia River 

2058 is estimated to contain 100% hatchery fish. Insufficient information on hatchery production in the past prevents a 

2059 meaningful analysis of the population trend; therefore no formal trend analysis is available. 

2060 Most natural spring Chinook salmon populations of the Upper Willamette River are likely extirpated or nearly so, 

2061 with only one remaining naturally reproducing population identified in this species: the spring Chinook salmon in 

2062 the McKenzie River. Unfortunately, recently short-term declines in abundance suggest that this population may not 

2063 be self-sustaining (Meyers et al., 1998). Abundance in this population has been relatively low (low thousands) with 

2064 a substantial number of these fish being of hatchery origin. The population increased substantially from 2000 to 

2065 2003, probably due to increased survival in the ocean. Future survival rates in the ocean are unpredictable, and the 

2066 likelihood of long-term sustainability for this population has not been determined. Of concern is that a majority of 

2067 the spawning habitat and approximately 30 to 40% of total historical habitat are no longer accessible because of 

2068 dams (Good et al., 2005). Individuals from the species migrate far north and are caught incidentally in ocean 

2069 fisheries, particularly off southeast Alaska and northern Canada, and in the mainstem Columbia and Willamette 

2070 rivers during spring. 

2071 Critical Habitat 

2072 NMFS designated critical habitat for Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 

2073 52630). Critical habitat for upper Willamette River Chinook salmon includes defined areas within subbasins of the 

2074 middle fork Willamette River, upper Willamette River, McKenzie River, Santiam River, Crabtree Creek, Molalla 

2075 River and Clackamas River. This designation includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches and 

2076 includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where the ordinary high-water line is not 

2077 defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. The critical habitat designation for this species 

2078 identifies primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to support one or more Chinook salmon life 

2079 stages. Specific sites include freshwater spawning and rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors. The physical or 

2080 biological features that characterize these sites include water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate 

2081 passage conditions and floodplain connectivity. Of 65 subbasins reviewed in NMFS’ assessment of critical habitat 

2082 for the Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon species, 19 subbasins were rated as having a medium conservation 

2083 value, 19 were rated as low, and the 27 remaining subbasins were rated as having a high conservation value to 

2084 Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon. Federal lands were generally rated as having high conservation value to 

2085 the species’ spawning and rearing. Factors contributing to the downward trends in this species include reduced 

2086 access to spawning/rearing habitat in tributaries, hatchery impacts, altered water quality and temperature in 

2087 tributaries, altered stream flow in tributaries and lost or degraded floodplain connectivity and lowland stream 

2088 habitat. 

2089 Chum Salmon 

2090 Chum salmon are more widely distributed than other salmon and may have at one time made up nearly 50% of the 
65

2091 Pacific salmon biomass in the Pacific Ocean (Salo, 1991). Historically, chum salmon were distributed throughout 

2092 the coastal regions of western Canada and the U.S., as far south as Monterey Bay, California, to the Arctic coast and 

2093 east to the Mackenzie River, in the Beaufort Sea. They also ranged in Asia from Korea to the Arctic coast of the 

2094 Soviet Union and west to the Lena River. Presently, major spawning populations on the west coast of the U.S. are 

2095 found only as far south as Tillamook Bay on the northern Oregon coast. In this section of our Opinion, we discuss 

2096 the distribution, status and critical habitats of the two listed species of threatened chum salmon separately. However, 

2097 because chum salmon species share many characteristics, we begin this section describing those characteristics 

2098 common across species. 

2099 There are no known landlocked or naturalized freshwater populations of chum salmon. Like Chinook salmon, chum 

2100 salmon are semelparous (Randall et al., 1987 as cited in Johnson et al., 1997). Their general life cycle spans fresh 

2101 and marine waters, although chum salmon are more marine oriented than the other Pacific salmon. Chum salmon 

2102 spend 2 to 5 years in feeding areas in the northeast Pacific Ocean (Johnson et al., 1997). Chum salmon distribute 

2103 throughout the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Neave et al., 1976 as cited in Johnson et al., 1997). 

2104 Spawning migrations generally occur in the summer and fall; the precise spawn timing and migration varies across 

2105 populations. Generally, spawning runs consist of fish between 2 and 5 years of age. Fecundity is highly variable and 

2106 is correlated with body size and region (Salo, 1991). Once they emerge from their gravel nests, chum salmon fry 

2107 outmigrate to seawater almost immediately (Salo, 1991). This ocean-type migratory behavior contrasts with the 

2108 stream-type behavior of other species in its genus. Because of their small size chum salmon will form loosely 

2109 aggregated schools, presumably to reduce predation by swamping predators (Miller and Brannon 1982; Pitcher 

2110 1986). 

2111 Generally, chum fry emigrate to estuaries between March through May where they forage on epibenthic and neritic 

2112 food resources. The timing of juvenile entry into sea water is commonly correlated with nearshore warming and 

2113 associated plankton blooms (Groot and Margolis., 1991). As food resources decline and the fish grow, they move 

2114 further out to forage on pelagic and nektonic organisms (Simenstad and Salo, 1982; Salo, 1991). Migratory studies 

2115 indicate that chum salmon in their first year of life will typically maintain a coastal migratory pattern although the 

2116 pattern is variable as they mature at sea. At sea chum salmon feed on pteropods, euphausiids, amphipods, fish and 

2117 squid larvae (Salo, 1991). 

2118 Threats 

2119 Natural Threats. Chum salmon are exposed to high rates of natural predation each stage of their life stage and in 

2120 particular during migration. Mortality at emergence or prior to emergence is significant because eggs develop in the 

2121 interstitial spaces in the stream gravel and storm surges that redeposit gravels and wash out eggs or introduce silt to 

2122 the interstitial spaces can reduce egg survival. Other factors that reduce egg survival and larvae development include 

2123 low dissolved oxygen, poor percolation and extreme cold or warm temperatures. 

2124 Anthropogenic Threats. Chum salmon, like the other listed salmon, have declined under the combined effects of 

2125 overharvests in fisheries; competition from fish raised in hatcheries and native and non-native exotic species; dams 

2126 that block their migrations and alter river hydrology; gravel mining that impedes their migration and alters the 

2127 dynamics (hydrogeomorphology) of the rivers and streams that support juveniles; water diversions that deplete 

2128 water levels in rivers and streams; destruction or degradation of riparian habitat that increases water temperatures in 

2129 rivers and streams sufficient to reduce the survival of juvenile chum salmon; and land use practices (logging, 

2130 agriculture, urbanization) that destroy wetland and riparian ecosystems while introducing sediment, nutrients, 

2131 biocides, metals and other pollutants into surface and ground water and degrade water quality in the fresh water, 
66

2132 estuarine and coastal ecosystems throughout the Pacific Northwest. These threats are the same as those summarized 

2133 in detail under the Chinook salmon of this section. 

2134 Columbia River Chum Salmon 

2135 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2136 The Columbia River chum species includes all naturally spawned populations of chum salmon in the Columbia 

2137 River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon. Three artificial propagation programs are part of the species. 

2138 Most of the chum salmon that comprise this species return to northern tributaries of the Columbia River (in 

2139 Washington State), primarily the Grays River, in areas immediately below Bonneville Dam and in smaller numbers 

2140 under the I-205 bridge near Vancouver. Chum populations that formerly occupied tributaries on the south bank of 

2141 the Columbia (in Oregon) are considered extirpated or nearly so. Observers have documented spawning over 

2142 multiple years in the mainstem Columbia River, near McCord Creek and Multnomah Falls in Oregon, although the 

2143 number of spawners in these areas are generally quite low (McElhany et al., 2007). 

2144 Status and Trends 

2145 NMFS listed Columbia River chum salmon as threatened on March 25, 1999, and reaffirmed their threatened status 

2146 on June 28, 2005 (71 FR 37160). Chum salmon in the Columbia River once numbered in the hundreds of thousands 

2147 of adults and were reported in almost every river in the Lower Columbia River basin, but by the 1950s most runs 

2148 disappeared (Rich, 1942; Marr, 1943; Fulton, 1970). The total number of chum salmon returning to the Columbia 

2149 River in the last 50 years has averaged a few thousand per year, with returns limited to a very restricted portion of 

2150 the historical range. Significant spawning occurs in only two of the 16 historical populations, meaning that 88% of 

2151 the historical populations are extirpated, or nearly so (Good et al., 2005). The two remaining populations are the 

2152 Grays River and the lower Columbia Gorge tributaries (Good et al., 2005). Both long- and short-term trends for 

2153 Grays River abundance are negative, but the current trend in abundance for the lower Columbia Gorge tributaries is 

2154 slightly positive. Chum salmon appear to be extirpated from the Oregon portion of this species. In 2000, ODFW 

2155 conducted surveys to determine the abundance and distribution of chum salmon in the Columbia River, and out of 

2156 30 sites surveyed, only one chum salmon was observed. 

2157 Few Columbia River chum salmon have been observed in tributaries between The Dalles and Bonneville dams. 

2158 Surveys of the White Salmon River in 2002 found one male and one female carcass, with no evidence of spawning 

2159 (Ehlke and Keller, 2003). Chum salmon were not observed in any upper Columbia Gorge tributaries during the 2003 

2160 and 2004 spawning ground surveys. Finally, most Columbia River chum populations have been functionally 

2161 extirpated or are presently at very low abundance levels. 

2162 Historically, the Columbia River chum salmon supported a large commercial fishery in the first half of this century 

2163 which landed more than 500,000 fish per year as recently as 1942. Commercial catches declined beginning in the 

2164 mid-1950s, and in later years rarely exceeded 2,000 per year (Good et al., 2005). During the 1980s and 1990s, the 

2165 combined abundance of natural spawners for the lower Columbia Gorge, Washougal and Grays River populations 

2166 was below 4,000 adults. In 2002, however, the abundance of natural spawners exhibited a substantial increase at 

2167 several locations (estimate of natural spawners is approximately 20,000 adults) (Good et al., 2005). The cause of this 

2168 dramatic increase in abundance is unknown. However, long- and short-term productivity trends for populations are 

2169 at or below replacement. The loss of off-channel habitat and the extirpation of approximately 17 historical 

2170 populations increase this species’ vulnerability to environmental variability and catastrophic events. Overall, the 

2171 populations that remain have low abundance, limited distribution and poor connectivity (Good et al., 2005). 
67

2172 Critical Habitat 

2173 NMFS designated critical habitat for Columbia River chum salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). The 

2174 designated includes defined areas in the following subbasins: Middle Columbia/Hood, Lower Columbia/Sandy, 

2175 Lewis, Lower Columbia/Clatskanie, Lower Cowlitz, Lower Columbia subbasin and river corridor. This designation 

2176 includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches and includes a lateral extent as defined by the 

2177 ordinary high water line. In areas where the ordinary high-water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the 

2178 bankfull elevation. 

2179 The critical habitat designation for this species identifies primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to 

2180 support one or more chum salmon life stages. These areas are important for the species’ overall conservation by 

2181 protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding and are rated as having high conservation value to the species. 

2182 Columbia River chum salmon have primary constituent elements of freshwater spawning, freshwater rearing, 

2183 freshwater migration, estuarine areas free of obstruction, nearshore marine areas free of obstructions and offshore 

2184 marine areas with good water quality. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include water 

2185 quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and floodplain connectivity. Of 21 

2186 subbasins reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for the Columbia River chum salmon species, three 

2187 subbasins were rated as having a medium conservation value, no subbasins were rated as low, and the majority of 

2188 subbasins (18), were rated as having a high conservation value to Columbia River chum salmon. The major factors 

2189 limiting recovery for Columbia River chum salmon are altered channel form and stability in tributaries, excessive 

2190 sediment in tributary spawning gravels, altered stream flow in tributaries and the mainstem Columbia River, loss of 

2191 some tributary habitat types and harassment of spawners in the tributaries and mainstem. 

2192 Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon 

2193 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2194 The Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of summer-run chum 

2195 salmon in Hood Canal and its tributaries as well as populations in Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal 

2196 and Dungeness Bay, Washington (64 FR 14508) from mid-September to mid-October (WDF, 1993), but may enter 

2197 natal rivers in late August. Eight artificial propagation programs are considered to be part of the species. 

2198 On average Hood Canal chum salmon reside in estuaries for 23 days; daily tidal migrations have not been observed, 

2199 but prey availability does influence movement patterns (Bax, 1983). Upon leaving their natal estuaries summer-run 

2200 chum salmon generally migrate through Hood Canal and into the main body of Puget Sound. 

2201 Status and Trends 

2202 NMFS listed Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon as threatened on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14508), and 

2203 reaffirmed as threatened on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). Historically, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon 

2204 comprised an estimated 16 populations. Only eight extant populations remain within this species (Good et al., 2005). 

2205 Most of the extirpated populations historically occurred on the eastern side of Hood Canal, which is cause for 

2206 concern over the current spatial structure of this species. The widespread loss of estuary and lower floodplain habitat 

2207 is a continuing threat to species spatial structure and connectivity. 

2208 Although adult returns for some populations showed modest improvements in 2000, with upward trends continuing 

2209 in 2001 and 2002 (Good et al., 2005), the recent 5-year mean abundance is variable among populations in the 

2210 species, ranging from one fish to nearly 4,500 fish in the Big/Little Quilcene rivers. Hood Canal summer-run chum 

2211 are the focus of an extensive rebuilding program developed and implemented since 1992 by the State and Tribal 
68

2212 comanagers. Two populations (the combined Quilcene and Union River populations) are above the conservation 

2213 thresholds established by the rebuilding plan. However, most populations remain depressed. Estimates of the 

2214 fraction of naturally spawning hatchery fish exceed 60% for some populations, indicating that reintroduction 

2215 programs are supplementing the numbers of total fish spawning naturally in streams (Good et al., 2005). Long-term 

2216 trends in productivity are above replacement for only the Quilcene and Union River populations (Good et al., 2005). 

2217 Buoyed by recent increases, seven populations are exhibiting short-term productivity trends above replacement. 

2218 Of the eight programs releasing summer-run chum salmon that are considered to be part of the Hood Canal summer 

2219 chum species, six of the programs are supplementation programs implemented to preserve and increase the 

2220 abundance of native populations in their natal watersheds. NMFS’ assessment of the effects of artificial propagation 

2221 on species extinction risk concluded that these hatchery programs collectively do not substantially reduce the 

2222 extinction risk of the species. The hatchery programs are reducing risks to species abundance by increasing total 

2223 species abundance as well as the number of naturally spawning summer-run chum salmon. 

2224 Critical Habitat 

2225 NMFS designated critical habitat for Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). 

2226 The specific geographic area includes the Skokomish River, Hood Canal subbasin, which includes the Hamma 

2227 Hamma and Dosewallips rivers and others, the Puget Sound subbasin, Dungeness/Elwha subbasin and nearshore 

2228 marine areas of Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca from the line of extreme high tide to a depth of 30 meters. 

2229 This includes a narrow nearshore zone from the extreme high-tide to mean lower low tide within several Navy 

2230 security/restricted zones. This also includes about 8 miles of habitat that was unoccupied at the time of the 

2231 designation Finch, Anderson and Chimacum creeks (69 FR 74572; 70 FR 52630), but has recently been re-seeded. 

2232 The designation for Hood Canal summer-run chum, like others made at this time, includes the stream channels 

2233 within the designated stream reaches and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas 

2234 where the ordinary high-water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. 

2235 The specific primary constituent elements identified for Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon are areas for 

2236 spawning, freshwater rearing and migration, estuarine areas free of obstruction, nearshore marine areas free of 

2237 obstructions and offshore marine areas with good water quality. The physical or biological features that characterize 

2238 these sites include water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and floodplain 

2239 connectivity. Of 17 subbasins reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for the Hood Canal chum salmon 

2240 species, 14 subbasins were rated as having a high conservation value, while only three were rated as having a 

2241 medium value to conservation. These areas are important for the species’ overall conservation by protecting quality 

2242 growth, reproduction, and feeding. Limiting factors identified for this species include degraded floodplain and 

2243 mainstem river channel structure, degraded estuarine conditions and loss of estuarine habitat, riparian area 

2244 degradation and loss of in-river wood in mainstem, excessive sediment in spawning gravels and reduced stream flow 

2245 in migration areas. 

2246 Coho Salmon 

2247 Description of the Species 

2248 Coho salmon occur naturally in most major river basins around the North Pacific Ocean from central California to 

2249 northern Japan (Laufle et al., 1986). They spawn in the fall and winter and the young emerge in the spring. Adult 

2250 coho salmon may remain in fresh water three or more months before spawning, with early migrants often moving 

2251 farther upstream than later migrants (Sandercock, 1991). Spawning occurs in a few third-order streams, but most 

2252 spawning activity occurs in fourth- and fifth-order streams. As with other Pacific salmon, coho salmon fecundity 
69

2253 varies with the size of the fish and latitudinally with coho salmon in northern climes generally exhibiting higher 

2254 rates of fecundity (Sandercock, 1991). Most coho salmon mature and spawn at age 3, although there are exceptions 

2255 (Sandercock, 1991). 

2256 The outmigration of coho smolts begins as early as February and may continue through the summer and fall, with 

2257 peak outmigration often between March and June, although this varies among basins and environmental conditions 

2258 (Sandercock, 1991). While at sea, coho salmon tend to eat fish including herring, sand lance, sticklebacks, sardines, 

2259 shrimp and surf smelt. While in estuaries and in fresh water coho salmon are significant predators of Chinook, pink 

2260 and chum salmon, as well as aquatic and terrestrial insects. Smaller fish, such as fry, eat chironomids, plecoptera and 

2261 other larval insects and typically use visual cues to find their prey. 

2262 Threats 

2263 Natural Threats. Coho salmon, like other salmon, are exposed to high rates of natural predation at each life stage. 

2264 Most mortality, however, occurs in the freshwater life stages. Winter mortality may be significant for coho salmon 

2265 because they overwinter in fresh water, where they can be swept downstream from freshets or eaten by raccoon, 

2266 cutthroat trout or other small animals. Once coho reach the ocean, survival is high (Sandercock, 1991). 

2267 Anthropogenic Threats. Coho salmon have declined under the combined effects of overharvests in fisheries; 

2268 competition from fish raised in hatcheries and native and non-native exotic species; dams that block their migrations 

2269 and alter river hydrology; gravel mining that impedes their migration and alters the dynamics 

2270 (hydrogeomorphology) of the rivers and streams that support juveniles; water diversions that deplete water levels in 

2271 rivers and streams; destruction or degradation of riparian habitat that increase water temperatures in rivers and 

2272 streams sufficient to reduce the survival of juvenile coho salmon; and land use practices (logging, agriculture, 

2273 urbanization) that destroy wetland and riparian ecosystems while introducing sediment, nutrients, biocides, metals 

2274 and other pollutants into surface and ground water and degrade water quality in the fresh water, estuarine and coastal 

2275 ecosystems throughout the species’ range. These threats are the same as those summarized in detail under the 

2276 Chinook salmon of this section. 

2277 Central California Coast Coho Salmon 

2278 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2279 The Central California Coast coho salmon species extends from Punta Gorda in northern California south to and 

2280 including the San Lorenzo River in central California (Sandercock, 1991). The species includes all naturally 

2281 spawned populations of coho salmon from Punta Gorda in northern California south to and including the San 

2282 Lorenzo River in central California, as well as populations in tributaries to San Francisco Bay, excluding the 

2283 Sacramento-San Joaquin River system. Four artificial propagation programs are part of the Central California Coast 

2284 coho salmon species. 

2285 Coho salmon in this species enter rivers to spawn very late (peaking in January), with little time spent in fresh water 

2286 between river entry and spawning. This compressed adult freshwater residency appears to coincide with the single, 

2287 brief peak of river flow characteristic of this region. 

2288 Status and Trends 

2289 NMFS originally listed the central California coast coho salmon species as threatened on October 31, 1996 (61 FR 

2290 56138) and later reclassified their status to endangered June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). Information on the abundance 

2291 and productivity trends for the naturally spawning component of the central California coast coho species is 
70

2292 extremely limited. There are no long-term time series of spawner abundance for individual river systems. Historical 

2293 estimated escapement for this species is 56,100 for 1963 and more recent estimates suggest the species dropped to 

2294 about one-fourth that size by the late 1980s and early 1990s (Good et al., 2005). 

2295 Where data are available, analyses of juvenile coho presence-absence information, juvenile density surveys and 

2296 irregular adult counts for the South Fork Noyo River indicate low abundance and long-term downward trends for the 

2297 naturally spawning populations throughout the species (Good et al., 2005). Improved ocean conditions coupled with 

2298 favorable stream flows and harvest restrictions have contributed to increased returns in 2001 in streams in the 

2299 northern portion of the species, as indicated by an increase in the observed presence of fish in historically occupied 

2300 streams (Good et al., 2005). Data are particularly lacking for many river basins in the southern two-thirds of the 

2301 species where naturally spawning populations are considered to be at the greatest risk. The extirpation or near 

2302 extirpation of natural coho salmon populations in several major river basins, and across most of the southern 

2303 historical range of the species, represents a significant risk to species spatial structure and diversity (Good et al., 

2304 2005). 

2305 Artificial propagation of coho salmon within the Central California Coast species has declined since the species was 

2306 listed in 1996 though it continues at the Noyo River and Scott Creek facilities. Two captive broodstock populations 

2307 have recently been established. Genetic diversity risk associated with out-of-basin transfers appears to be minimal, 

2308 but diversity risk from domestication selection and low effective population sizes in the remaining hatchery 

2309 programs remains a concern. An artificial propagation program for coho was operated at the Don Clausen hatchery 

2310 on the Russian River through the mid 1990s, but was terminated in 1996. 

2311 For the naturally spawning component of the species, the biological review team found very high risk of extinction 

2312 for the abundance, productivity and spatial structure of the Viable Salmon Population (VSP) parameters and 

2313 comparatively moderate risk with respect to the diversity VSP parameter. The lack of direct estimates of the 

2314 performance of the naturally spawned populations in this species, and the associated uncertainty this generates, was 

2315 of specific concern to the biological review team. Informed by the VSP risk assessment and the associated 

2316 uncertainty, the strong majority opinion of the biological review team was that the naturally spawned component of 

2317 the Central California Coast coho species was “in danger of extinction.” Accordingly, NMFS upgraded the status of 

2318 central California coast coho species to endangered on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). 

2319 Central California Coast coho salmon populations continue to be depressed relative to historical numbers. Strong 

2320 indications show that breeding groups have been lost from a significant percentage of historical stream range. A 

2321 number of coho populations in the southern portion of the range appear to be either extinct or nearly so, including 

2322 those in Gualala, Garcia, and Russian rivers, as well as smaller coastal streams in and south of San Francisco Bay 

2323 (Good et al., 2005). 

2324 Critical Habitat 

2325 NMFS designated critical habitat for central California coast coho salmon on May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24049). The 

2326 designation encompasses accessible reaches of all rivers (including estuarine areas and riverine reaches) between 

2327 Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River (inclusive) in California, including two streams entering San Francisco Bay: 

2328 Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio and Corte Madera Creek. This critical habitat designation includes all waterways, 

2329 substrate and adjacent riparian zones of estuarine and riverine reaches (including off-channel habitats) below 

2330 longstanding naturally impassable barriers (i.e. natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years). 

2331 These areas are important for the species’ overall conservation by protecting growth, reproduction and feeding. 
71

2332 Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon 

2333 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2334 The lower Columbia River coho salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in the 

2335 Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon, from the mouth of the Columbia up to and including 

2336 the Big White Salmon and Hood Rivers, and includes the Willamette River to Willamette Falls, Oregon. Twenty2337 five artificial propagation programs are part of this species. 

2338 Two distinct runs distinguished by the timing of adult returns to fresh water (early returners and later returners) 

2339 occur within the species. Early returning adults generally migrate south of the Columbia River once they reach the 

2340 ocean, returning to fresh water in mid-August and to spawning tributaries in early September. Peak spawning of 

2341 early returning adults occurs from mid-October to early November. Late returning adult coho salmon exhibit a 

2342 northern oceanic distribution, return to the Columbia River from late September through December and enter 

2343 tributaries from October through January. Most late return adults spawn between November through January, 

2344 although some spawn in February and as late as March (Sandercock, 1991). Almost all Lower Columbia River 

2345 species coho salmon females and most males spawn at 3 years of age. 

2346 Status and Trends 

2347 NMFS listed Lower Columbia River coho salmon as threatened on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). The vast majority 

2348 (over 90%) of the historic population in the Lower Columbia River coho salmon species appear to be either 

2349 extirpated or nearly so. 

2350 Only two populations of coho salmon that comprise this species produce a sizeable number of naturally spawned 

2351 fish, the upper Sandy River population above Marmot Dam and the Clackamas River population above the North 

2352 Fork Dam. Most of the other populations are believed to have very little, if any, natural production. The long-term 

2353 and short-term trends for Marmot Dam counts are both negative. The long-term median growth rate is slightly 

2354 positive for both the Sandy and Clackamas rivers, but the confidence intervals for each are very wide indicating 

2355 there is a large amount of uncertainty. Both populations within the Sandy and Clackamas rivers have suffered from 

2356 recruitment failure a number of times over the past 15 years, despite the reductions in harvest. The most serious 

2357 threat facing this species is the scarcity of naturally-produced spawners, with attendant risks associated with small 

2358 populations, loss of diversity and fragmentation and isolation of the remaining naturally-produced fish. Spatial 

2359 structure has been substantially reduced by the loss of access to upper basins from tributary hydro development (i.e., 

2360 Condit Dam on the Big White Salmon River and Powerdale Dam on the Hood River). The diversity of populations 

2361 in all three areas has been eroded by large hatchery influences and periodically, low effective population sizes. 

2362 Critical Habitat 

2363 NMFS has not designated critical habitat for Lower Columbia River coho salmon. 

2364 Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon 

2365 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2366 Southern Oregon/Northern California coast coho salmon consists of all naturally spawning populations of coho 

2367 salmon that reside below long-term, naturally impassible barriers in streams between Punta Gorda, California and 

2368 Cape Blanco, Oregon, as well as three artificial propagation programs: the Cole Rivers Hatchery, Trinity River 

2369 Hatchery and Iron Gate Hatchery coho hatchery programs. The three major river systems supporting Southern 

2370 Oregon – Northern Coastal California coast coho are the Rogue, Klamath (including the Trinity) and Eel rivers. 
72

2371 Southern Oregon and Northern California coast coho immigrate to natal rivers in September or October. River entry 

2372 is much later south of the Klamath River Basin, occurring in November and December, as well as in basins south of 

2373 the Klamath River to the Mattole River, California. River entry occurs from mid-December to mid-February in 

2374 rivers farther south. Because individuals enter rivers late, they spend much less time in the river. Coho salmon adults 

2375 spawn at age 3, spending just over 1 year in fresh water and a year and a half in the ocean. 

2376 Status and Trends 

2377 Southern Oregon/Northern California coast coho salmon were listed as threatened on May 7, 1997 (62 FR 24588); 

2378 they retained that classification when their status was reviewed on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). Southern 

2379 Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon extend from Cape Blanco in southern Oregon to Punta Gorda in 

2380 northern California (Sandercock, 1991). The status of coho salmon coast-wide, including the Southern 

2381 Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon species, was formally assessed in 1995 (Sandercock, 1991). Two 

2382 subsequent status review updates have been published by NMFS, one addressing all West Coast coho salmon 

2383 species and a second specifically addressing the Oregon Coast Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho 

2384 salmon species (NMFS, 1996, 1997a). In the 1997 status update, estimates of natural population abundance were 

2385 based on very limited information. New data on presence/absence in northern California streams that historically 

2386 supported coho salmon were even more disturbing than earlier results, indicating that a smaller percentage of 

2387 streams contained coho salmon compared to the percentage presence in an earlier study (Good et al., 2005). 

2388 However, it was unclear whether these new data represented actual trends in local extinctions or were biased by 

2389 sampling effort. 

2390 Data on population abundance and trends are limited for the California portion of this species. No regular estimates 

2391 of natural spawner escapement are available. Historical point estimates of coho salmon abundance for the early 

2392 1960s and mid-1980s suggest that coho spawning escapement in the 1940s ranged between 200,000 and 500,000 

2393 fish. Numbers declined to about 100,000 fish by the mid-1960s with about 43% originating from this species. Brown 

2394 et al., (1994) estimated that the California portion of this species was represented by about 7,000 wild and 

2395 naturalized coho salmon (Good et al., 2005). In the Klamath River, the estimated escapement has dropped from 

2396 approximately 15,400 in the mid-1960s to about 3,000 in the mid 1980s, and more recently to about 2,000 (Good et 

2397 al., 2005). The second largest producing river in this species, the Eel River, dropped from 14,000, to 4,000 to about 

2398 2,000 during the same period. Historical estimates are considered “best guesses” made using a combination of 

2399 limited catch statistics, hatchery records and the personal observations of biologists and managers. 

2400 Most recently, Williams et al., (2006) described the structure of historic populations of Southern Oregon/Northern 

2401 California Coast coho salmon. They described three categories of populations: functionally independent 

2402 populations, potentially independent populations and dependent populations. Functionally independent populations 

2403 are populations capable of existing in isolation with a minimal risk of extinction. Potentially independent 

2404 populations are similar but rely on some interchange with adjacent populations to maintain a low probability of 

2405 extinction. Dependent populations have a high risk of extinction in isolation over a 100-year timeframe and rely on 

2406 exchange of individuals from adjacent populations to maintain themselves. 

2407 Critical Habitat 

2408 NMFS designated critical habitat for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon on May 5, 1999 (64 

2409 FR 24049). Critical habitat for this species encompasses all accessible river reaches between Cape Blanco, Oregon 

2410 and Punta Gorda, California. Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate and river reaches (including off-channel 

2411 habitats) in specified areas. Accessible reaches are those within the historical range of the species that can still be 

2412 occupied by any life stage of coho salmon. Of 155 historical streams for which data are available, 63% likely still 
73

2413 support coho salmon. These river habitats are important for a variety of reasons, such as supporting the feeding and 

2414 growth of juveniles and serving as spawning habitat for adults. Limiting factors identified for this species include: 

2415 loss of channel complexity, connectivity and sinuosity, loss of floodplain and estuarine habitats, loss of riparian 

2416 habitats and large in-river wood, reduced stream flow, poor water quality, temperature and excessive sedimentation 

2417 and unscreened diversions and fish passage structures. 

2418 Oregon Coast Coho Salmon 

2419 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2420 The Oregon Coast coho salmon species includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon in Oregon 

2421 coastal streams south of the Columbia River and north of Cape Blanco (63 FR 42587; August 1998). One hatchery 

2422 population, the Cow Creek hatchery coho salmon, is considered part of the species. 

2423 Status and Trends 

2424 The Oregon coast coho salmon species was listed as a threatened species under the ESA on February 11, 2008 (73 

2425 FR 7816), the conclusion to a 13-year history of court cases. The most recent NMFS status review for the Oregon 

2426 Coast coho species was conducted by the biological review team in 2003, which assessed data through 2002. The 

2427 abundance and productivity of Oregon Coast coho since the previous status review represented some of the best and 

2428 worst years on record (Sandercock, 1991). Yearly adult returns for the Oregon Coast coho species were over 

2429 160,000 natural spawners in 2001 and over 260,000 in 2002, far exceeding the abundance observed for the past 

2430 several decades (Good et al., 2005). These increases in spawner abundance in 2000 to 2002 followed three 

2431 consecutive brood years (the 1994 to 1996 brood years returning in 1997 to 1999, respectively) exhibiting 

2432 recruitment failure (recruitment failure is when a given year class of natural spawners fails to replace itself when its 

2433 offspring return to the spawning grounds 3 years later). These 3 years of recruitment failure were the only such 

2434 instances observed thus far in the entire 55-year abundance time series for Oregon Coast coho salmon (although 

2435 comprehensive population-level survey data have only been available since 1980). The 2000 to 2002 increases in 

2436 natural spawner abundance occurred in many populations in the northern portion of the species, which were the 

2437 most depressed at the time of the last review (Sandercock, 1991). Although encouraged by the increase in spawner 

2438 abundance in 2000 to 2002, the biological review team noted that the long-term trends in species productivity were 

2439 still negative due to the low abundances observed during the 1990s. 

2440 Since the biological review team convened, the total abundance of natural spawners in the Oregon Coast coho 

2441 species has declined each year (i.e., 2003 to 2006). The abundance of total natural spawners in 2006 (111,025 

2442 spawners) was approximately 43% of the recent peak abundance in 2002 (255,372 spawners). In 2003, species-level 

2443 productivity (evaluated in terms of the number of spawning recruits resulting from spawners 3 years earlier) was 

2444 above replacement, and in 2004, productivity was approximately at replacement level. However, productivity was 

2445 below replacement in 2005 and 2006 and dropped to the lowest level since 1991 in 2006 (73 FR 7816). 

2446 Preliminary spawner survey data for 2007 (the average peak number of spawners per mile observed during random 

2447 coho spawning surveys in 41 streams) suggest that the 2007 to 2008 return of Oregon Coast coho is either (1) much 

2448 reduced from abundance levels in 2006, or (2) exhibiting delayed run timing from previous years. As of December 

2449 13, 2007, the average peak number of spawners per mile was below 2006 levels in 38 of 41 surveyed streams (see 

2450 ODFW 2007 in 73 FR 7816). It is possible that the timing of peak spawner abundance is delayed relative to previous 

2451 years, and that increased spawner abundance in late December and January 2008 will compensate for the low levels 

2452 observed thus far. 
74

2453 The recent 5-year geometric mean abundance (2002 to 2006) of approximately 152,960 total natural spawners 

2454 remains well above that of a decade ago (approximately 52,845 from 1992 to 1996). However, the decline in 

2455 productivity from 2003 to 2006, despite generally favorable marine survival conditions and low harvest rates, is of 

2456 concern (73 FR 7816). 

2457 Critical Habitat 

2458 NMFS designated critical habitat for Oregon Coast coho on February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7816). The designation 

2459 includes 72 of 80 watersheds occupied by Oregon Coast coho salmon, and totals about 6,600 stream miles including 

2460 all or portions of the Nehalem, Nestucca/Trask, Yaguina, Alsea, Umpqua and Coquille basins. These areas are 

2461 essential for feeding, migration, spawning and rearing. The specific primary constituent elements include: spawning 

2462 sites with water and substrate quantity to support spawning, incubation and larval development; freshwater rearing 

2463 sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support 

2464 juvenile growth, foraging, behavioral development (e.g., predator avoidance, competition) and mobility; freshwater 

2465 migratory corridors free of obstruction with adequate water quantity and quality conditions; and estuarine, nearshore 

2466 and offshore areas free of obstruction with adequate water quantity, quality and salinity conditions that support 

2467 physiological transitions between fresh- and saltwater, predator avoidance, foraging and other life history behaviors. 

2468 Sockeye Salmon 

2469 Description of the Species 

2470 Sockeye salmon are the second most abundant of the seven Pacific salmon species and occur in the North Pacific 

2471 and Arctic oceans and associated freshwater systems. This species ranges south as far as the Sacramento River in 

2472 California and northern Hokkaido in Japan, to as far north as far as Bathurst Inlet in the Canadian Arctic and the 

2473 Anadyr River in Siberia (Burgner, 1991). The largest populations, and hence the most important commercial 

2474 populations, occur north of the Columbia River. 

2475 The majority of sockeye salmon are anadromous fish that make use of lacustrine habitat for juvenile rearing. 

2476 Sockeye salmon also have a wholly freshwater life history form, called kokanee (Burgner, 1991). In some cases a 

2477 single population will give rise to both the anadromous and freshwater life history form. While in fresh water 

2478 juveniles of both life history types prey primarily upon insects. In coastal lakes, where the migration to sea is 

2479 relatively short and energetic costs are minimal, kokanee populations are rare. 

2480 Once smolts enter the Pacific Ocean, they distribute widely across the North Pacific, generally above 40oN where a 

2481 current boundary is located. Season, temperature, salinity, life stage, age, size, availability of prey and population2482 of-origin are all factors that influence offshore movements (Burgner, 1991). They may migrate several thousand 

2483 miles in search of prey and are considered to travel continuously (Royce et al., 1968). While at sea, sockeye prey 

2484 upon a variety of organisms, including small fish (capelin, lantern fish, cod, sand lance, herring and pollock), squid, 

2485 crustacean larvae, krill and other invertebrates (Foerster, 1968; French et al., 1976; Wing, 1977). 

2486 Spawning generally occurs in late summer and autumn, but the precise time can vary greatly among populations. 

2487 Age at maturity varies by region from 2 to 5 years, but is generally 2 to 4 years in Washington State (Burgner, 

2488 1991). Males often arrive earlier than females on the spawning grounds and will persist longer during the spawning 

2489 period. 

2490 Incubation is a function of water temperatures, but generally lasts between 100 and roughly 200 days (Burgner, 

2491 1991). After emergence, fry move rapidly downstream or upstream along the banks to the lake rearing area. Fry 
75

2492 emerging from lakeshore or island spawning grounds may simply move along the shoreline of the lake (Burgner, 

2493 1991). 

2494 Threats 

2495 Sockeye salmon have declined under the combined effects of overharvesting; competition from fish raised in 

2496 hatcheries of native and non-native exotic species; dams that block migration patterns and alter river hydrology; 

2497 water diversions that deplete water levels in rivers and streams; destruction or adverse modification of riparian 

2498 habitat; and land use practices that destroy wetland and riparian ecosystems while introducing sediment, nutrients, 

2499 biocides, metals and other pollutants into surface and ground water and degrade water quality in the fresh water, 

2500 estuarine and coastal ecosystems throughout the species’ range. These threats are the same as those summarized in 

2501 detail under the Chinook salmon of this section. 

2502 Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon 

2503 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2504 This species includes all naturally spawned sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake, Ozette River, Coal Creek and other 

2505 tributaries flowing into Ozette Lake, Washington. Composed of only one population, the Ozette Lake sockeye 

2506 salmon species consists of five spawning aggregations or subpopulations which are grouped according to their 

2507 spawning locations. The five spawning locations are Umbrella and Crooked creeks, Big River and Olsen’s and 

2508 Allen’s beaches (NMFS, 2009b). 

2509 Adult Ozette Lake sockeye salmon enter Ozette Lake through the Ozette River from mid-April to mid-August, 

2510 holding three to nine months in Ozette Lake prior to spawning in late October through January. Sockeye salmon 

2511 spawn primarily in lakeshore upwelling areas in Ozette Lake (particularly at Allen's Bay and Olsen's Beach) and in 

2512 two tributaries Umbrella Creek and Big River. Minor spawning may occur below Ozette Lake in the Ozette River or 

2513 in Coal Creek, a tributary of the Ozette River. Beach spawners are almost all age four adults, while tributary 

2514 spawners are ages three and five (Haggerty et al., 2009). Spawning occurs in the fall through early winter, with peak 

2515 spawning in tributaries in November and December. Eggs and alevins remain in the gravel until the fish emerge as 

2516 fry in spring. Fry then migrate immediately to the limnetic zone in Ozette Lake, where the fish rear. After one year 

2517 of rearing, in late spring, Ozette Lake sockeye salmon emigrate seaward as age-1+ smolts, where they spend 

2518 between 1 and 3 years in ocean before returning to fresh water. 

2519 Status and Trends 

2520 NMFS originally listed Ozette Lake sockeye salmon species as a threatened species in 1999 (64 FR 14528). This 

2521 classification was retained on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). This species includes all naturally spawned populations 

2522 of sockeye salmon in Ozette Lake, Ozette River, Coal Creek and other tributaries flowing into Ozette Lake, 

2523 Washington. Two artificial propagation programs are considered part of this species: The Umbrella Creek and Big 

2524 River sockeye salmon hatchery programs. NMFS considers these artificially propagated populations no more 

2525 divergent relative to the local natural population than would be expected between closely related natural populations 

2526 (70 FR 37160). 

2527 The historical abundance of Ozette Lake sockeye salmon is poorly documented, but may have been as high as 

2528 50,000 individuals (Blum, 1988). The overall abundance of naturally–produced Ozette Lake sockeye salmon is 

2529 believed to have declined substantially from historical levels. In the first study of lake escapement of Ozette Lake 

2530 sockeye salmon (Kemmerich, 1945), the run size entering the lake was estimated at a level of several thousand fish. 
76

2531 These counts appear to be roughly double the current mean lake abundance, considering that they were likely 

2532 conducted upstream from fisheries in or near to the Ozette River. Makah Fisheries Management (as cited in Good et 

2533 al., 2005) concluded that there appears to be a substantial decline in the Tribal catch of Ozette Lake sockeye salmon 

2534 beginning in the 1950s and a similar decline in the run size since the 1920s weir counts reported by Kemmerich 

2535 (1945). 

2536 An analysis of total annual Ozette Lake sockeye salmon abundance (based on adult run size data presented in Jacobs 

2537 et al., 1996) indicates a trend in abundance averaging -2% per year over the period 1977 through 1998 (NMFS, 

2538 1998d). The current tributary-based hatchery program was planned and initiated in response to the declining 

2539 population trend identified for the Ozette Lake sockeye salmon population. The most recent (1996 to 2003) run-size 

2540 estimates range from a low of 1,609 in 1997 to a high of 5,075 in 2003, averaging approximately 3,600 sockeye per 

2541 year (NMFS, 2009b). For return years 2000 to 2003, the 4-year average abundance estimate was slightly over 4,600 

2542 sockeye. Because run-size estimates before 1998 are likely to be even more unreliable than recent counts, and new 

2543 counting technology has resulted in an increase in estimated run sizes, no statistical estimation of trends is reported. 

2544 The current trends in abundance are unknown for the beach spawning aggregations. Although overall abundance 

2545 appears to have declined from historical levels, whether this resulted in fewer spawning aggregations, lower 

2546 abundances at each aggregation, or both, is not known (Good et al., 2005). Based on estimates of habitat carrying 

2547 capacity, a viable sockeye salmon population in Lake Ozette watershed would range between 35,500 to 121,000 

2548 spawners (Rawson et al., 2009). 

2549 There has been no harvest of Ozette Lake sockeye salmon for the past four brood-cycle years (since 1982). Prior to 

2550 that time, ceremonial and subsistence harvests by the Makah Tribe were low, ranging from zero to 84 fish per year. 

2551 Harvest has not been an important mortality factor for the population in over 35 years. In addition, due to the early 

2552 river entry timing of returning Ozette Lake sockeye salmon (beginning in late April, with the peak returns prior to 

2553 late-May to mid-June), the fish are not intercepted in Canadian and U.S. marine area fisheries directed at Fraser 

2554 River sockeye salmon. There are currently no known marine area harvest impacts on Ozette Lake sockeye salmon. 

2555 Overall abundance is substantially below historical levels (Good et al., 2005). Declines in abundance have been 

2556 attributed to a combination of introduced species, predation, loss of tributary populations, a loss of quality of beach 

2557 spawning habitat, temporarily unfavorable ocean conditions, habitat degradation and excessive historical harvests 

2558 (Jacobs et al., 1996). In the last few years the number of returning adults has increased, although some of these 

2559 individuals are of hatchery origin. This produces uncertainty regarding natural growth rate and productivity of the 

2560 species’ natural component. In addition, genetic integrity has perhaps been compromised due to the artificial 

2561 supplementation that has occurred in this population, since approximately one million sockeye have been released 

2562 into the Ozette watershed from the late 1930s to present (Kemmerich, 1945). 

2563 Critical Habitat 

2564 On September 2, 2005, NMFS designated critical habitat for the Ozette Lake sockeye salmon species (70 FR 

2565 52630). The specific geographic areas designated as critical are the Hoh/Quillayute Subbasin, Ozette Lake and the 

2566 Ozette Lake watershed, and include: the Ozette River upstream to endpoints in Big River, Coal Creek, East Branch 

2567 Umbrella Creek, the North and South Fork of Crooked Creek and several other tributaries. The specific primary 

2568 constituent elements identified for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon are areas for spawning, freshwater rearing and 

2569 migration, estuarine areas free of obstruction, nearshore marine areas free of obstructions and offshore marine areas 

2570 with good water quality. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include water quality and 

2571 quantity, natural cover, forage and adequate passage conditions. Only one watershed supports this species and it is 

2572 rated as having a high conservation value. This watershed is essential to the species’ overall conservation by 
77

2573 protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. 

2574 Snake River Sockeye Salmon 

2575 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2576 Snake River sockeye salmon are unique compared to other sockeye salmon populations: it spawns at a higher 

2577 elevation (6,500 feet) and a longer freshwater migration (approximately 900 miles) than any other sockeye salmon 

2578 population in the world. Sockeye salmon in this species spawn in Redfish Lake in Idaho’s Stanley Basin (Bjornn et 

2579 al., 1968; Foerster, 1968). Stanley Basin sockeye salmon are separated by 700 or more river miles from two other 

2580 extant upper Columbia River populations in the Wenatchee River and Okanogan River drainages. These latter 

2581 populations return to lakes at substantially lower elevations (Wenatchee at 1,870 feet and Okanagon at 912 feet) and 

2582 occupy different ecoregions. The Snake River sockeye salmon species includes all anadromous and residual sockeye 

2583 salmon from the Snake River basin of Idaho, as well as hatchery individuals from the Redfish Lake Captive 

2584 Broodstock Program. 

2585 Status and Trends 

2586 Snake River sockeye salmon were originally listed as endangered in 1991 and retained that classification when their 

2587 status was reviewed on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). The only extant sockeye salmon population in the Snake River 

2588 basin at the time of listing was that in Redfish Lake, in the Stanley Basin (upper Salmon River drainage) of Idaho. 

2589 Other lakes in the Snake River basin historically supported sockeye salmon populations, including Wallowa Lake 

2590 (Grande Ronde River drainage, Oregon), Payette Lake (Payette River drainage, Idaho) and Warm Lake (South Fork 

2591 Salmon River drainage, Idaho; (Waples et al., 1997). These populations are now considered extinct. Although 

2592 kokanee, a resident form of O. nerka, occur in numerous lakes in the Snake River basin, other lakes in the Stanley 

2593 Basin, and sympatrically with sockeye in Redfish Lake, resident O. nerka were not considered part of the species at 

2594 the time of listing (1991). Subsequent to the 1991 listing, a residual form of sockeye residing in Redfish Lake was 

2595 identified. The residuals are non-anadromous, completing their entire life cycle in fresh water, but spawn at the same 

2596 time and in the same location as anadromous sockeye salmon. In 1993, NMFS determined that residual sockeye 

2597 salmon in Redfish Lake were part of the Snake River sockeye salmon. Also, artificially propagated sockeye salmon 

2598 from the Redfish Lake Captive Propagation program are considered part of this species (70 FR 37160; June 28, 

2599 2005). 

2600 Five lakes in the Stanley Basin historically contained sockeye salmon: Alturas, Pettit, Redfish, Stanley and 

2601 Yellowbelly (Bjornn et al., 1968). It is generally believed that adults were prevented from returning to the Sawtooth 

2602 Valley from 1910 to 1934 by Sunbeam Dam. Sunbeam Dam was constructed on the Salmon River approximately 20 

2603 miles downstream of Redfish Lake. Whether Sunbeam Dam was a complete barrier to adult migration remains 

2604 unknown. It has been hypothesized that some passage occurred while the dam was in place, allowing the Stanley 

2605 Basin population or populations to persist (Bjornn et al., 1968; Waples et al., 1991). 

2606 Adult returns to Redfish Lake during the period 1954 through 1966 ranged from 11 to 4,361 fish (Bjornn et al., 

2607 1968). Sockeye salmon in Alturas Lake were extirpated in the early 1900s as a result of irrigation diversions, 

2608 although residual sockeye may still exist in the lake (Chapman and Witty, 1993). From 1955 to 1965, the Idaho 

2609 Department of Fish and Game eradicated sockeye salmon from Pettit, Stanley and Yellowbelly lakes, and built 

2610 permanent structures on each of the lake outlets that prevented re-entry of anadromous sockeye salmon (Chapman 

2611 and Witty, 1993). In 1985, 1986, and 1987, 11, 29, and 16 sockeye, respectively, were counted at the Redfish Lake 

2612 weir (Good et al., 2005). Only 18 natural origin sockeye salmon have returned to the Stanley Basin since 1987. 

2613 During the fall of 1990, during the course of NMFS’ first status review on the species, no fish were observed at 
78

2614 Lower Granite Dam or entering the lake and only one fish was observed in each of the two previous years. The first 

2615 adult returns from the captive broodstock program returned to the Stanley Basin in 1999. From 1999 through 2005, a 

2616 total of 345 captive brood program adults that had migrated to the ocean returned to the Stanley Basin. 

2617 Recent annual abundances of natural origin sockeye salmon in the Stanley Basin have been extremely low. No 

2618 natural origin anadromous adults have returned since 1998 and the abundance of residual sockeye salmon in Redfish 

2619 Lake is unknown. This species is entirely supported by adults produced through the captive propagation program at 

2620 the present time. Current smolt-to-adult survival of sockeye originating from the Stanley Basin lakes is rarely greater 

2621 than 0.3% (Hebdon et al., 2004). The status of this species is extremely precarious, such that there was unanimous 

2622 consent among the biological review team members that the species remains in danger of extinction (Good et al., 

2623 2005). 

2624 Critical Habitat 

2625 Critical habitat for these salmon was designated on December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543) and encompasses the waters, 

2626 waterway bottoms and adjacent riparian zones of specified lakes and river reaches in the Columbia River that are or 

2627 were accessible to ESA listed Snake River salmon (except reaches above impassable natural falls and Dworshak and 

2628 Hells Canyon Dams). Adjacent riparian zones are defined as those areas within a horizontal distance of 300 feet 

2629 from the normal line of high water of a stream channel or from the shoreline of a standing body of water. Designated 

2630 critical habitat includes the Columbia River from a straight line connecting the west end of the Clatsop jetty (Oregon 

2631 side) and the west end of the Peacock jetty (Washington side) and including all river reaches from the estuary 

2632 upstream to the confluence of the Snake River and all Snake River reaches upstream to the confluence of the Salmon 

2633 River; all Salmon River reaches to Alturas Lake Creek; Stanley, Redfish, Yellow Belly, Pettit and Alturas Lakes 

2634 (including their inlet and outlet creeks); Alturas Lake Creek and that portion of Valley Creek between Stanley Lake 

2635 Creek and the Salmon River. Critical habitat also includes all river lakes and reaches presently or historically 

2636 accessible to Snake River sockeye salmon. These habitats are critical for the conservation of the species because it 

2637 provides spawning and juvenile rearing habitat, areas for juvenile growth and development and migration corridors 

2638 for smolts to the ocean and adults to spawning habitat from the Pacific Ocean. Limiting factors identified for Snake 

2639 River sockeye include: reduced tributary stream flow, impaired tributary passage and blocks to migration and 

2640 mainstem Columbia River hydropower system mortality 

2641 Steelhead 

2642 Description of the Species 

2643 Steelhead, the common name of the anadromous form of O. mykiss, are native to Pacific Coast streams extending 

2644 from Alaska south to northwestern Mexico (Moyle, 1976a; NMFS, 1997b). The life history of this species varies 

2645 considerably throughout its range. Generally, steelhead fall into two races: the stream-maturing type; and the ocean2646 maturing type. 

2647 Summer steelhead enter fresh water between May and October in the Pacific Northwest (Nickelson et al., 1992; 

2648 Busby et al., 1996). They require cool, deep holding pools during summer and fall, prior to spawning (Nickelson et 

2649 al., 1992). Summer steelhead migrate inland toward spawning areas, overwinter in the larger rivers, resume 

2650 migration in early spring to natal streams, and then spawn in January and February (Barnhart, 1986; Meehan and 

2651 Bjornn, 1991; Nickelson et al., 1992). Winter steelhead enter fresh water between November and April in the Pacific 

2652 Northwest (Nickelson et al., 1992), migrate to spawning areas and spawn generally between April and May 

2653 (Barnhart, 1986). Some adults, however, do not enter some coastal streams until spring, just before spawning 

2654 (Meehan and Bjornn, 1991). 
79

2655 In late spring, after emerging from the gravel, fry usually inhabit shallow water along banks of perennial streams 

2656 (Nickelson et al., 1992). Summer rearing takes place primarily in the faster parts of pools, while winter rearing 

2657 occurs more uniformly at lower densities across a wide range of fast and slow habitat types. Some older juveniles 

2658 move downstream to rear in larger tributaries and mainstem rivers (Nickelson et al., 1992). 

2659 There is a high degree of overlap in spawn timing between populations regardless of run type (Busby et al., 1996). 

2660 Difficult field conditions at that time of year and the remoteness of spawning grounds contribute to the relative lack 

2661 of specific information on steelhead spawning. Unlike Pacific salmon, steelhead are capable of spawning more than 

2662 once before death, although steelhead rarely spawn more than twice before dying; most that do spawn more than 

2663 twice tend to be female (Nickelson et al., 1992; Busby et al., 1996). 

2664 Juvenile steelhead migrate little during their first summer and occupy a range of habitats featuring moderate to high 

2665 water velocity and variable depths (Bisson et al., 1988). Steelhead hold territories close to the substratum where 

2666 flows are lower and sometimes counter to the main stream; from these, they can make forays up into surface 

2667 currents to take drifting food (Kalleberg 1958). Juveniles rear in fresh water from 1 to 4 years, then smolt and 

2668 migrate to the ocean in March and April (Barnhart, 1986). Winter steelhead juveniles generally smolt after 2 years in 

2669 fresh water (Busby et al., 1996). Juveniles feed primarily on insects (chironomids, baetid mayflies and hydropsychid 

2670 caddisflies (Merz, 1994) while adults feed on aquatic and terrestrial insects, mollusks, crustaceans, fish eggs, 

2671 minnows and other small fishes (Chapman and Bjornn, 1969) . 

2672 Threats 

2673 Natural Threats. Steelhead, like other salmon, are exposed to high rates of natural predation each stage of their life 

2674 stage. Mortality is high early in life and decreases with age. For example, Puget Sound steelhead leaving freshwater 

2675 and estuarine habitats experience 55-86% survival to the point of reaching Hood Canal and 0-49% from Hood Canal 

2676 to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, with survival increasing greatly upon entering the Pacific Ocean (Moore et al., 2010). 

2677 In fresh water, fry fall prey to older steelhead and other trout, as well as birds, sculpin and various mammals. In the 

2678 ocean, marine mammals and other fish prey on steelhead but the extent of such predation is not well known. 

2679 Anthropogenic Threats. Steelhead have declined under the combined effects of overharvests in fisheries, 

2680 competition from hatchery fish and exotic species, dams that block their migrations and alter river hydrology, 

2681 hydrogeomorphological changes, destruction or degradation of riparian habitat and land use practices that destroy or 

2682 degrade fresh water, estuarine and coastal ecosystems throughout the species’ range. These threats are the same as 

2683 those summarized in detail under the Chinook salmon of this section. 

2684 Central California Coast Steelhead 

2685 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2686 The Central California Coast steelhead species includes all naturally spawned anadromous steelhead populations 

2687 below natural and manmade impassable barriers in California streams from the Russian River (inclusive) to Aptos 

2688 Creek (inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays eastward to Chipps Island at the 

2689 confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Tributary streams to Suisun Marsh including Suisun Creek, 

2690 Green Valley Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Cordelia Slough (commonly referred to as Red Top Creek), 

2691 excluding the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin, as well as two artificial propagation programs: the Don Clausen 

2692 Fish Hatchery, and Kingfisher Flat Hatchery/ Scott Creek (Monterey Bay Salmon and Trout Project) steelhead 

2693 hatchery programs. 
80

2694 The species is entirely composed of winter run fish, as are those species to the south. As winter-run fish adults 

2695 migrating upstream from December-April, and smolts emigrating between March-May (Shapovalov and Taft, 1954; 

2696 Hayes et al., 2008). At the time of the 1996 status review and 1997 listing, little information was available on the 

2697 specific demographics and life history characteristics of steelhead in this species. While age at smoltification 

2698 typically ranges from one to four years, recent studies by Sogard and Williams (2009) that growth rates in Soquel 

2699 Creek likely prevent juveniles from undergoing smoltification until age 2. Survival in freshwater reaches tends to be 

2700 higher in summer and lower from winter through spring for year classes zero and one (Sogard et al., 2009). Larger 

2701 individuals also survive more readily than do smaller fish within year classes (Sogard et al., 2009). Greater 

2702 movement of juveniles in fresh water has been observed in winter and spring versus summer and fall time periods, 

2703 with smaller individuals more likely to move between stream areas (Sogard et al., 2009). Growth rates during this 

2704 time have rarely been observed to exceed 0.3 mm per day and are highest in winter through spring, potentially due 

2705 to higher water flow rates and greater food availability (Boughton et al., 2007; Hayes et al., 2008; Sogard et al., 

2706 2009). 

2707 Status and Trends 

2708 The Central California Coast steelhead species was listed as a threatened species on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937); 

2709 threatened status was reaffirmed on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Estimates of historical abundance are provided 

2710 here only for background, as the accuracy of the estimates is unclear. An estimate of historical abundance for the 

2711 species is provided by CDFG at 94,000 fish. This estimate is based on a partial data set and “best professional 

2712 judgment” (see Good et al., 2005). Other estimates of historical abundance are on a per river basis: Shapovalov and 

2713 Taft (1954) (as cited in Busby et al., 1996) described an average of about 500 adults in Waddell Creek (Santa Cruz 

2714 County) for the 1930s and early 1940s. 

2715 No current estimates of total population size are available for this species, and consequently there is no time series 

2716 data available to evaluate the central California coast steelhead population trends. Rather, a general lack of data on 

2717 adult steelhead within the species, led the biological review team to examine data collected on juvenile steelhead 

2718 (see Good et al., 2005). In general, juvenile data is considered a poor indicator of the reproductive portion of the 

2719 population as juvenile age classes exhibit greater mortality rates, which are closely tied to stochastic events, and may 

2720 move widely within a basin (which may include intermixing with other populations). There is no simple relationship 

2721 between juvenile and adult numbers (Shea and Mangel, 2001). Nonetheless, there was not enough adult data upon 

2722 which the biological review team could base an assessment of the population trends within the species. Therefore, 

2723 the biological review team log transformed and normalized juvenile survey data from a number of watersheds 

2724 (presumed populations). As a result, the team derived trend estimates for five populations: the San Lorenzo River, 

2725 Scott Creek, Waddell Creek, Gazos Creek and Redwood Creek in Marin County (see Good et al., 2005). All 

2726 populations exhibited downward trends in abundance. Accordingly, provided the juvenile data is representative of 

2727 the true trend, this data suggests that there is an overall downward trend in abundance in the species. 

2728 In the most recent review of the status of this species, most members of the biological review team (69%) 

2729 considered this species “likely to become endangered” thus supporting the renewal of the threatened status for 

2730 central California coast steelhead. Notably, 25% of the team voted that the species be upgraded to endangered status 

2731 (see Good et al., 2005). Abundance and productivity were of relatively high concern (as a contributing factor to risk 

2732 of extinction) and spatial structure was also of concern. 

2733 Since the original status review, fishing regulations have changed in a way that probably reduces extinction risk for 

2734 Central California Coast steelhead. Ocean sport harvest is prohibited and ocean harvest is considered rare. Although 

2735 freshwater streams are closed to fishing year round, CDFG has identified certain streams as exceptions where they 
81

2736 allow catch-and-release angling or summer trout fishing. In catch-and-release streams, all wild steelhead must be 

2737 released unharmed. 

2738 Critical Habitat 

2739 Critical habitat was designated for the Central California Coast steelhead species on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 

2740 52488) and includes areas within the following hydrologic units: Russian River, Bodega, Marin Coastal, San Mateo, 

2741 Bay Bridge, Santa Clara, San Pablo and Big Basin. These areas are important for the species’ overall conservation 

2742 by protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. The critical habitat designation for this species identifies 

2743 primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to support one or more steelhead life stages. Specific sites 

2744 include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, nearshore marine habitat 

2745 and estuarine areas. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include water quality and 

2746 quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and floodplain connectivity. The critical habitat 

2747 designation (70 FR 52488) contains additional details on the sub-areas that are included as part of this designation 

2748 and the areas that were excluded from designation. 

2749 In total, Central California Coast steelhead occupy 46 watersheds (fresh water and estuarine). The total area of 

2750 habitat designated as critical includes about 1,500 miles of stream habitat and about 400 square miles of estuarine 

2751 habitat (principally Humboldt Bay). This designation includes the stream channels within the designated stream 

2752 reaches and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where the ordinary high2753 water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. In estuarine areas the lateral extent is 

2754 defined by the extreme high water because extreme high tide areas encompass those areas typically inundated by 

2755 water and regularly occupied by juvenile salmon during the spring and summer, when they are migrating in the 

2756 nearshore zone and relying on cover and refuge qualities provided by these habitats and while they are foraging. Of 

2757 the 46 occupied watersheds reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for Central California Coast steelhead, 

2758 14 watersheds received a low rating of conservation value, 13 received a medium rating and 19 received a high 

2759 rating of conservation value for the species. 

2760 California Central Valley Steelhead 

2761 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2762 California Central Valley steelhead salmon occupy the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries, 

2763 although they were once widespread throughout the Central Valley (Busby et al., 1996; Zimmerman et al., 2009). 

2764 Steelhead were found from the upper Sacramento and Pit River systems (now inaccessible due to Shasta and 

2765 Keswick Dams), south to the Kings and possibly the Kern River systems (now inaccessible due to extensive 

2766 alteration from water diversion projects) and in both east- and west-side Sacramento River tributaries (Yoshiyama et 

2767 al., 1996). The present distribution has been greatly reduced (McEwan and Jackson, 1996). The CACSS (1988) 

2768 reported a reduction of steelhead habitat from 6,000 miles historically to 300 miles today. Historically, steelhead 

2769 probably ascended Clear Creek past the French Gulch area, but access to the upper basin was blocked by 

2770 Whiskeytown Dam in 1964 (Yoshiyama et al., 1996). Steelhead also occurred in the upper drainages of the Feather, 

2771 American, Yuba and Stanislaus Rivers which are now inaccessible (McEwan and Jackson, 1996; Yoshiyama et al., 

2772 1996). 

2773 Existing wild steelhead populations in the Central Valley are mostly confined to the upper Sacramento River and its 

2774 tributaries, including Antelope, Deer, and Mill Creeks and the Yuba River. Populations may exist in Big Chico and 

2775 Butte Creeks and a few wild steelhead are produced in the American and Feather Rivers (McEwan and Jackson, 

2776 1996). Recent snorkel surveys (1999 to 2002) indicate that steelhead are present in Clear Creek (Good et al., 2005). 
82

2777 Because of the large resident O. mykiss population in Clear Creek, steelhead spawner abundance has not been 

2778 estimated. Until recently, steelhead were thought to be extirpated from the San Joaquin River system. Recent 

2779 monitoring has detected small self-sustaining populations of steelhead in the Stanislaus, Mokelumne, Calaveras and 

2780 other streams previously thought to be void of steelhead (McEwan, 2001). On the Stanislaus River, steelhead smolts 

2781 have been captured in rotary screw traps at Caswell State Park and Oakdale each year since 1995 (Demko and 

2782 Cramer, 2000). It is possible that naturally spawning populations exist in many other streams but are undetected due 

2783 to lack of monitoring programs. 

2784 The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers offer the only migration route to the drainages of the Sierra Nevada and 

2785 southern Cascade mountain ranges for anadromous fish. The CDFG considers all steelhead in the Central Valley as 

2786 winter steelhead, although “three distinct runs,” including summer steelhead, may have occurred there as recently as 

2787 1947 (McEwan and Jackson, 1996). Steelhead in these basins travel extensive distances in fresh water (some exceed 

2788 300 km to their natal streams), making these the longest freshwater migrations of any population of winter steelhead. 

2789 The upper Sacramento River essentially receives a single continuous run of steelhead in from July through May, 

2790 with peaks in September and February. Spawning begins in late December and can extend into April (McEwan and 

2791 Jackson, 1996). 

2792 Status and Trends 

2793 NMFS originally listed California Central Valley steelhead as threatened in 1998; this status was reviewed and 

2794 retained on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Historic Central Valley steelhead run size is difficult to estimate given the 

2795 paucity of data, but may have approached one to two million adults annually (McEwan, 2001). By the early 1960s, 

2796 the steelhead run size had declined to about 40,000 adults(McEwan, 2001). Over the past 30 years, the naturally 

2797 spawned steelhead populations in the upper Sacramento River have declined substantially. Hallock et al., (1961) 

2798 estimated an average of 20,540 adult steelhead occurred in the Sacramento River (upstream of the Feather River). 

2799 Steelhead counts at Red Bluff Diversion Dam declined from an average of 11,187 for the period of 1967 to 1977, to 

2800 an average of approximately 2,000 through the early 1990s, with an estimated total annual run size for the entire 

2801 Sacramento-San Joaquin system at no more than 10,000 adults (McEwan and Jackson, 1996; McEwan, 2001). The 

2802 five-year geometric mean is approximately 2,000 steelhead and the long-term trend suggests that the population is 

2803 declining (Good et al., 2005). 

2804 The only consistent data available on steelhead numbers in the San Joaquin River basin come from CDFG mid2805 water trawling samples collected on the lower San Joaquin River at Mossdale. These data indicate a decline in 

2806 steelhead numbers in the early 1990s, which have remained low through 2002 (Good et al., 2005). In 2004, a total of 

2807 12 steelhead smolts were collected at Mossdale (Good et al., 2005). 

2808 Reynolds et al., (1993) reported that 95% of salmonid habitat in California’s Central Valley has been lost, largely 

2809 due to mining and water development activities. They also noted that declines in Central Valley steelhead 

2810 populations are “due mostly to water development, inadequate instream flows, rapid flow fluctuations, high summer 

2811 water temperatures in streams immediately below reservoirs, diversion dams which block access and entrainment of 

2812 juveniles into unscreened or poorly screened diversions.” Thus, overall habitat problems in this species relate 

2813 primarily to water development resulting in inadequate flows, flow fluctuations, blockages and entrainment into 

2814 diversions (McEwan and Jackson, 1996). Other problems related to land use practices (agriculture and forestry) and 

2815 urbanization have also contributed to population declines. It is unclear how harvest has affected California’s Central 

2816 Valley steelhead, although it is likely a continuing threat. A CDFG creel census in 2000 indicated that most fish are 

2817 caught and released, but due to the size of the catch and release fishery (more than 14,000 steelhead were caught and 

2818 released according to the survey) even a small amount of mortality in this fishery could cause declines in the 
83

2819 populations. 

2820 Critical Habitat 

2821 NMFS designated critical habitat for California Central Valley steelhead on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52488). 

2822 Specific geographic areas designated include the following CALWATER hydrological units: Tehama, Whitmore, 

2823 Redding, Eastern Tehama, Sacramento Delta, Valley-Putach-Cache, American River, Marysville, Yuba, Valley 

2824 American, Colusa Basin, Butte Creek, Ball Mountain, Shata Bally, North Valley Floor, Upper Calaveras, Stanislaus 

2825 River, San Joaquin Valley, Delta-Mendota Canal, North Diablo Range and the San Joaquin Delta. These areas are 

2826 important for the species’ overall conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. The critical 

2827 habitat designation for this species identifies primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to support one 

2828 or more steelhead life stages. Specific sites include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater 

2829 migration corridors, nearshore marine habitat and estuarine areas. The physical or biological features that 

2830 characterize these sites include water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and 

2831 floodplain connectivity. The critical habitat designation (70 FR 52488) contains additional details on the sub-areas 

2832 that are included as part of this designation and the areas that were excluded from designation. 

2833 In total, California Central Valley steelhead occupy 67 watersheds (freshwater and estuarine). The total area of 

2834 habitat designated as critical includes about 2,300 miles of stream habitat and about 250 square miles of estuarine 

2835 habitat in the San Francisco-San Pablo-Suisan Bay estuarine complex. This designation includes the stream channels 

2836 within the designated stream reaches and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas 

2837 where the ordinary high-water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. In estuarine 

2838 areas the lateral extent is defined by the extreme high water because extreme high tide areas encompass those areas 

2839 typically inundated by water and regularly occupied by juvenile salmon during the spring and summer, when they 

2840 are migrating in the nearshore zone and relying on cover and refuge qualities provided by these habitats and while 

2841 they are foraging. Of the 67 watersheds reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for California Central 

2842 Valley steelhead, seven watersheds received a low rating of conservation value, three received a medium rating and 

2843 27 received a high rating of conservation value for the species. 

2844 Lower Columbia River Steelhead 

2845 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2846 Lower Columbia River steelhead include naturally produced steelhead returning to Columbia River tributaries on 

2847 the Washington side between the Cowlitz and Wind rivers in Washington and on the Oregon side between the 

2848 Willamette and Hood rivers, inclusive. In the Willamette River, the upstream boundary of this species is at 

2849 Willamette Falls. This species includes both winter and summer steelhead. Two hatchery populations are included in 

2850 this species, the Cowlitz Trout Hatchery winter-run population and the Clackamas River population but neither was 

2851 listed as threatened 

2852 Summer steelhead return sexually immature to the Columbia River from May to November and spend several 

2853 months in fresh water prior to spawning. When winter steelhead enter fresh water from November to April, they are 

2854 close to sexual maturity and spawn shortly after arrival in their natal streams. Where both races spawn in the same 

2855 stream, summer steelhead tend to spawn at higher elevations than the winter forms (see Good et al., 2005). 
84

2856 Status and Trends 

2857 NMFS listed Lower Columbia River steelhead as threatened on March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13347), and reaffirmed their 

2858 status as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). The 1998 status review noted that this species is characterized 

2859 by populations at low abundance relative to historical levels, significant population declines since the mid-1980s, 

2860 and widespread occurrence of hatchery fish in naturally spawning steelhead populations. During this review NMFS 

2861 was unable to identify any natural populations that would be considered at low risk. 

2862 All populations declined between 1980 and 2000, with sharp declines beginning in 1995. Those with adequate data 

2863 for modeling are estimated to have a high extinction risk (Good et al., 2005). Abundance trends are generally 

2864 negative, showing that most populations are in decline, although some populations, particularly summer run, have 

2865 shown higher return in the last 2 to 3 years (Good et al., 2005). Historical counts in some of the larger tributaries 

2866 (Cowlitz, Kalama and Sandy Rivers) suggest the population probably exceeded 20,000 fish while in the 1990s fish 

2867 abundance dropped to 1,000 to 2,000. Recent abundance estimates of natural-origin spawners range from completely 

2868 extirpated for some populations above impassable barriers to over 700 for the Kalama and Sandy winter-run 

2869 populations (Good et al., 2005). A number of the populations have a substantial fraction of hatchery-origin spawners 

2870 in spawning areas and are hypothesized to be sustained largely by hatchery production. Exceptions are the Kalama, 

2871 the Toutle and East Fork Lewis winter-run populations (Good et al., 2005). 

2872 Critical Habitat 

2873 NMFS designated critical habitat for Lower Columbia River steelhead on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). 

2874 Designated critical habitat includes the following subbasins: Middle Columbia/Hood subbasin, Lower 

2875 Columbia/Sandy subbasin, Lewis subbasin, Lower Columbia/Clatskanie subbasin, Upper Cowlitz subbasin, Cowlitz 

2876 subbasin, Clackamas subbasin, Lower Willamette subbasin and the Lower Columbia River corridor. These areas are 

2877 important for the species’ overall conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. The critical 

2878 habitat designation for this species identifies primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to support one 

2879 or more steelhead life stages. Specific sites include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater 

2880 migration corridors, nearshore marine habitat and estuarine areas. The physical or biological features that 

2881 characterize these sites include water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and 

2882 floodplain connectivity. The critical habitat designation (70 FR 52630) contains additional description of the 

2883 watersheds that are included as part of this designation and any areas specifically excluded from the designation. 

2884 In total, Lower Columbia River steelhead occupy 32 watersheds. The total area of habitat designated as critical 

2885 includes about 2,340 miles of stream habitat. This designation includes the stream channels within the designated 

2886 stream reaches and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where the ordinary 

2887 high-water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. Of the 32 watersheds reviewed 

2888 in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for Lower Columbia River steelhead, two watersheds received a low rating 

2889 of conservation value, 11 received a medium rating and 26 received a high rating of conservation value for the 

2890 species. Limiting factors identified for Lower Columbia River steelhead include: degraded floodplain and steam 

2891 channel structure and function, reduced access to spawning/rearing habitat, altered stream flow in tributaries, 

2892 excessive sediment and elevated water temperatures in tributaries and hatchery impacts. 
85

2893 Middle Columbia River Steelhead 

2894 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2895 The Middle Columbia River steelhead species includes all naturally spawned anadromous steelhead populations 

2896 below natural and manmade impassible barriers in Oregon and Washington drainages upstream of the Hood and 

2897 Wind River systems, up to and including the Yakima River (61 FR 41541). Steelhead from the Snake River Basin 

2898 are excluded from this species. Seven artificial propagation programs are part of this species. 

2899 Middle Columbia River steelhead occupy the intermountain region of the Pacific Northwest, which includes some of 

2900 the driest areas in the region generally receiving less than 15.7 inches of rainfall annually. The major drainages that 

2901 support this species are the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, Walla Walla, Yakima and Klickitat river systems. The 

2902 area is generally characterized by its dry climate and harsh temperature extremes. Almost all steelhead populations 

2903 within this species are summer-run fish; the only exceptions are the only populations of inland winter steelhead, 

2904 which occur in the Klickitat River and Fifteen-mile Creek (Busby et al., 1996). According to Interior Columbia 

2905 Basin Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT, 2003) this species is comprised of 16 putative populations in four major 

2906 population groups (Cascades Eastern Slopes Tributaries, John Day River, Walla Walla and Umatilla Rivers, and 

2907 Yakima River) and one unaffiliated independent population (Rock Creek). 

2908 There are two extinct populations in the Cascades Eastern Slope major population group, the White Salmon River 

2909 and Deschutes Crooked River above the Pelton/Round Butte Dam complex. Present population structure is 

2910 delineated largely based on geographical proximity, topography, distance, ecological similarities or differences. 

2911 Additional genetic studies are needed to describe the species substructure, as well as the fine-scale genetic structure 

2912 of the populations within a particular basin (e.g., John Day River). 

2913 Most Middle Columbia River steelhead smolt at 2 years of age and spend 1 to 2 years at sea prior to re-entering 

2914 natal river systems. They may remain in such rivers for up to a year prior to spawning (Howell et al., 1985b). 

2915 Factors contributing to the decline of Middle Columbia river steelhead include hydropower development and 

2916 agriculture; these land uses impede or prevent migrations, alter water availability and alter water chemistry and 

2917 temperatures. 

2918 Status and Trends 

2919 Middle Columbia River steelhead were listed as threatened in 1999 (64 FR 14517), and their status was reaffirmed 

2920 on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). The precise pre-1960 abundance of this species is unknown. Based upon the 

2921 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s estimates of the historic run size for the Yakima River at 100,000 

2922 steelhead, Busby et al., (1996) surmised that total species abundance likely exceeded 300,000 returning adults. By 

2923 1993, the estimated 5-year average size (ending in 1993) of the Middle Columbia steelhead species was 142,000 fish 

2924 (Busby et al., 1996). Survey data collected between 1997 and 2001 indicates that several populations within the 

2925 species have increased since the last status review (Good et al., 2005). However, long-term annual population 

2926 growth rate (λ) is negative for most populations. 

2927 In contrast, short term trends in major areas were positive for seven of the 12 areas with available data (see Good et 

2928 al., 2005). Spawner numbers in the Yakima River, the Deschutes River and sections of the John Day River system 

2929 were substantially higher compared to numbers surveyed between 1992 and 1997 (Good et al., 2005). Similarly, 

2930 spawner numbers substantially increased in the Umatilla River and Fifteen-mile Creek relative to annual levels in 

2931 the early 1990s. Nonetheless, most populations remain below interim target levels. For instance, the Yakima River 

2932 returns are still substantially below interim target levels of 8,900 (the current 5-year average is 1,747 fish) and 
86

2933 estimated historical return levels. In fact, the majority of spawning occurs in only one tributary, Satus Creek (Berg, 

2934 2001as cited in Good et al., 2005). Based on recent 5-year geometric means, only the Deschutes River exceeded 

2935 interim target levels (Good et al., 2005). While increases in short-term trends could suggest improvements within 

2936 the species, given that the average population growth rate across all streams is negative (0.98 assuming hatchery 

2937 spawners do not contribute to production, and 0.97 assuming that both hatchery and natural-origin fish contribute 

2938 equally) and evidence of large fluctuation in marine survival for the species, recent increases in population sizes 

2939 must be viewed cautiously (Good et al., 2005). 

2940 Critical Habitat 

2941 NMFS designated critical habitat for Middle Columbia River steelhead on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). 

2942 Designated critical habitat includes the following subbasins: Upper Yakima, Naches, Lower Yakima, Middle 

2943 Columbia/Lake Wallula, Walla Walla, Umatilla, Middle Columbia/Hood, Klickitat, Upper John Day, North Fork 

2944 John Day, Middle Fork John Day, Lower John Day, Lower Deschutes, Trout, and the Upper Columbia/Priest Rapids 

2945 subbasins and the Columbia River corridor. These areas are important for the species’ overall conservation by 

2946 protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. The critical habitat designation for this species identifies 

2947 primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to support one or more steelhead life stages. Specific sites 

2948 include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, nearshore marine habitat 

2949 and estuarine areas. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include water quality and 

2950 quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and floodplain connectivity. The final rule (70 FR 

2951 52630) lists the watersheds that comprise the designated subbasins and any areas that are specifically excluded from 

2952 the designation. 

2953 In total, there are 114 watersheds within the range of Middle Columbia River steelhead. The total area of habitat 

2954 designated as critical includes about 5,800 miles of stream habitat. This designation includes the stream channels 

2955 within the designated stream reaches and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas 

2956 where the ordinary high-water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. Of the 114 

2957 watersheds reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for Middle Columbia River steelhead, nine watersheds 

2958 received a low rating of conservation value, 24 received a medium rating and 81 received a high rating of 

2959 conservation value for the species. Although pristine habitat conditions are still present in some wilderness, roadless 

2960 and undeveloped areas, habitat complexity has been greatly reduced in many areas of designated critical habitat for 

2961 Middle Columbia River steelhead. Limiting factors identified for Middle Columbia River steelhead include: 

2962 hydropower system mortality, reduced stream flow, impaired passage, excessive sediment, degraded water quality 

2963 and altered channel morphology and floodplain. 

2964 Northern California Steelhead 

2965 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

2966 The Northern California species of steelhead includes all naturally spawned steelhead populations below natural and 

2967 manmade impassible barriers in California coastal river basins from Redwood Creek south to, but not including the 

2968 Russian river and two artificial propagation programs (Yager Creek Hatchery and North Fork Gualala River 

2969 Hatchery). In the recent update on the status of this species, the southern boundary of the species was redefined to 

2970 include the small coastal streams south of the Gualala River (between the Gualala River and the Russian River) that 

2971 support steelhead. This species consists of winter and summer-run fish, as well as “half-pounders” – a steelhead that 

2972 returns from the sea after spending less than a year in the ocean. 
87

2973 Status and Trends 

2974 NMFS listed Northern California steelhead as threatened on June 7, 2000 (65 FR 36074), and reaffirmed their status 

2975 as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Long-term data sets are limited for Northern California steelhead. 

2976 Before 1960, estimates of abundance specific to this species were available from dam counts in the upper Eel River 

2977 (Cape Horn Dam; annual average number of adults was 4,400 in the 1940s), the South Fork Eel River (Benbow 

2978 Dam; annual average number of adults was 18,000 in the 1940s) and the Mad River (Sweasey Dam; annual average 

2979 number of adults was 3,800 in the 1940s). According to California Department of Fish & Game nearly 200,000 

2980 spawning steelhead may have comprised this species in the early 1960s (Good et al., 2005). At the time of the first 

2981 status review on this population, adult escapement trends could be calculated for seven populations. Five of the 

2982 seven populations exhibited declines, while two exhibited increases with a range of almost 6% annual decline to a 

2983 3.5% increase. At the time, little information was available on the actual contribution of hatchery fish to natural 

2984 spawning, there was and continues to be insufficient information to calculate an overall abundance estimate for 

2985 Northern California steelhead (Busby et al., 1996). 

2986 Recent time series data is also limited for this species, with recent abundance estimates available for only four 

2987 populations, three summer-run and one winter-run. Similarly, Good et al., (2005) could only calculate the 

2988 population growth rate for three populations. Population growth rates are negative for two of the three populations, 

2989 the South Fork Eel River winter-run and the Middle Fork Eel River summer-run. Based on time series data for the 

2990 Middle Fork Eel River, both the long-term and short-term trends are downward. Due to the lack of adult data on 

2991 which to base their risk assessment, Good et al., (2005) also examined data on juvenile steelhead and found both 

2992 upward and downward trends. The lack of data for the populations within this species, particular winter-run fish is 

2993 of continuing concern. 

2994 Critical Habitat 

2995 NMFS designated critical habitat for Northern California steelhead on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52488). Specific 

2996 geographic areas designated include the following CALWATER hydrological units: Redwood Creek, Trinidad, 

2997 Mad River, Eureka Plain, Eel River, Cape Mendocino and the Mendocino Coast. These areas are important for the 

2998 species’ overall conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. The critical habitat designation 

2999 for this species identifies primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to support one or more steelhead 

3000 life stages. Specific sites include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, 

3001 nearshore marine habitat and estuarine areas. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include 

3002 water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and floodplain connectivity. The 

3003 critical habitat designation (70 FR 52488) contains additional details on the sub-areas that are included as part of this 

3004 designation and the areas that were excluded from designation. 

3005 In total, Northern California steelhead occupy 50 watersheds (fresh water and estuarine). The total area of habitat 

3006 designated as critical includes about 3,000 miles of stream habitat and about 25 square miles of estuarine habitat, 

3007 mostly within Humboldt Bay. This designation includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches 

3008 and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where the ordinary high-water line is 

3009 not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. In estuarine areas the lateral extent is defined by 

3010 the extreme high water because extreme high tide areas encompass those areas typically inundated by water and 

3011 regularly occupied by juvenile salmon during the spring and summer, when they are migrating in the nearshore zone 

3012 and relying on cover and refuge qualities provided by these habitats and while they are foraging. Of the 50

3013 watersheds reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for Northern California steelhead, nine watersheds 

3014 received a low rating of conservation value, 14 received a medium rating and 27 received a high rating of 

3015 conservation value for the species. Two estuarine areas used for rearing and migration (Humboldt Bay and the Eel 
88

3016 River estuary) also received a rating of high conservation value. 

3017 Puget Sound Steelhead 

3018 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

3019 The Puget Sound species for steelhead includes all naturally spawned anadromous winter-run and summer-run 

3020 steelhead populations in watersheds of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound and Hood Canal, Washington. 

3021 Boundaries of this species extend to and include the Elwha River to the west and the Nooksack River and Dakota 

3022 Creek to the north. Hatchery production of steelhead is widespread throughout this species, but only two artificial 

3023 propagation programs are part of this species: the Green River natural and Hamma Hamma winter-run steelhead 

3024 hatchery populations. The remaining hatchery programs are not considered part of the Puget Sound steelhead 

3025 species because they are more than moderately diverged from the local native populations (Hard et al., 2007). 

3026 The oceanic distribution of Puget Sound steelhead is not well understood. Winter and summer runs from multiple 

3027 steelhead species comingle in the North Pacific Ocean and some may undergo extensive migrations as a result of the 

3028 location of their natal streams and oceanic “centers of abundance” (Light et al., 1989). Tagging and genetic studies 

3029 indicate that Puget Sound steelhead migrate to the central North Pacific ocean (see French et al. 1975, Hartt and Dell 

3030 1986, and Burgner et al. 1992 in Hard et al., 2007). Oceanic residence times varies among populations within the 

3031 species, with some populations spending only one season in the ocean and others spending three years in marine 

3032 waters before returning to their natal stream for spawning. Generally, winter-run steelhead enter their natal 

3033 freshwater systems later (November to April) in the year than summer-run steelhead (May to October. Winter-run 

3034 steelhead have a lower pre-spawn mortality rate than summer-run steelhead (Hard et al., 2007). Winter-run 

3035 steelhead are also more prevalent than summer-run fish, comprising 37 of the 53 populations within this species. 

3036 Status and Trends 

3037 NMFS listed Puget Sound steelhead as a threatened species on May 11, 2007 (72 FR 26722). At the time of the 

3038 listing, the biological review team concluded that: the viability of Puget Sound steelhead is at a high risk due to 

3039 declining productivity and abundance; Puget Sound steelhead are at moderate risk due to reduced spatial complexity 

3040 and connectivity among populations within the species and reduction in life-history diversity within populations and 

3041 from the threats posed by artificial propagation and harvest. The Puget Sound steelhead species includes 53 putative 

3042 populations; most of which are composed of winter-run fish. Summer-run populations within Puget Sound are small, 

3043 with most averaging less than 200 spawners and most lack sufficient data to estimate population abundance (Hard et 

3044 al., 2007). 

3045 In general, steelhead are most abundant in the northern Puget Sound streams (Hard et al., 2007). The largest 

3046 populations in this species are in the Skagit River and Snohomish River winter-run steelhead populations. The recent 

3047 geometric mean escapement is 5,608 winter-run steelhead in the Skagit, and 3,230 winter-run steelhead in the 

3048 Snohomish River (Hard et al., 2007). The Green River and Puyallup River populations, in central Puget Sound, are 

3049 the next largest populations and average approximately 1,500 (Green) and 1,000 (Puyallup) winter-run steelhead 

3050 spawners annually (Hard et al., 2007). 

3051 Estimates of historical abundance for this species are largely based on catch data. The earliest catch records from 

3052 commercial fisheries in the late 1880s indicate that the catch peaked at 163,796 steelhead in Puget Sound in 1895 

3053 (Hard et al., 2007). Based on this catch data, estimates for the peak run size for Puget Sound steelhead ranges 

3054 between 300,000 and 550,000 fish (Hard et al., 2007). Given that most fish were harvested in terminal fisheries (nets 

3055 set at the mouth of rivers) NMFS expects that this estimate is a fair estimate of the Puget Sound species as it is 
89

3056 unlikely to include fish from neighboring rivers outside of the Puget Sound species. As early as 1898, Washington 

3057 officials expressed concerns that the run had declined by half of its size in only three years (Hard et al., 2007). Since 

3058 1925, Washington has managed steelhead as a game fish, and in 1932 the State prohibited the commercial catch, 

3059 possession or sale of steelhead. 

3060 Run size for this species was calculated in the early 1980s at about 100,000 winter-run fish and 20,000 summer-run 

3061 fish. It is not clear what portion were hatchery fish, but a combined estimate with coastal steelhead suggested that 

3062 roughly 70% of steelhead in ocean runs were of hatchery origin. Escapement of wild fish to spawning grounds 

3063 would be much lower without the influx of hatchery fish (Busby et al., 1996). 

3064 NMFS’ first status review for Puget Sound steelhead demonstrated that 80% of the runs for which there was data 

3065 had declining trends in abundance. Busby et al., (1996) noted that the largest decline, an 18% annual decline, 

3066 occurred in the Lake Washington population. On the contrary, the largest increase in abundance occurred in the 

3067 Skykomish River winter-run steelhead (the Skykomish River is a tributary to the Snohomish River) at a 7% annual 

3068 increase. Estimates of spawner abundance in the Skagit and Snohomish rivers, the two largest steelhead producing 

3069 basins in the species, were about 8,000 naturally spawning adult steelhead each. These two basins exhibited modest 

3070 overall upward trends at the time of the first status review. Recent data demonstrates significant declines in the 

3071 natural escapement of steelhead throughout the species, especially in the southern Puget Sound populations. 

3072 Significant positive trends have occurred in the Samish and the Hamma Hamma winter-run populations. The 

3073 increasing trend in the Hamma Hamma River appears to be the result of a captive rearing program, rather than due 

3074 to natural escapement. The predominant downward trends in escapement and run size of natural steelhead in the 

3075 Puget Sound species, both over the long-term and short-term, is of concern particularly given that despite 

3076 widespread reductions in direct harvest since the mid 1990s (Hard et al., 2007). 

3077 Critical Habitat 

3078 NMFS has not designated critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead. 

3079 Snake River Steelhead 

3080 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

3081 The Snake River Basin steelhead species includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams in the 

3082 Snake River basins of southeast Washington, northeast Oregon and Idaho. Six artificial propagation programs are 

3083 considered part of this species: The Tucannon River, Dworshak National Fish Hatchery, Lolo Creek, North Fork 

3084 Clearwater, East Fork Salmon River and the Little Sheep Creek/Imnaha river hatchery programs. 

3085 Snake River Basin steelhead are distributed throughout the Snake River drainage basin, migrating a considerable 

3086 distance from the ocean to use high-elevation tributaries (typically 1,000-2,000 m above sea level) (Good et al., 

3087 2005). Generally classified as summer-run fish, Snake River steelhead enter the Columbia River from late June to 

3088 October. (Good et al., 2005) After remaining in the river through the winter, Snake River steelhead spawn the 

3089 following spring (March to May) (Good et al., 2005). Managers recognize two life history patterns within Snake 

3090 River steelhead primarily based on ocean age and adult size upon return: A-run steelhead are typically smaller, have 

3091 a shorter fresh water and ocean residence (generally 1 year in the ocean) , and begin their up-river migration earlier 

3092 in the year; whereas B-run steelhead are larger, spend more time in fresh water and the ocean (generally 2-years in 

3093 ocean) and appear to start their upstream migration later in the year (Good et al., 2005). 
90

3094 Status and Trends 

3095 NMFS listed Snake River steelhead as threatened in 1997 (62 FR 43937), and reaffirmed their status as threatened 

3096 on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). NMFS 1997 status review identified sharp declines in the returns of naturally 

3097 produced steelhead, beginning in the mid-1980s. At the time nine of 13 trend indicators were in decline and the 

3098 average abundance (geometric mean, 1992-1996) for the species was 75,000 adult steelhead (8,900 naturally 

3099 produced). Of this, about 7,000 were A-run adults, and about 1,400 were B-run adults (Busby et al., 1996). 

3100 The lack of data on adult spawning escapement for specific tributaries of the Snake River Basin species continues to 

3101 make a quantitative assessment of viability difficult. Available data indicate that the overall long-term estimates of 

3102 population trends have remained negative (Good et al., 2005). Annual return estimates are limited to counts of the 

3103 aggregate return over Lower Granite Dam, and spawner estimates for the Tucannon, Asotin, Grande Ronde and 

3104 Imnaha Rivers. The 2001 return over Lower Granite Dam was substantially higher relative to the low levels seen in 

3105 the 1990s; the recent geometric 5-year mean abundance (Total escapement 106,175 with 14,768 natural returns) was 

3106 approximately 28% of the interim recovery target level (52,000 natural spawners) (Good et al., 2005). The 10-year 

3107 average for natural-origin steelhead passing Lower Granite Dam between 1996 and 2005 is 28,303 adults. Long3108 term trend estimates of the population growth rate (λ) across the available data set was 0.998 assuming that natural 

3109 returns are produced only from natural-origin spawners, and 0.733 if both hatchery and wild spawners are 

3110 contributing to production equally (Good et al., 2005). The Snake River supports approximately 63% of the total 

3111 natural-origin production of steelhead in the Columbia River Basin (Good et al., 2005). 

3112 Critical Habitat 

3113 NMFS designated critical habitat for Snake River steelhead on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). Designated 

3114 critical habitat includes the following subbasins: Hells Canyon, Imnaha River, Lower Snake/Asotin, Upper Grand 

3115 Ronde River, Wallowa River, Lower Grand Ronde, Lower Snake/Tucannon, Upper Salmon, Pahsimeroi, Middle 

3116 Salmon-Panther, Lemhi, Upper Middle Fork Salmon, Lower Middle Fork Salmon, Middle Salmon, South Fork 

3117 Salmon, Lower Salmon, Little Salmon, Upper and Lower Selway, Lochsa, Middle and South Fork Clearwater, and 

3118 the Clearwater subbasins and the Lower Snake/Columbia River corridor. These areas are important for the species’ 

3119 overall conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction, and feeding. The critical habitat designation for this 

3120 species identifies primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to support one or more steelhead life 

3121 stages. Specific sites include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, 

3122 nearshore marine habitat and estuarine areas. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include 

3123 water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions, and floodplain connectivity. The final 

3124 rule (70 FR 52630) lists the watersheds that comprise the designated subbasins and any areas that are specifically 

3125 excluded from the designation. 

3126 There are 289 watersheds within the range of Snake River steelhead. The total area of habitat designated as critical 

3127 includes about 8,000 miles of stream habitat. This designation includes the stream channels within the designated 

3128 stream reaches, and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where the ordinary 

3129 high-water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. Of the 289 fifth order streams 

3130 reviewed in this species, 231 received a high conservation value rating, 44 received a medium rating and 14 received 

3131 a rating of low conservation value for the species. The lower Snake/Columbia rearing/migration corridor 

3132 downstream of the spawning range has a high conservation value. Limiting factors identified for Snake River Basin 

3133 steelhead include: hydrosystem mortality, reduced stream flow, altered channel morphology and floodplain, 

3134 excessive sediment, degraded water quality, harvest impacts, and hatchery impacts. 
91

3135 South-Central California Coast Steelhead 

3136 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

3137 The South-Central California Coast steelhead species includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and 

3138 their progeny) in streams from the Pajaro River (inclusive) to, but not including the Santa Maria River, California. 

3139 No artificially propagated steelhead populations that reside within the historical geographic range of this species are 

3140 included in this designation. The two largest basins within this species’ range are the inland basins of the Pajaro 

3141 River and the Salinas River. Both of these watersheds drain intercoastal mountain ranges and have long alluvial 

3142 lower stretches. Principle sub-basins in the Pajaro River that support steelhead include: Corralitos Creek, Pescadero 

3143 Creek, Uvas Creek and Pacheco Creek. Principle sub-basins in the Salinas River that support steelhead include the 

3144 Arroyo Seco River, Gabilan Creek, Paso Robles Creek, Atascadero Creek and Santa Margarita Creek. Other 

3145 important watersheds include the smaller coastal basins of the Carmel River, and St. Rosa and San Luis Obispos 

3146 creeks. 

3147 Status and Trends 

3148 NMFS listed South-Central California Coast steelhead as threatened in 1997, and reaffirmed their status as 

3149 threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Historical data on the South-Central California Coast steelhead species 

3150 are sparse and no credible historic or recent estimates of total species size are available. Steelhead are present in a 

3151 large portion of the historically occupied basins within this species’ range (estimated 86-95%) but observed and 

3152 inferred abundance suggest many of this basins support a small fragment of their historic run size. Present 

3153 population trends within individual watersheds continuing to support runs is generally unknown, but may vary 

3154 widely between watersheds. No data are available to estimate the steelhead abundance or trends in the two largest 

3155 watersheds in the species, the Pajaro and Salinas basins. These basins are highly degraded and expected to support 

3156 runs much reduced in size from historical levels. 

3157 Steelhead in the Carmel Basin have been monitored at San Clemente Dam since 1964, representing one of the 

3158 longest data sets available for steelhead in this species. However, this data is also limited because a nine year gap 

3159 exists in the series, a large portion of the run spawns below the dam and the older dam counts may be incomplete. 

3160 Between NMFS’ 1997 status review and 2005 status update, continuous data from San Clement dam suggests that 

3161 the abundance of adult spawners in the Carmel River has increased. Carmel River time series data indicate that the 

3162 population declined by about 22% per year between 1963 and 1993, and between 1991 and 1997 the population 

3163 increased from one adult to 775 adults at San Clemente Dam. Good et al., (2005) deemed this increase too great to 

3164 attribute simply to improved reproduction and survival of the local steelhead population. Other possibilities were 

3165 considered, including that the substantial immigration or transplantation occurred or that resident trout production 

3166 increased as a result of improved environmental conditions within the basin. The five-year geometric mean 

3167 calculated by Good et al., (2005) for the Carmel River population (1998-2002) was 611. 

3168 Critical Habitat 

3169 NMFS designated critical habitat for South-Central California Coast steelhead on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52488). 

3170 Specific geographic areas designated include the following CALWATER hydrological units: Pajaro River, Carmel 

3171 River, Santa Lucia, Salinas River and Estero Bay. These areas are important for the species’ overall conservation by 

3172 protecting quality growth, reproduction and feeding. The critical habitat designation for this species identifies 

3173 primary constituent elements that include sites necessary to support one or more steelhead life stages. Specific sites 

3174 include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, nearshore marine habitat 

3175 and estuarine areas. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include water quality and 

3176 quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and floodplain connectivity. The critical habitat 
92

3177 designation (70 FR 52488) contains additional details on the sub-areas that are included as part of this designation 

3178 and the areas that were excluded from designation. 

3179 In total, South-Central California Coast steelhead occupy 30 watersheds (fresh water and estuarine). The total area 

3180 of habitat designated as critical includes about 1,250 miles of stream habitat and about 3 square miles of estuarine 

3181 habitat (e.g., Morro Bay). This designation includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches and 

3182 includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where the ordinary high-water line is not 

3183 defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. In estuarine areas the lateral extent is defined by the 

3184 extreme high water because extreme high tide areas encompass those areas typically inundated by water and 

3185 regularly occupied by juvenile salmon during the spring and summer, when they are migrating in the nearshore zone 

3186 and relying on cover and refuge qualities provided by these habitats and while they are foraging. Of the 30 

3187 watersheds reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for South-Central California Coast steelhead, six 

3188 watersheds received a low rating of conservation value, 11 received a medium rating and 13 received a high rating 

3189 of conservation value for the species. 

3190 Southern California Steelhead 

3191 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

3192 The Southern California steelhead species includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams from 

3193 the Santa Maria River, San Luis Obispo County, California (inclusive) to the U.S.-Mexico border. Artificially 

3194 propagated steelhead that reside within the historical geographic range of this species are not included in the listing. 

3195 A comprehensive assessment of the distribution of steelhead within the Southern California species indicates that 

3196 steelhead occur in most of the coastal basins (Boughton and Fish 2003 in Good et al., 2005). Major watersheds 

3197 occupied by steelhead in this species include the Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, Ventura, Santa Clara rivers. Smaller 

3198 watersheds that support steelhead include the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, San Luis Rey and Sweetwater rivers, and 

3199 San Juan and San Mateo creeks. Significant portions of several upper watersheds are contained with four national 

3200 forests (Los Padres, Angeles, Cleveland and San Bernardino National Forests), whereas coastal and inland valleys 

3201 are dominated by urban development, with the Los Angeles basin being the most expansive and densest urban area 

3202 in the species. Populations within the southernmost portion of the species (San Juan Creek, San Luis Rey River and 

3203 San Mateo Creek) are separated from the northernmost populations by about 80 miles. 

3204 Status and Trends 

3205 NMFS listed Southern California steelhead as endangered in 1997 (62 FR 43937), and reaffirmed their status as 

3206 endangered on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). Historical and recent data is generally lacking for Southern California 

3207 steelhead, making a general assessment of their status difficult. The historical run size estimate for the entire species 

3208 was between 32,000-46,000 steelhead, but this estimate omits the Santa Maria system and basins south of Malibu 

3209 Creek (Busby et al., 1996). Estimates for the Santa Ynez River Basin, probably the largest run historically, range 

3210 from 13,000 to 30,000 spawners, although this number may underestimate the steelhead abundance in the basin prior 

3211 to the construction of Juncal and Gibraltar dams (Busby et al., 1996; Good et al., 2005). No recent data are available 

3212 for steelhead in the Santa Ynez basin and most of the historical spawning habitat was blocked by Bradbury and 

3213 Gibraltar dams. 

3214 Steelhead and rainbow trout are known to occur in streams downstream of Bradbury Dam, but no estimates of 

3215 abundance or trends are available. Similarly, Twitchell Dam in the Santa Maria River, and Casitas Dam on Coyote 

3216 Creek and Matilija Dam on Matilija Creek block access to significant portions of historical spawning and rearing 
93

3217 habitat and alter the hydrology of the basins. A fish ladder and counting trap at the Vern Freeman Diversion Dam on 

3218 the Santa Clara River is thought to be dysfunctional (Good et al., 2005). In general run sizes in river systems within 

3219 the species are believed to range between less than five anadromous adults per year, to less than 100 anadromous 

3220 adults per year. An estimated 26-52% of historically occupied basins are believed to contain some steelhead and 

3221 about 30% are believed vacant, extirpated or nearly extirpated due to dewatering or barriers that block spawning 

3222 habitat. 

3223 Critical Habitat 

3224 NMFS designated critical habitat for Southern California steelhead on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52488). Specific 

3225 geographic areas designated include the following CALWATER hydrological units: Santa Maria River, Santa 

3226 Ynez, South Coast, Ventura River, Santa Clara Calleguas, Santa Monica Bay, Callequas and San Juan hydrological 

3227 units. These areas are important for the species’ overall conservation by protecting quality growth, reproduction and 

3228 feeding. The critical habitat designation for this species identifies primary constituent elements that include sites 

3229 necessary to support one or more steelhead life stages. Specific sites include freshwater spawning sites, freshwater 

3230 rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, nearshore marine habitat and estuarine areas. The physical or biological 

3231 features that characterize these sites include water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage 

3232 conditions and floodplain connectivity. The critical habitat designation (70 FR 52488) contains additional details on 

3233 the sub-areas that are included as part of this designation and the areas that were excluded from designation. 

3234 In total, Southern California steelhead occupy 32 watersheds (fresh water and estuarine). The total area of habitat 

3235 designated as critical includes about 700 miles of stream habitat and about 22 square miles of estuarine habitat, 

3236 mostly within Humboldt Bay. This designation includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches 

3237 and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where the ordinary high-water line is 

3238 not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. In estuarine areas the lateral extent is defined by 

3239 the extreme high water because extreme high tide areas encompass those areas typically inundated by water and 

3240 regularly occupied by juvenile salmon during the spring and summer, when they are migrating in the nearshore zone 

3241 and relying on cover and refuge qualities provided by these habitats and while they are foraging. Of the 32 

3242 watersheds reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for Southern California steelhead, five watersheds 

3243 received a low rating of conservation value, six received a medium rating and 21 received a high rating of 

3244 conservation value for the species. 

3245 Upper Columbia River Steelhead 

3246 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

3247 The Upper Columbia River steelhead species includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in streams in 

3248 the Columbia River Basin upstream from the Yakima River, Washington, to the U.S.-Canada border. Six artificial 

3249 propagation programs are part of this species. 

3250 Rivers in this species primarily drain the east slope of the northern Cascade Mountains and include the Wenatchee, 

3251 Entiat, Methow and Okanogan River Basins. Some of these upper Columbia River subbasins, including the 

3252 Okanogan River and the upper Columbia River proper, extend into British Columbia although steelhead do not 

3253 occur in significant numbers in British Columbia and thus were not included in the species. Identified largely based 

3254 on spawning distributions, this species is composed of four putative populations defined by the Wenatchee, Entiat, 

3255 Methow and Okanogan rivers. Historically (before the construction of Grand Coulee Dam blocked 50% of the river 

3256 to Upper Columbia steelhead) major watershed that may have supported steelhead that comprise this species were 

3257 the Sanpoil, Spokane, Colville, Kettle, Pend Oreille and Kootenai rivers (ICBTRT, 2003). 
94

3258 All upper Columbia River steelhead are summer-run steelhead. Adults return in the late summer and early fall, with 

3259 most migrating relatively quickly to their natal tributaries. A portion of the returning adult steelhead overwinters in 

3260 mainstem reservoirs, passing over upper-mid-Columbia dams in April and May of the following year. Spawning 

3261 occurs in the late spring of the year following river entry. Juvenile steelhead spend one to seven years rearing in 

3262 fresh water before migrating to sea. Smolt outmigrations are predominantly year class two and three (juveniles), 

3263 although some of the oldest smolts are reported from this species (7 years). Most adult steelhead return to fresh 

3264 water after one or two years. 

3265 Status and Trends 

3266 NMFS originally listed Upper Columbia River steelhead as endangered in 1997 (62 FR 43937). On January 5, 2006, 

3267 after reviewing the status of Upper Columbia River steelhead and noting an increase in abundance and more 

3268 widespread spawning, NMFS reclassified the status of Upper Columbia River threatened (71 FR 834). In accordance 

3269 with a U.S. District Court decision, NMFS reinstated the endangered status of Upper Columbia River steelhead in 

3270 June 2007 (62 FR 43937). NMFS appealed the Court’s decision, and on June 18, 2009, the District Court revised its 

3271 ruling, effectively reinstating threatened status for Upper Columbia River steelhead (74 FR 42605). Thus, consistent 

3272 with the court’s rulings and the NMFS’ listing determination of January 5, 2006, Upper Columbia River steelhead 

3273 are listed as threatened under the ESA. 

3274 Since the 1940s, artificially propagated steelhead have seeded this species to supplement the numbers lost with the 

3275 construction of the Grand Coulee Dam. Abundance estimates of returning naturally produced Upper Columbia River 

3276 steelhead have been based on extrapolations from mainstem dam counts and associated sampling information (e.g., 

3277 hatchery/wild fraction, age composition). Early estimates of steelhead in this species may be based on runs that were 

3278 already depressed due to dams and steelhead fisheries. Nevertheless, these early dam counts are the best source of 

3279 available data on the former size of the populations within this species. From 1933-1959 counts at Rock Island Dam 

3280 averaged between 2,600 and 3,700 steelhead adults, which suggested the pre-fishery run size likely exceeded 5,000 

3281 adults destined for tributaries above Rock Island Dam (Chapman et al., 1994 as cited in Busby et al. 1996). Using 

3282 counts at Priest Rapids Dam (located below the production areas for this species) as an indicator of species size and 

3283 trends suggests that the total number of spawners has increased since NMFS’ 1996 status review. The 1992-1996 

3284 average annual total returns (hatchery plus natural) of steelhead spawners was 7,800, and the 1997-2001 average is 

3285 12,900 steelhead (hatchery plus natural). The natural component increased in these same periods from 1,040 to 

3286 2,200, respectively (Good et al., 2005). 

3287 While the total number of naturally produced fish in this species increased between status reviews, the proportion of 

3288 naturally produced steelhead to hatchery-origin fish has declined. Total escapement increased in the combined 

3289 estimate for the Wenatchee and Entiat rivers to a geometric mean of 3,279 spawners (900 natural spawners) over 

3290 NMFS’ previous estimate of 2,500 hatchery and natural steelhead spawners (1989 to 1993, natural component 800 

3291 steelhead) (Good et al., 2005). Estimates of the hatchery contribution to this population increased from 65% to 71% 

3292 of total escapement. (Good et al., 2005) A comparison of estimates for the Methow and Okanogan rivers during the 

3293 same periods indicate that the total escapement increased from 2,400 to 3,714 while naturally produced steelhead 

3294 declined from 450 to 358. Thus, the contribution of naturally produced steelhead declined from 19% to only 9% of 

3295 total escapement between the 1993 and 2001 estimates (Good et al., 2005). 

3296 The assumptions of the role that hatchery fish play in the overall productivity and health of the species strongly 

3297 influence estimates of population growth rates. Estimates based on the assumption that hatchery fish contribute to 

3298 natural production at the same rate as natural-origin spawners consistently result in long-term population growth 

3299 rates (expressed as λ) that are consistently below 1 (Good et al., 2005). Under the assumption that hatchery fish do 
95

3300 not contribute to natural production, estimates of long term population growth rate suggest the population is 

3301 growing. Determining the actual contribution of hatchery fish to natural production is important for understanding 

3302 the true status of this species, particularly given that the proportion of naturally produced steelhead to hatchery3303 origin steelhead continues to decline. The extremely low replacement rate of naturally produced steelhead in this 

3304 species is of concern. 

3305 The majority of the biological review team (54%) felt that this species warranted an “endangered” listing due to the 

3306 growth rate and productivity and uncertainty over the contribution of hatchery fish to natural production. NMFS, 

3307 after convening a review of the artificial propagation programs of the six hatcheries concluded that the programs 

3308 collectively mitigate the immediacy of extinction risk of the species. Thus, NMFS listed the species as threatened 

3309 rather than threatened (71 FR 834). NMFS concluded that the hatchery programs have increased total escapement 

3310 and the distribution of spawning areas and minimize the potential risks associated with artificial propagation. 

3311 However, the abundance and productivity of naturally spawned steelhead remains a concern. 

3312 Critical Habitat 

3313 NMFS designated critical habitat for Upper Columbia River steelhead on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). 

3314 Designated critical habitat includes the following subbasins: Chief Joseph, Okanogan, Similkameen, Methow, 

3315 Upper Columbia/Entiat, Wenatchee, Lower Crab, and the Upper Columbia/Priest Rapids subbasins and the 

3316 Columbia River corridor. These areas are important for the species’ overall conservation by protecting quality 

3317 growth, reproduction and feeding. The critical habitat designation for this species identifies primary constituent 

3318 elements that include sites necessary to support one or more steelhead life stages. Specific sites include freshwater 

3319 spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, nearshore marine habitat and estuarine 

3320 areas. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include water quality and quantity, natural 

3321 cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and floodplain connectivity. The final rule (70 FR 52630) lists the 

3322 watersheds that comprise the designated subbasins and any areas that are specifically excluded from the designation. 

3323 There are 42 watersheds within the range of Upper Columbia River steelhead. The total area of habitat designated as 

3324 critical includes about 1,250 miles of stream habitat. This designation includes the stream channels within the 

3325 designated stream reaches and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where the 

3326 ordinary high-water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. Of the 42 watersheds 

3327 reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for Upper Columbia River steelhead, three watersheds received a 

3328 low rating of conservation value, eight received a medium rating and 31 received a high rating of conservation value 

3329 for the species. In addition, the Columbia River rearing/migration corridor downstream of the spawning range was 

3330 rated as a high conservation value. Limiting factors identified for the Upper Columbia River steelhead include: 

3331 mainstem Columbia River hydropower system mortality, reduced tributary stream flow, tributary riparian 

3332 degradation and loss of in-river wood, altered tributary floodplain and channel morphology and excessive fine 

3333 sediment and degraded tributary water quality. 

3334 Upper Willamette River Steelhead 

3335 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

3336 The Upper Willamette River steelhead species includes all naturally spawned populations of winter-run steelhead in 

3337 the Willamette River, Oregon and its tributaries upstream from Willamette Falls to the Calapooia River (inclusive). 

3338 No artificially propagated populations that reside within the historical geographic range of this species are included 

3339 in this listing. Hatchery summer-run steelhead occur in the Willamette Basin but are an out-of-basin population that 

3340 is not included in this species. 
96

3341 The native (late) winter-run steelhead, with spring Chinook salmon, are the only two populations of salmon believed 

3342 to historically occur above Willametter Falls. The construction of a fish ladder at the falls in the late 1880s, allowed 

3343 for the passage of summer steelhead from Skamania Creek and winter-run steelhead from Big Creek (i.e., Gnat 

3344 Creek). The two groups of winter-run steelhead exhibit different return times. The later run exhibits the historical 

3345 phenotype adapted to passing the seasonal barrier that existed at Willamette Falls prior to construction of the fish 

3346 ladder. The early run of winter-run steelhead are considered non-native and were derived from Columbia River 

3347 steelhead outside the Willamette River (Good et al., 2005). While the release of these hatchery winter-run fish was 

3348 recently discontinued, some fish from earlier releases now reproduce naturally within the upper Willamette River 

3349 Basin. Nonnative summer-run hatchery steelhead continue to be released within the upper basin (Good et al., 2005). 

3350 Native steelhead in the Upper Willamette are a late-migrating winter group that enters fresh water in January and 

3351 February (Howell et al., 1985a). They do not ascend to their spawning areas until late March or April (Dimick and 

3352 Merryfield, 1945) and spawning occurs from April to June 1. The smolt migration past Willamette Falls also begins 

3353 in early April and proceeds into early June, peaking in early- to mid-May (Howell et al., 1985). Smolts generally 

3354 migrate through the Columbia via Multnomah Channel rather than the mouth of the Willamette River. Most spend 2 

3355 years in the ocean before re-entering natal rivers to spawn (Busby et al., 1996). Steelhead of the Upper Willamette 

3356 River species generally spawn once or twice, although some may spawn three times. Repeat spawners are 

3357 predominantly female and generally account for less than 10% of the total run size (Busby et al., 1996). 

3358 Status and Trends 

3359 NMFS originally listed Upper Willamette River steelhead as threatened in 1999 (64 FR 14517), and reaffirmed their 

3360 status as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). The Upper Willamette steelhead species consists of four 

3361 demographically independent populations, each of which remains extant although depressed from historical levels. 

3362 Available data for this species comes from a combination of dam counts, redd count index surveys and hatchery trap 

3363 counts. Estimates of abundance from NMFS 1996 status review on this species, demonstrate a mix of trends with the 

3364 largest populations, Mollala and North Santiam Rivers, declining over the period of analysis. The 2005 review of the 

3365 status of the Upper Willamette steelhead species indicated that each population showed a declining trend over the 

3366 data series that extended to 2000 and 2001, while one population, the Calapooia River, increased over the short-term 

3367 (Good et al., 2005). 

3368 More recently, data reported in McElhany et al., (2007) indicate that currently the two largest populations within 

3369 this species are the Santiam River populations. Mean spawner abundance in both the North Santiam River and the 

3370 South Santiam River is about 2,100. Long-term growth is negative for three of the populations within the species, 

3371 with Calapooia River demonstrating a lambda of >1 indicating long-term growth in this population (McElhany et 

3372 al., 2007). Spatial structure for the North and South Santiam populations has been substantially reduced by the loss 

3373 of access to the upper North Santiam basin and the Quartzville Creek watershed in the South Santiam subbasin due 

3374 dam construction lacking passage facilities (McElhany et al., 2007). Additionally, habitat in the Molalla subbasin 

3375 has been reduced significantly by habitat degradation and in the Calapooia by habitat degradation as well as passage 

3376 barriers. Finally, the diversity of some populations has been eroded by small population size, the loss of access to 

3377 historical habitat, legacy effects of past winter-run hatchery releases and the ongoing release of summer steelhead 

3378 (McElhany et al., 2007). 

3379 Critical Habitat 

3380 NMFS designated critical habitat for Upper Willamette River steelhead on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52488). 

3381 Designated critical habitat includes the following subbasins: Upper Willamette, North Santiam, South Santiam, 

3382 Middle Willamette, Molalla/Pudding, Yamhill, Tualatin, and the Lower Willamette subbasins and the lower 
97

3383 Willamette/Columbia River corridor. These areas are important for the species’ overall conservation by protecting 

3384 quality growth, reproduction and feeding. The critical habitat designation for this species identifies primary 

3385 constituent elements that include sites necessary to support one or more steelhead life stages. Specific sites include 

3386 freshwater spawning sites, freshwater rearing sites, freshwater migration corridors, nearshore marine habitat and 

3387 estuarine areas. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include water quality and quantity, 

3388 natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions and floodplain connectivity. The final rule (70 FR 52630) lists the 

3389 watersheds that comprise the designated subbasins and any areas that are specifically excluded from the designation. 

3390 There are 38 watersheds within the range of Upper Willamette River steelhead. The total area of habitat designated 

3391 as critical includes about 1,250 miles of stream habitat. This designation includes the stream channels within the 

3392 designated stream reaches and includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high water line. In areas where the 

3393 ordinary high-water line is not defined the lateral extent is defined as the bankfull elevation. Of the 38 watersheds 

3394 reviewed in NMFS' assessment of critical habitat for Upper Willamette River steelhead, 17 watersheds received a 

3395 low rating of conservation value, six received a medium rating and 15 received a high rating of conservation value 

3396 for the species. In addition, the lower Willamette/Columbia River rearing/migration corridor downstream of the 

3397 spawning range was rated as a high conservation value. 

3398 Marine Mammals 

3399 Cook Inlet Beluga Whale 

3400 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

3401 Beluga whales are widely distributed in Arctic and subarctic waters and in Alaska five putative populations exist 

3402 (Beaufort Sea, eastern Chukchi Sea, Bristol Bay, eastern Bering Sea and Cook Inlet) (Angliss et al., 2001). Cook 

3403 Inlet beluga whales are the only population that is listed under the ESA. Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA distinguish 

3404 Alaskan beluga whales from those that occur in Hudson Strait, Baffin Bay and the St. Lawrence River, with the 

3405 Cook Inlet population demonstrating the strong evidence of genetic isolation from the other Alaskan populations and 

3406 other populations demonstrating weak to moderate evidence of genetic isolation (O'Corry-Crowe et al., 2007; 

3407 O'Corry-Crowe, 2008). 

3408 Based on past studies of the summer distribution of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, it appears that the population has 

3409 experienced a contraction in its overall distribution (Speckman and Piatt., 2000; Hobbs et al., 2008; Rugh et al., 

3410 2010). According to Hobbs et al., (2008) 90% of the whales in the 1970s were observed within 70 nmi of the 

3411 western tip of Anchorage (Point Woronzof), whereas more recently (1998-2007) 90% were detected within 20 nmi. 

3412 Although the precise reason for the range contraction is not known, the shrinking summer distribution likely reflects 

3413 the reduction in the population size over the same intervals and the beluga whale’s preference for dense aggregations 

3414 of preferred prey species. 

3415 Analyses of beluga whale stomach contents indicate that beluga whales are opportunistic feeders, but specific 

3416 species form the bulk of the prey when they are seasonally abundant (Hobbs et al., 2008). For instance, eulachon 

3417 (Thaleichthys pacificus) also known as smelt or candlefish, are a small anadromous fish return that their natal rivers 

3418 in spring for spawning. The high fat content of this species confers a significant source of energy for beluga whales, 

3419 including calving whales that occur in the upper inlet during the same period (Calkins, 1989). Based on stomach 

3420 sample analyses from 2002-2007 fish compose the majority of the prey species, with gadids (cod and walleye 

3421 pollock) and salmonids composing the majority of the fish eaten (Hobbs et al., 2008). Anadromous salmonids begin 

3422 concentrating at the river mouths and intertidal flats in upper Cook Inlet in late spring and early summer as 

3423 emigrating smolts and immigrating adult spawners. Like eulachon, salmon are another source of lipid-rich prey for 
98

3424 the beluga whale and represent the greatest percent frequency of occurrence of the prey species found in Cook Inlet 

3425 beluga whale stomachs (Hobbs et al., 2008). As salmonid numbers dwindle in the fall and winter, beluga whales 

3426 return to feed on nearshore or deeper water species including cod, sculpin, flounder, sole, shrimp, crab and others 

3427 (Hobbs et al., 2008). 

3428 Beluga whale calving is not well documented but the presence of cow/calf pairs in large river estuaries in the upper 

3429 inlet, and accounts of Alaskan Natives, suggests that calving and nursery areas are located near the mouths of the 

3430 Beluga and Susitna Rivers, Chickaloon Bay and Turnagain Arm (see NMFS, 2008b). Recent surveys suggest that 

3431 cow/calf pairs also make extensive use of Knik Arm in the summer and fall (Funk et al. 2005 as cited in NMFS, 

3432 2008b). Neonates are often not seen until June in Cook Inlet (Burns and Seaman, 1986). Some researchers have 

3433 suggested that the shallow waters of Cook Inlet may be important for reproduction and calving, as the shallower 

3434 water is warmer which may confer an important thermal advantage for calf survival as they have relatively limited 

3435 fat deposits at birth (see NMFS, 2008b). A beluga female’s first parturition is at age five or six. Breeding is 

3436 presumed to occur shortly after calving, in the late summer after about 14-15 months of gestation (Calkins, 1989). 

3437 Lactation lasts about two years, with breeding occurring during lactation (Calkins, 1989). 

3438 Status and Trends 

3439 On October 22, 2008, NMFS listed the Cook Inlet beluga whale as endangered (73 FR 62919). Historic numbers of 

3440 beluga whales in Cook Inlet are unknown. Dedicated surveys began in earnest in the 1990s when NMFS began 

3441 conducting aerial surveys for beluga whales in Cook Inlet. Prior to then, survey efforts were inconsistent, part of 

3442 larger sea bird and marine mammal surveys, made by vessel, or estimated following interviews with fishermen 

3443 (Klinkhart, 1966). In many cases the survey methodology or confidence intervals were not described. For instance, 

3444 Klinkhart (1966) conducted aerial surveys in 1964 and 1965, where he describes having estimated the populations at 

3445 300-400 whales, but the methodology was not described nor did he report the variance around these estimates. Other 

3446 estimates were incomplete due to the small area the survey focused upon (e.g. river mouth estimates; e.g., Hazard 

3447 1988). The most comprehensive survey effort prior to the 1990s occurred in 1979 and included transects from 

3448 Anchorage to Homer, and covered the upper, middle and lower portions of Cook Inlet. From this effort, and using a 

3449 correction factor of 2.7 to account for submerged whales Calkins (1989) estimated the 1979 abundance at about 

3450 1,293 whales. 

3451 In 1993, NMFS began systematic aerial surveys of beluga whales in Cook Inlet and like the 1979 survey cover the 

3452 upper, middle and lower portions of Cook Inlet. The survey protocol involves using paired observers who make 

3453 independent counts at the same time a video of the whale grouping is recorded. Each group size estimate is corrected 

3454 for subsurface and missed animals, or if video counts are not available then additional corrections are made (Allen 

3455 and Angliss, 2010). 

3456 Between 1979 and 1994, according to above noted population estimates, Cook Inlet beluga whales declined by 50%, 

3457 with another 50% decline observed between 1994 and 1998. Using a growth fitted model Hobbs et al., (2008) 

3458 observed an average annual rate of decline of -2.91% (SE = 0.010) from 1994 to 2008, and a -15.1% (SE = 0.047) 

3459 between 1994 and 1998. A comparison with the 1999-2008 data suggests the rate of decline at -1.45% (SE=0.014) 

3460 per year (Hobbs et al., 2008). Given that harvest was curtailed significantly between 1999 and 2008, NMFS had 

3461 expected the population would begin to recover at a rate of 2-6% per year. However, abundance estimates 

3462 demonstrate that this is not the case (Hobbs and Shelden, 2008). 

3463 In conducting its status review, NMFS ran a number of population viability analyses (PVAs) to estimate the time to 

3464 extinction for Cook Inlet beluga whales. The models were sensitive to a variety of parameters such as killer whale 
99

3465 predation, allee effects and unusual mortality events. The best approximation of the current population incorporated 

3466 killer whale predation at only one beluga whale per year and allowed for an unusual mortality event occurring on 

3467 average every 20 years. According to this model, there is an 80% probability that the population is declining, a 26% 

3468 probability that the population will be extinct in 100 years (by 2108) and a 70% probability that the population will 

3469 be extinct within 300 years (by 2308). 

3470 Threats 

3471 Natural Threats. Natural threats to Cook Inlet beluga whales include stranding, predation, parasitism and disease, 

3472 environmental change and genetic risks associated with small populations (e.g., inbreeding, loss of genetic 

3473 variability). As noted in NMFS’ Cook Inlet beluga whale conservation plan (NMFS, 2008b),beluga whales may 

3474 strand accidentally as they occupy shallow water areas or escape predators, or as a result of diseases, illness or 

3475 injury. Given the extreme tidal fluctuations in Cook Inlet, beluga whale strandings are not uncommon. According to 

3476 NMFS (2008b) killer whales have been observed in Cook Inlet concurrent to beluga whale strandings and evidence 

3477 of killer whale attacks is apparent in some beluga whale strandings. 

3478 Over 700 beluga whales have stranded in Cook Inlet since 1988, many of which occurred in Turnagain Arm and 

3479 often coincided with extreme tidal fluctuations (NMFS, 2008b). Where stranding occurs from extreme tidal 

3480 fluctuations and animals are out of the water for extended periods the risk of mortality increases from cardiovascular 

3481 collapse. Ten hours may be the upper limit for out of the water for beluga whales before serious injury or death 

3482 occurs (NMFS, 2008b). Strandings may represent a significant threat to the conservation and recovery of the Cook 

3483 Inlet beluga whale population. 

3484 Gaydos et al., (2004) identified 16 infectious agents in free-ranging and captive southern resident killer whales, but 

3485 concluded that none of these pathogens were known to have high potential to cause epizootics. Many of these same 

3486 infectious agents could pose a problem for Cook Inlet beluga whales. At this time little information is available to 

3487 date to suggest bacterial or viral agents are actively contributing to the decline in the Cook Inlet population. About 

3488 80% of Cook Inlet beluga whales examined, however, have evidence of the parasite Crassicauda giliakiana in the 

3489 kidneys, although it is presently unclear whether the parasite is affecting the status of the population (NMFS, 

3490 2008b). Necropsies have also revealed infestations of the common nematode anasakids, or whaleworm in the 

3491 stomach of adult Cook Inlet beluga whales. While the parasite tends to favor the stomach and can cause gastritis or 

3492 ulcerations, the infestations in beluga whales has not been considered severe enough to have caused clinical 

3493 responses (NMFS, 2008b). Liver trematodes have also been identified in at least one beluga whale. At present, 

3494 NMFS has no information to suggest that parasites are having a measureable impact on the survival and health of the 

3495 Cook Inlet whale population (NMFS, 2008b). 

3496 Anthropogenic Threats. Human induced threats to Cook Inlet beluga whales include subsistence harvest, poaching 

3497 and illegal harvest, incidental take during commercial fishing and reduction of prey through fishing harvests, 

3498 pollution, oil and gas development, urban development, vessel traffic including from tourism and whale watching, 

3499 noise, as well as research activities directed at beluga whales. During the early 1900s there was a short-lived 

3500 commercial whaling company, The Beluga Whaling Company, which operated at the Beluga River in upper Cook 

3501 Inlet. The Company during its 5 years of operation harvest 151 belugas from 1917-1921 (Mahoney and Shelden, 

3502 2000). Another commercial hunt of beluga whales in 1930s is recollected by residents, but no record of the hunt 

3503 exists in Alaska fishery and fur seal documents (as cited in Mahoney and Shelden, 2000). In 1999 and 2000 there 

3504 was a voluntary moratorium on subsistence harvest. Thereafter, subsistence harvests have been conducted under co3505 management agreements. Since 2000, no more than 2 beluga whales have been taken in subsistence harvests in any 

3506 one year (NMFS, 2008b). 
100

3507 Commercial fisheries likely have varying levels of interactions with Cook Inlet beluga whales, according to the 

3508 timing, gear types, targeted species and location of activities (NMFS, 2008b). Reports of fatal interactions with 

3509 commercial fisheries have been noted in the literature (Hobbs et al., 2008). Direct interactions with fishing vessels 

3510 and nets are considered unusual, based on observer data and unlikely to inhibit the recovery of Cook Inlet beluga 

3511 whales. The reduction of prey species, however, is of more concern for the species. In 2000 NMFS recommended 

3512 the closing of the eulachon fishery due to a lack of understanding of how this fishery interfered with beluga whale 

3513 feeding, but in 2005 this fishery was reopened with a harvest limited at 100 tons of eulachon. Currently, it is unclear 

3514 if fishery harvest of prey species is having a significant impact on the beluga whale population. Impacts from 

3515 recreational fisheries, which are very popular in the region, likely include the reduction of fish prey species 

3516 particularly salmonid species and also the harassment from noise and risk of injury from vessel strikes from the 

3517 operation of small watercraft in the estuarine/river mouths (NMFS, 2008b). 

3518 Contaminants in beluga whales are of concern for both whale health and the health of subsistence users. Tissue 

3519 samples are regularly collected from subsistence harvested and stranded beluga whales and archived. Tissues and 

3520 organs commonly collected include blubber, liver and kidneys, as well as muscle, heart, bone, skin and brain. 

3521 Blubber is the most commonly collected; due to the lipid content it typically contains the most lipophilic substances 

3522 (Becker, 2000). The kidney and liver are used to analyze heavy metal compounds. Relatively high levels of PCBs, 

3523 chlorinated pesticides and mercury are evident in beluga whales, although the more contaminated belugas are from 

3524 the St. Lawrence River, Canada (Becker 2000). Concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons in Cook Inlet beluga 

3525 whales range from 0.1-2.4 μg/g, w.w. DDT, 0.6-4.7 μg/g, w.w. PCB, 0.1-0.6 μg/g, w.w. chlordane, <0.1-4.3 μg/g, 

3526 w.w. toxaphene. Studies indicate that PCBs and chlorinated pesticide concentrations are higher in male beluga 

3527 whales than females, reflecting the transference of body loads to the offspring that occurs during gestation and 

3528 lactation (Becker et al., 2000). Other contaminants detected in Cook Inlet beluga whales include heavy metals such 

3529 as cadmium, mercury, selenium, copper and zinc. Comparative studies suggest that Cook Inlet beluga whales 

3530 generally carry less contaminant body burdens than beluga whales from other areas. An exception is copper, which 

3531 is two to three times higher in Cook Inlet beluga whales than beluga whales from the eastern Beaufort Sea and the 

3532 eastern Chukchi Sea, but is similar concentrations found in Hudson Bay beluga whales (Becker et al., 2000). 

3533 Critical Habitat 

3534 On April 11, 2011 NMFS designated critical habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale 76 FR 20180. Two specific 

3535 areas are designated comprising 7,800 square kilometers of marine habitat. Area one encompasses all marine waters 

3536 of Cook Inlet north of a line from the mouth of Threemile Creek (61°08.5′ N., 151°04.4′ W.) connecting to Point 

3537 Possession (61°02.1′ N., 150°24.3′ W.), including waters of the Susitna River south of 61°20.0′ N., the Little Susitna 

3538 River south of 61°18.0′ N. and the Chickaloon River north of 60°53.0′ N. (2) Area two encompasses all marine 

3539 waters of Cook Inlet south of a line from the mouth of Threemile Creek (61°08.5′ N., 151°04.4′ W.) to Point 

3540 Possession (61°02.1′ N., 150°24.3′ W.) and north of 60°15.0′N., including waters within two nautical miles seaward 

3541 of the mean high water boundary along the western shoreline of Cook Inlet between 60°15.0′ N. and the mouth of 

3542 the Douglas River (59°04.0′ N., 153°46.0′ W.); all waters of Kachemak Bay east of 151°40.0′ W.; and waters of the 

3543 Kenai River below the Warren Ames bridge at Kenai, Alaska. 

3544 Area 1 has the highest concentration of beluga whales in the spring through fall as well as the greatest potential for 

3545 adverse impact from anthropogenic threats. It contains many rivers with large eulachon and salmon runs, including 

3546 two rivers in Turnagain Arm (Twenty-mile River and Placer River) which are visited by beluga whales in the early 

3547 spring. Use declines in the summer and increases again in August through the fall, coinciding with coho salmon 

3548 returns. Also included in Area 1 are Knik Arm and the Susitna delta. Area 2 is located south of Area 1 and is used 

3549 by Cook Inlet beluga whales for fall and winter feeding and as transit waters. 
101

3550 The primary constituent elements essential to the conservation of Cook Inlet beluga whales are: (1) Intertidal and 

3551 subtidal waters of Cook Inlet with depths <30 ft. (MLLW) and within 5 miles of high and medium flow 

3552 accumulation anadromous fish streams; (2) Primary prey species consisting of four species of Pacific salmon 

3553 (Chinook, coho, sockeye and chum salmon), Pacific eulachon, Pacific cod, walleye pollock, saffron cod and 

3554 yellowfin sole; (3) Waters free of toxins or other harmful agents; (4) Unrestricted passage within or between the 

3555 critical habitat areas, and; (5) An absence of in-water noise levels that result in the abandonment of habitat by Cook 

3556 Inlet beluga whales. 

3557 Killer Whale Southern Resident Species 

3558 Distribution and Description of the Listed Species 

3559 The SRKW has been listed as endangered under the ESA since November 18, 2005 (70 FR 69903); critical habitat 

3560 for this species was designated on November 29, 2006 (71 FR 69054). In April 2004, the Washington Department of 

3561 Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) designated killer whales in Washington State as a “State endangered species” (WAC 

3562 232-12-297). SRKWs are also protected by the MMPA and Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA). 

3563 The Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) is a toothed whale and is the largest member of the dolphin 

3564 family. Based on genetic research, it is believed that multiple subspecies of killer whales exist worldwide (Krahn et 

3565 al., 2004; Reeves et al., 2004; Waples and Clapham, 2004; Jefferson et al., 2008). Resident killer whales in the 

3566 Northeast Pacific are distributed from Alaska to California, with four distinct communities recognized: southern, 

3567 northern, southern and western Alaska (Krahn et al., 2002; Krahn et al., 2004). The SRKW occurs in the 

3568 northeastern Pacific Ocean along the west coasts of the U.S. and Canada. Resident whales exhibit advanced vocal 

3569 communication and live in highly stable social matriarchal groupings called pods. They frequent a variety of marine 

3570 habitats and their range does not appear to be limited by depth, temperature or salinity (Baird, 2000). 

3571 The SRKW species consists of three pods, designated J, K and L, that reside for part of the year in the inland 

3572 waterways of Washington State and British Columbia (Strait of Georgia, Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound), 

3573 principally during the late spring, summer and fall (Bigg, 1982; Ford et al., 2000; Krahn et al., 2002). Pods have 

3574 visited coastal sites off Washington and Vancouver Island (Ford et al., 2000) and are known to travel as far south as 

3575 central California and as far north as the Queen Charlotte Islands off British Columbia. The locations of SRKWs in 

3576 the late fall, winter and early spring are less well known. 

3577 Parsons (2009) noted that members of different pods interact, but members generally remain within their matrilinear 

3578 group. Interaction between pods has increased over the past two decades and may be the result of a common 

3579 response among pods to the stress of a declining population (Parsons et al., 2009). The rate of intrapod interaction 

3580 was lowest within L pod, which is the largest of the SRKW pods (Parsons et al., 2009). 

3581 Male SRKWs become sexually mature at a mean age of approximately 15 years and are thought to remain sexually 

3582 active throughout their adult lives (Christensen et al., 1984; Perrin and Reilly, 1984; Duffield and Miller, 1988; 

3583 Olesiuk et al., 1990). Females first give birth at a mean age of approximately 14.9 years and produce an average of 

3584 approximately 5.4 surviving calves over a reproductive life span of about 25 years (Olesiuk et al., 1990; Matkin et 

3585 al., 2003). Gestation periods, as observed in captive killer whales, average around 17 months (Asper et al., 1988; 

3586 Walker et al., 1988; Duffield et al., 1995). The mean interval between viable calve births is four years (Bain, 1990). 

3587 Older mothers tend to have greater calving success and they appear to be assisted in calf rearing by grandmothers 

3588 (Ward et al., 2009b). Some females may reach 90 years of age (Olesiuk et al., 1990). Mothers and offspring 

3589 maintain highly-stable, lifelong social bonds and this relationship appears to be the basis for their matrilinear social 

3590 structure (Bigg et al., 1990; Baird, 2000; Ford et al., 2000). 
102

3591 Although mating can occur year-round, most killer whale reproduction in the North Pacific has been observed to 

3592 occur primarily from April to October (Olesiuk et al., 1990; Matkin et al., 1997), with a peak in calving occurring 

3593 between September and March (Olesiuk et al., 2005; Jefferson et al., 2008). Killer whales are polygamous 

3594 (Dahlheim and Heyning, 1999) and genetic data indicate that resident males mate with females outside of their own 

3595 pods almost exclusively. This reduces the chances of inbreeding (Barrett-Lennard, 2000; Barrett-Lennard and Ellis, 

3596 2001). 

3597 Killer whales are apex predators and consume a varied diet but fish are their preferred prey (Scheffer and Slipp, 

3598 1948; Ford et al., 1998; Ford et al., 2000; Saulitis et al., 2000). Although the record is incomplete, data suggest that 

3599 SRKWs have a strong preference for Chinook salmon during late spring to fall (Hanson et al., 2005; Ford and Ellis, 

3600 2006). Their winter and early spring diet is largely unknown. SRKWs spend about half of their time hunting prey. 

3601 Approximately 95% of their time spent underwater is at depths of less than 30 m (Baird, 2000; Baird et al., 2003; 

3602 Baird et al., 2005). They detect prey via echolocation and passive listening and likely hunt through a combination of 

3603 vision and echolocation (Barrett-Lennard et al., 1996; Baird, 2000). Maximum observed dive depths average 141 m 

3604 (Baird et al., 2003). Baird et al., (2005) reported that although the deepest recorded dive for a SRKW is 264 m, they 

3605 are probably capable of diving to at least 330 m. No significant differences in the diving behavior of the three 

3606 Southern Resident pods has been observed (Baird et al., 2005). 

3607 Status and Trends 

3608 The only pre-1974 account of Southern Resident abundance is from Sheffer and Slipp (1948) and merely notes that 

3609 the species was “frequently seen” during the 1940s in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, northern Puget Sound, and off the 

3610 coast of the Olympic Peninsula, with smaller numbers along Washington’s outer coast. Little information exists on 

3611 the historic abundance of SRKWs. Until the mid- to late-1800s, the SRKW community may have numbered more 

3612 than 200 animals (Krahn et al., 2002). Using the estimated abundance of SRKWs in 1971 of 67 whales and factoring 

3613 in various sources of mortality, NMFS estimated a minimum historical abundance of about 140 SRKWs (Olesiuk et 

3614 al., 1990). The SRKW population had grown to 90 whales by September 2006, but declined in 2007 with the loss of 

3615 five individuals and the gain of two new calves leaving the total number at 87, with 25 whales in J pod, 19 whales in 

3616 K pod and 43 whales in L pod (Center for Whale Research, unpublished data cited in NMFS, 2008d). At present, the 

3617 Southern Resident population has declined to essentially the same size that was estimated during the early 1960s, 

3618 when it was considered to be depleted (Olesiuk et al., 1990). 

3619 Photo-identification catalogs for SRKWs provide information on recent abundance and trends of these pods (see 

3620 Dahlheim, 1997; Dahlheim et al., 1997; Ford and Ellis, 1999; Matkin et al., 1999). From 1974–2007, the SRKWs as 

3621 a whole have gone through several periods of growth and decline. For example, the species appeared to experience a 

3622 period of recovery by increasing to 99 whales in 1995, but then declined by 20% to 79 whales in 2001 before 

3623 another slight increase to 83 whales in 2003 (Ford et al., 2000; Carretta et al., 2005). This abrupt decline and 

3624 unstable population status continue to be cause for concern, particularly given the small size of the species which 

3625 makes it potentially vulnerable to Allee effects (e.g., inbreeding depression) that could cause further population 

3626 decline or preclude a substantial increase in abundance (see NMFS, 2008d). The intensity of factors affecting the 

3627 species is increased by stochastic events such as the small number of reproductive age males and high mortality 

3628 rates for this group and is a major reason that the SRKW was listed as endangered rather than threatened (NMFS, 

3629 2008d). 

3630 Using data from 1974–2003, Krahn et al., (2002; 2004) further analyzed the population dynamics of the species to 

3631 identify demographic factors contributing to the latest decline in abundance. Changes in survival were not related to 

3632 stochastic variation caused by the SRKW community’s small size, such as random patterns in births or deaths or to 
103

3633 annual fluctuations in survival. Rather, the survival patterns were more likely influenced by external causes, such as 

3634 changes in prey availability etc. 

3635 Threats 

3636 Natural Threats. The population of SRKWs has declined recently. The recent decline and unstable population 

3637 structure make it difficult for SRKWs to recover from natural spikes in mortality (NMFS, 2008d). Although disease 

3638 outbreaks have not been identified in this population, increased contaminant loading may increase the susceptibility 

3639 of individuals to disease. 

3640 Anthropogenic Threats. Salmon is the primary prey of killer whales and has been severely reduced due to habitat 

3641 loss (NRC, 1996; Slaney et al., 1996; Gregory and Bisson, 1997; Lichatowich, 1999; Lackey, 2003; Pess et al., 

3642 2003; Schoonmaker et al., 2003). A 50% reduction in killer whale calving has been correlated with years of low 

3643 Chinook salmon abundance (Ward et al., 2009b). 

3644 Contaminants entering SRKW habitat in Puget Sound and its surrounding waters accumulate in water, benthic 

3645 sediments and in prey organisms (Krahn et al., 2009). SRKWs bioaccumulate these toxins in their tissues which 

3646 may lead to numerous adverse physiological changes (Krahn et al., 2009). The greatest contaminant threats are from 

3647 organochlorines (e.g. PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, furans and DDT) (Ross et al., 2000; CBD, 2001; Krahn et al., 2002; 

3648 Cullon et al., 2009; Krahn et al., 2009). These chemicals bioaccumulate in fatty tissues, persist and can be 

3649 transmitted from mother to offspring (Haraguchi et al., 2009; Krahn et al., 2009). 

3650 Vessel activity has also been identified as a threat to SRKWs. In 2005, a U.S. vessel participating in sonar exercises 

3651 apparently caused significant behavior changes in killer whale activity , such that the whales vacated the area 

3652 (NMFS, 2005a). Additionally, the increase in “background noise” resulting from vessel traffic has the potential to 

3653 influence or disrupt the ability of SRKWs to navigate, communicate and forage (Bain and Dahlheim, 1994; Gordon 

3654 and Moscrop, 1996; Erbe, 2002; Williams et al., 2002a; Williams et al., 2002b; Holt et al., 2009). 

3655 Critical Habitat 

3656 NMFS designated critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whales on November 29, 2006 (71 FR 69054). Three 

3657 specific areas were designated; (1) the Summer Core Area in Haro Strait and waters around the San Juan Islands; (2) 

3658 Puget Sound; and (3) the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which comprise approximately 6,630 square kilometers of marine 

3659 habitat. Three primary constituent elements exist in these areas: water quality to support growth and development, 

3660 prey species of sufficient quantity, quality and availability to support individual growth, reproduction and 

3661 development, as well as overall population growth, and passage conditions to allow for migration, resting and 

3662 foraging. Water quality has declined in recent years due to agricultural run-off, urban development resulting in 

3663 additional treated water discharge, industrial development and oil spills. The primary prey of southern residents, 

3664 salmon, has also declined due to overfishing and reproductive impairment associated with loss of spawning habitat. 

3665 The constant presence of whale-watching vessels and growing anthropogenic noise background has raised concerns 

3666 about the health of areas of growth and reproduction as well. 

3667 Environmental Baseline 

3668 By regulation, environmental baselines for biological opinions include the past and present impacts of all state, 

3669 Federal or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed 
104

3670 Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact 

3671 of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). The 

3672 environmental baseline for this biological opinion includes the effects of several activities that affect the survival 

3673 and recovery of endangered and threatened in the Action Area. 

3674 A number of human activities have contributed to the current status of populations of endangered and threatened 

3675 species in the action area. Some of those activities, most notably commercial whaling, occurred extensively in the 

3676 past, ended, and no longer appear to affect populations of these species, although the effects of these reductions 

3677 likely persist today. Other human activities are ongoing and appear to continue to affect populations of endangered 

3678 and threatened species in the Action Area. The following discussion summarizes the principal phenomena in the 

3679 Action Area that are known to affect the likelihood that these endangered and threatened species will survive and 

3680 recover in the wild. 

3681 Because this is a programmatic consultation, however, on what is primarily a continuing action with a geographic 

3682 scope that encompasses all lands and waters of the United States, its territories and possessions, this Environmental 

3683 Baseline serves a slightly different purpose. First, because this is both a programmatic and national consultation that 

3684 does not assess the consequences of the Corps proposed action for specific sites or listed resources that occur at 

3685 those sites, this Environmental Baseline focuses primarily on the status and trends of the aquatic ecosystems in the 

3686 United States and the consequences of that status for listed resources. As such, this Environmental Baseline

3687 elaborates on some of the narratives we have already presented in our treatments of the Status of Listed resources by 

3688 focusing on the status and trends of waters of the United States at a national scale. However, this Opinion is limited 

3689 to discharges that occur in the District of Columbia, Idaho, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, all Indian lands and 

3690 Federal lands in Delaware, Vermont and Washington State. 

3691 We begin this Environmental Baseline with a discussion of the status and trends of waters of the United States. 

3692 Because the status and trends of those waters, and the endangered and threatened species that depend on them, has 

3693 been strongly influenced by wetland ecosystems in the United States, we summarize the status and trends of 

3694 wetlands in the United States as a second step. Then we summarize the effect of Federal programs designed to 

3695 protect and restore waters of the United States. We conclude by integrating and synthesizing this information to 

3696 assess the effect of these programs on endangered species, threatened species, and designated critical habitat. 

3697 The Changing Landscapes of the United States 

3698 The continental United States has a land area of about 2.3 billion acres. In 2002, about 20 percent of this area (442 

3699 million acres) was cropland in 2002, 26 percent (587 million acres) was permanent grassland pasture and range, 29 

3700 percent (651 million acres) was forest-use land, and urban areas represented about 3 percent (60 million acres) of 

3701 this land area, while a variety of other land uses -parks and recreational areas, wildlife areas, rural highways, roads, 

3702 railroads, airport rights-of-way- represented about 13 percent of the land area (Lubowski et al., 2006). 

3703 Since the 1940s, the acreage of land dedicated to forest-uses has declined since, although this acreage has increased 

3704 by about 2 percent between 1997 and 2002. Between 1945 and 2002, the acreage of land dedicated to cropland uses 

3705 declined by about 2 percent; between 1997 and 2002, total cropland decreased by 14 million acres (3 percent) to its 

3706 lowest level since 1945 (Lubowski et al,. 2006). The acreage of land dedicated to grassland pasture and range 

3707 increased by almost 7 million acres (1 percent) from 1997 to 2002; however, the area dedicated to grazing has 

3708 declined from the 1940s to 2002 (Lubowski et al., 2006). Between 1945 and 2002, the land area dedicated to 

3709 special-uses and urban areas has increased continuously. Between 1990 and 2002, the acres in urban areas increased 

3710 by about 13 percent to 60 million acres (Lubowski et al., 2006). 
105

3711 Since colonial times, the landscapes of the United States reflect the abundance, distribution and economics of the 

3712 human population. In 1790, the United States had a resident population that was slightly less than 4 million and a 

3713 population density of 4.5 people per square mile. By 2000, that population had grown to slightly more than 281 

3714 million people and the population density had increased to 79.6 per square mile. In 2007, the population of the 

3715 United States increased to more than 300 million people for the first time in its history. 

3716 Most of the population growth in the United States occurred in urban areas, first in central cities and later suburbs. 

3717 Population sizes of cities in the eastern United States increased from the early 1800s until the 1950s; since then, the 

3718 population size of western cities like Los Angeles and Phoenix increased while large eastern and Midwestern cities 

3719 started to decline (Gibson, 1998). At the same time, an increasing percentage of our nation’s population was located 

3720 in suburban areas. In 1910, three times more Americans lived in central cities than in suburban areas; by 1970, 

3721 slightly more Americans lived in suburban areas than in either cities or rural areas. From 1950 to 1996, the urban 

3722 population increased by 63 percent, the rural population decreased by 19 percent, and the greatest relative change 

3723 occurred in the suburban population, an increase of 274 percent. 

3724 By 2000, half of the population in the United States lived in the suburbs (Hobbs et al., 2002). About 75 percent of 

3725 all Americans now live in areas that are urban or suburban in character; that is, about 75 percent of the people in the 

3726 lower 48 States live in less than 2 percent of the land area of the lower 48 states. Most of the urban or suburban areas 

3727 occur in the South and Midwest, but cities and suburbs account for less than 2 percent of the land area in those 

3728 regions. In comparison, urban and suburban lands in the Northeast made up over 5 percent of the landscape. The 

3729 percentage of “undeveloped” land or natural areas in the South, Northeast and West was almost the same as the 

3730 percentage of urban and suburban area in those regions (about 22 percent). The Midwest had the lowest percentage 

3731 of these lands (17 percent). In the Northeast and South, these lands are represented by forest cover; in the Midwest, 

3732 these lands are represented by farmland, and in the West the lands are represented by grassland and shrub cover. 

3733 About half of all natural lands in urban and suburban areas consist of patches that are smaller than 10 acres. 

3734 Nationally, less than 5 percent of all natural areas consist of patches at least 1,000 acres in size. The northeast States 

3735 have a higher percentage of natural areas between 100 and 1,000 acres and 1,000 to 10,000 acres in size than the 

3736 other regions. Only western States have natural areas greater than 10,000 acres; these natural areas, however, 

3737 account for 0.3 percent of all natural lands in urban and suburban areas. 

3738 In some cases suburbs developed along major highways and transportation systems to connect pre-existing, rural 

3739 communities with nearby urban areas. In other cases, suburbs developed in areas that had previously been 

3740 agricultural or had been dominated by natural communities because of favorable environmental conditions, zoning 

3741 ordinances or land costs (Abler, 1976; Matlack, 1997). As a result, most modern metropolitan areas encompass a 

3742 mosaic of different land covers and uses (Hart, 1991). The mosaic or land uses associated with urban and suburban 

3743 centers has been cited as the primary cause of declining environmental conditions in the United States (Flather et 

3744 al., 1998) and other areas of the world (Houghton, 1994). 

3745 Other human activities that have altered the landscapes of the United States include agricultural practices that 

3746 include land conversion, sod busting, and applications of pesticides; forest practices that include timber harvests, 

3747 silviculture, and the construction of logging roads; mining practices that include open-pit mining, mountain-top 

3748 mining, placer mining, heap-leach mining, and removal of overburden materials; road construction practices that 

3749 include alteration of land in the right of way, spraying herbicides to maintain the right of way, and construction of 

3750 quarries for source materials; civil works projects that include canals, drainage ditches, projects to deliver water to 

3751 arid lands in the western States, projects to drain wetlands in southeastern States, projects to control flooding in mid3752 western and eastern States, port construction, projects to maintain shipping channels, and the construction of more 
106

3753 than 8,100 major dams on rivers and streams in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

3754 The direct and indirect effects of these changes in land-use and land-cover change have had a lasting effect on the 

3755 quantity, quality and distribution of every major terrestrial, aquatic, and coastal ecosystem in the United States, its 

3756 territories and possessions. By the mid-1990s, at least 27 types of ecosystems had declined by more than 98 percent 

3757 (Noss and Murphy, 1995). These include old growth and virgin forests in the eastern United States, pine barrens 

3758 across Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island 

3759 (Cryan, 1985); more than 95 percent of the natural barrier island beaches in Maryland had been destroyed along with 

3760 more than 50 percent of barrier island dunes. By 1986, more than 98 percent of the pre-settlement longleaf pine 

3761 (Pinus palustris) forests in the southeastern coastal plain had been destroyed (Ware et al., 1993; Noss and Murphy, 

3762 1995). Many other native ecosystems have experienced substantial reductions in area. About 90 percent of the 

3763 original 58 million hectares of tallgrass prairie had been destroyed; 99 percent of the tallgrass prairie east of the 

3764 Missouri River and 85 percent of the tallgrass prairie west of the Missouri River has been destroyed (Klopatek et al., 

3765 1979). 

3766 Aquatic and semi-aquatic ecosystems have not fared much better than these terrestrial ecosystems. Between the 

3767 1780s and 1980s, 30 percent of the nation’s wetlands had been destroyed, including 74 percent of the wetlands in 

3768 Connecticut, 73 percent of the wetlands in Maryland, 52 percent of the wetlands in Texas, 91 percent of all wetlands 

3769 in California, including 94 percent of all inland wetlands (Dahl, 1990). From 1982 to 1987, the wetland area 

3770 throughout the conterminous United States declined by 1.1 percent and the expansion of urban – suburban 

3771 metropolitan areas accounted for 48 percent of this decline (Brady and Flather., 1994). 

3772 Because of these changes in land use, many of the native plant and animal species that inhabited those native 

3773 ecosystems over the past have become extinct or extinct in the wild over the past 200 years. The last passenger 

3774 pigeon, a species that once numbered in the billions and covered most of the eastern and mid-western United States, 

3775 became extinct in 1912. In the same year, the Louisiana parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis ludoviciana) became 

3776 extinct followed two years later by the extinction of its relative, the Carolina parakeet (C. c. carolinensis). The heath 

3777 hen became extinct in the mid-1920s, the June sucker (Chasmistes liorus liorus) in the mid-1930s, Tecopa pupfish 

3778 (Cyprinodon nevadensis calidae) in the early 1940s, and Ash Meadows killifish (Empetrichthys merriami) and 

3779 Thicktail chub (Gila crassicauda) in the 1950s. Over the past 200 years, a substantial portion of the bird fauna of the 

3780 Hawaiian islands — including the Oahu akepa, Kona finch, Lanai creeper, black mamo, and Hawai’i o’o — became 

3781 extinct combined with the extinction of substantial portions of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Mississippi, Ohio, 

3782 and Tennessee Rivers and regional extirpations of the flora and fauna of California, Florida, Oregon, Puerto Rico, 

3783 and the desert states. 

3784 Status and Trends of Waters of the United States 

3785 All of the endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat under the jurisdiction of NMFS depend 

3786 on the health of aquatic ecosystems for their survival. All of these species were listed as endangered or threatened, at 

3787 least in part, because of the consequences of human activities on the aquatic ecosystems -the estuaries, rivers, lakes, 

3788 streams, and associated wetlands, floodplains, and riparian ecosystems- of the United States, its Territories and 

3789 possessions. The status and trends of those aquatic ecosystems determines the status and trends of these species and 

3790 the critical habitat that has been designated for them. 

3791 Over the past 30 to 40 years, the nation’s aquatic ecosystems have improved substantially. In particular, pollution 

3792 from point sources has been significantly reduced over the past 35 years. Sewage and industrial discharges into 

3793 aquatic ecosystems have been controlled and some agricultural pesticides have been restricted or banned. Programs 

3794 like the Conservation Reserve Program have taken highly erodible lands out of production. Despite this progress, 
107

3795 however, many aquatic ecosystems remain highly polluted. Of the waters bodies they assessed -39 percent of the 

3796 river and stream miles, 46 percent of the lake area and 51 percent of the estuarine area- one or more designated uses 

3797 are impaired. Non-point pollution from urban and agricultural land (e.g. siltation, nutrients, bacteria, metals and 

3798 oxygen depleting substances) that is transported by precipitation and runoff was the primary cause of the 

3799 impairment. 

3800 These water quality problems, particularly the problem of non-point sources of pollution, have resulted from the 

3801 changes humans have imposed on the landscapes of the United States over the past 100 – 200 years. One way of 

3802 relating these changes in water quality to land uses relies on the surface area of a watershed that is covered by 

3803 porous versus impervious surfaces. Most land areas that are covered by natural vegetation are highly porous and 

3804 have very little sheet flow; precipitation falling on these landscapes infiltrates the soil, is transpired by the vegetative 

3805 cover or evaporates. The increased transformation of the landscapes of the United States into a mosaic of urban and 

3806 suburban land uses has increased the area of impervious surfaces -roads, rooftops, parking lots, driveways and 

3807 sidewalks- in those landscapes. 

3808 The amount of impervious surface in a watershed is a reliable indicator of a suite of phenomena that influence a 

3809 watershed’s hydrology (Center for Watershed Protection, 2003). Above certain thresholds, landscapes with 

3810 impervious surfaces respond to precipitation differently than other land-uses: rain that would normally infiltrate in 

3811 forest, grassland and wetland soils falls on and flows over impervious surfaces. That runoff is then channeled into 

3812 storm sewers and released directly into surface waters (rivers and streams), which changes the magnitude and 

3813 variability of water velocity and volume in those receiving waters.

3814 Clean Water Act 

3815 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act, is the principal law concerned with polluting activity 

3816 in streams, lakes and estuaries in the United States. This 1948 statute was totally re-written in 1972 (P. L. 92-500) to 

3817 produce its current purpose: “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's 

3818 waters” (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92 –500). Congress made substantial amendment to the 

3819 Clean Water Act in the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P. L. 100-4) in response to the significant and persistent water 

3820 quality problems. 

3821 The Clean Water Act uses two primary approaches to achieve its goal. The first approach uses regulations to achieve 

3822 a goal of zero discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. The second approach provides Federal 

3823 technical assistance for municipal wastewater treatment construction. Both approaches are supported by research 

3824 activities, permits and provisions for enforcement. 

3825 To achieve its objectives, the Clean Water Act prohibits all discharges into the nation’s waters, unless they are 

3826 specifically authorized by a permit. For example, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or NPDES 

3827 program regulates discharges of pollutants like bacteria, oxygen-consuming materials, and toxic pollutants like 

3828 heavy metals, pesticides, and other organic chemicals. On the other hand, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

3829 prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States without a permit. 

3830 Most of these Federal programs are administered by the EPA, while state and local governments have the principal 

3831 day-to-day responsibility for implementing the law. However, other section of the Clean Water Act, such as the 

3832 regulation of discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States pursuant to section 404 (33 

3833 U.S.C section 1344) are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or a state with a program approved by 

3834 the EPA. Nonpoint sources of water pollution, which are believed to be responsible for the majority of modern water 
108

3835 quality problems in the United States, are not subject to Clean Water Act permits or the regulatory requirements. 

3836 Instead, non-point sources of pollution are regulated by State programs. 

3837 Puget Sound as an Example of the Impact 

3838 Puget Sound provides and illustrative example of the impacts of the environmental baseline on endangered and 

3839 threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction. Between 2000 and 2006, counties in Puget Sound increased by 

3840 315,965 people or by more than 50,000 people per year, with associated increases in the area of impervious surface 

3841 and population density per square mile of impervious surface in the Puget Sound region (Puget Sound Action Team 

3842 2007). Between 1991 and 2001, the area of impervious surface in the Puget Sound basin increased 10.4 percent 

3843 (Puget Sound Action Team, 2007). By 2001, impervious surface covered 7.3 percent of the Puget Sound region 

3844 below 1,000 feet elevation; in some counties and watersheds in the region, this area was substantially higher. 

3845 Over the same time interval, about 190 square miles of forest (about 2.3 percent of the total forested area of the 

3846 Puget Sound basin) was converted to other uses. In areas below 1,000 feet elevation, the change was more dramatic: 

3847 3.9 percent of total forest area was converted to other uses. By 2004, about 1,474 fresh and marine waters in Puget 

3848 Sound were listed as “impaired waters” in Puget Sound. Fifty-nine percent of these waters tested were impaired 

3849 because of toxic contamination, pathogens, low dissolved oxygen or high temperatures. Less than one-third of these 

3850 impaired waters have cleanup plans in place. Chinook salmon from Puget Sound have 2-to-6 times the 

3851 concentrations of PCBs in their bodies as other Chinook salmon populations on the Pacific Coast. Because of this 

3852 contamination, the Washington State Department of Health issued consumption advisories for Puget Sound chinook 

3853 (Puget Sound Action Team, 2007). 

3854 The quality of water in the Puget Sound Basin and aquatic biota those water support have been affected by a range 

3855 of forestry, agricultural, and urban development practices. The chemical quality of surface water in the foothills and 

3856 mountains is generally suitable for most uses. However, the physical hydrology, water temperature and biologic 

3857 integrity of streams have been influenced to varying degrees by logging (Black and Silkey, 1998). 

3858 Because of development, many streams in the Puget Lowlands have undergone changes in structure and function 

3859 with a trend toward simplification of stream channels and loss of habitat (Black and Silkey, 1998). Sources of 

3860 contaminants to lowland streams and lower reaches of large rivers are largely nonpoint because most major point 

3861 sources discharge directly to Puget Sound. Compared with that in small streams in the Puget Lowlands, the quality 

3862 of water in the lower reaches of large rivers is better because much of the flow is derived from the forested 

3863 headwaters. 

3864 More than half of the agricultural acreage in the basin is located in Whatcom, Skagit and Snohomish Counties. 

3865 Agricultural land use consists of about 60 percent cropland and 40 percent pasture. Livestock produce a large 

3866 amount of manure that is applied as fertilizer to cropland, some- times in excess amounts, resulting in runoff of 

3867 nitrogen and phosphorus to surface water and leaching of nitrate to ground water. Runoff from agricultural areas 

3868 also carries sediment, pesticides, and bacteria to streams (Staubitz et al., 1997). Pesticides and fumigant-related 

3869 compounds are present, usually at low concentrations, in shallow ground water in agricultural areas. 

3870 Heavy industry is generally located on the shores of the urban bays and along the lower reaches of their influent 

3871 tributaries, such as Commencement Bay and the Puyallup River in Tacoma and Elliott Bay and the Duwamish 

3872 Waterway in Seattle. High-density commercial and residential development occurs primarily within and adjacent to 

3873 the major cities. Development in recent years has continued around the periphery of these urban areas but has 

3874 trended toward lower density. This trend has resulted in increasing urban sprawl in the central Puget Sound Basin. 
109

3875 Urban land-use activities have significantly reduced the quality of streams in the Puget Sound Basin (Staubitz and 

3876 others, 1997). Water-quality concerns related to urban development include providing adequate sewage treatment 

3877 and disposal, transport of contaminants to streams by storm runoff, and preservation of stream corridors. Water 

3878 availability has been and will continue to be a major, long- term issue in the Puget Sound Basin. It is now widely 

3879 recognized that ground-water withdrawals can deplete streamflows (Morgan and Jones, 1999), and one of the 

3880 increasing demands for surface water is the need to maintain instream flows for fish and other aquatic biota. 

3881 Chinook salmon from Puget Sound have 2-to-6 times the concentrations of PCBs in their bodies as other Chinook 

3882 salmon populations on the Pacific Coast. Because of this contamination, the Washington State Department of Health 

3883 has issued consumption advisories for Puget Sound Chinook (Puget Sound Action Team, 2007). Nevertheless, 

3884 between 2000 and 2006, counties in Puget Sound counties increased by 315,965 people or by more than 50,000 

3885 people per year, with associated increases in impervious surfaces and population density per square mile of 

3886 impervious surface (Puget Sound Action Team, 2007). 

3887 Pollutants founds in Puget Sound chinook salmon have found their way into the food chain of the Sound. Harbor 

3888 seals in southern Puget Sound, which feed on Chinook salmon, have PCB levels that are seven times greater than 

3889 those found in harbor seals from the Georgia Basin. Concentrations of polybrominated diphenyl ether (also known 

3890 as PBDE, a product of flame retardants that are used in household products like fabrics, furniture, and electronics) in 

3891 seals have increased from less than 50 parts per billion in fatty tissue to more than 1,000 ppb over the past 20 years 

3892 (Puget Sound Action Team, 2007). 

3893 Water quality appears poised to have larger-scale effects on the marine ecosystem of the Puget Sound Georgia Basin 

3894 as evidenced by the intensity and persistence of water stratification in the basin. Historically, Puget Sound was 

3895 thought to have an unlimited ability to assimilate waste from cities, farms and industries in the region and decisions 

3896 about human occupation of the landscape were based on that belief. More recent data suggests that the marine 

3897 ecosystems of the basin have a much more limited ability to assimilate pollution, particularly in areas such as Hood 

3898 Canal, south Puget Sound, inner Whidbey basin and the central Georgia Basin. In these areas, as strong stratification 

3899 has developed and persisted, the respective water quality has steadily decreased. As waters become more stratified, 

3900 through weather, climate or circulation changes, they become even more limited in their ability to assimilate

3901 pollution. 

3902 The presence of high levels of persistent organic pollutants, such as PCB, DDT, and flame–retardants have also been

3903 documented in southern resident killer whales (Herman et al., 2005; Ross, 2006; Ylitalo et al., 2008). Although the 

3904 consequences of these pollutants on the fitness of individual killer whales and the population itself remain unknown, 

3905 in other species these pollutants have been reported to suppress immune responses (Kakuschke and Prange, 2007), 

3906 impair reproduction and exacerbate the energetic consequences of physiological stress responses when they interact 

3907 with other compounds in an animal’s tissues (Martineau, 2007). Because of their long life span, position at the top of 

3908 the food chain, and their blubber stores, killer whales would be capable of accumulating high concentrations of 

3909 contaminants. 

3910 Ambient Noise in the Puget Sound Region 

3911 Ambient noise is background noise in the environment. When one considers the distance from its source that a 

3912 signal can be detected, the intensity and frequency characteristics of ambient noise are important factors to consider 

3913 in combination with the rate at which sound is lost as it is transmitted from its source to a receiver (Richardson et 

3914 al., 1995). Generally, a signal would be detectable or salient only if it is stronger than the ambient noise at similar 

3915 frequencies. The lower the intensity of ambient noise, the farther signals would travel and remain salient. 
110

3916 There are many sources of ambient noise in the ocean, including wind and waves, rain and hail, human activities 

3917 such as shipping, fishing boats, and seismic surveys; sounds produced by living organisms, seismic noise from 

3918 volcanic and tectonic activity, and thermal noise that results from molecular agitation (which is important at 

3919 frequencies greater than 30 kHz). 

3920 Several authors have reported that ambient noise levels in the northeast Pacific Ocean increased between the mid3921 1960s, the mid-1990s, and the early 2000s. Andrew et al. (2002) reported that ambient sound levels increased by 

3922 about 10 dB in the frequency ranges between 20 and 80 Hz and 200 and 300 Hz between the period from 1963 to 

3923 1965 and 1994 to 2001. In the frequency range between 200 and 300 Hz, ambient sound levels increased by about 3 

3924 dB. Since the 1960s, ambient noise in the 30–50 Hz band has increased by 10–12 dB, with most of this increase 

3925 resulting from changes in commercial shipping (McDonald et al., 2006) and increases in whale song (Andrew et al. 

3926 2002). 

3927 Measurements taken at San Nicholas Island, which were considered representative of patterns that would occur 

3928 across the Pacific Coast of California, Oregon, and Washington, identified seasonal differences in ocean ambient 

3929 levels due to seasonal changes in wind driven waves, biological sound production, and shipping route changes 

3930 (McDonald et al., 2006). The strongest seasonal signal at the San Nicolas South site was attributed to blue whale 

3931 singing (Burtenshaw et al., 2004) which had a broad peak near 20 Hz in the spectral data (because fin whales occur 

3932 in the area throughout the year, the seasonal difference was attributed to blue whales, which only occur in the areas 

3933 seasonally). When the band of fin whale calls were excluded, the average February 2004 ambient pressure spectrum 

3934 level was 10–14 dB higher than the February 1965 and 1966 levels over the 10–50 Hz band Above 100 Hz, there 

3935 was a 1–2 dB difference between the two sets of February noise data (McDonald et al., 2006). 

3936 Noise in the marine environment has received a lot of attention in recent years and is likely to continue to receive 

3937 attention in the near future. Several investigators have argued that anthropogenic sources of noise have increased 

3938 ambient noise levels in the ocean over the last 50 years (Richardson et al., 1995). As discussed in the preceding 

3939 section, much of this increase is due to increased shipping as ships become more numerous and of larger tonnage 

3940 (National Research Council, 2003). Commercial fishing vessels, cruise ships, transport boats, airplanes, helicopters 

3941 and recreational boats all contribute sound into the ocean (National Research Council, 2003). The military uses 

3942 sound to test the construction of new vessels as well as for naval operations. In some areas where oil and gas 

3943 production takes place, noise originates from the drilling and production platforms, tankers, vessel and aircraft 

3944 support, seismic surveys, and the explosive removal of platforms (National Research Council, 2003). Many 

3945 researchers have described behavioral responses of marine mammals to the sounds produced by helicopters and 

3946 fixed-wing aircraft, boats and ships, as well as dredging, construction, geological explorations, etc. (Richardson et 

3947 al,. 1995). 

3948 Integration and Synthesis of the Environmental Baseline 

3949 The direct and indirect effects of changes in land-use and land-cover in the states of Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, 

3950 Hawaii (only Midway Island), Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington; the District of Columbia; 

3951 the territories of American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico; the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; the 

3952 possessions Johnston Atoll and Wake Island; and Indian lands throughout the United States have had lasting effect 

3953 on the quantity, quality, and distribution of every major terrestrial, aquatic, and coastal ecosystem in those states, 

3954 district, territories, and possessions. Many native ecosystems exist as small isolated fragments surrounded by 

3955 expanses of urban and suburban landscapes or “natural” areas that are dominated by non-native species. As a result, 

3956 many of the native plant and animal species that inhabited those native ecosystems over the past have become 

3957 extinct, extinct in the wild, endangered, or threatened over the past 200 years. 
111

3958 Beginning in the 1960s, a wide variety of programs undertaken by Federal, State, and local governments, non3959 governmental organizations, and private individuals have been established to protect or restore our nation’s forests, 

3960 grasslands, wetlands, estuaries, rivers, lakes, and streams. Those programs have helped slow and, for many 

3961 ecosystems, reverse declining trends that began in the past. However, those efforts have benefited some ecosystems 

3962 and their associated flora and fauna more than other ecosystems. Despite the efforts of agencies at every level of 

3963 government, non-governmental organizations, and private individuals, non-point sources of pollution still degraded 

3964 our rivers, lakes, and streams; freshwater aquifers in coastal areas remain at risk from saltwater intrusion because of 

3965 water withdrawals; nutrients transported down the Mississippi River remains sufficient to produce an hypoxic zone 

3966 in the Gulf of Mexico that had more than doubled in size; and the acreage of wetland declined from slightly more 

3967 than 274 million acres of wetlands to about 107.7 million acres between the 1980s and 2004 (Dahl, 2006). 

3968 Southern Resident Killer Whales 

3969 As discussed in the Status of the Species section of this Opinion, southern resident killer whales were listed as 

3970 endangered because of their exposure to the various stressors that occur in the action area for this consultation. 

3971 Exposure to those stressors resulted in the species’ decline from around 200 individuals to about 67 individuals in 

3972 the 1970s and the species’ apparent inability to increase in abundance above the 75 to 90 individuals that currently 

3973 comprise this species. These phenomena would increase the extinction probability of southern resident killer whales 

3974 and amplify the potential consequences of human-related activities on this species. Based on their population size 

3975 and population ecology (that is, slow-growing mammals that give birth to single calves with several years between 

3976 births), we assume that southern resident killer whales would have elevated extinction probabilities because of 

3977 exogenous threats caused by anthropogenic activities that result in the death or injury of individual whales (for 

3978 example, ship strikes or entanglement) and natural phenomena (such as disease, predation, or changes in the 

3979 distribution and abundance of their prey in response to changing climate) as well as endogenous threats resulting 

3980 from the small size of their population. Based on the number of other species in similar circumstances that have 

3981 become extinct (and the small number of species that have avoided extinction in similar circumstances), the longer 

3982 southern resident killer whales remain in these circumstances, the greater their extinction probability becomes. 

3983 Pacific Salmon 

3984 When NMFS listed Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon as endangered and designated critical habitat for 

3985 the species, its final rules to list the species and designated its critical habitat identified water quality degradation 

3986 associated with the section 404 permits the Corps issued in the Sacramento River, Sacramento River-San Joaquin 

3987 Delta, and San Francisco Bay as one of several reasons for the listing (57 FR 36626, 59 FR 440). When NMFS

3988 proposed Oregon coast, Southern Oregon Northern Coastal California, and Central California Coast coho salmon as 

3989 threatened, the proposal also identified the loss of wetland habitat, including the Corps failure to consider the 

3990 cumulative impact of its 404 permits, as one of several reasons for listing these salmon as threatened (60 FR 38011, 

3991 61 FR 56138). 

3992 Similarly, when NMFS proposed and listed Central California Coast, South Central California Coast, Central 

3993 Valley, Upper Columbia River, Snake River Basin, Lower Columbia River, and Northern California steelhead as 

3994 threatened and Southern California steelhead as endangered, NMFS identified the loss of wetland habitat as one of 

3995 several reasons these steelhead warranted protection under the ESA (61 FR 41541, 62 FR 43937). Rules designating 

3996 or proposing critical habitat for green and hawksbill sea turtles, several populations of steelhead, and coho salmon 

3997 have also identified water quality degradation caused by activities authorized by Corps permits as one of several 

3998 reasons for these critical habitat designations (64 FR 36274, July 6, 1999; 63 FR 46693, September 2, 1998, 64 FR 

3999 5740, February 5, 1999; 64 FR 24049, May 5, 1999; and 64 FR 24998, May 10, 1999). 
112

4000 Effects of the Proposed Action 

4001 The Description of the Proposed Action section of this Opinion summarized the proposed Action. The Status of the 

4002 Listed Resources and Environmental Baseline section then identified the endangered species, threatened species and 

4003 designated critical habitat under NMFS’ jurisdiction that are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action 

4004 and summarized the status and trends of those species, their dependence on waters of the United States and other 

4005 ecological information that might be relevant to our effects’ analyses, then summarized the consequences of a 

4006 variety of human activities on endangered species, threatened species and designated critical habitat. 

4007 In the Effects of the Action section of this programmatic consultation we evaluate the decision-making process that 

4008 EPA uses to insure that the activities it authorizes are not likely to result in jeopardy to threatened or endangered 

4009 species or result in adverse modification of designated critical habitat. For many programmatic consultations, the 

4010 action agency has structured the program so that neither species nor critical habitat are exposed to the stressors of 

4011 the action until there is a separate ESA section 7 consultations addressing site specific activities that will result in 

4012 exposure. However, in this instance, EPA intends to authorize a large number of discharges without subsequent ESA 

4013 section 7 consultations, except for those discharges that do not qualify for coverage under the general permit and for 

4014 which the discharger must seek an individual permit. Accordingly, if there is overlap with species, EPA’s 

4015 programmatic action will result in exposure of species and critical habitat to the action. In this section we approach 

4016 analyses of the EPA’s decisions and actions through a series of steps. The first step identifies those aspects of 

4017 proposed actions that are likely to have individual, interactive or cumulative direct or indirect physical, chemical and 

4018 biotic effects on the environment. We refer to these aspects of the action as “potential stressors.” Potential stressors 

4019 include the actual phenomena that cause stress to an organism as well as the events resulting in those phenomena. 

4020 The second step of our analyses identifies the endangered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat that are 

4021 likely to occur in the same space and at the same time as these potential stressors. Once we identify which 

4022 endangered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat are likely to be exposed to an action’s effects and the 

4023 nature of that exposure, we examine the scientific and commercial data available to determine whether and how 

4024 those endangered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat are likely to respond given their exposure. This 

4025 step represents our Exposure and Response Analyses. The Risk Analyses are the final steps of our analyses and 

4026 establish the risks those responses pose to the continued existence of listed species or designated critical habitat. 

4027 Because the continued existence of listed species depends on the fate of the populations that comprise them, the 

4028 viability of listed species (i.e. the probability of extinction or probability of persistence) depends on the viability of 

4029 the populations that comprise these species. Similarly, the continued existence of populations are determined by the 

4030 fate of the individuals that comprise them; populations grow or decline as the individuals that comprise the 

4031 population live, die, grow, mature, migrate and reproduce (or fail to do so). 

4032 For designated critical habitat, our “destruction or adverse modification” determinations are based on an action’s 

effects on the conservation value of habitat that has been designated as critical to threatened or endangered species12 4033 . 

4034 If critical habitat designation is likely to be exposed to the direct or indirect consequences of the proposed action on 

 

12 We are aware that several Courts have ruled that the definition of destruction or adverse modification that appears in the 

Section 7 regulations at 50 CFR 402.02 is invalid and do not rely on that definition for the determinations we make in this 

Opinion. Instead, as we explain in the text, we use the “conservation value” of critical habitat for our determinations, which 

focuses on the designated area’s ability to contribute to the conservation or the species for which the area was designated. 
113

4035 the natural environment, we ask if any primary or secondary constituent elements included in the designation or 

4036 physical, chemical or biotic phenomena are likely to respond to that exposure. 

4037 For the final part of our Effects Analysis, we examine the EPA’s decision making process and the protective control 

4038 measures it intends to establish to protect listed species or designated critical habitat from the adverse direct or 

4039 indirect effects of the activities authorized by the permit. We then determine whether these controls are sufficient 

4040 such that EPA can insure that these activities are not likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence of any 

4041 listed species or designated critical habitat under NMFS’ jurisdiction. As part of this analysis, we analyze the past 

4042 performance of similar control measures in the individual and general permits that the EPA has issued and consider 

4043 the performance of those controls as indicative of how well the controls of the PGP are likely to work. 

To conduct these analyses, we rely on all of the evidence available to us13 4044 . This evidence might consist of 

4045 monitoring reports submitted by past and present permit holders, reports from NMFS Science Centers, reports 

4046 prepared by State or Tribal natural resource agencies, reports from non-governmental organizations involved in 

4047 marine conservation issues and the general scientific literature. In addition to this evidence, we consider reports and 

4048 other documents (e.g. environmental assessments, environmental impact statements and monitoring reports) 

4049 prepared by other Federal and State agencies such as the Minerals Management Service, U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. 

4050 Navy whose operations extend into the marine environment. 

4051 Potential Stressors 

4052 In this section, we identify those aspects of the proposed action that are likely to have individual, interactive, or 

4053 cumulative direct or indirect physical, chemical and biotic effects on the environment. In this Opinion we are 

4054 primarily concerned with the potential adverse effects to endangered or threatened species, or designated critical 

4055 habitat by pesticides discharged on, over or near waters of the United States as authorized by the issuance of the 

4056 PGP. 

4057 The EPA focused on the active ingredients of pesticide formulations when it registered these compounds for the use 

4058 patterns to be authorized by the PGP. Many of these pesticide active ingredients persist in the aquatic environment 

4059 long after their intended uses (see Table 4). In addition, these active ingredients also include adjuvants, surfactants 

4060 and other additives. The effects of exposure to these other product ingredients were not evaluated in the FIFRA 

4061 registration process. 

4062 The EPA permits more than 4,000 potentially hazardous additives for use in pesticide formulations. For example, 

4063 nonylphenols are ingredients that may be included in the formulations of pesticide pollutants and are common 

4064 wastewater contaminants from industrial and municipal sources. A national survey of streams found that 

4065 nonylphenol was among the most common organic wastewater contaminants in the U.S. and was detected in more 

4066 than 50% of the samples tested (Koplin et al., 2002a). The common pesticide additive xylene is a neurotoxin and the 

4067 additive coal tar is a known carcinogen. To complicate matters, several permitted additives are also registered 

4068 pesticide active ingredients. 

4069 

 

13 Although Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires us to use the best scientific and 

commercial data available, at this stage of our analyses, we consider all lines of evidence.
114

Table 4. Persistence of Some Commonly Used Pesticides in Surface Water and Aquatic 

Sediments (After Mackay et al., 1997) 

Use Class Chemical Class Example 

 Half Life 

Surface 

Water Aquatic Sediment 

Herbicides Amino acid 

derivatives 

Glyphosate ~2 months ~8 months 

 Chlorphenoxy 

acids 

2,4-D, ~2 days ~2 months 

 Triazines Atrazine ~2 years ~2 months 

 Simazine ~3 weeks ~8 months 

Insecticides Carbamates 

Carbaryl ~1 week ~2 months 

 Organophosphates Chlorpyrfos ~1 week ~2 months 

   Diazinon ~2 months ~8 months 

   Malathion ~2 days ~3 weeks 

4070 

4071 Because individual components of pesticide formulations other than the active ingredients may themselves be toxic, 

4072 we consider all pesticides –including adjuvants, surfactants and other additives in the formulations of those 

4073 pesticides– that are to be authorized to be discharged on, over or near waters of the United States by the proposed 

4074 PGP to be pesticide pollutants. 

4075 Use Patterns to be Authorized by the Proposed Permit 

4076 Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control 

4077 This use pattern includes any application of pesticides in, over or near waterbodies where these pests spend at least 

4078 part of their life cycle. Applications may occur to prevent disease outbreaks or other health reasons or to support 

4079 recreational activities. 

4080 The variety of pesticides and formulations that are used will commonly depend on the life stage of mosquito that is 

4081 being controlled. To control larval stages, formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis and B. sphaericus are common 

4082 while formulations of carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, malathion, methoprene, sumithrin and temephos are 

4083 common to control flying adults. The 13 mosquito abatement districts in the State of Idaho, for example, generally 

4084 apply different formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis and B. sphaericus to mosquito breeding habitats when their 

4085 larvae are in the first to third instar stages of life (Anonymous, 2003), although some districts will also apply 

4086 methoprene, temephos (in the formulation Abate), or pyrethrins. To control flying adult mosquitoes, these districts 

4087 apply ultra-low volumes of insecticides, which include a malathion-based ultra-low volume concentrate, naled, 

4088 pyrethrins and pyrethroids (Anonymous, 2003). 

The Central Massachusetts Mosquito Control Project14 4089 , as another example, also applies different formulations of 

4090 Bacillus thuringiensis and B. sphaericus to control mosquito larvae, also supplemented with formulations of 

4091 methoprene. To control flying adult mosquitoes, these districts apply ultra-low volumes of insecticides, which 

4092 include formulations of sumithrin, deltamethrin and pyrethroids. The State of New Hampshire Department of Health 

 

14 http://www.cmmcp.org/ 
115

and Human Services15 4093 uses similar formulations to control mosquitoes. 

4094 Aquatic Weed and Algae and Pathogen Control 

4095 The aquatic weed and algae control pesticide use pattern includes the application of pesticides in, over or near 

4096 waterbodies to control algae and other submergent or emergent nuisance aquatic plants to protect sensitive aquatic 

4097 habitats and to maintain recreational uses. This is a broad use pattern covering many types of aquatic habitats. 

4098 There are a variety of formulations and application methods for this use pattern. For example, the pesticides that the 

4099 EPA currently authorizes for aquatic weed and algae control in Idaho include 2,4-D, copper compounds, diquat, 

endothall, fluridone, glyphosate and triclopyr16 4100 . Application methods include boom sprayers, spreaders, backpack 

4101 sprayers and aerial applications. Applications under this use pattern include spot treatments or large scale treatments 

4102 of several acres. These applications are usually made when the target plants are present and not dormant. Because 

4103 these factors can vary widely between regions and individual waterbodies, these applications may occur at any time 

4104 of year. 

4105 Aquatic Nuisance Animal and Pathogen Control 

4106 The aquatic nuisance animal control use pattern includes the application of pesticides in, over or near waterbodies to 

4107 control a wide variety of aquatic animals. These uses include fisheries management, invasive species eradication and 

4108 equipment maintenance. 

4109 Aquatic nuisance animal pests include a range of taxa including vertebrates and invertebrates such as insects, 

4110 mollusks or crustaceans in a variety of aquatic habitats. Examples of the types of pesticides authorized for this use 

pattern include sodium chlorate and rotenone, which are currently authorized by the EPA use in Idaho16 4111 . In addition, 

4112 the EPA authorizes other pesticides such as antimycin-A and TFM for other areas under this use pattern. 

4113 Applications are usually made over an entire waterbody and applications methods include drip-feed devices, 

4114 backpack sprayers, boat bailers and aerial applications. Treatments are usually made several years apart and may 

4115 occur at any time of year. 

4116 Forest Canopy Pest and Pathogen Control 

4117 The forest canopy pest control use pattern includes pesticide applications in and over forest canopies where these 

4118 pesticides may enter waters of the United States. These applications usually occur over areas in response to specific 

4119 pest outbreaks. Examples of such pests include gypsy moths, southern pine beetles and locust borers. This is a broad 

4120 use category and covers a wide range of aquatic habitats with a variety of pesticide formulations and application 

4121 methods. For example, the EPA authorizes carbaryl, chlorpyrifos and dimethoate for use in Idaho under this use 

4122 pattern. Other pesticides including diflubenzuron, disparlure, malathion and trichlorfon are authorized by the EPA 

4123 for forest canopy pest control in other locations. Application methods include hand sprayers, aerial applications and 

4124 drip or overhead irrigation systems. These applications may occur at any time of year. 

4125 Spatial Overlap between Use Patterns, Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat 

4126 Location of Use Patterns Authorized by the Permit 

4127 To determine the spatial overlap between the use patterns to be authorized by the PGP and the endangered or 

 

15 http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/dphs/cdcs/arboviral/mosquito.htm

16 Idaho State Department of Agriculture: http://www.kellysolutions.com/ID/searchbyproductname.asp
116

4128 threatened species and designated critical habitat under NMFS’ authority, we first determined the relative number of 

4129 operators by location and type that EPA estimates will be authorized to discharge pesticide pollutants by the 

4130 proposed permit. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5. The EPA did not identify any differences in 

4131 the timing, pesticide formulations or application rates to be used between geographic regions for any use pattern. 

4132 Based on this analysis, one or more use patterns are expected to overlap with the distributions of endangered or 

4133 threatened species or designated critical habitat under NMFS’ jurisdiction in all of the locations where EPA is the 

4134 permitting authority. Of the 35,183 total operators that EPA expects to authorize under the proposed permit, in 

4135 locations where endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction occur, most pesticide pollutant 

4136 discharges will occur in the State of Idaho (47.10%), followed by Massachusetts (6.48%) then by New Hampshire 

4137 with 2.17%. Operators in Alaska and Indian lands would comprise 1.09% and 0.48% of all operators respectively. 

4138 Idaho is within the range of listed Chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon and steelhead trout 

4139 species and also contains designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon, sockeye salmon and steelhead trout. New 

4140 Hampshire is within the range the endangered shortnose sturgeon. Shortnose sturgeon are also found in 

4141 Massachusetts, especially the Merrimack River.

4142 The majority of mosquito and other flying pest control use pattern operators would occur in New Hampshire 

4143 (36.36%), followed by Idaho (19.01%). Most of the aquatic weed and algae control operators are in Idaho (48.17%) 

4144 followed by Massachusetts with 5.96%. Most of the aquatic nuisance animal control operators that overlap with the 

4145 distribution of endangered or threatened species and designated critical habitat under NMFS’ authority are in 

4146 Massachusetts and Alaska (both at 6.82%), followed by Idaho at 5.45%. 

4147 The forest canopy pest control use patterns overlap with the distributions of endangered and threatened species and 

4148 designated critical habitat under NMFS’ jurisdiction in all of the locations where EPA is the permitting authority 

4149 except the District of Columbia. Of these, most operators are located in Massachusetts (38.93%) followed by New 

4150 Hampshire with 15.32%. 

Table 5. Percentage of Operators to be Authorized by the Permit per Location and Type 

Location 

Mosquito and 

Other Flying 

Insect Control 

Aquatic Weed 

and Algae 

Control 

Aquatic 

Nuisance 

Animal Control 

Forest Canopy 

Pest Control 

TOTAL 

Alaska* 1.65% 1.02% 6.82% 2.95% 1.09% 

Idaho* 19.01% 48.17% 5.45% 7.87% 47.10% 

Massachusetts* 7.44% 5.96% 6.82% 35.08% 6.48% 

New Hampshire* 36.36% 1.83% 3.64% 13.93% 2.17% 

New Mexico 10.74% 30.41% 9.55% 4.26% 29.76% 

Oklahoma 0.83% 11.36% 33.64% 26.07% 11.72% 

District of Columbia* 0.83% 0.02% 0.91% 0.00% 0.03% 

Territories* 0.83% 0.92% 17.27% 0.66% 1.01% 
117

Table 5. Percentage of Operators to be Authorized by the Permit per Location and Type 

Location Mosquito and Aquatic Weed Aquatic Forest Canopy TOTAL 

Indian Lands* 14.05% 0.27% 11.36% 5.57% 0.48% 

Federal Facilities* 8.26% 0.03% 4.55% 3.61% 0.15% 

* Denotes areas where discharges may overlap with the distribution of listed species or designated critical habitat under NMFS’

jurisdiction.

4151 Pesticide Occurrence in Rivers and Streams 

4152 Pesticides or their degradates were detected in at least one of the water samples from every stream sampled in the 

4153 U.S. Geological Survey’s NAWQA study of California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington waters (Gilliom et al., 

4154 2006). Streams in agricultural and urban areas had one or more detectable pesticide or degradate 97% of the time; 

4155 streams in mixed land-use areas had one or more detectable pesticide or degradate 94% of the time; and streams in 

4156 undeveloped areas had one or more detectable pesticide or degradate 65% of the time (Gilliom et al., 2006). The 

4157 NAWQA study concluded that the presence of pesticide compounds in undeveloped watersheds might have resulted 

4158 from earlier or contemporary uses within the watershed for forest management, maintenance of rights-of-way, uses 

4159 associated with small areas of urban or agricultural land, or atmospheric transport from other areas. 

4160 Of 186 stream sites sampled as part of the NAWQA study (Gilliom et al., 2006), 57% of 83 agricultural streams had 

4161 concentrations of at least one pesticide that exceeded one or more aquatic-life benchmarks at least once during the 

4162 year (68% of sites sampled during 1993–1994, 43% during 1995–1997, and 50% during 1998–2000); 83% of 30 

4163 urban streams had concentrations of at least one pesticide that exceeded one or more aquatic-life benchmarks at least 

4164 once during the year (90% of sites sampled during 1993–1994, 100% during 1995–1997, and 64% during 1998–

4165 2000); and 42% of 65 mixed-land-use streams had concentrations of at least one pesticide that exceeded one or more 

4166 aquatic-life benchmarks at least once during the year (38% of sites sampled during 1993–1994, 40% during 1995–

4167 1997 and 46% during 1998–2000). 

4168 In urban streams, most concentrations greater than a benchmark involved the insecticides diazinon (73% of sites), 

4169 chlorpyrifos (37%) and malathion (30%). The pesticides detected most frequently in streams and ground water were 

4170 primarily those had been used the most and had the greatest mobility or persistence in aquatic ecosystems. They 

4171 included atrazine (and its degradate deethylatrazine), metolachlor, cyanazine, alachlor and acetochlor, which were 

4172 the most heavily-used agricultural pesticides between 1992 and 2001; simazine, prometon, tebuthiuron, 2,4-D and 

4173 diuron, which were the most heavily-used non-agricultural pesticides; and diazinon, chlorpyrifos and carbaryl, 

4174 which were the most heavily-used insecticides between 1992 and 2001. Simazine, prometon, diuron, 2,4-D, diazinon 

4175 and carbaryl, which are commonly used to control weeds, insects and other pests in urban areas, were frequently 

4176 found at relatively high levels in urban streams throughout the Nation. Within California, Idaho, Oregon and 

4177 Washington, malathion was detected in approximately 6% of the samples of surface waters analyzed in river basins 

4178 included in the NAWQA study (Gilliom et al., 2006). Table 6 identifies the number of detections of chlorpyrifos, 

4179 diazinon and malathion, the maximum and minimum concentrations of these three active ingredients and summary 

4180 statistics. 

4181 An evaluation of pesticides concentrations in eight tributaries of Idaho’s Clearwater River basin (Campbell 2004) 

4182 detected the pesticides metribuzon (found in 23% of 47 detections), diuron (found in 15% of 47 detections), dicamba 

4183 (found in 13% of 47 detections), atrazine (found in 11% of 47 detections), picloram (found in 8% of 47 detections), 

4184 dimethoate (found in 6% of 47 detections), hexazinone (found in 6% of 47 detections), bromacil (found in 4% of 47 
118

4185 detections), linuron (found in 2% of 47 detections), methomyl (found in 4% of 47 detections), simazine (found in 

4186 2% of 47 detections), tralkoxydim (found in 2% of 47 detections) and 2,4,-D (found in 2% of 47 detections). 

4187 Pesticides with the highest detections were diuron (1.1 g/L), dicamba (0.76 ppb), picloram (0.75 g/L), methomyl 

4188 (0.36 ppb) and 2,4-D (0.28 g/L). Five of the eight streams in this basin – Holes Creek, Little Canyon Creek, 

4189 Mission Creek, Sweetwater Creek and Six Mile Creek – are listed as impaired because of pesticide concentrations 

4190 and also support salmon populations. Similar surveys of pesticide concentrations in the Lower Payette River basin 

4191 and Boise River basin detected 21 and 24 pesticides, respectively, including chlorpyrifos, malathion, methomyl, 

4192 bromacil, dimethoate, diuron and 2,4-D (Campbell, 2009). 

Table 6. Summary of detections of chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion in filtered stream samples collected 

in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington streams (Gilliom et al., 2006) 

Chemical Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Malathion 

Number of detections 1,131 1,767 272 

Minimum (μg/L) 0.004 0.002 0.005 

Maximum (μg/L) 0.401 3.800 1.350 

Arithmetic Mean (μg/L) 0.022 0.084 0.049 

Standard Deviation (μg/L) 0.037 0.230 0.121 

4193 Degradate Occurrence 

4194 Over time, pesticides are transformed into other compounds by chemical, photochemical and biologically-mediated 

4195 reactions; these other compounds are generally called “degradates” or “metabolites” (Boxall et al., 2004; Gilliom et 

4196 al., 2006). Some degradates are as prevalent as parent pesticides while others are more prevalent. For example, 

4197 deethylatrazine, which is a degradate of atrazine and other triazine herbicides, was one of the most frequently 

4198 detected pesticide compounds in water and one of the most frequent contributors to pesticide mixtures in the U.S. 

4199 Geological Survey’s NAWQA analyses (Gilliom et al., 2006). NAWQA surveys also reported that degradates and 

4200 by-products of organochlorine pesticides were among the most commonly detected pesticide compounds in fish 

4201 (Gilliom et al., 2006). Many degradates are more persistent and more mobile in the environment than their parent 

4202 compounds (Boxall et al., 2004; Gilliom et al., 2006). 

4203 Degradates, like their parent compounds, have the potential to adversely affect water quality, depending on their 

4204 toxicity. Degradates may be either more or less toxic than their parent pesticides, although most have toxicities to 

4205 aquatic life that are similar to, or lower than, those of their parent compounds (Sinclair and Boxall, 2003; Boxall et 

4206 al., 2004; Gilliom et al., 2006). Sinclair and Boxall (2003) reported that 41% of degradates were less toxic than their 

4207 parent compounds, 39% had toxicities similar to their parents, 20% were more than 3 times more toxic than their 

4208 parent compound and 9% were more than 10 times more toxic. 

4209 Environmental Mixtures 

4210 More than 90% of streams surveyed by the NAWQA study in developed land-use settings detected two or more 

4211 pesticides or degradates; about 70% of the time, streams had five or more pesticides or degradates, and about 20% of 

4212 the time, streams had detections of 10 or more pesticides or degradates (Gilliom et al., 2006). Mixtures also were 

4213 found in streams draining undeveloped watersheds, although these streams have compounds: about 25% of the time, 

4214 undeveloped streams had detections of five or more pesticides or degradates, but no samples had more than 10 

4215 detections. 

4216 The individual pesticides that were reported in the NAWQA study were the pesticides that were detected the most 

4217 often and included the herbicides atrazine (and its degradate deethylatrazine), metolachlor, simazine and prometon, 
119

4218 each of which was present in more than 30% of all mixtures found in agricultural and urban areas, and in both 

4219 streams and ground water (Gilliom et al., 2006). In agricultural streams, cyanazine, alachlor, metribuzin and 

4220 trifluralin were detected in more than 30% of the mixtures; in urban streams, dacthal and the insecticides diazinon, 

4221 chlorpyrifos, carbaryl and malathion were detected in more than 30% of the mixtures. The NAWQA study detected 

4222 more than 6,000 unique mixtures of five pesticides in agricultural streams (Gilliom et al., 2006). 

4223 Mixtures of organochlorine pesticide compounds were common in samples of fish-tissue taken from most of the 

4224 streams that were sampled in the NAWQA study (Gilliom et al., 2006). About 90% of fish samples collected in 

4225 urban streams contained two or more pesticide compounds and 33% contained 10 or more; about 75% of fish 

4226 samples from streams draining watersheds with agricultural and mixed land use contained two or more pesticide 

4227 compounds while 10% had 10 or more. Mixtures were detected least often in fish from undeveloped streams, in 

4228 which two or more compounds were detected in about 25% of the fish-tissue samples. 

4229 Surveys of pesticide concentrations in five streams in the Boise River basin detected up to 17 pesticides in some 

4230 streams (Mason Creek and Fifteenmile); the lowest number of detections was 10 pesticides (Campbell, 2009). 

4231 Detections included degradates of atrazine (Campbell, 2009). 

4232 Consequences of Exposing Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat 

4233 The preceding section of this Opinion presented the evidence that leads us to conclude that endangered or threatened 

4234 species and designated critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the NMFS are likely to co-occur with discharges of 

4235 pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters of the United States In this section of this Opinion, we summarize 

4236 information on the probable physical, physiological, behavioral, social and ecological responses of endangered or 

4237 threatened species or constituent elements of critical habitat given exposure to active ingredients in formulations, 

4238 other ingredients of formulations, degradates of these ingredients, or chemical mixtures. Our purpose is not to 

4239 provide a comprehensive review of the probable responses of endangered or threatened species to formulations that 

4240 include all 171 of the active ingredients who formulations the PGP would authorize; instead, our intention is to 

4241 identify the range of representative responses we would expect listed species to exhibit given exposure to these 

4242 chemicals. 

4243 EPA’s proposed PGP would authorize discharges of pesticide formulations that include about 171 active ingredients 

4244 (Appendix A) on, over, or near waters of the United States Table 8 organizes those 171 active ingredients by class of 

4245 pesticide, which includes benzoic acids, botanical pesticides, carbamate pesticides, inorganic pesticides, microbial 

4246 pesticides, organophosphate pesticides, pyrethroid pesticides and rodenticides. 

4247 Consequences of Exposure to Active Ingredients and Formulations

4248 The preceding section of this Opinion presented the evidence that leads us to conclude that endangered or threatened 

4249 species and designated critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the NMFS are likely to co-occur with discharges of 

4250 pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters of the U.S. In this section of this Opinion, we summarize information on 

4251 the probable physical, physiological, behavioral, social and ecological responses of endangered or threatened species 

4252 or constituent elements of critical habitat given exposure to active ingredients in formulations, other ingredients of 

4253 formulations, degradates of these ingredients, or chemical mixtures. Our purpose is not to provide a comprehensive 

4254 review of the probable responses of endangered or threatened species to formulations that include all 171 of the 

4255 active ingredients for which formulations the PGP would authorize discharges on, over or near waters of the United 

4256 States; instead, our intention is to identify the range of representative responses we would expect listed species to 

4257 exhibit given exposure to these chemicals. 
120

4258 EPA’s proposed Pesticides General Permit would authorize discharges of pesticide formulations that include about 

4259 171 active ingredients (Appendix A) on, over, or near waters of the U.S. Table 8 organizes those 171 active 

4260 ingredients by class of pesticide, which includes benzoic acids, botanical pesticides, carbamate pesticides, inorganic 

4261 pesticides, microbial pesticides, organophosphate pesticides, pyrethroid pesticides and rodenticides. 

4262 Consequences of Exposure to Active Ingredients and Formulations 

4263 All pesticide products contain one or more active ingredients. Most pesticide products also contain ingredients 

4264 called “adjuvants” (which are designed to increase the effectiveness of the active ingredient and are usually referred 

4265 to as inert ingredients on product labels) “surfactants” (which reduce the interfacial or surface tension of a system or 

4266 a surface-active substance) and carriers, as well as other ingredients. Some formulations may contain multiple active 

4267 ingredients. 

4268 Piperonyl butoxide, nonylphenol and nonylphenol polyethoxylates are examples of “inert” ingredients that may be 

4269 formulated in pesticide products or added as adjuvant ingredients during pesticide applications. Piperonyl butoxide 

4270 is a common synergist in formulations of synthetic pyrethroids. Nonylphenol and nonylphenol polyethoxylates are 

4271 common ingredients in detergents, cosmetics and other industrial products. These compounds are also common 

4272 wastewater contaminants from industrial and municipal sources. A national survey of streams found that 

4273 nonylphenol was among the most common organic wastewater contaminants in the U.S. and was detected in more 

4274 than 50% of the samples tested. The median concentration of nonylphenol in streams was 0.8 μg/L and the 

4275 maximum concentration detected was 40.0 μg/L. Related compounds were also detected at a relatively high 

4276 frequency (Koplin et al., 2002b). 

4277 For an example of the other ingredients that might appear in formulations, registered pesticide products containing 

4278 chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion always include other ingredients such as carriers and surfactants and may 

4279 include other registered active ingredients (Table 7). 

4280 Because the proposed PGP will authorize discharges of formulations of pesticides on, over or near waters of the 

4281 U.S., we are concerned about those components of formulations that might be toxic to endangered or threatened 

4282 species under our jurisdiction. Therefore, the summary of the literature that follows discusses various ingredients 

4283 that appear in pesticides formulations. Some of these ingredients would be listed as “active ingredients” on a 

4284 pesticide label while others would be listed as “inert” ingredients. 

4285 Research that has been conducted over several decades has established that many, but not all, of the 171 ingredients 

4286 in the 24 classes of pesticides pose serious risks for many aquatic organisms. When they are exposed at some 

4287 concentration of some pesticides, individuals of some species or stages of species die as a result of their exposure. 

4288 Other individuals of aquatic species experience reductions in developmental patterns, rates of growth or 

4289 reproductive success as a direct result of the exposure or because of the chemical’s effect on their behavioral 

4290 patterns. Exposure to some of the chemicals whose discharges would be authorized by EPA’s proposed Pesticide 

4291 General Permit has been demonstrated to have physical, physiological or neural effects on individuals that have been 

4292 exposed and these changes increase their probability of being captured and killed by predators. 

4293 Some of the pesticides in the 24 classes identified in Table 8 have been reported to have few, if any, adverse 

4294 consequences for aquatic organisms, including endangered or threatened species. For example, despite a half-life 

4295 that is estimated to be about two months in clean river water that is low in sediment, bromacil is not toxic to 

4296 invertebrates and is only slightly toxic to practically non-toxic to fish. The 48-hour LC50 for bromacil in rainbow 

4297 trout is 56-75 mg/L, in bluegill sunfish is 71 mg/L and in carp is 164 mg/L. The 96-hour LC50 in fathead minnows is 

4298 182 mg/L. The microbial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (or B.t.) did not adversely affect aquatic vertebrates, 
121

4299 including brook trout, white suckers and smallmouth bass even a month after aerial applications, although it may 

4300 adversely affect non-target invertebrates, including butterflies (Lepidoptera). 

Table 7. Example of listed ingredients on labels of some products containing chlorpyrifos, diazinon and 

malathion (after NMFS 2008a) 

EPA Product 

Registration 

Number 

Active Ingredients Other 

Ingredients 

499-405 chlorpyrifos 8%, cyfluthrin 1.6% 90.4% 

4329-36 chlorpyrifos 12% permethrin 4% 84% 

39039-6 chlorpyrifos 12% diazinon 4% 60% 

655-441 chlorpyrifos 13%, dichlorvos 4.82% 82.18% 

66222-19 chlorpyrifos 42.5% 57.5% 

7501-112-5905 diazinon 15%, lindane 25%, carboxin 14% 46% 

11556-123 diazinon 20%, coumaphos 20% 60% 

270-260 diazinon 18%, piperonyl butoxide 2% 80% 

61483-92 diazinon 40%, tetrachlorvinphos 10% 50% 

4-122 malathion 6%, carbaryl 0.3%, captan 11.8% 81.9% 

4-59 malathion 3%, carbaryl 0.5%, captan 5.87% 90.63% 

4-355 malathion 6%, sulfur 25%, captan 6.03% 62.97% 

4-157 malathion 13.5%, captan 13.5% 73% 

7401-163 malathion 7.5%, PCNB 12.5% 80% 

11474-96 malathion 2%, piperonyl butoxide 0.12%, pyrethrins 0.05% 97.83% 

5481-275 malathion 2%,carbaryl 2% 96% 

8329-29 malathion 30.6%, piperonyl butoxide 4.96 %, resmethrin 1.88% 62.66% 

769-646 malathion 5.5%, petroleum distillates and mineral oil 89.0% 5.5% 

4301 

4302 Some of the chemicals in the 24 classes identified in Table 8 have more severe consequences for aquatic organisms 

4303 that are exposed to them, although the different groups of chemicals affect species through different modes of 

4304 action. Organophosphates and carbamates inhibit acetylcholinesterase; organotins prevent the formation of 

4305 adenosine triphosphate; pyrethroids keep sodium channels in neuronal membranes open, which affects the 

4306 peripheral and central nervous systems and cause a hyper-excitable state; symptoms include tremors, lack of 

4307 coordination, hyperactivity and paralysis; rotenone which inhibits respiratory enzymes; and limonene which affects 

4308 the sensory nerves of the peripheral nervous system. 

4309 Botanicals 

4310 The botanicals included in the proposed PGP are cube resins (other than rotenone) and Rotenone. Rotenone is used 

4311 as a fish toxin (piscicide) so we would expect to be highly toxic to fish, including endangered and threatened species 

4312 of fish. Cheng and Farrell (2007) reported that rotenone was not toxic to juvenile rainbow trout when they were 

4313 exposed at concentrations of 5.0 g/L during 96-hour tests, but 100% of the juveniles died when at concentrations of 

4314 6.6 g/L for 96 hours. Johnson and Finley (1980) reported 96-hour LC50 for rotenone was 23 g/L for rainbow trout 

4315 and 2.6 g/L for channel catfish. Finlayson et al., (2010) exposed rainbow trout for 4 and 8 hours to concentrations 

4316 of synergized and non-synergized formulations of rotenone. Exposing rainbow trout to a CFT Legumine formulation 

4317 of rotenone at 5.3 μg/L for an average of eight hours killed half of the rainbow trout; exposing them to a Nusyn4318 Noxfish formulation of rotenone at 6.2 μg/L for an average of 8 hours also killed half of the rainbow trout. 
122

4319 In addition, populations of aquatic invertebrates have been eliminated in streams that have been treated with 

4320 rotenone. Binns (1965) reported that aquatic invertebrate populations in the Green River, Wyoming were almost 

4321 completely eliminated following rotenone treatments. Mangum and Madrigal (1999) reported that the richness of 

4322 Ephemeroptera in the Strawberry River in north eastern Utah had been reduced by 67-100%, Plecoptera by 67-100% 

4323 and Trichoptera by 61-100% after two rotenone treatments, of 3 mg/L for 48 hours. In Great Basin National Park, 

4324 rotenone treatments reduced species in these taxa by 99% for one month. 

4325 Carbamates 

4326 The carbamates whose uses would be authorized by the proposed PGP include carbaryl, asulam and sodium salt. 

4327 Numerous authors have studied and reported the responses of vertebrate species exposed to carbamates (Shea and 

4328 Berry, 1983; Zinkl et al., 1987; Hanazato, 1991; Sharma et al., 1993; Beyers et al., 1994; Beyers and Sikoski, 1994; 

4329 Relyea and Mills, 2001; Relyea, 2004; Boran et al., 2007; Davidson and Knapp, 2007). Carbaryl, which is also 

4330 known by the trade name Sevin, is an example of the group known as N-methyl carbamates, which includes other 

4331 pesticides like carbofuran and methomyl. These chemicals act as neurotoxicants by impairing nerve cell 

4332 transmission in vertebrates and invertebrates; specifically, they interfere with normal nerve transmissions and, as a 

4333 result, can affect a wide array of physiological systems. Organophosphates have the same mode of action and 

4334 produce similar physiological responses. 

4335 Beyers et al., (1994) studied the toxicity of technical carbaryl (1-napthyl methylcarbamate, 99%) and Sevin-4-Oil (a 

4336 formulation containing 49% carbaryl and petroleum distillates) to Federally endangered Colorado squawfish 

4337 (Ptychocheilus lucius) and bonytail (Gila elegans). In Colorado squawfish, median lethal concentrations for 

4338 technical carbaryl were 1.31 mg/L (95% confidence interval: 1.23-1.40 mg/L) and were 3.18 mg/L (95% confidence 

4339 interval: 2.87-3.52 mg/L) for Sevin-4-Oil. In bonytail, median lethal concentrations for technical carbaryl were 2.02 

4340 mg/L (95% confidence interval: 1.78 -2.25 mg/L) and were 3.31 mg/L (3.06,-3.55 mg/L) for Sevin-4-Oil. Because 

4341 Colorado squawfish and bonytail are about as sensitive to carbaryl as cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), rainbow 

4342 trout, Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), these results should also be applicable to 

4343 ESA listed Atlantic salmon and listed steelhead (Beyers et al., 1994). 

4344 Carlson (1971) exposed fathead minnow to five treatments of carbaryl (8, 17, 62, 210 and 680 μg/L) in a flow 

4345 through system for nine months; capturing the life cycle of the fathead minnow. Fathead minnows showed reduced 

4346 number of eggs per female and reduced number of eggs spawned when exposed to 680 μg/L; none of the eggs that 

4347 were spawned hatched. Zinkl et al., (1987) reported that carbaryl killed rainbow trout when they were exposed to 

4348 concentrations at or above 1,000 μg/L for as few as 90 minutes and the trout exhibited AChE inhibition from 61 to 

4349 91% when exposed to concentrations of 250 – 4,000 μg/L for 24 hours. 
Table 8. Classification of the 171 active ingredients by class of pesticide. Ingredients that are listed in bold type are discussed in greater detail Pesticide Class Pesticide Active Ingredient, as listed in Biological Evaluation Benzoic acid Dicamba, Dicamba, diglycoamine salt, Dicamba, dimethylamine salt, Dicamba, sodium salt Biochemical 2, 4-Dodecadienoic acid, 11-methoxy-3, 7, 11-trimethyl-, 1-met, Methoprene, Nonanoic acid Botanical Cube Resins other than rotenone, RotenoneBromine Compound Bromine chloride, Sodium bromide Carbamate Carbaryl, Asulam, sodium salt Chlorine Compound Calcium hypochlorite, Chlorine, Chlorine dioxide, Sodium hypochlorite Dinitroaniline 2, 4-Dinitro-N3, N3-dipropyl-6-(trifluoromethyl)-1, 3-benzenedia, Oryzalin, Pendimethalin Hydantoin 1, 3-Dibromo-5, 5-dimethylhydantoin, 1-Bromo-3-chloro-5, 5-dimethylhydantoin Imidazolinone (+-)-2-(4, 5-Dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imida, Imazapic, Imazapic-ammonium, Imazapyr, 

salt, Imazaquin, monoammonium salt 

Inorganic 

Copper as metallic (in the form of chelates of copper citrate), Copper carbonate, basic, Copper ethanolamin

ethylenediamine complex, Copper sulfate pentahydrate, Copper triethanolamine complex, Hydrogen pero

Sodium metaborate (NaBO2), Zinc sulfate monohydrate 

Microbial 

Antimycin A, Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies israelensis Strain BMP, Bacillus licheniformis SB3086, Bacilthuringiensis subspecies israelensis, Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies aizawai, Bacillus thuringiensis subthuringiensis subspecies tenebrionis, Polyhedral inclusion bodies of gypsy moth nucleopolyhedrosis virus, Lmycelium or oospores 

Organophosphate Acephate, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Malathion, Naled, Temephos, Trichlorfon, Other 

Acrolein, Saflufenacil, Diflubenzuron, Diquat dibromide, Tebufenozide, Oxyfluorfen, Dodecylguanidine hyMonosodium acid methanearsonate, Methoxychlor, (**)-Trifluoro-4-nitro-m-cresol (**) = alpha, alpha, alpha-3-propanedicarbonitrile, 2-(1-Methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxy)pyridine, 2, 2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionam(2, 2-difluoroethoxy)-N-(5, 8-dimethoxy[1, Carfentrazone-ethyl, CAS Reg. No. 68038-71-1, Endothall, dipotamono(N, N-dimethylcocoamine) salt, Erioglaucine, Ethyl 2-chloro-5-[4-chloro-(5-difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-Fosamine ammonium, Glufosinate-ammonium, Glutaral, Methanone, [3-(4, 5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl)-2-methhydroxyfluorene-9-carboxylate, Mono-molecular surface film, Niclosamide, Phenol, 4-nitro-3-(trifluoromethyPoly(oxyethylene(dimethyliminio)ethylene(dimethyliminio)ethyl, Saccharopolyspora spinosa fermentation prpercarbonate, Spinosad, Tartrazine, Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulphate (THPS), Chlorflurenol, dichlorohydroxyfluorene-9-carboxylate, Peroxyacetic acid, Cis-7, 8-Epoxy-2-methyloctadecane, POE isooct

Petroleum derivative Espesol 3A, Mineral oil, Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil from 063503, Petroleum distillate Phenoxy (R)-2-(2, 4-Dichlorophenoxy)propanoic acid, dimethylamine salt, 2-4, D, 2-Ethylhexyl (R)-2-(2, 4-dichloroph
Table 8. Classification of the 171 active ingredients by class of pesticide. Ingredients that are listed in bold type are discussed in greater detail 

Ethylhexyl 2-(2, 4-dichlorophenoxy)propionate, Acetic acid, (2, 4-dichlorophenoxy)-, 2-ethylhexyl ester, Butodichlorophenoxyacetate, Diethanolamine (2, 4-dichlorophenoxy)acetate, Dimethylamine (R)-2-(2-methyl-4-cDimethylamine 2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetate, Isooctyl 2-(2, 4-dichlorophenoxy)propionate, Isopropylamine 2MCPA, dimethylamine salt, Mecoprop (and salts and esters), Sodium 2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetate, Triisoprdichlorophenoxyacetate 

Phosphonoglycine Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)- potassium salt, Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-, diammonium salt, Glyphos

salt, Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

Pyrethroids, Pyrethrins & Synergists Phenothrin, Bifenthrin, Deltamethrin, D-Phenothrin, N-Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide, Permethrin, Per

Piperonyl butoxide, Prallethrin, Pyrethrins, Resmethrin, Sumithrin, Tau-fluvalinate 

Pyridine Butoxyethyl triclopyr, CAS Reg. No. 566191-87-5, CAS Reg. No. 566191-89-7, Clopyralid, Clopyralid, mono

Clopyralid, triethanolamine, Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester, Picloram, triisopropanolamine salt, Triclopyr, 

Quaternary Compound Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(50%C14, 40%C12, 10, Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlo

Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride *(68%C12, 32%C1, Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 

Rodenticide Chlorophacinone, Difethialone, Diphacinone, Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2) Sulfonylurea 1-(4, 6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-(2-ethylsulfonylimidazo{1, 2, Chlorsulfuron, Metsulfuron-methyl, RimsulfuTriazine/Triazinetrione/Triazinone Prometon, Sodium dichloroisocyanurate dihydrate, Sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione, Trichloro-s-triazinetrion

Sulfentrazone 

Uracil Bromacil, Bromacil, lithium salt Urea Diuron, Tebuthiuron 
125

4350 Exposure to carbaryl appears to make cutthroat trout more susceptible to predation, perhaps by inhibiting AChE 

4351 activity in brain and muscle. Cutthroat trout experienced higher predation rates when exposed to carbaryl at 

4352 concentrations of 200 μg/L, 500 μg/L and 1,000 μg/L. At 200 μg/L, an increase in predation was evident (Labenia et 

4353 al., 2007). Little et al.,(1990) reported similar results from their studies of the effects of exposing rainbow trout fry 

4354 (0.5-1.0 g) to carbaryl at 10, 100 and 1,000g/L for 96 hours. At all of these exposure concentrations, significantly 

4355 more rainbow trout were consumed compared with unexposed fish. At concentrations of 1,000 g/L, exposed 

4356 rainbow trout fry experienced significant reductions in swimming capacity, swimming activity, prey strike 

4357 frequency, daphnids consumed, percent consuming daphnids and percent survival from predation. 

4358 Organophosphates 

4359 The organophosphates whose uses would be authorized by the proposed PGP include acephate, chlorpyrifos, 

4360 diazinon, dichlorvos, dimethoate, malathion, naled, temephos, trichlorfon and triclorfon. Numerous authors have 

4361 studied and reported the responses of vertebrate species exposed to organophosphates (Shea and Berry, 1983; Zinkl

4362 et al., 1987; Hanazato, 1991; Sharma et al., 1993; Beyers et al., 1994; Beyers and Sikoski, 1994; Relyea and Mills, 

4363 2001; Relyea, 2004; Boran et al., 2007; Davidson and Knapp, 2007). Like carbamates, these chemicals act as 

4364 neurotoxicants by impairing nerve cell transmission in vertebrates and invertebrates; specifically, they interfere with 

4365 normal nerve transmissions and, as a result, can affect a wide array of physiological systems. 

4366 Chlorpyrifos is highly toxic to freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates and estuarine and marine organisms. EPA’s 

4367 Office of Pesticide Programs estimated environmental concentrations for formulations of chlorpyrifos that assumed 

4368 that 10% of the applied rate may drift to surface water. As a result, an application rate of 0.025 lbs chlorpyrifos per 

4369 acre would result in concentrations of 1.5 – 18.5 μg/L chlorpyrifos in surface water at depths of six inches to six 

4370 feet. The EPA (1989) reported that application of concentrations as low as 0.01 pounds of active ingredient per acre 

4371 may cause fish and aquatic invertebrate deaths. The 96-hour LC50 for chlorpyrifos is 0.009 mg/L in mature rainbow 

4372 trout, 0.098 mg/L in lake trout, 0.806 mg/L in goldfish, 0.01 mg/L in bluegill sunfish and 0.331 mg/L in fathead 

4373 minnow (EPA, 1986). Therefore, mature rainbow trout exposed to chlorpyrifos concentrations produced by 

4374 application rates of 0.025 lbs of chlorpyrifos per acre would be expected to have a 50% probability of dying after 96 

4375 hours of exposure (alternatively, we would expect about half of an exposed population of rainbow trout to die as a 

4376 result of their exposure to these concentrations of chlorpyrifos for 96 hours). 

4377 When fathead minnows were exposed to Dursban (a formulation of chlorpyrifos) growth was reduced within 30 

4378 days at 2.68 micrograms/liter and within 60 days at 1.21 μg/L. The maturation rate of first-generation fish was 

4379 reduced at all Dursban exposure concentration and reproduction was significantly reduced at concentrations of at 

4380 least 0.63 micrograms/liter. Growth rates and estimated biomass of 30-day-old second-generation fish were 

4381 significantly reduced when they were exposed at concentrations of 0.12 micrograms/liter (Jarvinen et al., 1983). 

4382 Carp (Cyprinus carpio) fingerlings exposed to concentrations of chlorpyrifos ranging from 0.120 to 0.200 mg/L for 

4383 96 hours had acute toxicities at concentrations of 0.160 mg/L. When these carp were exposed for 1, 7 and 14 days at 

4384 concentrations of 0.0224 mg/L and 0.0112 mg/L, they exhibited irregular, erratic and darting swimming movements, 

4385 hyper-excitability and loss of equilibrium and sinking to the bottom. Caudal bending was also reported during 

4386 exposures (Ramesh and David, 2009). 

4387 Diazinon exposures have been implicated in five fish kills reported in California since 2002. One of the fish kills, 

4388 which EPA classified as probably caused by the use of diazinon, occurred in June 2002 and consisted of 2,000 

4389 salmon that were found Tembladera Slough and the Old Salinas River channel in Monterey County, California. 

4390 Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner staff indicated that a small number of applications of diazinon had 

4391 been made in the general area when the fish kill occurred. Water samples collected from the sites detected diazinon 
126

4392 in four of six samples with concentrations ranging from 0.095 – 0.183 μg/L. Gill samples from all five fish showed 

4393 recent exposure to chlorpyrifos with concentrations ranging from 5 - 40 μg/kg. Methidathion, another 

4394 organophosphate, was also detected at low concentrations in the water but was absent in gill tissue. Although 

4395 concentrations of diazinon in the water column were well below median lethal concentrations for fish that had been 

4396 observed in the laboratory, peak concentrations probably had not been detected because diazinon concentrations had 

4397 probably dissipated in the few days between the occurrence of the fish kill and sampling. 

4398 Diazinon also affects the olfaction of juvenile salmon, which mediates a suite of fish behaviors involved in feeding, 

4399 predator avoidance, kin recognition, spawning, homing and migration. For example, Moore and Waring (1996) 

4400 studied the effects of diazinon exposure on olfaction in Atlantic salmon parr. They first exposed male parr to 

4401 diazinon concentrations (0, 0.1, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10 and 20 μg/L) for 30 minutes and determined the parrs’ ability to 

4402 detect priming odorant released by female salmon that synchronizes spawning and also has a role as a primer on 

4403 male plasma steroids and gonadotropin production. At 1.0 μg/L, diazinon significantly reduced the capacity for parr 

4404 to detect the priming odorant by 22% (compared with controls); at 20 μg/L, diazinon inhibited olfaction by 79%. 

4405 Olfaction was affected for up to 4-5 hours following exposure. 

4406 They also studied the effect of longer-term exposure to diazinon on male parrs’ plasma reproductive steroid levels 

4407 after the males were exposed to the urine of ovulating females. Diazinon concentrations of 0.3 – 45 μg/L abolished 

4408 the induction of male hormones, although levels of testosterone and one ketotestosterone were not significantly 

4409 affected by the diazinon exposure. Milt production was reduced by about 28% at concentrations of diazinon ranging 

4410 from 0.3 - 45 μg/L. We would expect these outcomes to impair Atlantic salmon’s ability to detect and respond to 

4411 reproductive scents and increase their probability of missing spawning opportunities, which would reduce the 

4412 lifetime reproductive success of individuals that experience this response. 

4413 Scholz et al.,(2000) also studied the effects of 24 hour exposures to diazinon on the swimming and feeding behavior 

4414 of juvenile coho salmon. They reported statistically significant effects on swimming and feeding behaviors in the 

4415 presence of an alarm cue following exposures at concentrations of diazinon at 1 and 10 μg/L (compared to control 

4416 fish) and reduced homing at 0.1 μg/L. 

4417 Temephos shows a wide range of toxicity to aquatic organisms, depending on the formulation. Generally, the 

4418 technical grade compound is considered moderately toxic while the emulsifiable concentrate and wettable powder 

4419 formulations are highly to very highly toxic. The most sensitive species of fish is the rainbow trout with a temephos 

4420 LD50 ranging from 0.16 mg/L to 3.49 mg/L (Johnson and Finley, 1980). Other 96-hour LD50 values are reported as: 

4421 coho salmon 0.35 mg/L, largemouth bass 1.44 mg/L, channel catfish 3.23 mg/L to >10 mg/L, bluegill sunfish 1.14 

4422 mg/L to 21.8 mg/L, and Atlantic salmon 6.7 mg/L to 21 mg/L (Johnson and Finley, 1980; Kidd and James, 1991). 

4423 Trichlorfon is also highly toxic to several species of fish and aquatic invertebrates, including species like Daphnia 

4424 and stoneflies that are prey for fish. LC50 (96-hour) values for trichlorfon are 0.18 mg/L (48-hour) in Daphnia, 0.01 

4425 mg/L in stoneflies, 7.8 mg/L in crayfish, 1.4 mg/L in rainbow trout, 2.5 mg/L in brook trout, 0.88 mg/L in channel 

4426 catfish and 0.26 mg/L in bluegill (Hudson et al., 1984; Hill and Camardese, 1986). 

4427 Pyrethroids, Pyrethrins and Synergists 

4428 The pyrethroids, pyrethrins and synergists whose uses would be authorized by the proposed PGP include 

4429 permethrin, permethrin, mixed cis, trans, resmethrin, sumithrin, piperonyl butoxide and n-octyl bicycloheptene 

4430 dicarboximide. The latter substances, piperonyl butoxide and n-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide (mgk-264) are 

4431 synergists. As we described previously, formulations of these pesticides are used to control adult mosquitoes. 
127

4432 Paul et al., (2005) compared the toxicity of synergized and technical formulations of permethrin, sumithrin and 

4433 resmethrin to brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta). They reported that the toxicity of 

4434 the synergized permethrin formulation was significantly increased in 24, 48 and 96-hour tests, compared to tests 

4435 with the technical formulation. There was little difference in the toxicity of synergized and technical formulations of 

4436 sumithrin until 48 hours had elapsed. They reported that many test fish were strongly intoxicated by either 

4437 formulation of permethrin or sumithrin, but the synergized formulations of both chemicals affected fish at lower 

4438 concentrations. Intoxication was potentially severe enough to reduce the survival of these fish in the wild. Finally, 

4439 they tested the ability of exposed fish to swim against a current and concluded that fish exposed for 6 hours to 

4440 synergized permethrin and resmethrin had far less swimming stamina than those exposed to technical formulations. 

4441 They did not find a difference in the effect on swimming between the synergized and technical formulation of 

4442 sumithrin. They concluded that the synergized formulations of these pesticides appeared to cause a faster response 

4443 than the technical formulations and this response increased the lethal and sublethal effect of the insecticides on the 

4444 trout. 

4445 ‘Inert’ ingredients 

4446 Some of the other ingredients of formulations of these pesticides are also toxic. For example, piperonyl butoxide is a 

4447 common constituent of insecticide containing formulations (for example, it is a common synergist in formulations of 

4448 synthetic pyrethroids) and is toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish. EPA (2006) reported an LC50 for rainbow trout 

4449 of 1.9 mg/L. In longer term exposures piperonyl butoxide affects fish and aquatic invertebrates at concentrations as 

4450 low as 0.11 mg/L. Piperonyl butoxide is highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates with a reported EC50 of 0.51 mg/L for 

4451 Daphnia magna (EPA, 2006). 

4452 As another example, methoxychlor is a co-constituent in formulations with malathion. Formulated products are 

4453 more toxic than methoxychlor alone. It is also an organo-chlorine insecticide that is toxic to fish and aquatic 

4454 invertebrates. Johnson and Finley (1980) reported LC50s less than 20 μg/L and one 96-hour LC50 of 1.7 μg/L was 

4455 reported for Atlantic salmon (Howard, 1991). 

4456 Consequences of Exposure to Degradates

4457 As we discussed in the preceding subsection, over time, pesticides are transformed into other compounds by 

4458 chemical, photochemical and biologically-mediated reactions; these other compounds are generally called 

4459 “degradates” or “metabolites” (Boxall et al., 2004; Gilliom et al., 2006). Degradates, like their parent compounds, 

4460 have the potential to adversely affect water quality, depending on their toxicity. Sinclair and Boxall (2003) reported 

4461 that 41% of degradates were less toxic than their parent compounds, 39% had toxicities similar to their parents, 20% 

4462 were more than 3 times more toxic than their parent compound and 9% were more than 10 times more toxic. 

4463 For example, the major metabolite of carbaryl is 1-naphthol, which is formed by abiotic and microbially mediated 

4464 processes and has been reported to represent up to 67% of the applied carbaryl in degradation studies. This 

4465 degradate is more toxic than carbaryl itself. For example, Shea and Berry (1983) compared 10-day acute lethalities 

4466 between carbaryl and 1-naphthol in goldfish (Carassius auratus) and killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus). They 

4467 concluded that 1-naphtol was about five times more toxic than carbaryl in goldfish and twice as toxic as carbaryl in 

4468 killifish. In addition, fish exposed to 1-naphthol showed neurological trauma including erratic swimming behaviors 

4469 and increased opercula beats following 4-hour exposures at 5 mg/L and 24-hour exposures at 10 mg/L. They did not 

4470 observe any of these symptoms in the carbaryl treatments. 

4471 Consequences of Exposure to Mixtures 

4472 As we also discussed in the preceding subsection, most aquatic species are likely to be exposed to mixtures of 
128

4473 pesticides, their degradates and other chemicals that exist in the environment. Once in a mixture, co-occurring 

4474 pesticides (including their degradates) can either act independently of one another (called an “independent” effect); 

4475 they can have additive effects (for example, this might be expected, for example, for pesticides with a common 

4476 mode of action and similar chemical structure); they can have synergistic effects in which their combined toxicity is 

4477 greater than their additive toxicity; or they can have combined toxicity that is less than their additive toxicity (called 

4478 an “antagonistic” effect). 

4479 As an example of synergistic effects, (Relyea and Mills, 2001; 2004) exposed amphibians to a combination of 

4480 pesticides and chemical cues mimicking natural predators and found that these combinations induced stress and, as a 

4481 result, increased the mortality rates of the amphibians (see also Sih et al., 2004). For some species, exposing the 

4482 amphibians to combinations of pesticides and natural stressors produced mortality rates that were substantially 

4483 greater than mortality rates associated with each individual stressor. For example, carbaryl was up to 46 times more 

4484 lethal to gray treefrog tadpoles (Hyla versicolor) when they were exposed to a combination of this pesticide and 

4485 chemical cues emitted by aquatic predators (Relyea and Mills, 2001). When they were exposed to malathion at 

4486 concentrations of 5 mg/L, 42% of the gray treefrog tadpoles died when predator cues were absent, but 82% died 

4487 when predator cues were present (Rhatigan, 2004). 

4488 Mixtures containing malathion resulted in additive effects (when mixed with DDT, toxaphene), synergistic effects 

4489 (when mixed with Baytex, parathion, carbaryl, perthane) and antagonistic effects (when mixed with copper sulfate) 

4490 (Macek, 1975). Mixtures of diazinon and parathion killed more bluegill sunfish than predicted. Tierney et al. (2008),

4491 exposed juvenile steelhead to environmentally realistic concentrations of a mixture that included chlorpyrifos, 

4492 diazinon and malathion (the realistic mixture contained chlorpyrifos at 13.4 ng/L; diazinon at 157 ng/L; and 

4493 malathion at 46.3 ng/L, respectively). Exposures to this mixture for 96 hours compromised the ability of juvenile 

4494 steelhead to detect changes in odorant concentrations, which would impair behavior that rely on smell such as 

4495 homing and migration. 

4496 Mixtures that paired two organophosphates produced a greater degree of synergism than mixtures containing one or 

4497 two carbamates, particularly mixtures containing malathion coupled with either diazinon or chlorpyrifos Table 9. At 

4498 the highest exposure treatment, 1.0 EC50 (malathion at 37.3 μg/L, chlorpyrifos at 2 μg/L, diazinon at 72.5 μg/L), 

4499 binary combinations produced synergistic toxicity. Coho salmon exposed to combinations of diazinon and malathion 

4500 as well as chlorpyrifos and malathion all died (Laetz et al., 2009). Fish exposed to these organophosphate mixtures 

4501 showed toxic signs of inhibition of AChE, including loss of equilibrium, rapid gilling, altered startle response and 

4502 increased mucus production before dying. Organophosphate combinations were also synergistic at the lowest 

4503 concentrations tested. Diazinon and chlorpyrifos were synergistic when combined at 7.3 g/L and 0.1 g/L, 

4504 respectively. The pairing of diazinon (7.3 g/L) with malathion (3.7 g/L) produced severe (> 90%) AChE 

4505 inhibition including classical signs of poisoning as well as death with some combinations. For binary combinations 

4506 of malathion, diazinon and chlorpyrifos synergism was likely to occur at exposure concentrations that were below 

4507 the lowest used by Laetz et al., (2009) i.e., chlorpyrifos concentrations lower than 0.1 μg/L; diazinon concentrations 

4508 lower than 7.3 μg/L; malathion concentrations lower than 3.7 μg/L. 

Table 9. Mixture concentrations resulting in 100% mortality of juvenile coho following 96h exposures (after 

NMFS 2008a) 

Mixture Concentration, μg/L 

diazinon + malathion 72.5 diazinon, 37.3 malathion 

29.0 diazinon, 14.9 malathion 

chlorpyrifos + malathion chlorpyrifos, 37.3 malathion 
129

4509 In our 2008 biological opinion on the EPA’s registration of pesticides containing chlorpyrifos, diazinon and 

4510 malathion, NMFS concluded that anadromous salmonids were likely to die following short term exposure (less than 

4511 96 hours) to these three insecticides. Concentrations of chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion can occur at levels well 

4512 over 100μg/l and upwards of 1,000 μg/l based on measured environmental concentrations and exposure models. We 

4513 concluded that the youngest, swimming salmonids appeared to be the most likely to die from short-term, acute 

4514 exposures, although adult salmon were also susceptible at higher concentrations. We did not expect acute exposures 

4515 to these pesticides to kill eggs. 

4516 Trophic Consequences of the Proposed PGP on Listed Cetaceans 

4517 Salmon are a significant contributor to the overall ecological food web throughout their range. Two significant 

4518 indirect effects of the proposed action to Chinook, coho, sockeye and chum salmon and steelhead could result in the 

4519 further loss of prey species for southern resident killer whales and Cook Inlet beluga whales. Such reductions would 

4520 also likely result in the loss of nutrient transport to freshwater systems that are important to Pacific salmonids 

4521 themselves. Bilby et al., (1996) demonstrate that juvenile and older age classes of salmon grow more rapidly with 

4522 the appearance of spawners because these younger fish will feed on eggs and spawner carcasses. Salmon carcasses 

4523 in rivers and streambanks are a significant source of food to a wide number of animals and affect the overall 

4524 productivity of nutrient-poor systems (Bilby et al., 1996; Cederholm et al., 2000). The loss of these “marine derived 

4525 nutrients” would reduce the survival of their own species, particularly in nutrient poor streams. Bilby et al., (1996) 

4526 showed that up to 45% of the carbon in cutthroat trout and 40% of the carbon in young coho comes from the 

4527 decaying carcasses of the previous generation of salmon. Increased body size is directly correlated to increases in 

4528 over winter survival and marine survival. They suggest that reduced nutrient transport is one important indicator of 

4529 ecosystem failure and is contributing to the observed reductions in abundance we have seen in many salmon 

4530 populations, which could further diminish the success of recovery efforts. Given many salmon populations comprise 

4531 the prey component of killer whale and beluga whale critical habitat, any additional reduction in prey attributable to 

4532 the PGP could adversely modify their critical habitat. 

4533 Southern resident killer whales feed primarily on salmon. Any reductions in salmon populations as a result of this 

4534 action can be expected to have adverse effects on southern resident killer whales via reductions in the prey 

4535 component of their designated critical habitat. Based on killer whale stomach contents from stranded whales and 

4536 field observations of predation, Ford et al., (1998) determined that 95% of the diet of resident killer whales consists 

4537 of fish, with roughly 66% being Chinook salmon. The authors suggested that killer whales might preferentially hunt 

4538 Chinook salmon because these fish have large body sizes and a high fat content. A reduction in Pacific salmon –

4539 Chinook salmon in particular– from effects from the proposed action is likely to have adverse effects on the fitness 

4540 of southern resident killer whales and their population viability. As noted earlier, a 50% reduction in killer whale 

4541 calving has been correlated with years of low Chinook salmon abundance (Ward et al., 2009a). 

4542 A reduction in the number of adult Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound would reduce the forage base for southern 

4543 resident killer whales. Southern resident killer whales are not restricted to Puget Sound, but do spend a large portion 

4544 of time in Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Haro Strait. Prey losses could also be realized throughout 

4545 their range, including Oregon and California. Such reductions in prey could impede recovery. 

4546 Pacific salmon and eulachon (Calkins, 1989) are an important prey species for Cook Inlet beluga whales. Pacific 

4547 salmon are an especially important prey item as these whales build their lipid body stores essential to their winter 

4548 survival (Abookire and Piatt, 2005; Litzow et al., 2006). As a result, Cook Inlet beluga whales could similarly 

4549 experience a reduction in their most abundant summer and fall prey species (most of which are non-listed Chinook, 

4550 coho, sockeye and chum species). These losses could reduce the forage base of Cook Inlet beluga whales and as a 
130

4551 result, could impede recovery. 

4552 Critical Habitat of Southern Resident Killer Whales 

4553 We evaluated the potential effects of EPA’s issuance of their PGP on critical habitat by first reviewing the essential 

4554 features or primary constituent elements of critical habitat for listed designations. Based on our analysis, the primary 

4555 features that may be affected by pesticide pollutant discharges authorized by the issuance of this permit are those 

4556 designated as “prey species of sufficient quantity, quality and availability to support individual growth, reproduction 

4557 and development, as well as overall population growth.” Based on our analysis, EPA has not insured that the actions 

4558 it authorizes will not reduce the availability of Pacific salmonid species to southern resident killer whales. As a 

4559 result, these species may experience reductions in population. These losses could diminish the ability of critical 

4560 habitat to provide for conservation of the southern resident killer whales. 

4561 Proposed Critical Habitat of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales 

4562 We evaluated the potential effects of EPA’s issuance of their PGP on critical habitat by first reviewing the essential 

4563 features or primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the proposed designation for Cook Inlet beluga 

4564 whales. Based on our analysis, the primary features that may be affected by pesticide pollutant discharges authorized 

4565 by the issuance of this permit are those designated as “prey species of sufficient quantity, quality and availability to 

4566 support individual growth, reproduction and development, as well as overall population growth.” Based on our 

4567 analysis, EPA has not insured that the actions it authorizes will not reduce the availability of pacific salmonid 

4568 species to Cook Inlet beluga whales. As a result, these species may experience reductions in population. These 

4569 losses could diminish the ability of critical habitat to provide for conservation of Cook Inlet beluga whales. 

4570 Components of the Proposed PGP Designed to Minimize or Prevent Exposure 

4571 The EPA proposes several control measures to minimize any environmental effects resulting from these activities 

4572 authorized by the permit. These include the existing statutory requirements of the CWA and FIFRA and the 

4573 additional controls to be included specifically in the proposed permit. Given the large number of pesticide 

4574 discharges that EPA intends to authorize, we determine whether these control measures are sufficient such that EPA 

4575 can insure that these activities are not likely to result in jeopardy to the continued existence of any listed species or 

4576 designated critical habitat under NMFS’ jurisdiction. 

4577 To accomplish this, we examine existing risk assessments for pesticides produced by EPA and NMFS and contrast 

4578 the approach used to register pesticides under FIFRA and with that used to derive water quality criteria under the 

4579 CWA. We then examine the effectiveness of the NPDES program that will administer the PGP. We analyze the 

4580 performance of similar control measures in previous general permits that the EPA has issued and consider the 

4581 performance of those controls as an indicator of how well the controls of the proposed PGP are likely to work. 

4582 Finally, we analyze the general conditions specific to the PGP that are designed to mitigate the exposures of 

4583 pesticides to ESA listed species or designated critical habitat. We determine whether these controls are sufficient to 

4584 insure that the actions authorized by the permit are not likely to expose endangered or threatened species, or 

4585 designated critical habitat to the effects of the actions it authorizes. 

4586 The control measures intended to minimize any direct or indirect environmental effects resulting from activities 

4587 authorized by the permit are described below. 

4588 Clean Water Act 

4589 The stated objective of the CWA is to “...restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the 
131

4590 Nation’s waters.” The Act further states: “...it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic 

4591 amounts be prohibited.” Identification of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts is provided for by §304(a)(1) of the CWA 

4592 which requires that EPA develop National Water Quality Criteria (WQC) that accurately reflect the latest scientific 

4593 knowledge about the effects of priority chemical pollutants on aquatic life. These criteria represent numeric limits on 

the amounts of specific pollutants that can be present in waters of the United States without causing “harm”17 4594 to 

4595 aquatic life. The WQC were developed for the 120 priority pollutants listed in section 307 of the CWA and an 

4596 additional 47 non-priority pollutants. These WQC are applied through the basic framework of programs, such as 

4597 NPDES, established by the CWA to control sources of pollutants that may impair or threaten water quality. The 

4598 recommended WQC are intended to be protective of the majority of aquatic communities in the U.S. Individual 

4599 States may adopt these criteria directly or they may adjust them, with EPA’s approval, to suit State needs or 

4600 designated uses for specific bodies of water. 

4601 The EPA’s Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic 

Organisms and Their Uses (National Guidelines18 4602 ) (Stephen et al., 1985) describe an objective way of deriving 

4603 national criteria intended to provide an appropriate level of protection for aquatic organisms. Aquatic life criteria are 

4604 based on the National Guidelines and consist of two metrics: 1) The Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 

4605 intended to protect against severe acute effects, and; 2) The Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) intended to 

4606 protect against longer-term effects on survival, growth and reproduction. The acute criterion limits peak exposures 

4607 by requiring that 1-hour averages of exposure concentrations not exceed the CMC more often than once in three 

4608 years on average. The chronic criterion limits more prolonged exposures by requiring that 4-day averages of 

4609 exposure concentrations not exceed the CCC more often than once in three years on average. The CMC and CCC 

4610 are calculated using endpoints derived from standard toxicity tests in which organisms are exposed to a range of 

4611 concentrations of a toxicant. These tests use standard surrogate species to represent large groups of taxa. For 

example, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are considered acceptable surrogates for coldwater fish19 4612 . Organism 

4613 responses at each concentration are recorded. 

4614 The results of the exposures are then analyzed to produce standardized endpoint values described in the following 

paragraphs. The acute criterion is based on available acute endpoint values: median lethal concentrations (LC5020 4615 ) or 

median effect concentrations (EC5021 4616 ) for severe acute effects such as immobilization from acute toxicity tests (48- 

4617 to 96-hours long) meeting certain data quality requirements. To compute an acute criterion, EPA’s National 

4618 Guidelines require that acceptable acute values be available for at least eight families to address a range of 

4619 taxonomic diversity. These minimum data requirements include three vertebrates (a salmonid, another bony fish and 

4620 another vertebrate) and five invertebrates (a planktonic crustacean, a benthic crustacean, an insect, a species from a 

 

17 For the purposes of the Clean Water Act, EPA defines the term “harm “to include increased mortality or reductions in growth 

or reproduction as well as the accumulation of harmful levels of toxic chemicals in the tissues of aquatic organisms that may 

adversely affect consumers of such organisms. This usage should not be confused with how NMFS has defined “harm” for the 

purposes of the ESA. 

18 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/aqlife/upload/85guidelines.pdf 19 Dwyer, F. James, Linda C. Sappington, Denny R. Buckler and Susan B. Jones. 1995. Use of Surrogate Species in Assessing 

Contaminant Risk to Endangered and Threatened Fishes. EPA/600/R-96/029. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL. 78 p. (EPA/600/X-92/139, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf 

Breeze, FL) 

20 LC50 = concentration at which 50% of exposed organisms die. 21 EC50 = concentration at which 50% of exposed organisms are affected. 
132

4621 phylum other than Chordata or Arthropoda and a species from another order of insect or another phylum not already 

4622 represented. 

4623 For each genus, the EPA calculates a Genus Mean Acute Value (GMAV) by first taking the geometric mean of the 

4624 available acute values within each species (Species Mean Acute Value, [SMAV]) and then the geometric mean of 

4625 the SMAVs within the genus. The GMAVs are then ranked and a regression analysis is performed on the four most 

4626 sensitive GMAVs resulting in an estimate of the concentration of the pollutant corresponding to a cumulative 

probability of 0.05 (the 5th 4627 percentile of the species sensitivity distribution). This is the Final Acute Value (FAV). 

4628 When appropriate, the EPA may lower the FAV to equal the SMAV of an important, sensitive species. The FAV is 

4629 then divided by two to derive the acute Criterion Maximum Concentration value (CMC) that is expected to fall 

4630 below where any acute adverse effects to organisms are observed. 

4631 Chronic tests for invertebrate species are required to include the entire life-cycle, but for fish species partial life4632 cycle and/or early life-stage tests may be accepted. Sufficient data for chronic toxicity are rarely available for 

4633 deriving criteria as described for acute criterion above. When such data are available, the chronic criterion (CCC) is 

4634 calculated in the same manner as the FAV. If chronic values are available for at least one fish, one invertebrate and 

4635 one acutely sensitive species, then the chronic criterion may be estimated by dividing the FAV by a Final Acute to 

4636 Chronic Ratio based on the available paired acute and chronic values. A chronic criterion may not be calculated if 

4637 fewer chronic values are available. Alternatively, the chronic criterion may be based on plant toxicity data if aquatic 

4638 plants are more sensitive than aquatic animals. 

4639 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

4640 Among the programs established by the CWA to control sources of pollutants, Section 402 of the CWA authorizes 

4641 the EPA to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants under NPDES. Permits establish effluent limitations that are 

4642 designed to prevent the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts such that pollutant levels in receiving water do 

4643 not violate WQC or other permit-specific standards. An NPDES permit is required for entities that discharge 

4644 pollutants from a point source on, over or near waters of the United States. An individual permit is specifically 

4645 tailored to an individual discharger, while a general permit covers multiple dischargers within a specific category. 

4646 According to the NPDES regulations (40 CFR l22.28), general permits like the PGP may be written to cover 

4647 categories of point source discharges that have common elements. General permits may only be issued to 

4648 dischargers within a specific geographical area. This allows EPA to cover a large group of individual without 

4649 putting forth the resources necessary to review applications and issue permits on a case-by-case basis. When 

4650 developing and issuing general NPDES permits, the EPA generally collects data to demonstrate that a category of 

4651 dischargers has enough similar attributes to warrant a general permit, such as: 

4652 1. The number of dischargers or facilities to be authorized. 

4653 2. Any similarities in production processes or activities among dischargers. 

4654 3. Any similarities in the pollutants to be discharged among dischargers. 

4655 The EPA then develops the draft general permit and fact sheet and makes it available for public comment. After the 

4656 public comment period, EPA addresses the comments and makes any necessary changes before the final general 

4657 permit is issued. After issuance of the final general permit, entities that wish to be authorized under the general 

4658 permit may submit an NOI to the EPA. The EPA then has the authority to request additional information. After 

4659 review of the additional information, the applicant is notified either that their planned activities are authorized under 

4660 the general permit or that they must apply for an individual permit. 
133

4661 The EPA is authorized to directly implement the NPDES program or to authorize States, Territories or Tribes to 

4662 implement all or parts of the national program. Any State, Territory or Tribe may seek the authority to implement 

4663 the NPDES program. The EPA no longer administers NPDES permits or administers any parts of this program once 

4664 a State, Territory or Tribe is authorized to conduct these activities. The EPA does reserve the right to review each 

4665 permit issued by the State, Territory or Tribe and may object to elements that conflict with Federal requirements. 

4666 Once a permit is issued through a government agency, it is enforceable by the approved State, Territorial, Tribal and 

4667 Federal agencies with authority to implement and enforce the permit. If the State, Territory or Tribe does not have 

4668 approval for administering the NPDES program, the EPA will operate the NPDES program. Once a permit is issued, 

4669 it is enforceable by the approved State, Territorial, Tribal and Federal agencies with authority to implement and 

4670 enforce the permit. 

4671 All NPDES permits consist of at least five general sections: 

4672 1. A Cover Page: A statement with the name and location of the facility or discharger, a description of the 

4673 permitted activity and the specific locations where discharges are authorized. 

4674 2. Effluent Limits: A statement describing the means for controlling discharges of pollutants based on 

4675 applicable standards. 

4676 3. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements: A statement that characterizes streams and receiving waters, 

4677 evaluates pollution reducing efficiency and determines compliance with permit conditions. 

4678 4. Special Conditions: A statement describing measures to supplement effluent limit guidelines such as: Best 

4679 Management Practices (BMPs), additional monitoring activities, surveys and toxicity reduction evaluations 

4680 (TREs). 

4681 5. Standard Condition: A statement describing the legal, administrative and procedural requirements of permit 

4682 conditions that apply to all NPDES permits. 

4683 While monitoring and reporting requirements set forth in a permit are the primary component of compliance 

4684 monitoring, the permitting authority may also conduct inspections to verify that permit requirements are being met. 

4685 Specifically, inspections are conducted to: determine if permittee is in compliance with regulations, permit 

4686 conditions and other program requirements, verify the accuracy of information submitted and verify the adequacy of 

4687 sampling and monitoring. An inspection may also be conducted to obtain information that supports the permitting 

4688 process, gather evidence to support enforcement actions, or to assess compliance with orders or consent decrees. 

4689 EPA oversight of permits, both those it administers and those administered by non-Federal authorized agencies, 

4690 includes collection of compliance information. Depending on the State or territory of origin, this data is entered into 

4691 one of two national databases: the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and the Integrated Compliance Information 

4692 System for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES). These databases track information 

4693 on the number of self-reported violations, the number of compliance evaluations performed, the number of non4694 compliances found, the number of formal and informal enforcement actions taken and the penalties assessed. 

4695 Water Quality Standards 

4696 Water Quality Standards are mandated by the Clean Water Act and define the goals for a water body by designating 

4697 that waterbody’s uses, setting criteria to protect those designated uses and preventing degradation of water quality 

4698 through antidegradation provisions. 
134

4699 Designated Uses 

4700 Designated uses are statements of management objectives and expectations for water bodies under State or Tribal 

4701 jurisdiction. As defined in 40 CFR 131.3, designated uses are specified for each water body or water body segment 

4702 regardless of whether or not they are being attained. Designated uses include, but are not limited to: water supply 

4703 (domestic, industrial and agricultural); stock watering; fish and shellfish uses (salmonid migration, rearing, 

4704 spawning and harvesting; other fish migration, rearing, spawning and harvesting); wildlife habitat; ceremonial and 

4705 religious water use; recreation (primary contact recreation; sport fishing; boating and aesthetic enjoyment); and 

4706 commerce and navigation. 

4707 The water quality standards regulation requires that States and Tribes specify which water uses are to be achieved 

4708 and protected. These uses are determined by considering the value and suitability of water bodies based on their 

4709 physical, chemical and biological characteristics as well as their geographical settings, aesthetic qualities and 

4710 economic attributes. Each water body does not necessarily require a unique set of uses. Rather, water bodies sharing 

4711 characteristics necessary to support a use can be grouped together. If water quality standards specify designated uses 

4712 of a lower standard than those that are actually being attained, the State or Tribe is required to revise its standards to 

4713 reflect these uses. 

4714 Only California and Puerto Rico explicitly address threatened or endangered species as part of their designated uses. 

4715 California’s designated uses include a broad statement that the waters must support the survival and maintenance of 

4716 aquatic species that are protected, and Puerto Rico’s designated uses note that endangered and threatened species are 

4717 included as part of the broader category of desirable species (Table 10). Other states have revised their designated 

4718 uses to incorporate the specific needs of certain threatened or endangered species (e.g., Oregon and Washington 

4719 adopted designated uses for the protection of Pacific salmon). Washington’s designated uses explicitly denote the 

4720 following categories of aquatic life uses: char spawning and rearing; core summer salmonid habitat; salmonid 

4721 spawning; rearing and migration; salmonid rearing and migration only and several others (WAC 173-201A-200). 

4722 Washington’s designated uses should provide additional protection for Washington’s native char, bull trout and 

4723 Dolly Varden and several species of Pacific salmon that are listed as threatened or endangered, as well as others that 

4724 are not listed. 

Table 10. State Designated Uses that Explicitly Address Listed Species 

State Designated Use Description EPA Effective Date 

CA 

Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 

5, 6, 7, 8, 9 

Uses of water that support aquatic habitats necessary, at least in part, 

for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species 

established under State or Federal law as rare, threatened or 

endangered. 

8/18/1994 

PR 

Coastal waters and estuarine waters intended for use in primary and 

secondary contact recreation and for propagation and preservation of 

desirable species, including threatened or endangered species. 

6/26/2003 

4725 

4726 Antidegradation 

4727 The water quality standards regulation also requires that States and Tribes establish a three-tiered antidegradation 

4728 program. The specific steps to be followed depend upon which tier or tiers apply. These tiers are listed below: 

4729  Tier 1: These requirements are applicable to all surface waters. They protect existing uses and water quality 

4730 conditions necessary to support such uses. These uses can be established if they can be demonstrated to have 

4731 actually occurred since November 28, 1975, or if water quality can be demonstrated to be suitable for such uses. 
135

4732 If an existing use is established, it must be protected even if it is not listed in the water quality standards as a 

4733 designated use. 

4734  Tier 2: These requirements maintain and protect "high quality" water bodies where existing conditions are 

4735 better than those necessary to support CWA § 101(a)(2) "fishable/swimmable" uses. Although the water quality 

4736 in these water bodies can be lowered, States and Tribes must identify procedures that must be followed and 

4737 questions that must be answered before a reduction in water quality can be allowed. The water quality of these 

4738 water bodies cannot be lowered to a level that would interfere with existing or designated uses. 

4739  Tier 3: These requirements maintain and protect water quality in outstanding national resource waters 

4740 (ONRWs) and generally include the highest quality waters of the United States ONRW classification also offers 

4741 special protection for waters of exceptional ecological significance. Except for certain temporary changes, water 

4742 quality cannot be lowered in these waters. States and Tribes decide which water bodies qualify as ONRWs. 

4743 In a January 27, 2005, memorandum to its Regional Offices, EPA concluded that ESA Section 7 consultation does 

4744 not apply to EPA’s approvals of State antidegradation policies because EPA’s approval action does not meet the 

4745 “Applicability” standard defined in the regulations implementing Section 7 of the ESA (EPA 2005; 50CFR 402.03). 

4746 Section 402.03 of the consultation regulations (50CFR Part 402) states that Section 7 and the requirements of 50 

4747 CFR parts 402 apply to all actions in which there is discretionary Federal involvement or control. 

4748 EPA concluded that they are compelled to approve State antidegradation policies if State submissions meet all 

4749 applicable requirements of the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR part 131) and lack discretion to 

4750 implement measures that would benefit listed species. As a result, EPA determined that consultation is not 

4751 warranted on antidegradation policies because the Agency does not possess the regulatory authority to require more 

4752 than the minimum required elements of the regulations. For these reasons, EPA’s approvals of State antidegradation 

4753 policies are not part of this consultation. 

4754 FIFRA 

4755 The EPA regulates pesticides under FIFRA, as amended by the FQPA of 1996 and the Pesticide Registration 

4756 Improvement Act of 2003. Under FIFRA, the EPA is responsible for evaluating and registering all pesticide uses in 

4757 the U.S. To do so, the EPA evaluates scientific data provided by the applicants and other sources of evidence 

including data from the open literature (as presented in their Ecotoxicology [ECOTOX] database22 4758 ). To determine 

4759 whether those data demonstrate that the registration of these pesticide uses will not cause “unreasonable adverse 

4760 effects on the environment,” which is defined “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account 

4761 the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide...”). This is important because 

4762 under FIFRA, the EPA must weigh the economic and social costs of registering pesticide uses against the 

4763 environmental costs and benefits they may pose. Under Section 7 of the ESA, the Services do not include such 

4764 considerations in jeopardy to species or destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat 

4765 determinations. 

4766 Under FIFRA, the EPA does not consider the toxicity or potential environmental impacts of specific pesticides in 

4767 relation to other pesticides during the registration process. Instead, the EPA evaluates the potential direct and 

4768 indirect environmental effects of these pesticide uses on a case-by-case basis and does not recommend that any 

4769 pesticide be used as opposed to any other pesticide. 

 

22 The ECOTOX database may be found online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/. 
136

4770 The EPA works with stakeholders to develop voluntary measures or regulatory controls to reduce risks pesticides 

4771 may pose to human health and to the environment. For aquatic systems, the EPA relies on computer models to 

4772 calculate Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) in the environment. These models simulate the expected 

4773 behavior of these pesticides in a: “standard pond” receiving direct application or spray drift, runoff and transport 

4774 through soil pore water from treated areas. A “standard pond” is modeled as having constant volume and without 

4775 flow. These models incorporate variables such as chemical properties of the pesticide, average rainfall in the area, 

4776 transpiration of water from vegetation, hydrology and chemical transport. These models assume 5% spray drift from 

4777 aerial pesticide applications and 1% spray drift for applications from the ground. Where water-monitoring data are 

4778 available, EPA will take into consideration whether measured pesticide concentrations are higher than estimated by 

4779 computer models. 

The EPA risk assessment process compares EECs to species toxicity endpoints derived from standard toxicity tests23 4780 

4781 where standard test species are exposed to concentration gradients of pesticide active ingredients, formulated 

4782 pesticide products or degradates. Organism responses at each concentration are recorded and analyzed to produce 

4783 standardized endpoint values. The standard test species used are intended to represent large groups of taxa. The EPA 

4784 may use data on other species from other sources to inform their risk assessments if it deems that the studies that 

4785 produced these data were at least as stringent as the standard tests. The acute and chronic toxicity endpoints for 

4786 animals and endpoints for terrestrial listed and non-listed plants relevant to our Opinion are summarized in Table 

4787 11.The EPA then uses a Risk Quotient (RQ) method to estimate the potential direct effects of pesticides to non4788 target organisms. To calculate RQs, the EPA divides the EECs by the endpoint values described above 

(RQ=EEC/Endpoint)24 4789 . The measure of exposure for assessing direct effects to aquatic animals is the modeled peak 

4790 EEC for acute effects compared to the lowest tested EC50 or LC50 for representative freshwater and estuarine/marine 

4791 fish and invertebrates. 

Table 11. EPA’s FIFRA Standard Test Endpoints. 

Aquatic Animals 

 Acute Toxicity assessment Lowest tested EC50 or LC50 for freshwater fish and invertebrates and 

estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates acute toxicity tests. 

 Chronic Toxicity assessment Lowest NOEC1

 for freshwater fish and invertebrates and estuarine/marine fish 

and invertebrates early life-stage or full life-cycle tests. 

Plants 

 Terrestrial Listed Lowest EC25

2

 values from both seedling emergence and vegetative vigor for 

both monocots and dicots. 

 Aquatic (Listed and Non-listed) Lowest EC50 for both vascular and algae. 

 Terrestrial Non-listed Lowest EC05

3

 or NOEC for both seedling emergence and vegetative vigor for 

both monocots and dicots.

1 4792 No Observed Effect Concentration: The highest concentration of a pesticide that resulted in no observed effect to any tested 

4793 organism. For fish, this value is typically obtained from a standard life cycle test where “fish should be cultured in the presence 

4794 of the test substance from one stage of the life cycle to at least the same stage of the next generation (e.g. egg to egg) 

4795 http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/850_Ecological_Effects_Test_Guidelines/Drafts/850-

 

23 See EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) test guidelines for more information: 

http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/draftguidelines.htm 24 See: http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf
137

4796 1500.pdf. If no such data are available, the EPA estimates this value using and Acute to Chronic Ratio (ACR) based on data for 

4797 similar species. 

2 4798 Effective Concentration 25: The concentration of pesticide that resulted in 25% of individuals tested exhibiting an effect. 3 4799 Effective Concentration 5: The concentration of pesticide that resulted in 5% of individuals tested exhibiting an effect. 

4800 A rolling mean modeled EEC is used to estimate chronic effects and compared to the lowest NOEC for 

4801 representative freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrate early life-stage or full life-cycle tests. The 

4802 modeled EEC for 60 days after a pesticide application, or series of applications, is used for assessing chronic 

4803 exposure for fish. The modeled EEC for 21 days after pesticide application is used for assessing chronic exposure 

4804 for aquatic invertebrates. 

4805 These RQs are then compared to the Levels of Concern (LOCs) that EPA has established to estimate potential risk to 

4806 non-target organisms for chronic and acute exposures. These LOCs are as follows:

4807  Non-listed Species Direct Acute Risk: RQ > 0.5 for aquatic animals (greater than 50% of the laboratory test 

4808 organisms exposed to the peak EECs would be expected to exhibit an effect greater than or equal to that 

4809 described by the standard acute toxicity endpoint.) 

 Non-listed Species Direct Acute for Restricted Use25 4810 Pesticides: RQ > 0.1 for aquatic animals (greater than 

4811 10% of the laboratory test organisms exposed to the peak EECs would be expected to exhibit an effect 

4812 greater than or equal to that described by the standard acute endpoint.) 

4813  ESA Listed Species Direct Acute: RQ > 0.05 for aquatic animals (greater than 5% of the laboratory test 

4814 organisms exposed to the peak EECs would be expected to exhibit an effect greater than or equal to that 

4815 described by the standard acute endpoint.) 

4816  Direct Chronic Risk: RQ > 1 for both ESA listed and non-listed animals (The long term EECs would be 

4817 greater than the NOEC for 100% of the laboratory test organisms) 

4818  Non-listed Species Aquatic and Terrestrial Plant Direct Effects: RQ >1 (100% of the laboratory test 

4819 organisms exposed to the EECs would be expected to exhibit an effect greater than or equal to that 

4820 described by the standard endpoint for non-listed species.) 

4821  ESA Listed Species Aquatic and Terrestrial Plant Direct Effects: RQ>1 (100% of the laboratory test 

4822 organisms exposed to the EECs would be expected to exhibit an effect greater than or equal to that 

4823 described by the standard endpoint for listed plant species.) 

4824 The EPA has set its ESA listed animal species acute LOCs an order of magnitude lower than those for non-listed 

4825 species but does not make a distinction between the chronic effect risk LOCs between listed and non-listed animal 

4826 species. The LOCs for listed plants are the same as for non-listed species, but the RQs for listed terrestrial plants are 

4827 calculated using lower toxicity endpoints than non-listed plants. The EPA gives no such consideration to ESA listed 

4828 aquatic plant species. 

4829 When registering pesticides, the EPA generally considers that any species for which the RQs do not exceed their 

4830 designated LOC to not be at risk from the pesticide use being evaluated. If the RQs for a taxonomic group in 

4831 question exceed LOCs, the EPA may conduct additional analyses and then must weigh the economic and social 

4832 costs of registering that pesticide use against the environmental costs and benefits such a pesticide use may pose. 

 

25 The "Restricted Use" classification restricts a product, or its uses, to use by a certificated pesticide applicator or under the direct supervision of 

a certified applicator. 
138

4833 It is important to note that for acute aquatic animal effect estimations, the EPA uses an endpoint based on the 

4834 amount of the pesticide that is observed to kill test species. This is the case for non-listed species as well as 

4835 threatened or endangered species. Based on this methodology, EECs for pesticide pollutants in the water could be 

4836 expected to kill or adversely affect threatened or endangered species under NMFS’ jurisdiction without exceeding 

4837 the EPA’s LOC. 

4838 In order to analyze indirect effects to ESA listed organisms, the EPA uses the direct effects LOCs for each 

4839 taxonomic group upon which a listed species may rely for survival. If the RQs for these taxonomic groups are below 

4840 the direct effect listed species LOCs, the EPA considers any effects to these resources and indirect effects that these 

4841 exposures may cause to ESA listed species to be of no concern. These determinations are designed to capture any 

4842 effects to designated critical habitat. 

4843 Additional Requirements of the PGP 

4844 The EPA’s conclusion, as presented in its BE, is that the additional requirements provided in the proposed PGP will 

4845 likely reduce the potential adverse effects to ESA listed species from those that would be expected from current 

4846 pesticide applications approved and registered under the FIFRA. These additional requirements are presented in the 

4847 Description of the Proposed Action section of this Opinion and are summarized below. 

4848 Technology Based Effluent Limitations 

4849 Under this requirement of the permit, operators would be required to implement control measures to minimize the 

4850 discharge of pesticide pollutants to waters of the United States through the use of technology based effluent 

4851 limitations to the extent technologically available and economically achievable and practicable. All operators must 

4852 review or modify pest management measures if an event occurs such as an unauthorized discharge, water quality 

4853 standards are not met, operators failed to use the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application 

4854 necessary to control the target pest, pesticide application equipment is not kept in proper operating condition, 

4855 weather conditions are not considered, an adverse incident occurs or an inspection by EPA, State, Tribal or local 

4856 entities reveal modifications are necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. An operator must make such 

4857 changes before or –if not practicable– as soon as possible before the next discharge. 

4858 Water Quality Standards 

4859 All operators would be required to control discharges to meet applicable numeric and narrative State, Territory or 

4860 Tribal water quality standards. If at any time the permittee becomes aware, or EPA determines, that the discharge 

4861 causes or contributes to an excursion of applicable water quality standards, the permittee must take corrective action. 

4862 Pesticide Discharge Management Plan 

4863 Decision makers that exceed NOI thresholds (except for those made in response to a declared pest emergency) and 

4864 are “large entities” must prepare a PDMP to document the selection and implementation of control measures used to 

4865 comply with the effluent limitations described earlier. The permit defines “large entities” as any: 1) public entity that 

4866 serves a population greater than 10,000 or; 2) a private enterprise that exceeds the Small Business Administration 

4867 size standard. Pesticide discharge management team information, problem identification, pest management options 

4868 evaluation, spill and adverse incident response procedures are required to be included in the PDMP by the permit. 

4869 Oversight and Corrective Actions 

4870 All operators would be required by the permit to allow EPA or an authorized representative to enter the premises 

4871 where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted; have access to any records that must be kept under the 

4872 conditions of the permit; inspect any facilities, equipment practices, or operations regulated or required under the 

4873 permit, and; sample or monitor for the purposes of assuring permit compliance. 
139

4874 If an operator becomes aware that: an adverse incident occurs; an unauthorized discharge occurs; control measures 

4875 are not sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards; the operator failed to use the optimum frequency of 

4876 pesticide applications necessary to control the target pest; the operator failed to perform regular maintenance 

4877 activities to reduce unintended discharges; the operator failed to maintain pesticide application equipment, or; if an 

4878 inspection or evaluation by an EPA official, or local, State, Territorial or Tribal entity determines that modifications 

4879 to the control measures are necessary to meet the non-numeric effluent limits, that operator must review and revise 

4880 the evaluation and selection of their control measures as necessary to insure that the situation is eliminated and will 

4881 not be repeated in the future. 

4882 If an operator determines that changes to its control measures are necessary, such changes must be made before the 

4883 next pesticide application if practicable, or if not, as soon as possible thereafter. 

4884 The occurrence of a situations requiring revision of control measures (as defined above) may constitute a violation 

4885 of the permit. The EPA will consider the appropriateness and promptness of corrective action in determining 

4886 enforcement responses to permit violations and, along with the Courts, may impose additional requirements and 

4887 schedules of compliance. 

4888 Limitations on Coverage 

4889 The proposed PGP would not authorize the discharge of pesticide to impaired Water of the U.S. that is such 

4890 impaired by the specific pesticide, or degradates of the pesticide, to be permitted to be discharged. In this case, the 

4891 operator would have to obtain coverage under an individual permit for such a discharge or chose some other means 

4892 of pest management. 

4893 If a proposed discharge is already authorized under another permit, the operator is ineligible for coverage under the 

4894 PGP permit. If the intended discharge was included in a permit that has been or is in the process of being denied, 

4895 terminated or revoked by EPA in the past five years, the proposed discharge is ineligible for coverage under this 

4896 permit. 

4897 IPM/Pest Management Measures 

4898 Under the PGP, operators are required to use Pest Management Measures not currently required under FIFRA. The 

4899 EPA anticipates that these requirements will lead to a decrease in the amount of pesticides used and an increase in 

4900 the use of non-chemical pest control methods. For each use pattern, the permit requires that each decision maker 

4901 evaluate the use of non-chemical methods and to consider impacts to non-target organisms. 

4902 NOI and Determinations of Potential Effects to ESA listed Resources 

4903 Under the PGP, all decision makers expecting to discharge pesticides on, over or near waters of the United States. 

4904 on Federal lands or into designated Tier 3 waters are required to submit an NOI containing information on whether 

4905 these discharges will overlap with the distributions of endangered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat 

4906 (listed resource effect determinations). All State or Federal operators and mosquito, irrigation and aquatic weed 

4907 control or other pest control districts must submit NOIs. All other decision makers, including decision makers 

4908 expecting to discharge on Indian lands, are required to submit an NOI to obtain coverage for discharges resulting 

4909 from the application of pesticides if it has reason to believe it will exceed one or more of the treatment area 

4910 thresholds. Decision makers who do not expect to exceed one or more of the treatment area thresholds are not 

4911 required to submit an NOI; those discharges would automatically be authorized under the proposed permit. 

4912 To determine the appropriate thresholds that would trigger the NOI requirements, the EPA discussed these proposed 

4913 thresholds with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and industry representatives. The EPA then developed annual 
140

4914 treatment area thresholds based on these discussions as well as from comments received during the public comment 

4915 process. These thresholds are meant to differentiate between applications to small and larger areas. EPA’s 

4916 assumption was that the larger areas “are believed to have a greater potential for impact on Waters of the US.” 

Earlier in the consultation process, the EPA26 4917 stated that they were: 

4918 “assuming that 100% of categories 1 [mosquito and other flying insect pests control] and 3 [aquatic 

4919 nuisance animal control] will submit NOIs; a significantly lesser percentage will submit NOIs for 

4920 category 2 [aquatic nuisance weed and algae control] (<10%); and it seems as though about 10% of 

4921 the category 4 [forest canopy pest control] activities will be required to submit an NOI...” 

4922 However, on December 16, 2010, EPA notified NMFS that it was raising the NOI thresholds for some of the use 

4923 patterns. NOI threshold requirements for nuisance aquatic plant and animal treatments increased fourfold from 20 to 

4924 80 square acres (the linear area threshold remained unchanged at 20 miles). The EPA also raised the NOI thresholds 

4925 for forest canopy applications and mosquito adulticide applications an order of magnitude from 640 ac to 6,400 ac 

4926 (ten square miles). 

4927 Monitoring and Reporting 

4928 Under the conditions of the PGP, all operators would be required to: monitor the amount of pesticide and frequency 

4929 of pesticide application used to control the target pest; monitor pesticide application activities to insure pesticide 

4930 application equipment is maintained in proper operating conditions; and monitor weather conditions in the treatment 

4931 area to insure application is consistent with all applicable Federal requirements. If a reportable spill occurs, the 

4932 operator must contact the National Response Center immediately. The operator must document and retain 

4933 information on the spill within 30 days. 

4934 All operators must keep records of adverse incidents reports; a copy of corrective action determinations and a copy 

4935 of any spill or other non-permitted discharges. Any decision maker that is not a “large entity” and is required to 

4936 submit an NOI must also keep records of the NOI and any correspondence with EPA about the NOI; documentation 

4937 of equipment calibration, and; Information on each treatment area. These decision makers must also submit an 

4938 annual report to EPA. 

4939 The permit also requires visual monitoring assessments by all operators of the application area and notification to 

4940 the permitting authority if adverse effects are observed. The EPA also states in its BE that: “[Visual monitoring by 

4941 permittees] ... should provide valuable information to EPA and the States about where adverse environmental 

4942 effects are occurring. This knowledge will help EPA identify where problems may remain and where improvements 

4943 can be made in the next PGP.” 

4944 Evaluation of Those Components of the Proposed PGP Designed to Minimize or Prevent Exposure 

4945 EPA’s Ability to Estimate the Number and Locations of Discharges Authorized by the PGP 

4946 To reliably estimate the probable individual or cumulative effects to ESA listed species or designated critical habitat, 

4947 the EPA would need to know or reliably estimate the probable number of discharges that it would authorize under 

4948 the permit. The EPA is proposing to rely on a small subset of the estimated 35,183 operators to file NOIs to obtain 

4949 this information. In addition, the NOIs that EPA expects provide very little information prior to discharge. These 

4950 NOIs would contain: 1) The name, address, type and contact information of the operator expected to discharge 

 

26 April 5, 2010 Email from EPA on affected operator estimated numbers. 
141

4951 pollutants, and; 2) Pesticide use patterns and planned locations of these applications. These NOIs would only 

4952 provide information on the planned locations of discharges to waters of the United States where listed species or 

4953 designated critical habitat occurs, but not the locations or timings of actual discharges that occur. Nor would the 

4954 discharger be required to identify which product or products would be used. Further, most routine dischargers would 

4955 file only one NOI at the beginning of the five year period. The number of operators that the EPA estimates will be 

4956 affected by the proposed general permit is listed in Table 12. 

4957 If a decision maker is a Federal facility and intends to discharge into designated Tier 3 waters or has reason to 

4958 believe that it will exceed the annual treatment thresholds established by the EPA as described in the proposed 

4959 general permit, that decision maker is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage. The NOIs are 

4960 to contain a section where the decision maker is to self-certify whether pesticide application activities will overlap 

4961 with the distribution of endangered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat and, if so, whether these 

4962 applications have undergone ESA Section 7 consultations or received an ESA Section 10 permit for take of listed 

4963 species or designated critical habitat. The permit would cover the decision maker 10 days after EPA posts a receipt 

4964 of a complete and accurate NOI. Any decision maker that expects to exceed any area thresholds must submit an NOI 

4965 by January 9, 2012. It is also important to note that because of this, discharges to waters of the United States made 

4966 by that decision maker would immediately be authorized under the permit before any NOI is required. 

4967 The EPA’s Office of Water; Office of Pesticides, Pollution and Toxic Substances; and Regional Offices, engaged in 

4968 discussions with USDA and representatives from industry to determine the thresholds that would trigger NOI 

4969 requirements for the remaining operators. The EPA then developed annual treatment area thresholds that 

4970 differentiate between smaller applications and the larger applications that it believes to have a greater potential for 

4971 adverse impacts to waters of the United States All State or Federal operators and operators that are mosquito, 

4972 irrigation and aquatic weed control or other pest control districts must submit NOIs. 

4973 

4974 

Table 12. EPA Estimated Number of Operators to be Affected by the PGP1

 

Mosquito and 

Other Flying 

Insect Control 

Aquatic Weed 

and Algae 

Control 

Aquatic 

Nuisance 

Animal Control 

Forest Canopy 

Pest Control TOTAL 

Alaska* 2 325 15 18 385 

Idaho* 23 16,489 12 48 16,572 

Massachusetts* 9 2,041 15 214 2,279 

New Hampshire* 44 627 8 85 764 

New Mexico 13 10,411 21 26 10,471 

Oklahoma 1 3,889 74 159 4,123 

District of Columbia* 1 8 2 0 11 

Territories* 1 314 38 4 357 

Tribes* 17 93 25 34 169 

Federal Facilities* 10 10 10 22 52 

Total 121 34,232 220 610 35,183 
142

4975 * Denotes areas where discharges may affect ESA listed species or designated critical habitat under NMFS' jurisdiction. 

4976 The EPA originally estimated that roughly 100% of operators under the Mosquito and other Flying Insect Control 

4977 and Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control would be required to file NOIs. Less than 10% of operators under the Aquatic 

4978 Weed and Algae control and roughly 10% of the Forest Canopy Pest Control operators were originally estimated to 

4979 be required to file NOIs. NMFS estimated corrected numbers of non-Federal operators expected to be required to 

4980 file NOIs. Based on the original information given by EPA, NMFS adjusted the expected number of operators who 

4981 would file NOIs based on the changes in the most recent version of the permit that raised the threshold numbers.

4982 The NOI threshold for mosquitoes and other flying insect pest control is 6,400 acres. The EPA did not provide us 

4983 with estimates of the number of decision makers that would be required to submit NOIs containing endangered or 

4984 threatened species or designated critical habitat effects determinations. However, all State or Federal operators and 

4985 operators that are mosquito or other pest control districts must submit NOIs.

4986 We believe discharges of pesticides to waters of the United States from mosquitoes and other flying insect pest 

4987 control will occur in areas where listed species under NMFS' jurisdiction occur. This is of concern because in 

4988 addition to direct toxicity, these pesticides are toxic to invertebrates that constitute the prey base of ESA listed 

4989 species and make up the ecological communities on which these species depend for survival. We expect that these 

4990 discharges are likely to expose ESA listed species under NMFS' jurisdiction, their prey and habitat to pesticides and 

4991 that these exposures may cause adverse effects to those species or to designated critical habitat. For those decision 

4992 makers who fall under the newly raised threshold, there will be no mechanism for EPA to know or reliably estimate 

4993 the number and locations of discharges. 

4994 The EPA originally estimated that less than 10% of operators under the aquatic weed and algae control would 

4995 exceed the area threshold required to submit NOIs. However, these estimates were based on proposed treatment 

4996 thresholds of 20 acres with a linear treatment threshold of 20 linear miles and the assumption that not all Federal, 

4997 State and aquatic weed control or other pest control districts would be required to submit NOIs. The EPA since 

4998 raised the NOI threshold for aquatic weed and algae control to 80 acres of treatment area. The current proposed 

4999 permit now requires that all State or Federal operators and operators that are aquatic weed control or other pest 

5000 control districts must submit NOIs. The EPA also changed the requirement that these estimates be cumulative on an 

5001 annual basis, to being mere single application estimates, meaning that a decision maker could discharge pesticides 

5002 into an unlimited amount of area as long as the FIFRA approved pesticide label was followed and no single 

5003 application exceeds 80 square acres or 20 linear miles. 

5004 For many decision makers under this category, EPA will have no mechanism for determining the number and 

5005 location of discharges. This is of concern because aquatic plants contribute a large part to the overall health of 

5006 aquatic ecosystems. In fact, without aquatic plants, there would be no aquatic ecosystems. 

5007 In addition, the death of aquatic plans from herbicide exposure can result in hypoxic conditions in these ecosystems 

5008 that are not easily observed, but may have adverse consequences to ESA listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction 

5009 and their designated critical habitat. As a result, we expect that the aquatic weed and algae control actions authorized 

5010 by the permit may expose endangered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat to pesticides and that these 

5011 exposures may cause adverse effects to these resources. 

5012 The EPA originally estimated that approximately 100% of operators under the aquatic nuisance animal control use 

5013 pattern would exceed the area threshold required to submit NOIs. However, these estimates were based on treatment 

5014 thresholds of 20 acres. The EPA since raised this NOI threshold to 80 acres. All Federal and State decision makers 
143

5015 would be required to submit NOIs under the proposed permit. While EPA did not provide us with adequate 

5016 information to determine how many non-Federal or State operators would now be required to submit NOIs for this 

5017 use pattern, this number would be fewer than originally estimated. As a result, we believe discharges of pesticides to 

5018 waters of the United States from aquatic nuisance animal control activities authorized by the permit will occur in 

5019 areas where listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction occur. This is especially concerning because many of the 

5020 pesticides under this use category are lethal to fish, including listed species. We expect that these discharges are 

5021 likely to result in exposures of pesticides to endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat under 

5022 NMFS’ jurisdiction and that these exposures may cause adverse effects to those species or to designated critical 

5023 habitat. For the decision makers who will not be required to submit NOIs, there will be no mechanism to prevent 

5024 these exposures from occurring because no identification of these potential exposures will now be required. 

5025 The EPA originally estimated that approximately 10% of operators discharging under the forest canopy pest control 

5026 use category would be required to submit NOIs. However this estimate was based on an earlier threshold of 640 

5027 acres. The NOI threshold for forest canopy pest control activities was raised to 6,400 acres. As a result, we estimate 

5028 that only roughly 1% of the forest canopy pest control applicators would now be required to submit NOIs and that 

5029 ~99% of these decision makers would be automatically authorized without being required to submit any endangered 

5030 or threatened species, or designated critical habitat effects determinations to the EPA. Thus, the vast majority of 

5031 applicators authorized to discharge pesticides on, over or near waters of the United States for this use category under 

5032 the permit would therefore not be required to make any listed resource effects determinations or to consider the 

5033 impacts that these pesticides may have to these resources. We expect that these discharges are likely to result in 

5034 exposures of pesticides to ESA listed species or designated critical habitat under NMFS’ jurisdiction. This is of 

5035 concern because these pesticides may have effects to those species and their prey and, given the wide pesticide 

5036 application pattern for this use, many streams upon which listed species depend for survival may be exposed. Thus, 

5037 it is our opinion that these exposures will cause adverse effects to ESA listed species or designated critical habitat 

5038 under NMFS’ jurisdiction. 

5039 The current draft of the permit does require that all Federal facilities and decision makers who intend to discharge 

5040 pesticides into Tier 3 waters submit NOIs and accompanying listed resource effect determinations. However, even if 

5041 all decision makers were required to submit NOIs containing listed resource effect determinations, these decision 

5042 makers would have little incentive to make a positive effect determination because such determinations could 

5043 negatively affect them economically. It is also unlikely that most decision makers would possess the ability or 

5044 resources to make accurate effects determinations in the first place. Furthermore, the EPA has not explained how –or 

5045 if– it intends to assess the effect determinations it does receive. The EPA has also not stated what consequences a 

5046 positive effect determination would have to the decision maker’s ability to discharge pesticides in areas where 

5047 endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat occur. 

5048 Any decision maker that is a “large entity” and is required to submit an NOI must also submit an annual report to 

5049 EPA that includes: 1) A description of the treatment area; 2) Identification of any waters receiving discharged 

5050 pesticides, and; 3) Any adverse incidents and a description of any corrective actions. The permit defines “large 

5051 entities” as: 1) Any public entity that serves a population greater than 10,000 or; 2) A private enterprise that exceeds 

5052 the Small Business Administration size standard. 

5053 Most operators discharging pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters of the United States as authorized by the 

5054 proposed general permit would not be required to provide NOIs or annual reports. Because of this, the EPA would 

5055 not know how many pesticide pollutant discharges it would authorize under the proposed general permit or where 

5056 these discharges occur. Those discharges that the EPA will require operators to report will only be reported after 
144

5057 those discharges have happened. Furthermore, decision makers would immediately be authorized under the permit 

5058 before any NOI would be required. As such, the EPA has not structured the proposed general permit so that it could 

5059 know or reliably estimate the number of discharges that it would authorize under the permit, nor can it know or 

5060 reliably estimate the probable locations of these discharges. Accordingly, the EPA cannot reliably estimate the 

5061 effects of the discharges it proposes to authorize under the PGP to ESA listed species or designated critical habitat. 

5062 EPA’s Ability to Estimate Stressors Produced from the Proposed Actions Authorized by the PGP 

5063 To know or reliably estimate the physical, chemical or biotic stressors that are likely to be produced as a direct or 

5064 indirect result of the discharges of pesticide pollutants that would be authorized by the PGP, the EPA would need to 

5065 know or be able to reliably estimate whether those discharges have occurred in concentrations, frequencies or for 

5066 durations that violate the terms of the proposed PGP. 

5067 Under the proposed permit, all operators would be required to control discharges to meet applicable numeric and 

5068 narrative State, Territory or Tribal water quality standards. As noted above, numeric standards have not been 

5069 identified for most of the pesticide active ingredients and degradates. If at any time the permittee becomes aware 

5070 that the discharge causes or contributes to an excursion of applicable water quality standards, the permittee must 

5071 take corrective action. However, it is unlikely that any operator would become aware that its discharge has resulted 

5072 in an exceedance of a water quality standard because the proposed general permit does not require either the 

5073 operator or EPA to monitor for such exceedances for the vast majority of the discharges to be authorized. As such, 

5074 the EPA cannot know or reliably estimate the physical, chemical or biotic stressors that are likely to be produced as 

5075 a direct or indirect result of the activities to be authorized by the proposed permit. 

5076 EPA’s Ability to Estimate Compliance with the Permit 

5077 To know or be able to determine reliably whether or to what degree operators are complying with the conditions, 

5078 restrictions or mitigation measures the proposed general permit requires when they discharge pesticide pollutants on, 

5079 over or near waters of the U.S., the EPA must have an effective means of oversight. Under the conditions of the 

5080 permit, any operator would be required to allow EPA or an authorized representative to: 1) Enter the premises where 

5081 a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted; 2) Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records 

5082 that must be kept under the conditions of the permit; 3) Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment, 

5083 practices, or operations regulated or required under the permit, and; 4) Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for 

5084 the purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or 

5085 parameters at any location. 

5086 However, it is not explained how often, or if the EPA plans to carry out such oversight. The proposed general permit 

5087 only states that the operator must allow EPA to do so. While we cannot know in advance the compliance rate for the 

5088 PGP, the compliance rates of existing general permits provide an insight into the effectiveness of general permits in 

5089 protecting water quality. 

5090 EPA’s Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) was used to query NPDES compliance data in the Permit 

5091 Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System - National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) databases27 5092 . The database was downloaded on January 5, 2011. The PCS and 

 

27 The PCS was the original tracking mechanism for NPDES permits and currently includes data for 21 states. State by state, the 

data in PCS is being migrated into the newer ICIS-NPDES. The ICIS-NPDES currently tracks data for the remaining states not 

represented in PCS, U.S. territories, the Navajo Nation, and the St. Regis Tribe. 
145

5093 ICIS-NPDES databases track the number of inspections and enforcement actions over five years, along with the 

5094 number of non-compliance and effluent guideline exceedances over three years. The data are divided between major 

5095 and minor dischargers. Major dischargers are typically facilities with a flow of one million gallons per day or 

5096 greater. Examples of major dischargers are cities, towns or regional sewer districts. For the purposes of this 

5097 consultation, we consider all operators to be authorized to discharge pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters of 

5098 the United States as minor dischargers. 

5099 We focused on general and individual permits for entities where EPA is the permitting authority as identified in the 

5100 Description of the Proposed Action section of this Biological Opinion. A list of the general types and number of 

5101 NPDES general permits is listed in Table 13. 

Table 13. Types and Current Number of NPDES General Permits 

Activity # General Permits 

Aquaculture 90 

Concentrated Animal Feed Operation 105 

Construction General Permit 168 

Cooling Water 23 

Drinking Water 53 

Groundwater Remediation 23 

Hydroelectric Facilities 27 

Hydrostatic Testing 4 

Industrial 6 

Industrial Storm Water 128 

Log Transfer Facilities 84 

Mining 590 

Municipal Storm Water 48 

Oil & Gas 2888 

Other 386 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) 119 

Seafood Processors 264 

5102 To avoid bias from permits with multiple inspections due to compliance and enforcement actions, we converted the 

5103 frequency data into presence/absence of inspection, compliance and enforcement events. In this way, each permit 

5104 was equally weighted in the analysis. Table 14 shows that the majority of major dischargers (66%) were inspected at 

5105 least once in the past 5 years. However, among minor dischargers, a much smaller proportion of general permittees 

5106 (14%) were inspected relative to the proportion of individual permittees inspected. 

Table 14. Number and Relative Proportion of Inspected Permittees According to Permit Type 

Discharger Type Permit Type Never Inspected Inspected Proportion Inspected 

Major General 0 41 100% 

Individual 3 405 99% 

Minor General 4292 673 14% 

Individual 375 735 66% 

5107 The relationship between inspections and the detection of violations within general and individual permits is 
146

5108 illustrated in Table 15. Uninspected operators had fewer violations than inspected permittees. Substantially fewer 

5109 violations were reported for the uninspected general permittees relative to those permittees that were inspected. Half 

5110 of the inspected general permittees were found in violation at least once in the past three years while only 15% of 

5111 the uninspected general permittees were reported to be in violation over that time period. This suggests that the 

5112 reduced inspection rate among general permits for minor dischargers results in a fairly large number of undetected 

5113 violations. 

Table 15. Frequency and Relative Rate of Permit Violations for Minor Dischargers with and without Inspections 

Permit Type Inspected? No Permit 

Violations Permit Violations Proportion 

Violations 

General Never 3658 634 15% 

Yes 335 338 50% 

Individual Never 135 240 64% 

Yes 173 562 76% 

5114 Due to the nature of general permits, only seven percent (356) of the general permittees had effluent limit data 

5115 available. The rates of effluent violations for those permits with effluent limits are detailed in Table 16. The 

5116 proportion of effluent violations detected for minor dischargers with individual permits had similar violation rates, 

5117 with the inspected permit violation rate at 91% and the uninspected permit violation rate of 83%. Effluent violations 

5118 for uninspected minor dischargers with general permits were detected at a substantially lower rate (47%) than 

5119 inspected operators, whose violation rate was 92%. 

Table 16. Frequency and Relative Rate of Permit Effluent Limit Violations with and without Inspections 

Permit Type Inspected? No Effluent Limit 

Violations 

Effluent Limit 

Violations 

Proportion with 

effluent violations 

General Never 133 117 47% 

Yes 4 102 96% 

Individual Never 42 203 83% 

Yes 46 500 92% 

5120 These analyses suggest that general permits for minor dischargers have substantial undetected violations and that 

5121 these violations include exceedances of effluent limits. The severity of a given violation is reflected by the 

5122 enforcement action taken. Formal enforcement actions are triggered by the failure to achieve compliance within a 

5123 specified period of time under informal enforcement measures or for violations of sufficiently serious nature 

triggering formal enforcement action with subsequent penalty order or judicial action.28 5124 Enforcement actions were 

5125 more frequently pursued against major dischargers than minor dischargers irrespective of permit type (see Table 17). 

5126 Informal enforcement actions were more common than formal enforcement actions among general permits for both 

5127 minor and major dischargers. 

5128 

5129 

5130 

 

28 USEPA 1989. The Enforcement Management System: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, (Clean Water Act). 

Office of Water. # PB95-156527
147

Table 17. Relative Distribution of Enforcement Actions among Different Permit Types 

Discharger Type Permit Type Formal Informal No Enforcement 

Major General 3% 52% 39% 

 Individual 24% 18% 38% 

Minor General 2% 30% 67% 

 Individual 18% 11% 70% 

5131 While the dominance of informal enforcement actions for general permits suggests that these violations were less 

5132 severe than violations committed under individual permits, this could be due to the absence of effluent limits among 

5133 the general permits. If a formal enforcement action is more likely to be linked to an effluent limit violation, then 

5134 formal enforcement actions are less likely to occur among general permits. If this were the case, one would expect 

5135 that an examination of enforcement actions for only those permits with effluent violations would show similar rates 

5136 of formal enforcement actions. Table 18 details the results of such an analysis. Among permits with effluent limit 

5137 violations, general permits were less likely than individual permits to receive a formal enforcement action. However, 

5138 it is interesting to note that general permits with effluent limit violations were somewhat less likely than individual 

5139 permits to be met with any enforcement action. 

Table 18. Relative Distribution of Enforcement Actions Among Permits with Effluent Violations 

Discharger Type Permit Type Formal Informal No Enforcement 

Major General 0% 50% 50% 

 Individual 47% 15% 39% 

Minor General 3% 10% 88% 

 Individual 21% 12% 67% 

5140 A review of inspection and compliance patterns for general permits recorded in EPA databases produced evidence 

5141 that the reduced rate of inspections of minor dischargers with general permits likely results in a substantial number 

5142 of undetected permit violations and that these violations include exceedances of effluent limits. General permit 

5143 violations for minor dischargers are less likely to be met with formal enforcement actions, suggesting that general 

5144 permit violations are less severe than violations found under individual permits. However, the disparity in the rate of 

5145 formal enforcement actions for individual and general permits could be due to the differing nature of their 

5146 discharges and the specificity of the constraints listed within the permits. Individual permittees are largely 

5147 wastewater treatment facilities and industrial dischargers releasing effluents with known constituents (more or less) 

5148 at a predictable rate from discrete point sources. This allows more specific monitoring and reporting requirements 

5149 within a permit and, as a consequence, a greater probability of violating the permit conditions. These dischargers are 

5150 also more likely to release constituents for which there are water quality criteria. Discharges of such constituents 

5151 from a point source at a known rate are more easily monitored than the diffuse, episodic discharges typical of 

5152 general permits. 

5153 Previous investigations of general permits have examined the reliability of self-identification for permit coverage 

5154 and self-reporting for permit violations. One investigation reported grossly incomplete compliance with State and 

5155 EPA administered storm water general permits 10 years after implementation (Duke and Augustenborg, 2006). The 

5156 researchers also determined that general permits administered by EPA attained higher compliance rates than State 

5157 administered general permits. Another study found a compliance rate of 10% under Florida’s State wide general 

5158 permit. Only 14 of the 136 industries examined which should have filed an NOI did so (Cross and Duke, 2008). 

5159 Analysis of EPA’s permitting and compliance databases indicate high levels of non-compliance and lower rate of 
148

5160 enforcement actions with general permits as opposed to individual permits. Further, among general permits, those 

5161 that were never inspected were half as likely to be listed with effluent violations. The lower rate of inspections for 

5162 minor dischargers, such as those to be authorized by the proposed PGP, appears to be a weak point in compliance 

5163 with existing NPDES general permits. Given the findings of this analysis, NMFS expects that the EPA cannot insure 

5164 compliance with the protective provisions of NPDES general permits. Because of this, the EPA is not likely to 

5165 know, or be able to determine reliably, whether, or to what degree, operators that are to be authorized to discharge 

5166 pesticide pollutants would be complying with the conditions, restrictions or mitigation measures that the proposed 

5167 PGP requires. 

5168 EPA’s Ability to Determine Exposures of Listed Resources to the Effects of the Proposed Action 

5169 The EPA proposes to employ the NOI process on order to know or be able to reliably estimate whether or what 

5170 degree specific endangered or threatened species are likely to be exposed to the direct or indirect effects of the 

5171 activities to be authorized by the proposed permit. The NOIs are to contain a section where the decision maker is to 

5172 self-certify whether its pesticide application activities will overlap with the distribution of ESA listed species or 

5173 designated critical habitat, and if so, must state: 1) If these applications have undergone ESA Section 7 consultations 

5174 or received an ESA Section 10 permit and, 2) Which of these endangered or threatened species, or designated 

5175 critical habitat overlap with treatment areas. However, as mentioned previously, the majority of operators would be 

5176 authorized by the proposed general permit without filing such NOIs. In addition, some operators would be 

5177 authorized to discharge pesticide pollutants before any such NOI would be required. 

5178 Even if all decision makers were required to submit NOIs with ESA listed species and designated critical habitat 

5179 effect determinations, these decision makers would have little incentive to make a positive effect determination 

5180 given that such a determination could preclude their ability to apply pesticides and would therefore affect them 

5181 economically. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the majority of decision makers would possess the ability or resources 

5182 to make accurate effects determinations. 

5183 Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal Agencies to use the best scientific and commercial data available to 

5184 insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such Agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

5185 existence of any listed resource. The conditions that EPA proposes to add to the permit require permittees to be 

5186 responsible for complying with this requirement by determining whether the specific actions those permittees carry 

5187 out, as authorized by the proposed general permit, may affect ESA listed species or designated critical habitat 

5188 without. However it is unlikely that the majority of these operators would have access to the best scientific and 

5189 commercial data available to make such determinations. Furthermore, the EPA has not explained how –or if– it 

5190 intends to assess the effect determinations it does receive for accuracy. The EPA has also not stated what 

5191 consequences such a positive effect determination would have to the decision maker’s ability to discharge pesticides 

5192 in areas where endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat occur. 

5193 The condition that permittees be required to assess potential effects to ESA listed species from the activities 

5194 authorized by the permit is not sufficient to insure that these actions are not likely to expose endangered or 

5195 threatened species, or designated critical habitat to the direct or indirect effects of the actions. Because of the small 

5196 percentage of decision makers that are required to submit NOIs containing determinations as to the presence of ESA 

5197 listed species or designated critical habitat in the areas where pesticide pollutants are to be discharged; and the fact 

5198 that it is not likely that those few decision makers who are required to submit such determinations would possess the 

5199 knowledge, skills or resources to make such determinations accurately; and that it is not clear how –or if– the EPA 

5200 will evaluate the few determinations it does receive; or what the consequences of any such determinations would be; 

5201 the NOI process is not sufficient such that the EPA would know or be able to reliably estimate whether or what 
149

5202 degree ESA listed species are likely to be exposed to the direct or indirect effects of the activities to be authorized by 

5203 the proposed permit. 

5204 EPA’s Ability to Monitor Adverse Effects from Activities Authorized by the PGP 

5205 In order to continually identify, collect and analyze information that suggests that the discharges of pesticide 

5206 pollutants on, over or near waters of the United States may expose endangered or threatened species or designated 

5207 critical habitat to pesticide pollutants at concentrations, durations or frequencies that are known or suspected to 

5208 produce physical, physiological, behavioral or ecological responses that have potential individual or cumulative 

5209 adverse consequences for individual organisms or constituent elements of critical habitat, the EPA proposes to 

5210 require that operators self-monitor for adverse effects resulting from these discharges. Under requirements of the 

5211 PGP, permittees are required to monitor and report any adverse incidents resulting from activities authorized by the 

5212 permit. This places the responsibility for oversight largely on the permittees who would have little incentive to do so 

5213 given that such observations could result in a violation of the permit and result in enforcement responses by the 

5214 EPA. 

5215 Adequate monitoring by the operator that would be sufficient to insure that no adverse exposures occurred from 

5216 authorized discharges would be time and resource intensive. It is also unclear how an operator will have the ability 

5217 to visually detect all adverse responses to pesticide exposures to ESA listed species or their designated critical 

5218 habitat. For example, while operators might have the ability to observe the mortality of adult or juvenile listed fish, 

5219 they likely would not have the resources or ability to visually detect the death of the eggs or alevins of these species. 

5220 Nor would they likely have the resources or ability to observe reductions in the reproduction or growth rates of these 

5221 species as a result of pesticide exposures. The EPA states in its BE that: 

5222 “[Visual monitoring by permittees] ... should provide valuable information to EPA and the States 

5223 about where adverse environmental effects are occurring. This knowledge will help EPA identify 

5224 where problems may remain and where improvements can be made in the next PGP.” 

5225 While we agree that these monitoring efforts may certainly improve the permit over time, It is unlikely that the self5226 monitoring and self-reporting conditions of the permit are sufficient such that the EPA can continually identify, 

5227 collect and analyze information that suggests that the discharges of pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters of the 

5228 United States may expose endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat under NMFS’ jurisdiction 

5229 to pesticide pollutants at concentrations, durations or frequencies that are known or suspected to produce physical, 

5230 physiological, behavioral or ecological responses that have potential individual or cumulative adverse consequences 

5231 for individual organisms or constituent elements of critical habitat. 

5232 EPA’s Consideration of Species’ Status and Population Effects 

5233 The EPA makes its determinations of the potential effects pesticides may have on ESA listed species through an 

5234 ecological risk assessment process specifically designed to address the active ingredients in pesticides under FIFRA. 

5235 In order to prevent or mitigate risks ESA listed species and their designated critical habitat, the EPA employs a 

5236 screening level risk assessment that uses a generic risk quotient (RQ) method to estimate the potential direct effects 

5237 of individual pesticides to non-target organisms. An RQ is the ratio of the Estimated Environmental Concentrations 

5238 (EECs) in the environment and an endpoint value derived from a standard toxicity test exposing standard species to 

a gradient of pesticide concentrations29 5239 (RQ=EEC/Endpoint). The degree to which an endpoint value exceeds the 

5240 EEC is classified according to pre-established levels of concern (LOC). 

 

29 See EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) test guidelines for more information: 

http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/draftguidelines.htm
150

5241 In order to analyze indirect effects to ESA listed organisms, the EPA uses the direct effects LOCs for each 

5242 taxonomic group upon which an ESA listed species may rely for survival. If the RQs for these taxonomic groups are 

5243 below the direct effect ESA listed species LOCs, the EPA considers any effects to these resources and indirect 

5244 effects that these effects may cause to ESA listed species to be of no concern. These determinations are designed to 

5245 capture any effects to designated critical habitat. 

5246 The FIFRA registration process described above addresses toxicity for a single exposure to a single stressor in the 

5247 lifetime of a standard test organism. It does not integrate the status and trends of ESA listed species and critical 

5248 habitat, the demographic and ecological status of ESA listed species populations and individuals comprising those 

5249 populations or the pre-existing stressors in the watersheds where they occur. The exposure modeling employed does 

5250 not examine the specific direct and indirect pathways through which ESA listed species and designated critical 

5251 habitat are exposed. 

5252 Summary of EPA’s Ability to Minimize or Prevent Exposure 

5253 As the proposed general permit is structured, the EPA would not know the total number of pesticide pollutant 

5254 discharges it would authorize under the proposed general permit or where or when these discharges would occur. In 

5255 addition, some of the discharges that the EPA would require operators to report would only be reported after the 

5256 fact. 

5257 Though operators would be required to control discharges to meet applicable numeric and narrative State, Territory 

5258 or Tribal water quality standards under the current draft general permit, the majority of operators would not monitor 

5259 water quality and would thus have no way of knowing whether a discharge has exceeded a water quality standard. 

5260 Because of this, the EPA cannot know or reliably estimate the physical, chemical or biotic stressors that are likely to 

5261 be produced as a direct or indirect result of the activities to be authorized by the proposed permit. 

5262 There is a high level of non-compliance and lower rate of enforcement actions with general permits. There is also a 

5263 low rate of inspections for minor dischargers, such as those to be authorized by the proposed PGP. Because of this, 

5264 the EPA is not likely to know or be able to determine reliably whether or to what degree operators are complying 

5265 with the conditions, restrictions or mitigation measures the proposed general permit requires when they discharge 

5266 pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters of the U.S. 

5267 The majority of operators will not be required to submit NOIs containing determinations as to the presence of ESA 

5268 listed species or designated critical habitat in the areas where pesticide pollutants are to be discharged. Furthermore, 

5269 it is not clear how –or if– the EPA will evaluate the determinations it does receive, or what the consequences of any 

5270 such determinations would be. Because of these reasons, the NOI process is not sufficient such that the EPA would 

5271 know or be able to reliably estimate whether or what degree ESA listed species are likely to be exposed to the direct 

5272 or indirect effects of the activities to be authorized by the proposed permit. 

5273 The self-monitoring and self-reporting conditions of the permit are not sufficient such that the EPA can continually 

5274 identify, collect and analyze information that would suggest that the discharges of pesticide pollutants may expose 

5275 endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat to pesticide pollutants. Because of this, the EPA 

5276 would not know if these exposures are occurring at concentrations, durations or frequencies that are known or 

5277 suspected to produce adverse effects to ESA listed species or constituent elements of critical habitat. 

5278 The current draft general permit is not sufficient such that the EPA can reliably estimate whether or to what degree 

5279 specific endangered or threatened species are likely to be affected by the direct or indirect effects of the activities to 

5280 be authorized by the proposed permit. The FIFRA registration process that originally authorized the pesticide uses to 
151

5281 be authorized under the proposed general permit does not integrate information on the status and trends of ESA 

5282 listed species and critical habitat, the demographic and ecological status of ESA listed species populations and 

5283 individuals comprising those populations, or the pre-existing stressors in the watersheds where they occur. 

5284 Because of these insufficiencies, the EPA would not be likely to know where or when most of the discharges it 

5285 intends to authorize by the proposed general permit would occur; if these discharges were resulting in exposures to 

5286 pesticide pollutants in concentrations, durations or frequencies that would cause adverse effects to ESA listed 

5287 species or designated critical habitat or whether the permittees were complying with the conditions of the permit 

5288 designed to prevent exposures to ESA listed species and designated critical habitat. As such, the EPA would not 

5289 likely be able to implement preventive measures to stop such exposures. 

5290 Therefore, the EPA has not structured the proposed PGP so that it will be able to prevent endangered or threatened 

5291 species from being exposed to discharges of pesticide pollutants: (a) At concentrations, durations, or frequencies that 

5292 are potentially harmful to individual listed organisms, populations or the species; (b) In mixtures that are potentially 

5293 harmful to individual listed organisms, populations or the species, or; (c) To ecological consequences that are 

5294 potentially harmful to individual listed organisms, populations, species or Primary Constituent Elements of 

5295 designated critical habitat. 

5296 Cumulative Effects 

5297 Cumulative effects include the effects of future state, Tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to 

5298 occur in the action area considered in this Biological Opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the 

5299 proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of 

5300 the ESA. 

5301 The biological evaluation that EPA submitted to support its request for formal consultation and which is required to 

5302 discuss cumulative effects (as they are defined for the purposes of section 7 of the ESA) did not identify future State, 

5303 Tribal, local, or private actions that were reasonably certain to occur in the action area and that would not require 

5304 Federal authorization, Federal funding, or the actions of a Federal agency. During this consultation, NMFS searched 

5305 for information on future State, Tribal, local or private actions that were reasonably certain to occur in the action 

5306 area. NMFS conducted electronic searches of business journals, trade journals and newspapers using First Search, 

5307 Google and other electronic search engines. Those searches produced no evidence of future private action in the 

5308 action area that would not require Federal authorization or funding and is reasonably certain to occur. As a result, 

5309 NMFS is not aware of any actions of this kind that are likely to occur in the action area during the near future. 

5310 Integration and Synthesis of Effects 

5311 In the Assessment Approach section of this Opinion, our risk analyses began by identifying the probable risks 

5312 actions pose to ESA listed individuals that are likely to be exposed to an action’s effects. We identify risks to 

5313 individuals of endangered or threatened species using changes in the individuals’ “fitness” or the individual’s 

5314 growth, survival, annual reproductive success and lifetime reproductive success. When we do not expect listed 

5315 plants or animals exposed to an action’s effects to experience reductions in fitness, we would not expect the action 

5316 to have adverse consequences on the viability of the populations those individuals represent or the species those 

5317 populations comprise (Stearns, 1977; Mills and Beatty, 1979; Stearns, 1992; Anderson, 2000). As a result, if we 

5318 conclude that listed plants or animals are not likely to experience reductions in their fitness, we would conclude our 
152

5319 assessment. If, however, we conclude that listed plants or animals are likely to experience reductions in their fitness, 

5320 we would assess the potential consequences of those fitness reductions for the population or populations the 

5321 individuals in an action area represent. 

5322 As part of our risk analyses, we consider the consequences of exposing endangered or threatened species to the 

5323 stressors associated with the proposed actions, individually and cumulatively, given that the individuals in the action 

5324 areas for this consultation are also exposed to other stressors in the action area and elsewhere in their geographic 

5325 range. These stressors or the response of individual animals to those stressors can produce consequences - or 

5326 “cumulative impacts” (in the National Environmental Policy Act sense of the term) - that would not occur if animals 

5327 were only exposed to a single stressor. 

5328 In the Effects of the Proposed Action section of this Opinion, we presented the evidence that leads us to conclude 

5329 that endangered or threatened species and designated critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the NMFS are likely to 

5330 co-occur with discharges of pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters of the United States As we discussed in the 

5331 Approach to the Assessment section of this Opinion, the purpose of those analyses was to establish whether or to 

5332 what degree endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat are likely to be adversely affected if they 

5333 are exposed to discharges of formulations of the 171 active ingredients. 

5334 Based on our review of the commercial and scientific literature, many, but not all, of the 171 ingredients in the 24 

5335 classes of pesticides pose serious risks for many aquatic organisms. When they are exposed to concentrations of 

5336 some pesticides that we would expect to result from discharges of formulations of these pesticides on, over, or near 

5337 waters of the U.S., individuals of some species or life stages of species are likely to die as a result of their exposure. 

5338 Other individuals of aquatic species experience reductions in developmental patterns, rates of growth, reproductive 

5339 success as a direct result of the exposure or because of the chemical’s effect on their behavioral patterns. Exposure 

5340 to some of the chemicals whose discharges would be authorized by EPA’s proposed PGP has been demonstrated to 

5341 have physical, physiological or neural effects on individuals that have been exposed and these changes increase their 

5342 probability of being captured and killed by predators. Because of the action of these chemicals on primary 

5343 production (aquatic plants), invertebrate populations (insects) and other aquatic animals, the discharges of pesticide 

5344 pollutants on, over or near waters of the U.S., endangered and threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction could be 

5345 exposed to changes in their prey base, changes in the distribution of abundance of predators and competitors. These 

5346 changes in the ecological community of the endangered and threatened aquatic animals are likely to represent 

5347 changes in listed species, the populations they comprise and their designated critical habitat. 

5348 Because some of the species that have been studied in investigations into the responses of aquatic species to 

5349 pesticides are taxonomically identical to species that have been listed as endangered or threatened (for example, 

5350 Oncorhynchus mykiss and Salmo salar), we assume that the responses of the endangered and threatened taxa would 

5351 be the same as those reported for the non-listed members of these taxa. We would expect the responses of listed 

5352 salmon to be generally similar to the responses that have been reported for O. mykiss. 

5353 We are not certain whether or to what degree the responses reported in the literature would be representative of the 

5354 responses in the various species of sturgeon that have been listed or southern eulachon, but we do not have evidence 

5355 that would lead us to conclude that their responses would not be representative of those species that have been 

5356 studied. Therefore, we assume that the responses of these other endangered and threatened species will be generally 

5357 similar to those reported in the literature, although the exposure concentrations and durations might differ. 

5358 A Biological Opinion NMFS issued in 2008 concluded that the registration of chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion 

5359 was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 27 species of endangered and threatened salmon and was likely 
153

5360 to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat designated for 25 of those species (NMFS, 2008a). A separate 

5361 Biological Opinion NMFS issued in 2009 concluded that the proposed registration of carbaryl, carbofuran and 

5362 methomyl was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 22 species of endangered and threatened salmon and 

5363 was likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat designated for 20 of those species (NMFS, 2009a). The 

5364 literature review that we conducted for this consultation updates and reaffirms the conclusions we reached in those 

5365 prior Biological Opinions on carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion and methomyl: exposing endangered and 

5366 threatened species of anadromous fish under NMFS’ jurisdiction to concentrations of these active ingredients, 

5367 mixtures of these active ingredients, or degradates of these active ingredients or other components of formulations 

5368 containing these active ingredients would increase their likelihood of becoming extinct in the foreseeable future. 

5369 Conclusion 

5370 Listed Species and Critical Habitat 

5371 After reviewing the current status of the listed species, the environmental baseline for the action area, the potential 

5372 direct and indirect effects of the EPA’s proposal to issue a Pesticide General Permit that authorizes point-source 

5373 discharges of pesticide pollutants into a wide variety of aquatic habitats from the application of pesticides to or over, 

5374 including near, waters of the United States where the EPA is the permitting authority, an examination of the controls 

5375 EPA proposes to implement to mitigate these effects, and cumulative effects, it is our Biological Opinion that EPA 

5376 has failed to insure that the discharges of pesticide pollutants it proposes to authorize using the proposed Pesticide 

5377 General Permit are not likely to result in jeopardy to any listed threatened or endangered species under NMFS’ 

5378 jurisdiction. 

5379 As a result of that failure and based on our review of the best scientific and commercial data available, it is NMFS’ 

5380 Biological Opinion that discharges of pesticide pollutants that would be authorized by the Pesticide General Permit 

5381 are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of California coastal Chinook salmon, Central Valley spring-run 

5382 Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon, 

5383 Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon, 

5384 Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon, Columbia River chum 

5385 salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Central California Coast coho salmon, Lower Columbia River coho 

5386 salmon, Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast coho salmon, Oregon Coast coho salmon, Pacific eulachon, 

5387 Southern green sturgeon, Shortnose sturgeon, Lake Ozette sockeye salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon, Central 

5388 California Coast steelhead, California Central Valley steelhead, Lower Columbia River steelhead, Middle Columbia 

5389 River steelhead, Northern California steelhead, Puget Sound steelhead, Snake River steelhead, South-Central 

5390 California Coast steelhead, Southern California coast steelhead, Upper Columbia river steelhead and Upper 

5391 Willamette River steelhead, Killer whale (southern resident) and Beluga whale (Cook Inlet). 

5392 After reviewing the current status of the critical habitat that has been designated for endangered and threatened 

5393 species, the environmental baseline of the action area, the potential direct and indirect effects of the action, an 

5394 examination of the controls EPA proposes to implement to mitigate these effects, and cumulative effects, it is our 

5395 Biological Opinion that EPA has not insured that the activities it proposes to authorize under its proposed PGP are 

5396 not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. As a result of that failure and based on our 

5397 review of the best scientific and commercial data available, it is NMFS’ Biological Opinion that discharges of 

5398 pesticide pollutants that would be authorized by the Pesticide General Permit are, likely to result in the destruction 
154

5399 or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for California coastal Chinook salmon, Central Valley spring5400 run Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon, 

5401 Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon, 

5402 Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon, Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon, Columbia River chum 

5403 salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, Central California Coast coho salmon, Lower Columbia River coho 

5404 salmon, Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast coho salmon, Oregon Coast coho salmon, Southern green 

5405 sturgeon, Lake Ozette sockeye salmon, Snake River sockeye salmon, Central California Coast steelhead, California 

5406 Central Valley steelhead, Lower Columbia River steelhead, Middle Columbia River steelhead, Northern California 

5407 steelhead, Snake River steelhead, South-Central California Coast steelhead, Southern California coast steelhead, 

5408 Upper Columbia river steelhead and Upper Willamette River steelhead, Cook Inlet beluga whale and killer whale 

5409 (southern resident). 

5410 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 

5411 This Opinion has concluded that EPA’s issuance of the PGP is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 33 

5412 species under NMFS’ jurisdiction and result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat that has 

5413 been designated for 29 species. The clause “jeopardize the continued existence of” means “to engage in an action 

5414 that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival 

5415 and recovery of ESA listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers or distribution of that species 

5416 (50CFR §402.02). 

5417 NMFS reached this conclusion because as the general permit is currently structured, the EPA would not be likely to 

5418 know where or when most of the discharges it intends to authorize would occur; if these discharges were resulting in 

5419 exposures to pesticide pollutants in concentrations, durations or frequencies that would cause adverse effects to ESA 

5420 listed species or designated critical habitat and would not be in a position to take measures to avoid those adverse 

5421 effects; or whether the permittees were complying with the conditions of the permit designed to protect ESA listed 

5422 species and designated critical habitat from being exposed. 

5423 Because we have concluded that the proposed general permit fails to comply with the requirements of section 

5424 7(a)(2) of the ESA, we have provided a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) that would allow EPA to comply 

5425 with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Regulations implementing Section 7 of the Act (50CFR 

5426 402.02) define RPAs as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that: (1) can be implemented in a 

5427 manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action; (2) can be implemented consistent with the scope of the 

5428 action agency’s legal authority and jurisdiction; (3) are economically and technologically feasible; and (4) would, 

5429 NMFS believes, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of ESA listed species or resulting in 

5430 the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Because the general permit, for purposes of endangered or 

5431 threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction, authorizes discharges in the District of Columbia, Idaho, 

5432 Massachusetts and New Hampshire, all Indian lands and Federal lands in Delaware, Vermont and Washington State, 

5433 the RPA described below applies only in those locations. In addition, this RPA is not applicable to discharges on 

5434 Federal lands for which an existing consultation covers those discharges. 

5435 The RPA is comprised of three required elements which must be implemented in their entirety to insure that the 

5436 actions authorized by the general permit are not likely to jeopardize endangered or threatened species under the 

5437 jurisdiction of NMFS or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat that has been designated for any of these 
155

5438 species. 

5439 Because this Biological Opinion has concluded that the EPA’s proposed PGP is likely to jeopardize the continued 

5440 existence of endangered species and threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS and is likely to result in the 

5441 destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat, the EPA is required to notify the NMFS Office of 

5442 Protected Resources of its final decision on implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives. 

5443 The Reasonable and Prudent Alternative is as follows: 

5444 RPA Element 1 

5445 The EPA will, with the technical assistance of NMFS, and based on EPA’s FIFRA risk assessments and Registration 

Eligibility Decision documents, identify30 5446 the discharges that are eligible for coverage under the general permit 

5447 based on three conditions: 1) those discharges would not occur in the range of any endangered or threatened species 

5448 under NMFS’ jurisdiction; 2) the pesticide pollutants that would be discharged are known not to cause adverse 

5449 effects to endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction or to representative surrogate species, or; 3) 

5450 the discharges of pesticide pollutants resulting from the maximum allowed pesticide use rates are not expected to 

5451 result in pesticide pollutants in the water in peak concentrations that exceed the no observed adverse effect 

5452 concentration/level for those species or for representative surrogate species. To determine whether the discharge is 

5453 eligible under this criterion, the EPA must compare the Peak Estimated Environmental Concentrations (Peak EECs) 

5454 for the maximum application rate for that pesticide use to the NOAECs or NOAELs for endangered or threatened 

5455 species or for representative surrogate species as presented in EPA’s FIFRA risk assessments or Registration 

5456 Eligibility Decision documents. In the absence of such data the EPA shall consult NMFS to determine the 

5457 appropriate category. 

5458 These discharges will be authorized under the existing terms of the permit and, in addition, all operators that make 

5459 such discharges must employ the protective measures as described in the “Decision-Maker’s Responsibilities: For 

5460 Decision-makers Required to Submit NOIs” section of the draft general permit (see p. 18 of this Opinion). 

5461 Any discharge 

5462 (a) That has not been identified as eligible, and; 

5463 (b) Would occur within the range of endangered or listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction, 

5464 would not be authorized under the general permit unless the operator provides evidence sufficient to demonstrate to 

5465 EPA, with the technical assistance and concurrence of NMFS, that: 

5466 1. Any endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction will not be directly or indirectly exposed 

5467 to pesticide pollutants produced by the discharge (e.g., the species will not occur in the discharge area when 

5468 that time of year, the species will not be present in the hydrologic unit in which the discharge will occur, 

5469 the species is not present because of the presence of the pest being controlled etc.), or; 

 

30 These calculations are used as a screening tool to determine whether a discharge can be covered under the general permit without further 

evaluation, other than to verify the accuracy of the information provided. A determination that a particular pesticide product does not fall into this 

category is not a determination that the chemical is likely to jeopardize ESA listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat 

designated for those species, but rather a determination that EPA has failed to insure that discharges of that pesticide under the general permit is 

not likely to jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
156

5470 

5471 2. The discharge for a specific pesticide use is below the maximum allowed pesticide use rate such that the 

5472 discharge will result in peak pesticide pollutant concentrations in the water that are less than those known 

5473 to exceed the no observed adverse effect concentration/level for those species or representative surrogate 

5474 species, or; 

5475 

5476 3. After consultation (pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA) between EPA and the NMFS Regional, Branch, 

5477 or Field Office with responsibility for the area in which the discharge occurs, that consultation concludes 

5478 that the pest to be controlled poses a greater threat to the survival or recovery of the endangered or 

5479 threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction than the pesticide pollutant (e.g. lampreys, snakehead, 

5480 noxious vegetation causing anoxia etc.). The explanation and evidence that supports the conclusion that the 

5481 pest to be controlled poses a greater threat to listed species should appear in any concurrence letter or 

5482 Biological Opinion that would result from such a consultation (such a document would demonstrate that the 

5483 operator has provided sufficient evidence that the pest that needs to be controlled poses a greater threat to 

5484 the survival of endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction than the pesticide pollutant). If 

5485 that consultation produces a Biological Opinion and an exemption to the ESA’s section 9 prohibitions is 

5486 warranted, the Biological Opinion would contain an incidental take exemption for the pesticide discharge. 

5487 If an operator fails to demonstrate that a discharge fulfills one or more of these criteria, that discharge shall not be 

5488 authorized by the proposed PGP. If, however, EPA and NMFS agree that the operator has demonstrated that the 

5489 discharge fulfills one or more of these criteria, that discharge will be covered under the existing terms of the permit 

5490 and all such operators must employ the additional protective measures as described in the “Decision-Maker’s 

5491 Responsibilities: For Decision-makers Required to Submit NOIs” part of section 2.2 of the draft permit (see p. 18 if 

5492 this Opinion). 

5493 If the operator seeks to make this demonstration for more than one discharge, the operator must identify each 

5494 pesticide formulation to be used; application method; amount and rate for each discharge; the precise location of 

5495 each discharge; and the approximate date of each discharge. EPA with the technical assistance of NMFS will 

5496 determine which if any of the planned discharges are eligible under the general permit and which if any of the 

5497 planned discharges must be covered by an individual permit to proceed. 

5498 For any discharges determined to be eligible under the general permit, the operator must make the same 

5499 demonstration if the operator wishes to change for any individual discharge the chemical used, the amount used, the 

5500 location of discharge or the approximate date. The EPA, with the technical assistance and concurrence of NMFS 

5501 shall make any determination as to eligibility to discharge under the general permit. NMFS will provide technical 

5502 assistance and concurrence within 30 days from receipt of the operator’s materials from EPA. NMFS will provide its 

5503 technical assistance its opinion, if any, on whether the discharge meets the eligibility criteria within 30 days from 

5504 receipt of the operator’s materials from EPA. The operator can provide this demonstration to EPA prior to filing a 

5505 NOI, at the time of filing a NOI, or subsequent to filing a NOI. However, discharge is not authorized until EPA 

5506 agrees, with the technical assistance and concurrence of NMFS, that the discharge or group of discharges meets the 

5507 eligibility criteria above. 

5508 Rationale 

5509 The EPA relied on the FIFRA registration process for the evaluation of the pesticide uses that will result in the 

5510 pesticide pollutant discharges that it intends to authorize in the proposed general permit. However, the FIFRA 

5511 registration process does not integrate the status and trends of ESA listed species and critical habitat, the 
157

5512 demographic and ecological status of the populations those species comprise or the environmental baseline for those 

5513 species. The EPA risk assessment process compares estimated environmental concentrations to species toxicity 

5514 endpoints derived from standard toxicity tests where individual standard test organisms are exposed to concentration 

5515 gradients of pesticide active ingredients, formulated pesticide products or degradates in a laboratory setting over the 

5516 course of that individual test organism’s lifespan. 

5517 In addition, the FIFRA process does not necessarily prohibit the registration of pesticide uses that are expected to 

5518 result in concentrations of pesticide pollutants in the water that can kill or adversely affect ESA listed species under 

5519 NMFS’ jurisdiction, or representative surrogate species. When evaluating and registering pesticide uses, the EPA 

5520 must weigh the economic and social costs of registering pesticides against the environmental costs and benefits 

5521 these pesticide uses may pose. Under the ESA, the Services do not include such considerations in their species 

5522 jeopardy, or destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat determinations. 

5523 To determine estimated environmental concentrations of pesticide pollutants in the water, the EPA employs 

5524 computer models to simulate the expected behavior of these pesticide pollutants in a “standard pond” receiving 

5525 direct applications of pesticides or receiving pesticide pollutants from spray drift, runoff or transport through soil 

5526 pore water from treated areas. The “standard pond” covers an area of 1 hectare, is 2 meters deep, has no flow and 

5527 contains 20,000 cubic meters of water. However, endangered and threatened anadromous fish species under NMFS’ 

5528 jurisdiction use a variety of river and stream habitats through their life cycle. These habitats have a broad range of 

5529 geological features and flow regimes. 

5530 In many cases, the estimated environmental concentrations as modeled by the “standard pond” scenario may 

5531 represent a conservative estimate. However, backwater areas that are connected to streams, creeks, rivers or alcoves 

5532 are also ESA listed anadromous fish habitats and may not adequately be represented by the “standard pond” 

5533 scenario. Furthermore, the EPA uses an endpoint based on the concentration of pesticide pollutant required to kill 

5534 test species to determine direct acute effects. As such, comparing a lethality derived endpoint to peak estimated 

5535 environmental concentrations derived from a “standard pond” model may not capture all expected direct acute 

5536 effects to the survival of ESA listed anadromous fish species. 

5537 Similarly, EPA’s compares a growth and reproduction derived endpoint such as a life-cycle test derived no observed 

5538 adverse effect concentration/level to a computer modeled 60 day rolling mean estimated environmental 

5539 concentration. This approach may not capture all chronic, behavioral, reproductive or sublethal effects to those 

5540 species. Anadromous species exhibit chemical avoidance and other behavioral responses that can influence 

5541 migration. EPA’s comparison of a computer modeled 60 day rolling mean of estimated environmental pesticide 

5542 pollutant concentrations to a no observed adverse effect concentration/level based on a life-cycle test may not 

5543 capture such effects. 

5544 Because of these reasons, the evaluation and registration of pesticide applications by the EPA under FIFRA and the 

5545 authorization of discharges on, over or near waters of the United States pursuant to the general permit are not 

5546 sufficient such that the EPA would know or be able to reliably estimate the consequences of the direct or indirect 

5547 effects of the activities authorized by the general permit to ESA listed species or designated critical habitat under 

5548 NMFS’ jurisdiction. This RPA element accounts for these insufficiencies by comparing the peak estimated 

5549 environmental concentrations for a “standard pond” to the pesticide pollutant concentration value that is known to 

5550 not cause observed adverse effects to ESA listed fish species under NMFS jurisdiction, or to representative surrogate 

5551 species. By incorporating this element of the RPA, the proposed general permit would not result in any peak 

5552 concentrations of pesticide pollutants in the water that would be expected cause adverse effects to endangered or 

5553 threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction unless the pest being controlled poses a greater threat to the survival of 
158

5554 those species than would the exposure to that pesticide pollutant. 

5555 By preventing direct adverse effects to ESA listed salmonid fish species under NMFS’ jurisdiction, unless the pest 

5556 being controlled poses a greater threat to the survival of those species than would the exposure to that pesticide 

5557 pollutant, this element of the RPA would prevent the salmonid fish prey base of southern resident killer whales and 

5558 Cook Inlet beluga whales from becoming appreciably diminished by the activities authorized by the issuance of the 

5559 proposed general permit. In addition, by requiring that all operators that make such discharges must employ the 

5560 additional protective pesticide management measures such as applying pesticides only when the action threshold has 

5561 been met and selecting pesticide applications that have less adverse effects on not target organisms (e.g. selecting 

5562 larvicides as a preferred pesticide for mosquito or flying insect pest control), in addition to the technology based 

5563 effluent limitations in the proposed general permit, the EPA can reduce the impacts of these applications to 

5564 designated critical habitat for all ESA listed species. This reduction in environmental impacts, along with the limited 

5565 spatial and temporal overlap of the proposed pesticide applications with the range of ESA listed species under 

5566 NMFS’ jurisdiction and the targeted nature of those applications, will allow the EPA to insure that the actions it 

5567 intends to authorize by the proposed general permit will not appreciably diminish the value of designated critical 

5568 habitat for the survival or recovery of any endangered or threatened species fish under NMFS’ jurisdiction. 

5569 Therefore, by implementing this element of the RPA, the EPA can insure that no designated critical habitat of any 

5570 endangered or listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction would be destroyed or adversely modified. 

5571 RPA Element 2 

5572 Any decision maker that meets the eligibility criteria for discharge under RPA Element 1 and plans to discharge 

5573 pesticide pollutants into waters of the U.S. in the range of endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ 

5574 jurisdiction must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to discharge that identifies the pesticide product to be discharged, the 

5575 planned quantity and rate of discharge, the number of planned discharges, and the category of that discharge as 

5576 identified in the first element of the RPA. That decision maker must also file an annual report containing: 1) A 

5577 description of treatment area, including location and size; 2) The approximate date of any discharge; 3) 

5578 Identification of any waters of the U.S. to which pesticide pollutants are discharged; 4) The pesticide use pattern 

5579 resulting in any discharge (i.e., mosquito and other flying insect pest control, aquatic weed and algae control, aquatic 

5580 nuisance animal control, or forest canopy pest control); 5) Any target pest; 6) Contact information for the decision 

5581 maker or any pesticide applicator, if different from the decision maker; 7) The total amount of each pesticide 

5582 product applied for the reporting year by application method; 8) If applicable, an annual report of any adverse 

5583 incidents as a result of any discharge; 9) If applicable, a description of any corrective action. The EPA must collect 

5584 and summarize these reports and provide this summary to NMFS. 

5585 Rationale 

5586 Under the proposed general permit, only those decision makers who meet the eligibility requirements to submit an 

5587 NOI would be required to notify the EPA if their discharge would expose any endangered or threatened species 

5588 under NMFS’ jurisdiction to a pesticide pollutant. According to EPA estimates, only a small fraction of the total 

5589 number of operators that would discharge within the range of endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ 

5590 jurisdiction would be required to file such a notification. In addition, it is unlikely that those few decision makers 

5591 that would be required to file these notifications would possess the ability or resources to make such determinations 

5592 accurately. For these reasons, the EPA would not know if the majority of discharges it plans to authorize would 

5593 expose endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction to the direct or indirect effects of the activities to 

5594 be authorized by the proposed permit. Because of this, the EPA cannot reliably estimate the probable individual or 

5595 cumulative effects of those activities to those species or to their designated critical habitat. 
159

5596 This RPA element addresses these insufficiencies by requiring all operators that intend to discharge into waters of 

5597 the U.S. within the range of ESA listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction to file an NOI that identifies where such 

5598 discharges would occur and of which use patterns these discharges would consist. By implementing this RPA 

5599 element, the EPA would know or be able to reliably estimate whether or to what degree ESA listed species under 

5600 NMFS’ jurisdiction would be likely to be exposed to the direct or indirect effects of the activities to be authorized by 

5601 the general permit. 

5602 This RPA element also allows the EPA to reliably estimate the probable individual or cumulative effects to 

5603 endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction and designated critical habitat by requiring that all 

5604 operators that discharge into waters of the U.S. within the range of ESA listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction file 

5605 an annual report that includes information on total the amount of each pesticide product applied, any adverse 

5606 incidents that occurred as a result of any such discharges and a description of any corrective action that was 

5607 undertaken. This gives the EPA the ability to make corrective actions or to implement preventive or corrective 

5608 measures based on this information received on those probable individual or cumulative effects. This also allows the 

5609 EPA to know whether reinitiation of formal consultation is required as provided in 50CFR 402.16. 

5610 RPA Element 3 

5611 In addition to the current monitoring requirements in the general permit, within two years of the issuance of the 

5612 general permit the EPA shall develop and implement a NMFS-approved monitoring plan for the presence of 

5613 pesticide pollutants in habitats where endangered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat occur to insure 

5614 that the pesticide pollutant discharges it authorizes under the general permit do not exceed any Water Quality 

5615 Criterion or occur in concentrations that are likely to result in adverse effects to endangered or threatened species or 

5616 to designated critical habitat under NMFS’ jurisdiction. 

5617 The plan shall include sampling and analyses for the presence of pesticide pollutants in representative habitats where 

5618 and when endangered or threatened species, or designated critical habitat may be exposed to discharges of pesticide 

5619 pollutants as authorized by the proposed general permit, including non-target waters of the U.S. into which these 

5620 discharges may flow. The report shall be submitted to NMFS OPR and will summarize annual monitoring data and 

5621 provide all raw data. 

5622 Rationale 

5623 The majority of operators who are eligible for coverage under the proposed general permit would not monitor water 

5624 quality and would thus have no way of knowing whether a discharge has exceeded a water quality standard or 

5625 resulted in any pesticide pollutant in the water in a toxic amount. As a result, the proposed general permit is not 

5626 currently structured such that the EPA can continually identify, collect and analyze information that would indicate 

5627 whether authorized discharges of pesticide pollutants on, over or near waters of the U.S. may expose ESA listed 

5628 species or designated critical habitat under NMFS’ jurisdiction to pesticide pollutants at concentrations, durations or 

5629 frequencies that are known or suspected to produce physical, physiological, behavioral or ecological responses that 

5630 have potential individual or cumulative adverse consequences for individual organisms or constituent elements of 

5631 critical habitat. 

5632 In addition, there is a greater level of non-compliance and lower rate of enforcement actions with general permits. 

5633 There is also a low rate of inspections for minor dischargers, such as those to be authorized by the proposed PGP. 

5634 Because of the lack of water quality monitoring requirements in the proposed general permit, the EPA is not likely 

5635 to know or be able to determine reliably whether or to what degree operators are complying with the conditions, 

5636 restrictions or mitigation measures the proposed general permit requires when they discharge pesticide pollutants on, 
160

5637 over or near waters of the U.S. 

5638 To address these insufficiencies, this element of the RPA requires that the EPA monitor for any exceedance of any 

5639 water quality standard or for any pesticide pollutant occurring in excess of levels known not to have adverse effects 

5640 to ESA listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction or to representative surrogate species. By monitoring for such 

5641 exceedances in representative habitats where and when endangered or threatened species, or designated critical 

5642 habitat may be exposed to these discharges, the EPA will be able to know or reliably determine whether or to what 

5643 degree operators are complying with the conditions, restrictions or mitigation measures the proposed general permit 

5644 requires. As a result, the EPA can know whether those discharges are exposing ESA listed species or designated 

5645 critical habitat under NMFS’ jurisdiction to pesticide pollutants at concentrations, durations or frequencies that are 

5646 known or suspected to produce potential individual or cumulative adverse consequences. The EPA can then make 

5647 corrective or enforcement actions as necessary. This also allows the EPA to know whether reinitiation of formal 

5648 consultation is required as provided in 50CFR 402.16. 

5649 By assuring that no activities authorized by the general permit would result in any peak concentrations of pesticide 

5650 pollutants in the water that would be expected cause adverse effects to endangered or threatened species under 

5651 NMFS’ jurisdiction unless the pest being controlled poses a greater threat to the survival of those species than would 

5652 the exposure to that pesticide pollutant as required by the first element of the RPA, and if all operators who 

5653 discharge into waters of the U.S. within the range of ESA listed species under NMFS’ jurisdiction are identified as 

5654 required in the second element of the RPA, and if all of those operators comply with the terms of the general permit 

5655 as would be assured by the third element of the RPA, the direct or indirect effects of the activities to be authorized 

5656 by that general permit should not cause direct adverse effects to any of those species unless the pest being controlled 

5657 were to pose a greater threat to the survival of those species than would the exposure to that pesticide pollutant. 

5658 Thus, by implementing these combined elements of the RPA, the EPA can insure that the actions it proposes to 

5659 authorize by the general permit will not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species 

5660 under NMFS’ jurisdiction or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat of 

5661 those species 

5662 Incidental Take Statement 

5663 Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered 

5664 and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to: “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

5665 shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Harm is further defined by 

5666 NMFS to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to ESA listed species 

5667 by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is 

5668 defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under 

5669 the terms of Section 7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency 

5670 action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the 

5671 terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. 

5672 Amount or Extent of Take 

5673 This programmatic consultation focuses on whether the EPA has insured that their issuance of the general permit is 

5674 not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction 
161

5675 or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species. It does not address specific actions that the general permit 

5676 would authorize. The RPAs are designed to reduce or in most cases prevent the exposure of endangered or 

5677 threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction to pesticide pollutants as a result of activities authorized by the general 

5678 permit. However, it is possible that such exposures may still take place as a result of those activities, and it is 

5679 possible that these exposures may cause incidental take. In particular, NMFS anticipates that incidental take could 

5680 occur in those situations in which EPA has determined, with the technical assistance of NMFS, that a discharge of a 

5681 pesticide that adversely affects listed species is preferable to exposing the species to the pest. As a result, incidental 

5682 take of endangered or threatened species is possible over the duration of the proposed general permit. 

5683 Because of the large scale and broad scope of the proposed action, even the best scientific and commercial data 

5684 available are not sufficient to enable NMFS to estimate the specific amount of potential incidental take associated 

5685 with the action. Therefore, NMFS identifies, as a surrogate for the allowable extent of take, the ability of this action 

5686 to proceed without any adverse incident as defined in Appendix A of the PGP (see Appendix B) to fish of any 

5687 species, that is attributed to any pesticide pollutant discharged in accordance with the general permit in the range of 

5688 listed endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction. An adverse incident to fish is considered 

5689 attributable to a pesticide pollutant discharged in accordance with the general permit if that pesticide pollutant is 

5690 known to have been discharged prior to and near or upstream of the adverse incident and if the pesticide pollutant is 

5691 detected in water samples or in tissue samples of affected fish. 

5692 Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

5693 The measures to avoid or minimize take described below are non-discretionary and must be undertaken by the EPA 

5694 so that they become a binding condition of any applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to 

5695 apply. The EPA has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. The 

5696 protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse f the EPA: (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and 

5697 conditions, or; (2) fails to require any applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement 

5698 through enforceable terms that are added to the general permit. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the 

5699 EPA must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to NMFS OPR as specified in the incidental 

5700 take statement (50 CFR§402.14(i)(3)). The reporting requirements will be established in accordance with 50 CFR 

5701 220.45 and 228.5. 

5702 To satisfy its obligations pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, the EPA must: (1) monitor the direct, indirect, and 

5703 cumulative impacts of the activities authorized by the issuance of the general permit, and; (2) evaluate the direct, 

5704 indirect, or cumulative impacts of the activities authorized by the issuance of the general permit and the 

5705 consequences of those effects on endangered and threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction. The purpose of the 

5706 monitoring is to provide data for the EPA to use to identify necessary modifications to the general permit in order to 

5707 reduce exposures to endangered and threatened species under NMFS’ jurisdiction. NMFS believes all measures 

5708 described as part of the proposed action, together with use of the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and 

5709 Conditions described below, are necessary and appropriate to minimize the likelihood of incidental take of ESA 

5710 listed species due to implementation of the proposed action. 

5711 

5712 The EPA shall: 

5713 1. Monitor any incidental take or surrogate measure of take that occurs from the action, and; 

5714 2. Report annually to NMFS OPR on the monitoring results from the previous year. 
162

5715 

5716 Terms and Conditions

5717 To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the EPA must comply with the following condition. 

5718 This condition implements the reasonable and prudent measures described above. This condition is non5719 discretionary. 

5720 The EPA shall include the following instructions requiring reporting of adverse incidents to fish in the general 

5721 permit: 

5722 “NOTICE: Incidents where fish appear injured or killed as a result of discharges into Waters of 

5723 the U.S. from pesticide applications as authorized by this permit in the range of endangered or 

5724 threatened species under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service shall be reported 

5725 to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources at (301) 713.1401 and 

5726 EPA at (202) 564.0748. The finder should leave the fish alone, make note of any circumstances 

5727 likely causing the death or injury, note the location and number of fish involved and, if possible, 

5728 take photographs. Adult fish should not be disturbed unless circumstances arise where an adult 

5729 fish is obviously injured or killed by pesticide exposure, or some unnatural cause. The finder may 

5730 be asked to carry out instructions provided by NMFS OPR to collect specimens or take other 

5731 measures to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is preserved.” 

5732 

5733 Conservation Recommendations 

5734 Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by 

5735 carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation 

5736 recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on 

5737 ESA listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. 

5738 The following conservation recommendations would provide information for future consultation involving EPA’s 

5739 approval of State water quality standards: 

5740 1. The EPA should work with States with the delegated authority to implement the NPDES program to 

5741 develop their permits in a manner that is protective of endangered or threatened species or designated 

5742 critical habitat and to create monitoring programs that evaluate whether these permits are successful in 

5743 accomplishing that goal. 

5744 In order to keep NMFS’ Endangered Species Division informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or 

5745 benefiting ESA listed species or their habitats, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should notify the 

5746 Endangered Species Division of any conservation recommendations they implement in their final action. 

5747 
163

5748 Reinitiation Notice 

5749 This concludes formal consultation on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s issuance of the Pesticides 

5750 General Permit. As provided in 50CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary 

5751 Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) new 

5752 information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect endangered or threatened species under NMFS’ 

5753 jurisdiction or to designated critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this Opinion; (2) the agency 

5754 action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the ESA listed species or critical habitat not 

5755 considered in this Opinion; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the 

5756 action; or (4) the amount or extent to take specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded. In instances where 

5757 the amount or extent of take specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded, the U.S. Environmental 

5758 Protection Agency must immediately request reinitiation of Section 7 consultation. 

5759 
164

5760 Literature Cited 

5761 

5762 Puget Sound Action Team, 2007. State of the Sound 2007. Office of the Governor, State of Washington. Olympia, 

5763 Washington. 

5764 Abler, R., 1976. The Comparative Atlas of America's Great Cities: Selection of Variables and Cartographic 

5765 Techniques. p. 52. 

5766 Abookire, A., Piatt, J., 2005. Oceanographic conditions structure forage fishes into lipid-rich and lipid-poor 

5767 communities in lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 287, 229-240. 

5768 Adams, P.B., Grimes, C., Hightower, J.E., Lindley, S.T., Moser, M.L., Parsley, M.J., 2007. Population status of 

5769 North American green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris. Environ. Biol. Fishes 79, 339-356. 

5770 Adams, P.B., Grimes, C.B., Hightower, J.E., Lindley, S.T., Moser, M.L., 2002. Status Review for the North 

5771 American green sturgeon. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa 

5772 Cruz, California. 

5773 Allen, B.M., Angliss, R.P., 2010. Beluga Whale, Cook Inlet Stock, pages 87 -92 in Alaska Marine Mammal Stock 

5774 Assessments, 2009. NOAA-TM-AFSC-206. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/region.htm. 

5775 Allen, M.J., Smith, G.B., 1988. Atlas and zoogeography of common fishes in the Bering Sea and Northeastern 

5776 Pacific. 

5777 Allen, P., Cech, J., 2007. Age/size effects on juvenile green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris , oxygen consumption, 

5778 growth, and osmoregulation in saline environments. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79, 211-229. 

5779 Allen, P.J., Hobbs, J.A., Cech, J.J., Van Eenennaam, J.P., Doroshov, S.I., 2009. Using Trace Elements in Pectoral 

5780 Fin Rays to Assess Life History Movements in Sturgeon: Estimating Age at Initial Seawater Entry in Klamath River 

5781 Green Sturgeon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 138, 240-250. 

5782 Allen, P.J., J.J. Cech, Jr., 2007. Age/size effects on juvenile green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, oxygen 

5783 consumption, growth, and osmoregulation in saline environments. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79, 211-229. 

5784 Anders, P., Richards, D., Powell, M.S., 2002. The first endangered white sturgeon population: Repercussions in an 

5785 altered large river-floodplain ecosystem. In: Webster, V.W. (Ed.), Biology, management, and protection of North 

5786 American sturgeon, Symposium 28. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 67-82. 

5787 Anderson, J.J., 2000. A vitality-based model relating stressors and environmental properties to organism survival. 

5788 Ecological Monographs 70, 445-470. 

5789 Andrew, R.K., Howe, B.M., Mercer, J.A., Dzieciuch, M.A., 2002. Ocean ambient sound: Comparing the 1960s with 

5790 the 1990s for a receiver off the California coast. Acoustic Research Letters Online 3, 65-70. 

5791 Angliss, R.P., DeMaster, D.P., Lopez, A.L., 2001. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2001. NOAA 

5792 Technical Memorandum U.S. Department of Commerce. 

5793 Anonymous, 2003. Arbovirus surveillance and mosquito control in Idaho. Guidance for Counties, Version 10.3. 

5794 Boise, Idaho. 

5795 Asper, E.D., Young, W.G., Walsh., M.T., 1988. Observations on the birth and development of a captive-born killer 

5796 whale (Orcinus orca). International Zoo Yearbook 27, 295-304. 

5797 Auth, T.D., Brodeur, R.D., 2006. Distribution and community structure of ichthyoplankton off the coast of Oregon, 

5798 USA, in 2000 and 2002. Marine Ecology Progress Series 319, 199-213. 

5799 Bailey, K.M., Houde, E.D., 1989. Predation on eggs and larvae of marine fishes and the recruitment problem. 

5800 Advances in Marine Biology 25, 1-83. 

5801 Bain, D., 1990. Examining the validity of inferences drawn from photo-identification data, with special reference to 
165

5802 studies of the killer whale (Orcinus orca) in British Columbia. Report of the International Whaling Commission, 

5803 Special Issue 12, 93-100. 

5804 Bain, D.E., Dahlheim, M.E., 1994. Effects of masking noise on detection thresholds of killer whales. In: Loughlin, 

5805 T.R. (Ed.), Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego, California, pp. 243-256. 

5806 Bain, M.B., Haley, N., Peterson, D., Arend, K.K., Mills, K.E., Sullivan, P.J., 2000. Shortnose sturgeon of the 

5807 Hudson River: an endangered species recovery success. 20th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, St. 

5808 Louis, MO, p. 14. 

5809 Baird, R.W., 2000. The Killer Whale. In: Mann, J., Conner, R., Tyack, P.L., Whitehead, H. (Eds.), Cetacean 

5810 Societies: Field Studies of Dolphins and Whales. . University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 127-153. 

5811 Baird, R.W., Hanson, M.B., Ashe, E.E., Heithaus, M.R., Marshall, G.J., 2003. Studies of foraging in "Southern 

5812 Resident" killer whales during July 2002: dive depths, bursts in speed, and the use of a "crittercam" system for 

5813 examining sub-surface behavior. National Marine Fisheries Service, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, 

5814 WA, p. 18. 

5815 Baird, R.W., Hanson, M.B., Dill, L.M., 2005. Factors influencing the diving behaviour of fish-eating killer whales: 

5816 sex differences and diel and interannual variation in diving rates. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83, 257-267. 

5817 Barnhart, R.A., 1986. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and 

5818 invertebrates (Pacific Southwest): Steelhead. Technical Report. Humboldt State University, Arcada, California. 

5819 Barraclough, W.E., 1964. Contribution to the marine life history of the eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus. Journal of 

5820 the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 21, 1333-1337. 

5821 Barrett-Lennard, L.G., 2000. Population structure and mating patterns of killer whales (Orcinus orca) as revealed by 

5822 DNA analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Canada. 108p. 

5823 Barrett-Lennard, L.G., Ellis, G.M., 2001. Population structure and genetic variability in northeastern Pacific killer 

5824 whales: towards an assessment of population viability. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, p. 35. 

5825 Barrett-Lennard, L.G., Ford, J.K.B., Heise, K.A., 1996. The mixed blessing of echolocation: differences in sonar use 

5826 by fish-eating and mammal-eating killer whales. Animal Behaviour 51, 553-565. 

5827 Bax, N.J., 1983. The early marine migration of juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) through Hood Canal - its 

5828 variability and consequences. Ph.D. thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 196 p. 

5829 Beacham, T.D., Hay, D.E., Le, K.D., 2005. Population structure and stock identification of eulachon (Thaleichthys 

5830 pacificus), an anadromous smelt, in the Pacific Northwest. Marine Biotechnology 7, 363-372. 

5831 Beamesderfer, R.C.P., Webb, M.A.H., 2002. Green sturgeon status review information. S.P. Cramer and Associates, 

5832 Gresham, Oregon. 

5833 Becker, P.R., 2000. Concentration of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and Heavy Metals in Alaska Arctic Marine 

5834 Mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40, 819-829. 

5835 Becker, P.R., Krahn, M.M., Mackey, E.A., Demiralp, R., Schantz, M.M., Epstein, M.S., Donais, M.K., Porter, B.J., 

5836 Muir, D.C.G., Wise, S.A., 2000. Concentrations of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's), Chlorinated Pesticides, and 

5837 Heavy Metals and Other Elements in Tissues of Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, from Cook Inlet, Alaska. Marine 

5838 Fisheries Review 62, 81-98. 

5839 Berg, L., 2001. Yakima Subbasin Summary (Draft). Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. 

5840 Beyers, D.W., Keefe, T.J., Carlson, C.A., 1994. Toxicity of carbaryl and malathion to two federally endangered 

5841 fishes, as esimated by regression and ANOVA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13, 101. 

5842 Beyers, D.W., Sikoski, P.J., 1994. Acetylcholinesterase inhibition in federally endangered Colorado squawfish 

5843 exposed to carbaryl and malathion. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13, 935. 

5844 Bigg, M., 1982. An assessment of killer whale (Orcinus orca) stocks off Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Report 

5845 of the International Whaling Commission 32:655-666. International Whaling Commission, pp. 655-666. 

5846 Bigg, M.A., Olesiuk, P.F., Ellis, G.M., Ford, J.K.B., K. C. Balcomb, I., 1990. Social organization and genealogy of 
166

5847 resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the coastal waters of British Columbia and Washington State. Report of the 

5848 International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 12, 383-405. 

5849 Bilby, R., Fransen, B., Bisson, P., 1996. Incorporation of nitrogen and carbon from spawning coho salmon into the 

5850 trophic system of small streams: evidence from stable isotopes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci 53, 164-173. 

5851 Binns, N.A., 1965. Effects of rotenone treatment on the fauna of the Green River, Wyoming. Oregon State 

5852 University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

5853 Bisson, P., Sullivan, A.K., Nielsen, J.L., 1988. Channel hydraulics, habitat use, and body form of juvenile coho 

5854 salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout in streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117, 262-273. 

5855 Bjorkstedt, E., Spence, B.C., Garza, J.C., Hankin, D.G., Fuller, D., Jones, W.E., Smith, J.J., Macedo, R., 2005. An 

5856 analysis of historical population structure for evolutionarily signficant units of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and 

5857 steelhead in the north-Central California Coast Recovery Domain. 

5858 Bjornn, T., Craddock, D., Corley, D., 1968. Migration and survival of Redfish Lake, Idaho, sockeye salmon, 

5859 Oncorhynchus nerka. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 97, 360-373. 

5860 Black, R.W., Silkey, M., 1998. Water-quality assessment of the Puget Sound Basin, Washington: Summary of 

5861 stream biological data through 1995. 

5862 Blum, J.P., 1988. Assessment of factors affecting sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) production in Ozette Lake, 

5863 WA. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

5864 Boran, M., Altinok, I., Capkin, E., Karacam, H., Bicer, V., 2007. Acute toxicity of carbaryl, methiocarb, and 

5865 carbosulfan to the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Turkish Journal of 

5866 Veterinary & Animal Sciences 31, 39-46. 

5867 Boughton, D.A., Adams, P.B., Anderson, E., Fusaro, C., Keller, E., Kelley, E., Lentsch, L., Nielsen, J., Perry, K., 

5868 Regan, H., Smith, J., Swift, C., Thompson, L., Watson, F., 2007. Viability criteria for steelhead of the south-central 

5869 and southern California coast. NOAA-NMFS-SWFSC. 

5870 Boxall, A.B.A., Sinclair, C.J., Fenner, K., Kolpin, D., Maund, S.J., 2004. When synthetic chemicals degrade in the 

5871 environment. Environmental Science & Technology 38, 368A-375A. 

5872 Brady, S.J., Flather., C.H., 1994. .Changes in wetlands on nonfederal rural land of the conterminous United States 

5873 from 1982 to 1987. Environ. Manage. 18, 693-705. 

5874 Brennan, J.S., Higgins, K.F., Cordell, J.R., Stamatiou, V.A., 2004. Juvenile salmon composition, timing, 

5875 distribution, and diet in the marine nearshore waters of central Puget Sound in 2001-2002. King County Department 

5876 of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, Washington, p. 164 p. 

5877 Brown, L.R., Moyle, P.B., Yoshiyama, R.M., 1994. Historical decline and current status of coho salmon in 

5878 California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14, 237-261. 

5879 Brundage III, H.M., O'Herron Biological and Environmental Consulting, 2006. Final Report of Shortnose Sturgeon 

5880 Population Studies in the Delaware River, January 1999 through March 2003. NOAA Fisheries, NJ Division of Fish 

5881 and Wildlife, p. 13. 

5882 Buhle, E.R., Holsman, K.K., Scheuerell, M.D., Albaugh, A., 2009. Using an unplanned experiment to evaluate the 

5883 effects of hatcheries and environmental variation on threatened populations of wild salmon. . Biological 

5884 Conservation 142, 2449-2455. 

5885 Burakowski, E.A., Wake, C.P., Braswell, B., Brown, D.P., 2008. Trends in wintertime climate in the northeastern 

5886 United States: 1965–2005. Journal of geophysical research 113, D20114. 

5887 Burgner, R.L., 1991. The life history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). In: Groot, C., Margolis, L. (Eds.), 

5888 Life history of Pacific salmon. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 3-

5889 117. 

5890 Burns, J.J., Seaman, G.A., 1986. Investigations of beluga whales in coastal waters of western and northern Alaska. II 

5891 Biology and ecology. OCSEAP Final Rep. , pp. 221-357. 
167

5892 Burtenshaw, J.C., Oleson, E.M., Hildebrand, J.A., McDonald, M.A., Andrew, R.K., Howe, B.M., Mercer, J.A., 

5893 2004. Acoustic and satellite remote sensing of blue whale seasonality and habitat in the Northeast Pacific. Deep Sea 

5894 Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 51, 967-986. 

5895 Busby, P.J., Wainwright, T.C., Bryant, G.J., Lierheimer, L.J., Waples, R.S., Waknitz, F.W., Lagomarsine, I.V., 

5896 1996. Status review of steelhead from Washington, Oregon, and California., NOAA Technical Memorandum. U.S. 

5897 Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

5898 Butler, J., Neuman, M., Pinkard, D., Kvitek, R., Cochrane, G., 2006. The use of multibeam sonar mapping 

5899 techniques to refine population estimates of the endangered white abalone (Haliotis sorenseni). FISHERY 

5900 BULLETIN-NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 104, 521. 

5901 CACSS, 1988. Restoring the balance. Annual Report. California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead 

5902 Trout, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, p. 84 

5903 Calkins, D.G., 1989. Status of Beluga Whales in Cook Inlet. The Gulf of Alaska, Cook Inlet, and North Aleutian 

5904 Basin Information Update Meeting, February 7-8, 1989, Anchorage, AK, pp. 109-112. 

5905 Campbell-Lendrum, D.H., Woodruff, R., 2007. Climate change: quantifying the health impact at national and local 

5906 levels. Environmental burden of disease series. 

5907 Campbell, K., 2009. Pesticide residue water quality report, Lower Boise River tributaries. Idaho State Department of 

5908 Agriculture, Surface Water Quality Program, Boise, Idaho. 

5909 Carlson, A.R., 1971. Effects of long-term exposure to carbaryl (Sevin) on survival, growth, and reproduction of the 

5910 fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Journal of the Fisheries Research Boaard of Canada 29, 583-587. 

5911 Carretta, J.V., Forney, K.A., Muto, M.M., Barlow, J., Baker, J., Lowry, M., 2005. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal 

5912 Assessments - 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce, p. 322. 

5913 CBD, 2001. Petition to list the southern resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) as an endangered species under the 

5914 Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Berkeley, California. 

5915 CDFG, 1998. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: a status review of the spring-run chinook salmon 

5916 (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Sacramento River drainage. . Candidate Species Status Report California 

5917 Department of Fish and Game 

5918 CDFG, 2002. California Department of Fish and Game comments to NMFS regarding green sturgeon listing. 

5919 California Department of Fish and Game. 

5920 Cech Jr., J.J., Doroshov, S.I., Moberg, G.P., May, B.P., Schaffter, R.G., Kohlhorst, D.M., 2000. Biological 

5921 assessment of green sturgeon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin watershed (phase 1). Fina Report. CALFED Bay-Delta 

5922 Program. 

5923 Cederholm, C.J., Johnson, D.H., Bilby, R.E., Dominguez, L.G., Garrett, A.M., Graeber, W.H., Greda, E.L., Kunze, 

5924 M.D., Marcot, B.G., Palmisano, J.F., Plotnikoff, R.W., Pearcy, W.G., Simenstad, C.A., Trotter, P.C., 2000. Pacific 

5925 salmon and wildlife - Ecological contexts, relationships, and implications for management. Special Edition 

5926 Technical Report. Prepared for D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil, Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and 

5927 Washington. WDFW, Olympia. 

5928 Chapman, D., Hillman, G.T., Deppert, D., Erho, M., Hays, S., Peven, C., Suzumoto, B., Klinge, R., 1994. Status of 

5929 summer/fall Chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Report to Chelan, Douglas, and Grant County PUDs, 

5930 Boise, Idaho. 

5931 Chapman, D., Witty, K., 1993. Habitat of weak salmon stocks in the Snake River basin and feasible recovery 

5932 measures. Report to the Bonneville Power Administration, DOE/BP-99654-1, Portland, Oregon. 

5933 Chapman, D.W., Bjornn, T.C., 1969. Distribution of salmonids in streams, with special reference to food and 

5934 feeding. In: Northcote, T.G. (Ed.), Symposium on salmon and trout in streams: H.R. MacMillan Lectures in 

5935 Fisheries, . University of British Columbia, Institute of Fisheries, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 153-

5936 176. 

5937 Cheng, W., Farrell, A., 2007. Acute and Sublethal Toxicities of Rotenone in Juvenile Rainbow Trout 
168

5938 (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>): Swimming Performance and Oxygen Consumption. Archives of 

5939 Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 52, 388-396. 

5940 Christensen, I., Perrin, W., Brownell, R., Demaster, I., 1984. Growth and reproduction of killer whales, (Orcinus 

5941 orca), in Norwegian coastal waters. Report, International Whaling Commission (special issue) 6, 253-258. 

5942 Christensen, J., Hewitson, B., Busuioc, A., Chen, A., Gao, X., Held, R., Jones, R., Kolli, R., Kwon, W., Laprise, R., 

5943 2007. Regional climate projections, Climate Change, 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working 

5944 group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. University Press, 

5945 Cambridge. 

5946 Clarke, A.D., Lewis, A., Telmer, K.H., Shrimpton, J.M., 2007. Life history and age at maturity of an anadromous 

5947 smelt, the eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus (Richardson). Journal of Fish Biology 71, 1479-1493. 

5948 Clemens, W.A., Hart, J.L., Wilby, G.V., 1936. Analysis of stomach contents of fur seals taken off the west coast of 

5949 Vancouver Island in April and May, 1935. Canadian Department of Fisheries, Ottawa, Canada. 

5950 Collins, M.R., Smith, T.I.J., 1993. Characteristics of the adult segment of the Savannah River population of 

5951 shortnose sturgeon. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife 

5952 Agencies. 47, 485-491. 

5953 Colway, C., Stevenson, D.E., 2007. Confirmed records of two green sturgeon from the Bering Sea and Gulf of 

5954 Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 88, 188-192. 

5955 Connor, W.P., Sneva, J.G., Tiffan, K.F., Steinhorst, R.K., Ross, D., 2005. Two alternative juvenile life history types 

5956 for fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134. 

5957 COSEWIC, 2005. COSEWIC Assessment and update status report on the shortnose sturgeon Acipenser 

5958 brevirostrum in Canada. COSEWIC, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 

5959 p. vi + 27. 

5960 Cox, K.W., 1960. Review of the abalone of California. California Fish and Game Bulletin 46, 381-406. 

5961 Cross, L.M., Duke, L.D., 2008. Regulating industrial stormwater: State permits, municipal implementation, and a 

5962 protocol for prioritization. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44, 86-106. 

5963 Crowley, T.J., Berner, R.A., 2001. CO2 and climate change. Science 292, 870. 

5964 Cryan, J.F., 1985. Retreat in the barrens. Defenders 60, 18-29. . 

5965 Cullon, D.L., Yunker, M.B., Alleyne, C., Dangerfield, N.J., O'Neill, S., Whiticar, M.J., Ross., P.S., 2009. Persistent 

5966 organic pollutants in Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Implications for resident killer whales of British 

5967 Columbia and adjacent waters. (Orcinus orca). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 28, 148-161. 

5968 Dadswell, M.J., Rulifson, R.A., 1994. Macrotidal estuaries: a region of collision between migratory marine animals 

5969 and tidal power development. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 51, 93-113. 

5970 Dadswell, M.J., Taubert, B.D., Squiers, T.S., Marchette, D., Buckley, J., 1984a. Synopsis of biological data on 

5971 shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. NOAA Technical Report U.S. Department of 

5972 Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, 

5973 Maryland. 

5974 Dadswell, M.J., Taubert, B.D., Squiers, T.S., Marchette, D., Buckley, J., 1984b. Synopsis of biological data on 

5975 shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur, 1818. NOAA Technical Report-14. 

5976 Dahl, T.E., 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. . U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

5977 and Wildlife Service; Washington, D.C. 

5978 Dahl, T.E., 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States, 1998 to 2004. U.S. Fish and 

5979 Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., p. 28. 

5980 Dahlheim, M.E., 1997. A photographic catalog of killer whales, Orcinus orca, from the Central Gulf of Alaska to the 

5981 southeastern Bering Sea. NOAA Technical Report NMFS No. 131. 54p. 

5982 Dahlheim, M.E., Ellifrit, D.K., Swenson., J.D., 1997. Killer whales of southeast Alaska: A catalogue of photo-
169

5983 identified individuals. (Orcinus orca). Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Center, NMFS, NOAA, 

5984 Seattle, WA. 79p. 

5985 Dahlheim, M.E., Heyning, J.E., 1999. Killer whale Orcinus orca (Linnaeus, 1758). Pp.281-322 In: S. Ridgway and 

5986 R. Harrison, editors. Handbook of marine mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, California. 

5987 Davidson, C., Knapp, R.A., 2007. Multiple stressors and amphibian declines: dual impacts of pesticides and fish on 

5988 yellow-legged frogs. Ecological Applications 17, 587-597. 

5989 Demko, D.B., Cramer, S.P., 2000. Effects of pulse flows on juvenile chinook migration in the Stanislaus River. 

5990 Report of S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc. to South San Joaquin Irrigation District, Manteca, California and Oakdale 

5991 Irrigation District, Oakdale, California, p. 48. 

5992 Deng, X., 2000. Artificial reproduction and early life stages of the green surgeon (Acipenser medirostris). University 

5993 of California, Davis. 

5994 DeVries, R.J., 2006. Population dynamics, movements, and spawning habitat of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser 

5995 brevirostrum, in the Altamaha River. University of Georgia. 

5996 DFO, 2008. Eulachon integrated fisheries management plan April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009. Department of 

5997 Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 

5998 Dimick, R.E., Merryfield, F., 1945. The fishes of the Willamette River system in relation to pollution. Oregon State 

5999 College Engineering Experiement Station. Bulletin Series No. 20. 

6000 Dovel, W., Pekovitch, A., Berggren, T., 1992. Biology of the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum Lesueur, 

6001 1818) in the Hudson River estuary, New York. In: Smith, C.L. (Ed.), Estuarine Research in the 1980s. State 

6002 University of New York Press, Albany, New York, pp. 187-216. 

6003 Drake, A., Wilson, L., 1991. Eulachon, a fish to cure humanity. UBC Museum of Anthropology, Museum Note 32. 

6004 Duffield, D.A., Miller, K.W., 1988. Demographic features of killer whales in oceanaria in the United States and 

6005 Canada, 1965-1987. Rit Fiskideildar 11, 297-306. 

6006 Duffield, D.A., Odell, D.K., Mcbain, J.F., Andrews., B., 1995. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) reproduction at Sea 

6007 World. Zoo Biology 14, 417-430. 

6008 Duke, L.D., Augustenborg, C.A., 2006. Effectiveness of Self-Identified and Self-Reported Environmental 

6009 Regulations for Industry: The Case of Storm Runoff in the U.S. . Journal of Environmental Planning and 

6010 Management 49, 385-411. 

6011 Ehlke, R.D., Keller, K., 2003. 2002 Chum salmon spawnign ground surveys on the mainstem Columbia River and 

6012 its Washington tributaries. Prepared for the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Vancouver, Washington by 

6013 the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon 

6014 Elsner, M.M., Hamlet, A.F., 2010. Macro-scale hydrologic model implementation. Chapter 5 in Final Report for the 

6015 Columbia Basin Climate Change Scenarios Project 

6016 Climate Impacts Group, Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and 

6017 Ocean, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

6018 Emmett, R.L., Stone, S.L., Hinton, S.A., Monaco, M.E., 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes and 

6019 invertebrates in West Coast estuaries. Estuarine Living Marine Resources Program Report 8. National Oceanic and 

6020 Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Rockville, 

6021 Maryland. 

6022 EPA, 1986. Ambient water quality criteria for chlorpyrifos-1986. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 

6023 Criteria and Standards Division. Washington, DC. . 

6024 EPA, 1989. Registration Standard (Second Round Review) for the Reregistration of Pesticide Products Containing 

6025 Chlorpyrifos. Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA, Washington, D.C. 

6026 EPA, 2002. Columbia River Basin fish contaminant Survey 1996-1998. Environmental Protection Agency. 

6027 EPA, 2006. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Piperonyl Butoxide. Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA, 
170

6028 Washington, D.C. 

6029 Erbe, C., 2002. Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales (Orcinus orca), 

6030 based on an acoustic impact model. Marine Mammal Science 18, 394-418. 

6031 ERC, 2002. Contaminant analysis of tissues from two shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) collected in the 

6032 Delaware River. Environmental Research and Consulting, Inc., National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, 

6033 Massachusetts. 

6034 ERC, 2003. Contaminant analysis of tissues from a shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) from the Kennebec 

6035 River, Maine. Environmental Research and Consulting, Inc., National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, 

6036 Massachusetts. 

6037 Erickson, D., Webb, M., 2007. Spawning Periodicity, Spawning Migration, and Size at Maturity of Green Sturgeon, 

6038 Acipenser medirostris, in the Rogue River, Oregon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79, 255-268. 

6039 Erickson, D.L., Hightower, J.E., 2007. Oceanic distribution and behavior of green sturgeon. American Fisheries 

6040 Society Symposium 56, 197-211. 

6041 Eschmeyer, W.N., Herald, E.S., Hammann, H., 1983. A field guide to Pacific coast fishes of North America. 

6042 Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 

6043 Finlayson, B., Somer, W.L., Vinson, M.R., 2010. Rotenone toxicity to rainbow trout and several mountain stream 

6044 insects. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30, 102-111. 

6045 Fisher, F.W., 1994. Past and present status of Central Valley Chinook salmon. Conservation Biology 8, 870-873. 

6046 Flather, C.H., Knowles, M.S., Kendall, I.A., 1998. Threatened and endangered species geography. Bioscience 48, 

6047 365-376. 

6048 Foerster, R.E., 1968. The sockeye salmon. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 162. 

6049 Ford, J.K.B., Ellis, G.M., 1999. Transients: Mammal-hunting killer whales of B.C., Washington State, and Southeast 

6050 Alaska. (Orcinus orca). University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, B.C. 

6051 Ford, J.K.B., Ellis, G.M., 2006. Selective foraging by fish-eating killer whales Orcinus orca in British Columbia. 

6052 Marine Ecology Progress Series 316, 185–199. 

6053 Ford, J.K.B., Ellis, G.M., Balcomb, K.C., 2000. Killer whales: the natural history and genealogy of Orcinus orca in 

6054 British Columbia and Washington State. 2nd ed. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

6055 Ford, J.K.B., Ellis, G.M., Barrett-Lennard, L.G., Morton, A.B., Palm, R.S., Balcomb III, K.C., 1998. Dietary 

6056 specialization in two sympatric populations of killer whale (Orcinus orca) in coastal British Columbia and adjacent 

6057 waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76, 1456-1471. 

6058 Foster, E.P., Fitzpatrick, M.S., Feist, G.W., Schreck, C.B., Yates, J., 2001. Gonad organochlorine concentrations and 

6059 plasma steroid levels in white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) from the Columbia River, USA. Bulletin of 

6060 Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 67, 239–245. 

6061 French, R., Bilton, H., Osako, M., Hartt, A., 1976. Distribution and origin of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

6062 in offshore waters of the North Pacific Ocean. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin 34. 

6063 Fry, D.H., Jr., 1961. King salmon spawning stocks of the California Central Valley, 1940-1959. California Fish and 

6064 Game 47, 55-71. 

6065 Fulton, L.A., 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in the Columbia 

6066 River Basin-Past and present. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report on Fisheries 571:26. 

6067 Fulton, L.A., 1970. Spawning areas and abundance of steelhead trout and coho, sockeye, and chum slamon in the 

6068 Columbia River basin - past and present. NOAA Technical Report. 

6069 Funk, D.W., Markowitz, T.M., (Eds)., R.R., 2005. Baseline studies of beluga whale habitat use in Knik Arm, Upper 

6070 Cook Inlet, Alaska: July 2004 - July 2005. Final report prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., 

6071 Anchorage, AK, for Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA), Anchorage, AK. 232p. 
171

6072 Futer, P., Nassichuk, M., 1983. Metals in eulachons from the Nass River and crabs from Alice Arm, B.C. Canadian 

6073 Reports of Fishereis and Aquatic Sciences. 

6074 Gaydos, J.K., Balcomb III, K.C., Osborne, R.W., Dierauf, L., 2004. Evaluating potential infectious disease threats 

6075 for southern killer whales, Orcinus orca: a model for endangered species. Biological Conservation 117, 253-262. 

6076 Geiger, D.L., 2004. AbMap: The abalone mapping project. http://www.vetigastropoda.com/ABMAP/text/index.htm. 

6077 Geist, D.R., Murray, C.J., Hanrahan, T.P., Xie, Y., 2009. A model of the effects of flow fluctuations on fall Chinook 

6078 salmon spawning habitat availability in the Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28, 

6079 1911-1927. 

6080 Gibson, C., 1998. Population of the 100 largest cities and other urban places in the United States: 1790 to 1990. 

6081 Population. 

6082 Gilbert, C.R., 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and 

6083 invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight): Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological 

6084 Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways 

6085 Experiment Station, Washington, D.C. 

6086 Gilliom, R.J., Barbash, J.E., Crawford, C.G., Hamilton, P.A., Martin, J.D., Nakagaki, N., Nowell, L.H., Scott, J.C., 

6087 Stackelberg, P.E., Thelin, G.P., Wolock, D.M., 2006. The quality of our Nation's waters. Pesticides in the Nation's 

6088 streams and groundwater, 1992 - 2001. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 

6089 Good, T.P., Waples, R.S., Adams, P., 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and 

6090 steelhead. NOAA Technical Memorandum. U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle, WA, pp. 1-598. 

6091 Gordon, J., Moscrop, A., 1996. Underwater noise pollution, and its significance for whales, and dolphins. In: 

6092 Simmonds, M.P., Hutchinson, J.D. (Eds.), The conservation of whales and dolphins: Science and practice. John 

6093 Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom, pp. 281-319. 

6094 Gregory, S.V., Bisson, P.A., 1997. Degradation and loss of anadromous salmonid habitat in the Pacific Northwest. 

6095 In: Stouder, D.J., Bisson, P.A., Naiman, R.J. (Eds.), Pacific salmon and their ecoystems. Chapman and Hall, New 

6096 York, pp. 277-314. 

6097 Groot, C., Margolis., L., 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, 

6098 Canada. 

6099 Gross, M.R., Repka, J., Robertson, C.T., Secor, D.H., Winkle, W.V., 2002. Sturgeon conservation: insights from 

6100 elasticity analysis. In: Webster, V.W. (Ed.), Biology, management, and protection of North American sturgeon, 

6101 Symposium 28. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 13-30. 

6102 Grunwald, C., Stabile, J., Waldman, J.R., Gross, R., Wirgin, I., 2002. Population genetics of shortnose sturgeon 

6103 Acipenser brevirostrum based on mitochondrial DNA control region sequences. Molecular Ecology 11, 1885-1898. 

6104 Hallock, R.J., Van Woert, W.F., Shapovalov, L., 1961. An evaluation of stocking hatchery-reared steelhead rainbow 

6105 trout (Salmo gairdneri gairdneri) in the Sacramento River System. Fish Bulletin 114, 1-74. 

6106 Hanazato, T., 1991. Effects of long- and short-term exposure to carbaryl on survival, growth and peproduction of 

6107 Daphnia ambigua. Environmental Pollution 74, 139-148. 

6108 Hanson, B., Baird, R.W., Schorr, G., 2005. Focal behavioral observations and fish-eating killer whales: improving 

6109 our understanding of foraging behavior and prey selection. 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

6110 Mammals, San Diego, California. 

6111 Haraguchi, K., Hisamichi, Y., Endo., T., 2009. Accumulation and mother-to-calf transfer of anthropogenic and 

6112 natural organohalogens in killer whales (Orcinus orca) stranded on the Pacific coast of Japan. Science of the Total 

6113 Environment 407, 2853-2859. 

6114 Hard, J.J., Myers, J.M., Ford, M.J., Kope, R.G., Pess, G.R., Waples, R.S., Winans, G.A., Berejikian, B.A., Waknitz, 

6115 F.W., Adams, P.B., Bisson, P.A., Campton, D.E., Reisenbichle, R.R., 2007. Status review update of Puget Sound 

6116 steelhead. Puget Sound biological review team. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science 

6117 Center, Seattle, Washington, p. 117. 
172

6118 Hart, J., 1991. Our changing cities. Johns Hopkins Univ Pr. 

6119 Hart, J.L., 1973. Pacific fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 180. 

6120 Hart, J.L., McHugh, J.L., 1944. The smelts (Osmeridae) of British Columbia. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research 

6121 Board of Canada 64. 

6122 Hastings, R.W., O'Herron II, J.C., Schick, K., Lazzari, M.A., 1987. Occurrence and distribution of shortnose 

6123 sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, in the upper tidal Delaware River. Estuaries 10, 337-341. 

6124 Hatten, J.R., Tiffan., K.F., 2009. A spatial model to assess the effects of hydropower operations on Columbia River 

6125 fall Chinook salmon spawning habitat. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29, 1379-1405. 

6126 Hay, D.E., McCarter, P.B., 2000. Status of the eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus in Canada. Department of Fisheries 

6127 and Oceans Canada. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat, Ottawa, Ontario. 

6128 Hayes, S.A., Bond, M.H., Hanson, C.V., Freund, E.V., 2008. Steelhead growth in a small central California 

6129 watershed: Upstream and estuarine rearing patterns. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 137, 114-128. 

6130 Hayhoe, K., Wake, C.P., Huntington, T.G., Luo, L., Schwartz, M.D., Sheffield, J., Wood, E., Anderson, B., 

6131 Bradbury, J., DeGaetano, A., 2007. Past and future changes in climate and hydrological indicators in the US 

6132 Northeast. Climate Dynamics 28, 381-407. 

6133 Hayman, R.A., Beamer, E.M., McClure, R.E., 1996. FY 1995 Skaig River Chinook restoration research. Report by 

6134 Skagit System Cooperative, La Conner, Washington:54p 

6135 Healey, M.C., 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pacific salmon life histories. 

6136 UBC Press, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, pp. Pages 311-393. 

6137 Hebdon, J.L., Kline, P., Taki, D., Flagg, T.A., 2004. Evaluating reintroduction strategies for Redfish Lake sockeye 

6138 salmon captive broodstock strategy. In: Nickum, M.J., Mazik, P.M., Nickum, J.G., MacKinlay, D.D. (Eds.), 

6139 Propagated fish in resource management. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 44. American Fisheries Society, 

6140 Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 401-413. 

6141 Heppell, S., 2007. Elasticity Analysis of Green Sturgeon Life History. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79, 357-

6142 368. 

6143 Herman, D.P., Burrows, D.G., Wade, P.R., Durban, J.W., Matkin, C.O., LeDuc, R.G., Barrett-Lennard, L.G., Krahn, 

6144 M.M., 2005. Feeding ecology of eastern North Pacific killer whales Orcinus orca from fatty acid, stable isotope, and 

6145 organochlorine analyses of blubber biopsies. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302, 18. 

6146 Heublein, J.C., Kelly, J.T., Crocker, C.E., Klimley, A.P., Lindley, S.T., 2009. Migration of green sturgeon, 

6147 Acipenser medirostris, in the Sacramento River. Environmental Biology of Fishes 84, 245-258. 

6148 Hicks, B.J., J.D Hall, P.A. Bisson, Sedell, J.R., 1991. Responses of salmonids to habitat changes. Pages 483-518 in 

6149 W.R. Meehan (ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Habitat. American Fisheries 

6150 Society Special Publication 19. 

6151 Hill, E.F., Camardese, M.B., 1986. Lethal dietary toxicities of environmental contaminants to coturnix. U.S. 

6152 Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

6153 Hobbs, F., Stoops, N., Census, U.S.B.o.t., 2002. Demographic trends in the 20th century. Citeseer. 

6154 Hobbs, R.C., Shelden, K.E.W., 2008. Supplemental status review and extinction assessment of Cook Inlet belugas 

6155 (Delphinapterus leucas). AFSC Processed Rep. 2008-08, 76 pages. AFSC, NOAA, NMFS, Seattle, WA. 

6156 Hobbs, R.C., Shelden, K.E.W., Rugh, D.J., Norman., S.A., 2008. 2008 status review and extinction risk assessment 

6157 of Cook Inlet belugas (Delphinapterus leucas). NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center. AFSC Processed Report 

6158 2008-02. 116pp. 

6159 Hobday, A.J., Tegner, M.J., 2000. Status review of white abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) throughout its range in 

6160 California and Mexico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWR-035. 

6161 Holt, M.M., Noren, D.P., Veirs, V., Emmons, C.K., Veirs., S., 2009. Speaking up: Killer whales (Orcinus orca) 

6162 increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125, El27-
173

6163 El32. 

6164 Houghton, R., 1994. The worldwide extent of land-use change. Bioscience 44, 305-313. 

6165 Houston, J.J., 1988. Status of green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102, 286-

6166 290. 

6167 Howard, P.H., 1991. Handbook of environmental fate and exposure data for organic chemicals: Pesticides. CRC. 

6168 Howell, P., Jones, K., Scarmecchia, D., La Voy, L., Kendra, W., Ortmann, D., 1985a. Willamette River winter 

6169 steelhead (wild). Stock assessment of Columbia River anadromous salmonids II: Steelhead stock summaries, stock 

6170 transfer guidelines, and information needs. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, pp. 668-685. 

6171 Howell, P., Jones, K., Scarnecchia, D., LaVoy, L., Kendra, W., Ortmann, D., 1985b. Stock assessment of Columbia 

6172 River anadromous salmonids. Volume II: Steelhead stock summaries, stock transfer guidelines, and information 

6173 needs. Final Report to the Bonneville Power Administration Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

6174 Hudson, R.H., Tucker, R.K., Haegele, M.A., 1984. Handbook of toxicity of pesticides to wildlife. U.S. Department 

6175 of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

6176 ICBTRT, 2003. Independent populations of chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for listed evolutionarily significant 

6177 units within the Interior Columbia River Domain. Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team, Northwest 

6178 Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. 

6179 ICTRT, 2003. Independent populations of chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for listed evolutionarily significant units 

6180 within the Interior Columbia River Domain. Recovery Document. Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery 

6181 Team, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. 

6182 IPCC, 2001. Climate change 2001: The scientific basis, contribution of working group I to the third assessment 

6183 report of the intergovernmental panel of climate change. In: Houghton, J., Ding, Y., Griggs, D., Noguer, M., vander 

6184 Linden, P., Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson, C. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 

6185 Israel, J.A., Bando, K.J., Anderson, E.C., May, B., 2009. Polyploid microsatellite data reveal stock complexity 

6186 among estuarine North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66, 1491-1504. 

6187 Jacobs, R., Larson, G., Meyer, J., Currence, N., Hinton, J., Adkinson, M., Burgner, R., Geiger, H., Lestelle, L., 

6188 1996. The sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka population in Lake Ozette, Washington, USA. National Park 

6189 Service Technical Report NPS/CCSOSU/NRTR-96/04. U.S. Department of the Interior. 

6190 Jarvinen, A.W., Nordling, B.R., Henry, M.E., 1983. Chronic toxicity of Dursban (chlorpyrifos) to the fathead 

6191 minnow (Pimephales promelas) and the resultant acetylcholinesterase inhibition. Ecotoxicology and Environmental 

6192 Safety 7, 423-434. 

6193 Jefferson, T.A., Webber, M.A., Pitman, R.L., 2008. Marine Mammals of the World: A Comprehensive Guide to 

6194 their Identification. Academic Press, Elsevier. London, U.K. 

6195 Jeffries, S., 1984. Marine mammals of the Columbia River Estuary. Washington State Department of Game, 

6196 Olympia, Washington. 

6197 Jennings, M.R., 1996. Past occurrence of eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus, in streams tributary to Humboldt Bay, 

6198 California. California Fish and Game 82, 147-148. 

6199 Johnson, O.W., Grant, W.S., Kope, R.G., Neely, K., Waknitz, F.W., Waples, R.S., 1997. Status review of chum 

6200 salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA Tech. Memo. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, p. 280 p. 

6201 Johnson, W.W., Finley, M.T., 1980. Handbook of acute toxicity of chemicals to fish and aquatic invertebrates. U.S. 

6202 Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

6203 Kakuschke, A., Prange, A., 2007. The influence of metal pollution on the immune system a potential stressor for 

6204 marine mammals in the North Sea. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 20, Retrieved from: 

6205 http://escholarship.org/uc/item/55p54w59tj. 

6206 Karl, T.R., Melillo, J.M., Peterson, T.C. (Eds.), 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. 

6207 Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. 
174

6208 Kemmerich, J., 1945. A review of the artificial propagation and transplantation of the sockeye salmon of the Puget 

6209 Sound area in the State of Washington conducted by the federal government from 1896 to 1945. Report to the 

6210 Regional Director. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

6211 Kidd, H., James, D.R. (Eds.), 1991. The agrochemicals handbook. Third Edition. Royal Society of Chemistry 

6212 Information Services, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

6213 Kieffer, M.C., Kynard, B., 1993. Annual movements of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons in the Merrimack River, 

6214 Massachusetts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122, 1088-1103. 

6215 Kirshen, P., Ruth, M., Anderson, W., 2008. Interdependencies of urban climate change impacts and adaptation 

6216 strategies: a case study of Metropolitan Boston USA. Climatic Change 86, 105-122. 

6217 Klinkhart, E.G., 1966. The beluga whale in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife 

6218 Restoration Project Report, Volume VII. Project W-6-R and W-14-R. 

6219 Klopatek, J.M., Olson, R.J., Emerson, C.J., Joness, J.L., 1979. Land-use conflicts with natural vegetation in the 

6220 United States. Environmental Conservation 6, 191-199. 

6221 Knowles, N., Dettinger, M.D., Cayan, D.R., 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. 

6222 Journal of Climate 19, 4545-4559. 

6223 Koplin, D., Furlong, E., Meyer, M., EM, T., Zaugg, S., Barber, L., Buxton, H., 2002a. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, 

6224 and other organic wastewater contaminants in 419 U.S. Streams,1999-2000: A national reconnaissance. 

6225 Environmental Science and Technology 36, 1202-1211. 

6226 Koplin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., M eyer, M.T., Thurman, E.M., Zaugg, S.D., Barber, L.B., Buxton, H.T., 2002b. 

6227 Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. Streams,1999-2000: A national 

6228 reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology 36, 1202-1211. 

6229 Kostow, K., 1995. Biennial report on the status of wild fish in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

6230 Krahn, M.M., Ford, M.J., Perrin, W.F., Wade, P.R., Angliss, R.P., Hanson, M.B., Taylor, B.L., Ylitalo, G.M., 

6231 Dahlheim, M.E., Stein, J.E., Waples, R.S., 2004. 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus 

6232 orca) under the Endangered Species Ac. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62, U.S. Department of 

6233 Commerce, Seattle, Washington. 95p. 

6234 Krahn, M.M., Hanson, M.B., Schorr, G.S., Emmons, C.K., Burrows, D.G., Bolton, J.L., Baird, R.W., Ylitalo, G.M., 

6235 2009. Effects of age, sex and reproductive status on persistent organic pollutant concentrations in ‘‘Southern 

6236 Resident” killer whales. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 

6237 Krahn, M.M., Wade, P.R., Kalinowski, S.T., Dahlheim, M.E., Taylor, B.L., Hanson, M.B., Ylitalo, G.M., Angliss, 

6238 R.P., Stein, J.E., Waples, R.S., 2002. Status review of Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the 

6239 Endangered Species Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum. U.S. Deptartment of Commerce, p. 133. 

6240 Kruse, G.O., Scarnecchia, D.L., 2001. Assessment of bioaccumulated metal and organochlorine compounds in 

6241 relation to physiological biomarkers in Kootenai River white sturgeon. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 18, 430-438. 

6242 Kynard, B., 1997. Life history, latitudinal patterns, and status of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum. 

6243 Environmental Biology of Fishes 48, 319-334. 

6244 Kynard, B., Horgan, M., Kieffer, M., Seibel, D., 2000. Habitats used by shortnose sturgeon in two Massachusetts 

6245 rivers, with notes on estuarine Atlantic sturgeon: A hierarchical approach. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

6246 Society 129, 487-503. 

6247 Labenia, J.S., Baldwin, D.H., French, B.L., Davis, J.W., Scholz, N.L., 2007. Behavioral impairment and increased 

6248 predation mortality in cutthroat trout exposed to carbaryl. Marine Ecology Progress Series 329, 12. 

6249 Lackey, R.T., 2003. Pacific Northwest salmon: Forecasting their status in 2100. Reviews in Fisheries Science 11, 

6250 35-88. 

6251 Lackey, R.T., 2009. Challenges to sustaining diadromous fishes through 2100: lessons learned from western North 

6252 America. In Challenges for diadromous fishes in a dynamic global environment. In: Haro, A., Smith, K.L., Rulifson, 

6253 R.A., Moffitt, C.M., Klauda, R.J., Dadswell, M.J., Cunjak, R.A., Cooper, J.A., Beal, K.L., Avery, T.S. (Eds.), 
175

6254 American Fisheries Society Symposium Bethesda, Maryland. 

6255 Laetz, C.A., Baldwin, D.H., Collier, T.K., Hebert, V., Stark, J.D., Scholz, N.L., 2009. The synergistic toxicity of 

6256 pesticide mixtures: implications for risk assessment and the conservation of endangered Pacific salmon. 

6257 Environmental Health Perspectives 117, 6. 

6258 Langenbuch, H., Pörtner, H.O., 2002. Changes in metabolic rate and N excretion in the marine invertebrate 

6259 Sipunculus nudus under conditions of environmental hypercapnia: identifying effective acid–base variables. Journal 

6260 of Experimental Biology 205, 1153-1160. 

6261 Langenbuch, H., Pörtner, H.O., 2003. Energy budget of hepatocytes from Antarctic fish (Pachycara 

6262 brachycephalum and Lepidonotothen kempi) as a function of ambient CO2: pH-dependent limitations of cellular 

6263 protein biosynthesis? Journal of Experimental Biology 206, 3895-3903. 

6264 Larson, Z.S., Belchik, M.R., 2000. A preliminary status review of eulachon and Pacific lamprey in the Klamath 

6265 River Basin. Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program, Klamath, California. 

6266 Laufle, J.C., Pauley, G.B., Shepard, M.F., 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

6267 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) - Coho Salmon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological 

6268 Report 82(11.48). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 18p. 

6269 Lenarz, W.H., Larson, R., Ralston, S., 1991. Depth distributions of late larvae and pelagic juveniles of some fishes 

6270 of the California current. CalCOFl Reports 32, 41-46. 

6271 Levermann, A., Mignot, J., Nawrath, S., Rahmstorf, S., 2007. The role of northern sea ice cover for the weakening 

6272 of the thermohaline circulation under global warming. Journal of Climate 20, 4160-4171. 

6273 Lichatowich, J.A., 1999. Salmon without rivers. A history of the Pacific salmon crisis. Island Press, Washington, 

6274 D.C. 

6275 Light, J.T., Harris, C.K., Burgner, R.L., 1989. Ocean distribution and migration of steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

6276 mykiss). Document submitted to the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. FRI-UW-89012. Fisheries 

6277 Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, 50 pp. 

6278 Littell, J.S., Elsner, M.M., Whitely Binder, L.C., Snover, A.K. (Eds.), 2009. The Washington climate change 

6279 impacts assessment: evaluating Washington's future in a changing climate. University of Washington, Climate 

6280 Impacts Group, Seattle, Washington. 

6281 Little, E.E., Archeski, R.D., Flerov, B.A., Kozlovskaya, V.I., 1990. Behavioral indicators of sublethal toxicity in 

6282 rainbow trout. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 19, 380-385. 

6283 Litzow, M., Bailey, K., Prahl, F., Heintz, R., 2006. Climate regime shifts and reorganization of fish communities: 

6284 the essential fatty acid limitation hypothesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 315, 1-11. 

6285 London, T.R.S.o., 2005. A guide to facts and fictions about climate change. 

6286 http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/cli

6287 mate_facts_and_fictions.pdf. 

6288 Lubowski, R.N., Vesterby, M., Bucholtz, S., Baez, A., Roberts, M.J., 2006. Major Uses of Land in the United 

6289 States, 2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin No. EIB6290 14, Washington, D.C. 

6291 Macek, K.J., 1975. Acute toxicity of pesticide mixtures to bluegills. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and 

6292 Toxicology 14, 648-652. 

6293 Mahoney, B.A., Shelden, K.E.W., 2000. Harvest history of beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, 

6294 Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review 62, 124-133. 

6295 Mangum, F.A., Madrigal, J., 1999. Rotenone effects on aquatic macroinvertebrates of the Strawberry River, Utah: a 

6296 five-year summary. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 14, 125-135. 

6297 Mantua, N.J., Hare, S.R., Zhang, Y., Wallace, J.M., Francis, R.C., 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation 

6298 with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78, 1069-1079. 
176

6299 Marr, J.C., 1943. Age, length, and weight studies of three species of Columbia River salmon (Oncorhynchus keta, 

6300 O. gorbuscha, and O. kisutch). Stanford Ichthyology Bulletin 2, 157-197. 

6301 Martineau, D., 2007. Potential synergism between stress and contaminants in free-ranging cetaceans. International 

6302 Journal of Comparative Psychology 20, 194-216. 

6303 Matkin, C., Ellis, G., Saulitis, E., Barrett-Lennard, L., Matkin., D., 1999. Killer whales of southern Alaska. (Orcinus 

6304 orca). North Gulf Oceanic Society, Homer, Alaska. 96pp. ISBN 0-9633467-9-2. 

6305 Matkin, C.O., Ellis, G., Barrett-Lennard, L., Yurk, H., Saulitis, E., Scheel, D., Olesiuk, P., Ylitalo, G., 2003. 

6306 Photographic and acoustic monitoring of killer whales in Prince William Sound and Kenai Fjords. Restoration 

6307 Project 030012 Final Report, Exxon Valdes Oil Spill Restoration Project. North Gulf Oceanic Society, Homer, 

6308 Alaska. 

6309 Matkin, C.O., Matkin, D.R., Ellis, G.M., Saulitis, E., McSweeney, D., 1997. Movements of resident killer whales in 

6310 southeastern Alaska and Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 13, 6. 

6311 Matlack, G.R., 1997. Four centuries of forest clearance and regeneration in the hinterland of a large city. Journal of 

6312 Biogeography 24, 281-295. 

6313 Matthews, G.M., Waples, R.S., 1991. Status review for Snake River spring and summer Chinook salmon. NOAA 

6314 Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-200. U.S. Department of Commerce. 

6315 McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., White, K.S. (Eds.), 2001. Climate change 2001: Impacts, 

6316 adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the Third Assessment Report of the 

6317 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

6318 McCarthy, S.G., Duda, J.J., Emlen, J.M., Hodgson, G.R., Beauchamp, D.A., 2009. Linking Habitat Quality with 

6319 Trophic Performance of Steelhead along Forest Gradients in the South Fork Trinity River Watershed, California. 

6320 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138, 506-521. 

6321 McDonald, M.A., Hildebrand, J.A., Wiggins, S.M., 2006. Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in the northeast 

6322 Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120, 711-718. 

6323 McElhany, P., Chilcote, M., Myers, J., Beamesderfer, R., 2007. Viability status of Oregon salmon and steelhead 

6324 populations in the Willamette and lower Columbia basins. Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team 

6325 Report. NMFS and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Seattle, Washington. 

6326 McEwan, D., Jackson, T.A., 1996. Steelhead restoration and management plan for California. California Department 

6327 of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 

6328 McEwan, D.R., 2001. Central valley steelhead. In: Brown, R.L. (Ed.), Contributions to the biology of the central 

6329 valley salmonids. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, pp. 1-43. 

6330 McLean, J.E., Hay, D.E., Taylor, E.B., 1999. Marine population structure in an anadromous fish: Life history 

6331 influences patterns of mitochondrial DNA variation in the eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus. Molecular Ecology 8, 

6332 S143-S158. 

6333 McLean, J.E., Taylor, E.B., 2001. Resolution of population structure in a species with high gene flow: microsatellite 

6334 variation in the eulachon (Osmeridae: Thaleichthys pacificus). Marine Biology 139, 411-420. 

6335 Meehan, W.R., Bjornn, T.R., 1991. Salmonid distributions and life histories: Cutthroat trout. Influence of forest and 

6336 rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Bethesda, American Fisheries Society Special 

6337 Publication 19, 66-67. 

6338 Merz, J.E., 1994. A dietary analysis of juvenile Sacramento squawfish (Ptychocheilus grandis), Chinook salmon 

6339 (Oncorhynchus tshawytcha), and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) in the Lower American River, Sacramento County, 

6340 California. California State University, Sacramento, CA. 

6341 Meyers, J.M., Kope, R.G., Bryant, G.J., Teel, D.J., Lierheimer, L.J., Wainwright, T.C., Grand, W.S., Waknitz, F.W., 

6342 Neely, K., Lindley, S.T., Waples, R.S., 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 

6343 and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NWC-195 NMFS6344 NWFSC-35. 
177

6345 Miller, M.J., 2004. The ecology and functional morphology of North American sturgeon and paddlefish. In: 

6346 LeBreton, G.T.O. (Ed.), Sturgeon and paddlefish of North America. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp. 

6347 87-102. 

6348 Mills, S.K., Beatty, J.H., 1979. The propensity interpretation of fitness. Philosophy of Science 46, 263-286. 

6349 Minckley, W.L., Hendrickson, D.A., Bond, C.E., 1986. Geography of western North American freshwater fishes: 

6350 Description and relationship to intercontinental tectonism. In: Hocutt, C.H., Wiley, E.O. (Eds.), The zoogeography 

6351 of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, pp. 519-613. 

6352 Moffett, J.W., 1949. The first four years of king salmon maintenance below Shasta Dam, Sacramento River, 

6353 California. California Fish and Game 35, 77-102. 

6354 Moore, M.E., Berejikian, B.A., Tezak, E.P., 2010. Early marine survival and behavior of steelhead smolts through 

6355 Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 139, 49-61. 

6356 Morgan, D.S., Jones, J.L., 1999. Numerical model analysis of the effects of ground-water withdrawals on discharge 

6357 to streams and springs in small basins typical of the Puget Sound Lowland, Washington. US Geological Survey 

6358 water-supply paper, 1-73. 

6359 Moser, H.G., Boehlert, G.W., 1991. Ecology of pelagic larvae and juveniles of the genus Sebastes. Environmental 

6360 Biology of Fishes 30, 203-224. 

6361 Moser, M.L., Bain, M., Collins, M.R., Haley, N., Kynard, B., O’Herron Ii, J.C., Rogers, G., Squiers, T.S., 2000. A 

6362 Protocol for Use of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons. NOAA Technical Memorandum. U.S. Department of 

6363 Commerce p. 18 pp. 

6364 Moser, M.L., Lindley, S.T., 2007. Use of Washington estuaries by subadult and adult green sturgeon. Environ. Biol. 

6365 Fishes 79, 243-253. 

6366 Moser, M.L., Ross, S.W., 1995. Habitat Use and Movements of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons in the Lower 

6367 Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124, 225. 

6368 Mote, P., Hamlet, A., Salathé, E., 2008. Has spring snowpack declined in the Washington Cascades? Hydrology and 

6369 Earth System Sciences 12, 193-206. 

6370 Moyle, P.B., 1976a. The decline of anadromous fishes in California. Conservation Biology 8, 869-870. 

6371 Moyle, P.B., 1976b. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 

6372 Moyle, P.B., 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, 

6373 California. 

6374 Moyle, P.B., Foley, P.J., Yoshiyama, R.M., 1992. Status of green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, in California. 

6375 Final Report submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service. University of California, Davis, California. 

6376 Moyle, P.B., Yoshiyama, R.M., Williams, J.E., Wikramanayake, E.D., 1995. Fish species of special concern in 

6377 California. Second edition. Final report to California Department of Fish and Game, contract 2128IF. 

6378 Musick, J.A., Harbin, M.M., Berkeley, S.A., Burgess, G.H., Eklund, A.M., Findley, L., Gilmore, R.G., Golden, J.T., 

6379 Ha, D.S., Huntsman, G.R., McGovern, J.C., Parker, S.J., Poss, S.G., Sala, E., Schmidt, T.W., Sedbeny, G.R., Weeks, 

6380 H., Wright, S.G., 2000. Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish stocks at risk of extinction in North America 

6381 (exclusive of Pacific salmonids). Fisheries 25, 6-30. 

6382 Nakamoto, R.J., Kisanuki, T.T., Goldsmith, G.H., 1995. Age and growth of Klamath River green sturgeon 

6383 (Acipenser medirostris). Project #93-FP-13. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

6384 National Research Council, 2003. Ocean noise and marine mammals. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

6385 Neave, F., Yonemori, T., Bakkala, R., 1976. Distribution and origin of chum salmon in offshore waters of the North 

6386 Pacific Ocean. Int. North Pac. Fish. Comm. Bull. 35, 1-79. 

6387 Nickelson, T.E., Nicholas, J.W., McGie, A.M., Lindsay, R.B., Bottom, D.L., Kaiser, R.J., Jacobs, S.E., 1992. Status 

6388 of anadromous salmonids in Oregon coastal basins. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Resource 

6389 Development Section and Ocean Salmon Management, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. 
178

6390 NMFS, 1996. Status review update for coho salmon from Washignton, Oregon, and California. 

6391 NMFS, 1997a. Status review update for coho salmon from the Oregon and Northern California coasts. West coast 

6392 coho salmon biological review team. 

6393 NMFS, 1997b. Status review update for West Coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. 

6394 Memorandum date 7 July 1997 from the biological review team to the National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest 

6395 Regional Office. 

6396 NMFS, 1998a. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum. In: Prepared by the 

6397 Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service (Ed.), Silver Spring, Maryland, p. 

6398 104. 

6399 NMFS, 1998b. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). In: Prepared by the Shortnose 

6400 Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service (Ed.), Silver Spring, Maryland, p. 104. 

6401 NMFS, 1998c. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose 

6402 Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104p. 

6403 NMFS, 1998d. Status review update for sockeye salmon from Ozette Lake and Baker River, Washington. West 

6404 coast sockeye biological review team. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington. 

6405 NMFS, 2000. Status Review of the Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata). 

6406 NMFS, 2005a. Assessment of acoustic exposures on marine mammals in conjunction with USS Shoup active sonar 

6407 transmissions in the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca and Haro Strait, Washington ~ 5 May 2003 ~. NMFS, Office of 

6408 Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

6409 NMFS, 2005b. Final assessment of NOAA Fisheries' critical habitat analytical review teams for 12 evolutionarily 

6410 significant units of West Coast salmon and steelhead. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

6411 Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Division. 

6412 NMFS, 2005c. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) status review update. Biological review team, Southwest 

6413 Fisheries Science Center. February 2005. . 

6414 NMFS, 2006. Supplement to the draft Snake River salmon recovery plan for Southeast Washington. National 

6415 Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 

6416 NMFS, 2008a. Biological opinion on the Environmental Protection Agency registration of pesticides containing 

6417 chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

6418 Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

6419 NMFS, 2008b. Conservation Plan for the Cook Inlet beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). Alaska Region, Juneau, 

6420 AK, p. 122. 

6421 NMFS, 2008c. Listing endangered and threatened species: Notification of finding on a petition to list Pacific 

6422 eulachon as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. National Marine Fisheries 

6423 Service. 

6424 NMFS, 2008d. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). National Marine Fisheries 

6425 Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington, p. 251. 

6426 NMFS, 2009a. Biological opinion on the Environmental Protection Agency registration of pesticides containing 

6427 carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

6428 Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

6429 NMFS, 2009b. Final recovery plan for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). National Marine 

6430 Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, Salmon Recovery Division. 

6431 Noss, R.F., Murphy, D.D., 1995. Editorial: Endangered Species Left Homeless in Sweet Home. JSTOR, pp. 229-

6432 231. 

6433 NRC, 1996. Habitat Management and Rehabilitation. In: National Research Council (Ed.), Upstream: salmon and 

6434 society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 204-225. 
179

6435 O'Corry-Crowe, G., 2008. Climate change and the molecular ecology of Arctic marine mammals. Ecological 

6436 Applications 18, S56-S76. Arctic Marine Mammals and Climate Change. 

6437 O'Corry-Crowe, G., Suydam, R., Orr, J., Lowry, L., Frost, K., Litovka, D., Hobbs., R., 2007. Combination of 

6438 satellite telemetry and molecular genetic analysis in the study of beluga whales in the Western Nearctic., NOAA 

6439 Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-82. vi + 82pp. p.37. Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service 

6440 Workshop on Advancing Electronic Tag Technologies and Their Use in Stock Assessments. 

6441 O'Herron II, J.C., Able, K.W., Hastings, R.W., 1993. Movements of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in 

6442 the Delaware River. Estuaries 16, 235-240. 

6443 Odemar, M.W., 1964. Southern range extension of the eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus. California Fish and Game 

6444 50, 305-307. 

6445 Olesiuk, P.F., Bigg, M.A., Ellis, G.M., 1990. Life history and population dynamics of resident killer whales 

6446 (Orcinus orca) in the coastal waters of British Columbia and Washington State. Report of the International Whaling 

6447 Commission Special Issue 12, 209-243. 

6448 Olesiuk, P.F., Ellis, G.M., Ford, J.K., 2005. Life history and population dynamics of northern resident killer whales 

6449 (Orcinus orca) in British Columbia. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2005/045. 81. 

6450 Paragamian, V.L., Beamesderfer, R.C.P., Ireland, S.C., 2005. Status, population dynamics, and future prospects of 

6451 the endangered Kootenai River white sturgeon population with and without hatchery intervention. Transactions of 

6452 the American Fisheries Society 134. 

6453 Parry, M., Canziani, O., Palutikof, J., van der Linden, P.J. (Eds.), 2007. Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, 

6454 and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

6455 on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

6456 Parsons, K.M., III, K.C.B., Ford, J.K.B., Durban., J.W., 2009. The social dynamics of southern resident killer 

6457 whales and conservation implications for this endangered population. (Orcinus orca). Animal Behaviour 77, 963-

6458 971. 

6459 Paul, E.A., Simonin, H.A., Tomajer, T.M., 2005. A comparison of the toxicity of synergized and technical 

6460 formulations of permethrin, sumithrin, and resmethrin to trout. Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

6461 Toxicology 48, 251-259. 

6462 Payne, J.T., Wood, A.W., Hamlet, A.F., Palmer, R.N., Lettenmaier, D.P., 2004. Mitigating the effects of climate 

6463 change on the water resources of the Columbia River basin. Climatic Change 62, 233-256. 

6464 Pennington, J.T., Mahoney, K.L., Kuwahara, V.S., Kolber, D.D., Calienes, R., Chavez, F.P., 2006. Primary 

6465 production in the eastern tropical Pacific: A review. Progress in Oceanography 69, 285–317. 

6466 Perrin, W.F., Reilly, S.B., 1984. Reproductive parameters of dolphins and small whales of the family Delphinidae. 

6467 Pages 97-134 in: Perrin, W.G., R.L. Brownell, Jr., and D.P. DeMaster, editors. Reproduction in whales, dolphins, 

6468 and porpoises. International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 6), Cambridge, U.K. 

6469 Pess, G.R., Montgomery, D.R., Beechie, T.J., Holsinger, L., 2003. Anthropogenic alterations to the biogeography of 

6470 Puget Sound salmon. Pages 129-154 in: Montgomery, D.R., S. Bolton, D.B. Booth, and L. Wall, editors. Restoration 

6471 of Puget Sound rivers. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 

6472 Pörtner, H.O., Bock, C., Reipschläger, A., 2000. Modulation of the cost of pHi regulation during metabolic 

6473 depression: a 31P-NMR study in invertebrate (Sipunculus nudus) isolated muscle. Journal of Experimental Biology 

6474 2003, 2417-2428. 

6475 Pörtner, H.O., Langenbuch, M., Reipschläger, A., 2004. Biological impact of elevated ocean CO2 concentrations: 

6476 lessons from animal physiology and Earth history. Journal of Oceanography 60, 705-718. 

6477 Protection, C.f.W., 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems. Center for Watershed Protection. 

6478 Radtke, L.D., 1966. Distribution of smelt, juvenile sturgeon, and starry flounder in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

6479 Delta with observations on food of sturgeon. Pages 115-119 in: J.L. Turner and D.W. Kelly, eds. Ecological studies 

6480 of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Part II; California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin, 136. 
180

6481 Ramesh, H., David, M., 2009. Respiratory performance and behavioral responses of the freshwater fish, Cyprinus 

6482 carpio (Linnaeus) under sublethal chlorpyrifos exposure. Journal of Basic and Clinical Physiology and 

6483 Pharmacology 20, 127-139. 

6484 Randall, R.G., Healey, M.C., Dempson, J.B., 1987. Variability in length of freshwater residence of salmon, trout, 

6485 and char 

6486 In: Dodswell, M.J., et al. (Ed.), Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous fishes. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp, 

6487 pp. 27-41. 

6488 Rauscher, S.A., Pal, J.S., Diffenbaugh, N.S., Benedetti, M.M., 2008. Future changes in snowmelt-driven runoff 

6489 timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 35. 

6490 Rawson, K., Sands, N.J., Currens, K.P., Graeber, W.H., Ruckelshaus, M.H., Fuerstenberg, R.R., Scott, J., B., 2009. 

6491 Viability criteria for the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon evolutionarily significant unit. NOAA Technical 

6492 Memorandum. Department of Commerce, Seattle, Washington, p. 38. 

6493 Reisenbichler, R.R., 1997. Genetic factors contributing to declines of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific 

6494 Northwest. In: Stouder, D.J., Bisson, P.A., Naiman, R.J. (Eds.), Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and 

6495 future options. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 223-244. 

6496 Relyea, R.A., 2004. Growth and survival of five amphibian species exposed to combinations of pesticides. 

6497 Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23, 6. 

6498 Relyea, R.A., Mills, N., 2001. Predator-induced stress makes the pesticide carbaryl more deadly to gray treefrog 

6499 tadpoles (Hyla versicolor). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98, 

6500 2491 - 2496. 

6501 Reynolds, F.L., Mills, T.J., Benthin, R., Low, A., 1993. Restoring central valley streams: A plan for action. Calif. 

6502 Dep. Fish Game, Sacramento, CA, p. 184. 

6503 Rhatigan, M., 2004. Legislation overlap: should the Clean Water Act or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

6504 Rodenticide Act prevail when pesticides end up in US waters? The Notre Dame Law Review 79, 30. 

6505 Rich, W.H., 1942. The salmon runs of the Columbia River in 1938. Fishery Bulletin 50, 103-147. 

6506 Richardson, S.L., Laroche, J.L., Richardson, M.D., 1980. Larval fish assemblages and associations in the north-east 

6507 Pacific Ocean along the Oregon coast, winter-spring 1972-1975. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 11, 671-699. 

6508 Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr, C.R., Malme, C.I., Thomson, D.H., 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic 

6509 Press, Inc., San Diego, California. 

6510 Rien, T.A., Burner, L.C., Farr, R.A., Howell, M.D., North, J.A., 2001. Green sturgeon population characteristics in 

6511 Oregon. Annual Progress Report. Sportfish Restoration Project F-178-R. 

6512 Rogers, I.H., Birtwell, I.K., Kruzynski, G.M., 1990. The Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) as a pollution 

6513 indicator organism in the Fraser River estuary, Vancouver, British Columbia. Science of the Total Environment 97-

6514 98, 713-727. 

6515 Ross, P.S., 2006. Fireproof killer whales (Orcinus orca): flame-retardant chemicals and the conservation imperative 

6516 in the charismatic icon of British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63. 

6517 Ross, P.S., Ellis, G.M., Ikonomou, M.G., Barrett-Lennard, L.G., Addison, R.F., 2000. High PCB concentrations in 

6518 free-ranging Pacific killer whales, Orcinus orca: effects of age, sex, and dietary preference. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40, 

6519 504-515. 

6520 Royce, W.F., Smith, L.S., Hartt, A.C., 1968. Models of oceanic migrations of Pacific salmon and comments on 

6521 guidance mechanisms. Fisheries Bulletin 66, 441-462. 

6522 Rugh, D.J., Shelden, K.E.W., Hobbs, R.C., 2010. Range contraction in a beluga whale population. Endangered 

6523 Species Research 12, 69-75. 

6524 Salo, E.O., 1991. Life history of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). In: Groot, C., Margolis, L. (Eds.), Pacific 

6525 salmon life histories. University of British Columbia Press, Edmonton, Alberta., pp. 231-309. 
181

6526 Sandercock, F., 1991. The History of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). . In: Groot, C., Margolis, L. (Eds.), 

6527 Pacific Salmon Life History. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 

6528 Saulitis, E., Matkin, C., Barrett-Lennard, L., Heise, K., Ellis, G., 2000. Foraging strategies of sympatric killer whale 

6529 (Orcinus orca) populations in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 16, 16. 

6530 Scheffer, V.B., Slipp, J.W., 1948. The whales and dolphins of Washington state - with a key to the cetaceans of the 

6531 West Coast of North America. . American Midland Naturalist 39, 257-337. 

6532 Schmittner, A., Latif, M., Schneider, B., 2005. Model projections of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation for 

6533 the 21st century assessed by observations. Geophysical Research Letters 32, L23710. 

6534 Scholz, N.L., Truelove, N.K., French, B.L., Berejikian, B.A., Quinn, T.P., Casillas, E., Collier, T.K., 2000. Diazinon 

6535 disrupts antipredator and homing behaviors in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of 

6536 Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57, 1911-1918. 

6537 Schoonmaker, P.K., Gresh, T., Lichatowich, J., Radtke, H.D., 2003. Past and present salmon abundance: 

6538 Bioregional estimates for key life history stages. Pages 33-40 in: J.G. Stockner, editor. Nutrients in salmonid 

6539 ecosystems: Sustaining production and biodiversity. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 34, Bethesda, 

6540 Maryland. 

6541 Scott, W.B., Crossman, E.J., 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 

6542 184, 1-966. 

6543 Secor, D., Anders, P., Webster, V.W., Dixon, D., 2002. Can we study sturgeon to extinction? What we do and don't 

6544 know about the conservation of North American sturgeon. Pages 3-9 in: Webster, V.W., editor. Biology, 

6545 management, and protection of North American sturgeon, Symposium 28. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 

6546 Maryland. 

6547 Shapovalov, L., Taft, A.C., 1954. The life histories of the steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri gairdneri) and 

6548 silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) with special reference to Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations 

6549 regarding their management. California Department of Fish Game Bulletin 98. Available: 

6550 http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=kt9x0nb3v6&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text (May 2008). 

6551 Sharma, B., Gopal, K., Khanna, Y.P., 1993. Interaction of carbaryl with acetylcholinesterase of the teleost, Clarias 

6552 batrachus. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 39, 147-152. 

6553 Shea, K., Mangel, M., 2001. Detection of population trends in threatened coho salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci 58, 

6554 375-385. 

6555 Shea, T.B., Berry, E.S., 1983. Toxicity of carbaryl and 1-naphthol to goldfish (Carassius auratus) and killifish 

6556 (Fundulus heteroclitus). Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 31, 526-529. 

6557 Sih, A., Bell, A.M., Kerby, J.L., 2004. Two stressors are far deadlier than one. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19, 

6558 274-276. 

6559 Simenstad, C.A., Salo, E.O., 1982. Foraging success as a determinant of estuarine and nearshore carrying capacity 

6560 of juvenile chum salmon (Oncorhychus keta) in Hood Canal, Washington. Proceedings of the North Pacific 

6561 Aquaculture Symposium, Alaska Sea Grant 82, 21-37. 

6562 Sinclair, C.J., Boxall, A.B.A., 2003. Assessment of the environmental properties and effects of pesticide 

6563 transformation products. Cranfield University, Center for EcoChemistry, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom. 

6564 Slaney, T.L., Hyatt, K.D., Northcote, T.G., Fielden, R.J., 1996. Status of anadromous salmon and trout in British 

6565 Columbia and Yukon. Fisheries 21, 20-35. 

6566 Smith, E., Baker, J. , 2008. Pacific Island Ecosystem Complex chapter, Climate Impacts on U.S. Living Marine 

6567 Resources: National Marine Fisheries Service Concerns, Activities and Needs. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. 

6568 Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-89, 118 p. 

6569 Smith, W.E., Saalfeld, R.W., 1955. Studies on Columbia River smelt Thaleichthys pacificus (Richardson). 

6570 Washington Department of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Paper 1, 3-26. 

6571 Sogard, S.M., Williams, T.H., Fish, H., 2009. Seasonal Patterns of Abundance, Growth, and Site Fidelity of Juvenile 
182

6572 Steelhead in a Small Coastal California Stream. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 138, 549-563. 

6573 Speckman, S.G., Piatt., J.F., 2000. Historic and current use of Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska, by belugas, Delphinapterus 

6574 leucas. Marine Fisheries Review 62, 22-26. 

6575 Squiers, T.S., 2003. Completion report Kennebec River shortnose sturgeon population study (1997-2001). National 

6576 Marine Fisheries Service. 

6577 Staubitz, W.W., Bortleson, G., Semans, S., Tesoriero, A., Black, R., 1997. Water-Quality Assessment of the Puget 

6578 Sound Basin, Washington, Environmental Setting and Its Implications for Water Quality and Aquatic Biota. USGS 

6579 Water-Resources Investigations Report, 1997, 86. 

6580 Stearns, S.C., 1977. The evolution of life history traits: a critique of the theory and a review of the data. Annual 

6581 Review of Ecology and Systematics 8, 145-171. 

6582 Stearns, S.C., 1992. The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. 

6583 Stephen, C., Research, U.S.E.P.A.O.o., Development, 1985. Guidelines for deriving numerical national water 

6584 quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. United States Environmental Protection 

6585 Agency, Office of Research and Development. 

6586 Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., Dettinger, M.D., Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North 

6587 America. 

6588 Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., Dettinger, M.D., 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America 

6589 under abusiness as usual'climate change scenario. Climatic Change 62, 217-232. 

6590 Sturdevant, M.V., Willette, T.M., Jewett, S., Deberec, E., 1999. Diet composition, diet overlap, and size of 14 

6591 species of forage fish collected monthly in PWS, Alaska, 1994-1995. In: Sturdevant, M.V. (Ed.), pp. 12-36. 

6592 Tierney, K.B., Sampson, J.L., Ross, P.S., Sekela, M.A., Kennedy, C.J., 2008. Salmon olfaction is impaired by an 

6593 environmentally realistic pesticide mixture. Environmental Science & Technology 42, 4996-5001. 

6594 Tiffan, K.F., Kock, T.J., Haskell, C.A., Connor, W.P., Steinhorst, R.K., 2009. Water velocity, turbulence, and 

6595 migration rate of subyearling fall Chinook salmon in the free-flowing and impounded Snake River. Transactions of 

6596 the American Fisheries Society 138, 373-384. 

6597 Tutschulte, T.C., 1976. The comparative ecology of three sympatric abalones. Doctoral dissertation. University of 

6598 California, San Diego. 

6599 Van Eenennaam, J.P., Linares, J., Doroshov, S.I., Hillemeier, D.C., Willson, T.E., Nova, A.A., 2006. Reproductive 

6600 conditions of the Klamath River green sturgeon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 135, 151-163. 

6601 Varanasi, U., E., Casillas, M.R., Arkoosh, T., Hom, D.A., Misitano, D.W., Brown, S.-L., Chan, T.K.C., McCain, 

6602 B.B., Stein, J.E., 1993. Contaminant exposure and associated biological effects in juvenile Chinook salmon 

6603 (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from urban and nonurban estuaries of Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

6604 NMFS-NWFSC-8. Seattle, Washington. 

6605 Walker, L.A., Cornell, L., Dahl, K.D., Czekala, N.M., Dargen, C.M., Joseph, B., Hsueh, A.J.W., Lasley*., B.L., 

6606 1988. Urinary concentrations of ovarian steroid hormone metabolites and bioactive follicle-stimulating hormone in 

6607 killer whales (Orcinus orca) during ovarian cycles and pregnancy. Biology of Reproduction 39, 1013-1020. 

6608 Waples, R.S., Aebersold, P.B., Winans, G.A., 1997. Population genetic structure and life history variability in 

6609 Oncorhynchus nerka from the Snake River basin. Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. 

6610 1993BP05326, Project No. 199306800. BPA Report DOE/BP-05326-1. 

6611 Waples, R.S., Johnson, O.W., R.P. Jones, Jr., 1991. Status review for Snake River sockeye salmon. U.S. Department 

6612 of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-195. 

6613 Ward, E., Holmes, E., Balcomb, K., 2009a. Quantifying the effects of prey abundance on killer whale reproduction. 

6614 Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 632-640. 

6615 Ward, E.J., Parsons, K., Holmes, E.E., III, K.C.B., Ford., J.K.B., 2009b. The role of menopause and reproductive 

6616 senescence in a long-lived social mammal. Frontiers in Zoology 6. 
183

6617 Ware, S., Frost, C., Doerr, P.D., 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: the former longleaf pine forest. 

6618 Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: Lowland terrestrial communities, 447-493. 

6619 WDF, 1993. Washington Department of Fisheries 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory 

6620 (SASSI). Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, Western Washington Treaty 

6621 Indian Tribes, Olympia, Washington. 

6622 WDFW, ODFW, 2001. Washington and Oregon eulachon management plan. Washington Department of Fish and 

6623 Wildlife and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

6624 Webb, M.A., Feist, H.G.W., Fitzpatrick, M.S., Foster, E.P., Schreck, C.B., Plumlee, M., Wong, C., Gundersen, D.T., 

6625 2006. Mercury concentrations in gonad, liver, and muscle of white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus in the Lower 

6626 Columbia River. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 50, 443–451. 

6627 Wedemeyer, G.A., Saunders, R.L., Clarke, W.C., 1980. Environmental factors affecting smoltification and early 

6628 marine survival of anadromous salmonids. Mar.Fish.Rev., 1–14. 

6629 Williams, J.E., Haak, A.L., Neville, H.M., Colyer, W.T., 2009. Potential consequences of climate change to 

6630 persistence of cutthroat trout populations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29. 

6631 Williams, R., Bain, D.E., Ford, J.K.B., Trites, A.W., 2002a. Behavioural responses of male killer whales to a 

6632 ‘leapfrogging’ vessel. Journal of Cetacean Research, and Management 4, 305-310. 

6633 Williams, R., Trites, A.W., Bain, D.E., 2002b. Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to whale6634 watching boats: opportunistic observations and experimental approaches. Journal of Zoology 256, 255-270. 

6635 Willson, M.F., Armstrong, R.H., Hermans, M.C., Koski, K., 2006. Eulachon: a review of biology and an annotated 

6636 bibliography. Auke Bay Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Juneau, Alaska. 

6637 Wing, B.L., 1977. Salmon food observations. Pages 20-27 in: Southeast Alaska troll log book program: 1976 

6638 scientific report. Alaska Sea Grant Report 77-11. 

6639 Wirgin, I., Grunwald, C., Carlson, E., Stabile, J., Peterson, D.L., Waldman, J., 2005. Range-wide population 

6640 structure of shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum based on sequence analysis of the mitochondrial DNA 

6641 control region. Estuaries 28, 16. 

6642 Wright, S., 1999. Petition to list eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

6643 Species Act. 

6644 Wydoski, R., Whitney, R., 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press. 

6645 Yang, M.S., Nelson, M.W., 1999. Food habits of the commercially important groundfishes in the Gulf of Alaska in 

6646 1990, 1993, and 1996. NOAA. 

6647 Ylitalo, G.M., Myers, M., Stewart, B.S., Yochem, P.K., Braun, R., Kashinsky, L., Boyd, D., Antonelis, G.A., 

6648 Atkinson, S., Aguirre, A.A., Krahn, M.M., 2008. Organochlorine contaminants in endangered Hawaiian monk seals 

6649 from four subpopulations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56, 231-244. 

6650 Yoshiyama, R.M., Gerstung, E.R., Fisher, F.W., Moyle, P.B., 1996. Historical and present distribution of chinook 

6651 salmon in the Central Valley drainage of California. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, 

6652 University of California, Davis California. 

6653 Zabel, R.W., Achord, S., 2004. Relating size of individuals to juvenile survival within and among closely-related 

6654 populations of chinook salmon. Ecology 85, 795-806. 

6655 Zabel, R.W., Williams, J.G., 2002. Selective mortality in Chinook salmon: What is the role of human disturbance? 

6656 Ecological Applications 12, 173-183. 

6657 Zimmerman, C.E., Edwards, G.W., Perry, K., 2009. Maternal Origin and Migratory History of Steelhead and 

6658 Rainbow Trout Captured in Rivers of the Central Valley, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

6659 138, 280-291. 

6660 Zinkl, J.G., Shea, P.J., Nakamoto, R.J., Callman, J., 1987. Brain cholinesterase activity of rainbow trout poisoned by 

6661 carbaryl. Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology 38, 29-35. 
184

6662 

6663 

6664 
185

6665 APPENDIX A: List of Pesticides Pollutants Authorized by the PGP

6666 

6667 EPA States that: “[this] list of pesticides provided to you [NMFS] in the 

6668 biological evaluation generated from OPP's [Office of Pesticide Programs] 

6669 database is the best information we have available. 

6670 

All Use Categories

Active Ingredient Count: 171 

(**)-Trifluoro-4-nitro-m-cresol (**) = alpha,alpha,alpha- 

(+-)-2-(4,5-Dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imida 

(R)-2-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)propanoic acid, dimethylamine salt 

1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-(2-ethylsulfonylimidazo{1,2 

1,3-Dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin 

1-Bromo-1-(bromomethyl)-1,3-propanedicarbonitrile 

1-Bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin 

2-(1-Methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxy)pyridine 

2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide 

2,4-Dinitro-N3,N3-dipropyl-6-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3-benzenedia 

2,4-Dodecadienoic acid, 11-methoxy-3,7,11-trimethyl-, 1-met 

2-4,D 

2-Ethylhexyl (R)-2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)propionate 

2-Ethylhexyl 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)propionate 

Acephate 

Acetic acid, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-, 2-ethylhexyl ester 

Acrolein 

Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(50%C14, 40%C12, 10 

Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5% 

Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride *(68%C12, 32%C1 

Antimycin A 
186

Asulam, sodium salt 

Atrazine 

Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies israelensis Strain BMP 

Bacillus licheniformis SB3086 

Bacillus sphaericus 

Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies israelensis 

Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies aizawai 

Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki 

Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies tenebrionis 

Benzenesulfonamide, 2-(2,2-difluoroethoxy)-N-(5,8-dimethoxy[1 

Bifenthrin 

Bromacil 

Bromacil, lithium salt 

Bromine chloride 

Butoxyethyl 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate 

Butoxyethyl triclopyr 

Calcium hypochlorite 

Carbaryl 

Carfentrazone-ethyl 

CAS Reg. No. 566191-87-5 

CAS Reg. No. 566191-89-7 

CAS Reg. No. 68038-71-1 

Chlorflurenol, methyl ester 

Chlorine 

Chlorine dioxide 

Chlorophacinone 

Chlorpyrifos 

Chlorsulfuron 

Cis-7,8-Epoxy-2-methyloctadecane 
187

Clopyralid 

Clopyralid, monoethanolamine salt 

Clopyralid, triethanolamine 

Copper as metallic (in the form of chelates of copper citrate) 

Copper carbonate, basic 

Copper ethanolamine complex 

Copper ethylenediamine complex 

Copper sulfate pentahydrate 

Copper triethanolamine complex 

Cube Resins other than rotenone 

Deltamethrin 

Diazinon 

Dicamba 

Dicamba, diglycoamine salt 

Dicamba, dimethylamine salt 

Dicamba, sodium salt 

Dichlorvos 

Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 

Diethanolamine (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetate 

Difethialone 

Diflubenzuron 

Dimethoate 

Dimethylamine (R)-2-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)propionate 

Dimethylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate 

Diphacinone 

Diquat dibromide 

Diuron 

Dodecylguanidine hydrochloride 

D-Phenothrin 
188

Endothall, dipotassium salt 

Endothall, mono(N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt 

Erioglaucine 

Espesol 3A 

Ethyl 2-chloro-5-[4-chloro-(5-difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-1H-py 

Etofenprox 

Fluridone 

Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester 

Fosamine ammonium 

Glufosinate-ammonium 

Glutaral 

Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)- potassium salt 

Glycine, N-(phosphonomethyl)-, diammonium salt 

Glyphosate 

Glyphosate, ammonium salt 

Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 

Hexazinone 

Hydrogen peroxide 

Imazapic 

Imazapic-ammonium 

Imazapyr 

Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt 

Imazaquin, monoammonium salt 

Imidacloprid 

Isooctyl 2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)propionate 

Isopropylamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate 

Lagenidium giganteum, mycelium or oospores 

Malathion 

MCPA, dimethylamine salt 
189

Mecoprop (and salts and esters) 

Methanone, [3-(4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl)-2-methyl-4-(methylsu 

Methoprene 

Methoxychlor 

Methyl 2,7-dichlorohydroxyfluorene-9-carboxylate 

Methyl 9-hydroxyfluorene-9-carboxylate 

Metsulfuron-methyl 

Mineral oil 

Mineral oil - includes paraffin oil from 063503 

Mono-molecular surface film 

Monosodium acid methanearsonate 

Naled 

Niclosamide 

N-Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide 

Nonanoic acid 

Oryzalin 

Oxyfluorfen 

Pendimethalin 

Permethrin 

Permethrin, mixed cis,trans 

Peroxyacetic acid 

Petroleum distillate 

Phenol, 4-nitro-3-(trifluoromethyl) 

Phenothrin 

Picloram, triisopropanolamine salt 

Piperonyl butoxide 

POE isooctadecanol 

Poly(oxyethylene(dimethyliminio)ethylene(dimethyliminio)ethyl 

Polyhedral inclusion bodies of gypsy moth nucleopolyhedrosis virus 
190

Prallethrin 

Prometon 

Pyrethrins 

Resmethrin 

Rimsulfuron 

Rotenone 

Saccharopolyspora spinosa fermentation product containing Spi 

Saflufenacil 

Sodium 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate 

Sodium bromide 

Sodium chlorate 

Sodium dichloroisocyanurate dihydrate 

Sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione 

Sodium hypochlorite 

Sodium metaborate (NaBO2) 

Sodium percarbonate 

Spinosad 

Sulfentrazone 

Sulfometuron methyl 

Sumithrin 

Tartrazine 

Tau-fluvalinate 

Tebufenozide 

Tebuthiuron 

Temephos 

Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulphate (THPS) 

Trichlorfon 

Trichloro-s-triazinetrione 

Triclopyr 
191

Triclorfon 

Triethylamine triclopyr 

Triisopropanolamine 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate 

Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2) 

Zinc sulfate monohydrate 

6671 

6672 
192

6673 APPENDIX B: Definition of Adverse Incidents in the PGP

6674 

6675 From the Draft PGP Appendix A: 

6676 Adverse Incident – means an unusual or unexpected incident that an Operator has observed upon inspection or of 

6677 which the Operator otherwise become aware, in which: 

6678 (1) There is evidence that a person or non-target organism has likely been exposed to a pesticide residue, and 

6679 (2) The person or non-target organism suffered a toxic or adverse effect. The phrase toxic or adverse effects 

6680 includes effects that occur within waters of the United States on non-target plants, fish or wildlife that are unusual or 

6681 unexpected (e.g., effects are to organisms not otherwise described on the pesticide product label or otherwise not 

6682 expected to be present) as a result of exposure to a pesticide residue, and may include: 

6683  Distressed or dead juvenile and small fishes 

6684  Washed up or floating fish 

6685  Fish swimming abnormally or erratically 

6686  Fish lying lethargically at water surface or in shallow water 

6687  Fish that are listless or nonresponsive to disturbance 

6688  Stunting, wilting, or desiccation of non-target submerged or emergent aquatic plants 

6689  Other dead or visibly distressed non-target aquatic organisms (amphibians, turtles, invertebrates, etc.) 

6690 The phrase, toxic or adverse effects, also includes any adverse effects to humans (e.g., skin rashes) or 

6691 domesticated animals that occur either from direct contact with or as a secondary effect from a discharge 

6692 (e.g., sickness from consumption of plants or animals containing pesticides) to Waters of the United States 

6693 that are temporally and spatially related to exposure to a pesticide residue (e.g., vomiting, lethargy).