Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8621 

We encourage interested parties to 

continue to gather data that will assist 

with the conservation of the species. If 

you wish to provide information 

regarding the bald eagle, you may 

submit your information or materials to 

the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological 

Services Office (see ADDRESSES section 

above). The Service continues to 

strongly support the cooperative 

conservation of the Sonoran Desert Area 

bald eagle. 

On March 6, 2008, the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Arizona 

enjoined our application of the July 9, 

2007 (72 FR 37346), final delisting rule 

for bald eagles to the Sonoran Desert 

population pending the outcome of our 

status review and 12-month petition 

finding. As a result, we put this 

population back on the List of 

Threatened and Endangered Species on 

May 1, 2008. In light of our 12-month 

finding presented above, we intend to 

publish a separate notice to remove this 

population from the List of Threatened 

and Endangered Wildlife. However, we 

will only do so once the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Arizona has 

confirmed that its injunction, which 

required us to add this population to the 

List of Threatened and Endangered 

Wildlife, has been dissolved. Until that 

time, the Sonoran Desert Area 

population will remain protected by the 

Act. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available, upon request, from 

the Arizona Ecological Services Office 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(see ADDRESSES section above). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff of the Arizona Ecological 

Services Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: February 17, 2010. 

Hannibal Bolton, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3794 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2008–0128] 

[MO 92210–0–0009–B4] 

RIN 1018–AW72 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed 

Rule To List the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River Distinct 

Population Segment of Coastal 

Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki 

clarki) as Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), have 

determined that the proposed listing of 

the Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS) of coastal cutthroat trout as a 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), is not warranted. We 

therefore withdraw our proposed rule 

(64 FR 16397; April 5, 1999) to list the 

DPS under the Act. Although we had 

earlier concluded that this DPS did not 

warrant listing under the Act, as a result 

of litigation we have reconsidered 

whether the marine and estuarine areas 

of the DPS may warrant listing if they 

constitute a significant portion of the 

range of the DPS. Based upon a 

thorough review of the best available 

scientific and commercial data, we have 

determined that the threats to coastal 

cutthroat trout in the marine and 

estuarine areas of its range within the 

DPS, as analyzed under the five listing 

factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, are not likely to endanger the 

species now or in the foreseeable future 

throughout this portion of its range. We, 

therefore, again withdraw our proposed 

rule, as we have determined that the 

coastal cutthroat trout is not likely to 

become endangered now or in the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range within 

the Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS. 

ADDRESSES: This withdrawal and 

supporting documentation are available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; search for Docket 

Number [FWS–R1–ES–2008–0128]. 

Supporting documentation for this 

determination is also available for 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Avenue, 

Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; 

telephone 503–231–6179; facsimile 

503–231–6195. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Henson, Ph.D., State Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES, 

above). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 5, 2002, we published a 

notice of our withdrawal of the 

proposed rule to list the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River distinct 

population segment (DPS) of the coastal 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki 

clarki) as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (67 FR 44934; July 5, 

2002). As a result of litigation, we are 

required to reconsider our withdrawal 

of the proposed rule with specific regard 

to the question of whether marine and 

estuarine areas may constitute a 

significant portion of the range of the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS of coastal cutthroat trout. 

On March 24, 2009, we published a 

notice of reopening of a comment period 

on the proposed rule (74 FR 12297). In 

that notice, we alerted the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, and any 

other interested party of our request for 

information, data, or comments on the 

marine and estuarine areas of the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS of coastal cutthroat trout, 

with particular regard to whether these 

areas constitute a significant portion of 

the range of the DPS under the Act, and 

if so, whether the subspecies is 

threatened or endangered in those areas. 

The comment period closed on April 

23, 2009, and we received four comment 

letters. After analyzing the information 

received, information in our files, and 

all other available information, we 

analyzed the threats to coastal cutthroat 

trout in the marine and estuarine 

portion of the DPS to determine whether 

coastal cutthroat trout are threatened or 

endangered in that area and, if so, 

whether the area constitutes a 

significant portion of the range of the 

DPS. Although the Court did not ask us 

to revisit status, trends, and threats to 

anadromous cutthroat trout or other lifehistory forms outside of marine and 

estuarine areas, we have also considered 

any new information available for these 

areas that would suggest any significant 

change in status, trend, or threats for the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8622 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

remainder of the DPS. This withdrawal 

of the proposed rule is the result of our 

determination that coastal cutthroat 

trout in the marine and estuarine areas 

of the DPS do not warrant listing as 

either threatened or endangered. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Federal Register documents 

related to this current withdrawal action 

are listed in table 1 and explained 

further in text following the table. 

TABLE 1—FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATIONS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED LISTING OF THE SOUTHWESTERN WASHINGTON/ 

COLUMBIA RIVER DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT OF COASTAL CUTTHROAT TROUT (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki). 

Date of Federal Register Publication Federal Register Citation Action 

April 5, 1999 64 FR 16397 FWS and NMFS jointly issue a proposed rule to list the southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River distinct population segment of coastal 

cutthroat trout as threatened and opened a public comment period 

until July 6, 1999 

April 14, 2000 65 FR 20123 Announced 6–month extension for publishing the final determination on 

the April 5, 1999, proposed rule from the normal 12–month timeframe 

required by the Act (extension was from April 5, 2000, to October 5, 

2000) 

April 21, 2000 65 FR 21376 Announced transfer of regulatory jurisdiction for coastal cutthroat trout 

from joint FWS and NMFS management to FWS exclusively 

June 2, 2000 65 FR 35315 Reopened the comment period on the April 5, 1999, proposed rule until 

July 23, 2000, and announced a public hearing on June 20, 2000 

July 14, 2000 65 FR 43730 Clarified the take prohibitions that would go into effect if the April 5, 

1999, proposed rule was finalized 

September 6, 2000 65 FR 53974 Reopened the comment period on the July 14, 2000, take clarification 

document until September 29, 2000, and announced a public hearing 

on September 21, 2000 

November 23, 2001 66 FR 58706 Reopened the comment period on the April 5, 1999, proposed rule to 

list until December 24, 2001 

July 5, 2002 67 FR 44934 Withdrew the April 5, 1999, proposed rule to list 

March 24, 2009 74 FR 12297 Reconsidered the July 5, 2002, withdrawal and reopened the comment 

period on the April 5, 1999, proposed rule to list until April 23, 2009 

As indicated in table 1, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and 

the Service jointly published a proposed 

rule to list the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River ESU (later 

DPS) of coastal cutthroat trout as a 

threatened population under the 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

provision of the Act on April 5, 1999 (64 

FR 16397). In that proposed rule, we 

noted the uncertainty regarding which 

agency, the NMFS or the Service, had 

jurisdiction over the coastal cutthroat 

trout, and we committed to notify the 

public once the issue had been resolved. 

Subsequently, the time to make a final 

determination on the proposed rule was 

extended for an additional 6 months, 

from April 5, 2000, to October 5, 2000, 

due to substantial scientific 

disagreement about the status of the 

population; this action further opened 

an additional 30–day comment period 

(65 FR 20123; April 14, 2000). 

On April 21, 2000, the NMFS and the 

Service published a notice of the 

Service’s assumption of sole jurisdiction 

for coastal cutthroat trout under the Act 

(65 FR 21376). On June 2, 2000, we 

again reopened the comment period on 

the proposed rule and announced a 

public hearing to be held in Ilwaco, 

Washington, on June 20, 2000, to allow 

all interested parties to submit oral or 

written comments on the proposal (65 

FR 35315). On July 14, 2000, we 

published a notice to clarify the take 

prohibitions for the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River DPS of 

coastal cutthroat trout that would apply 

if the proposed listing were to be 

finalized, and provided a 30–day public 

comment period on the list of activities 

that would, and would not, likely 

constitute a violation of section 9 of the 

Act (65 FR 43730). The comment period 

on the clarification of take prohibitions 

was reopened on September 6, 2000 (65 

FR 53974), and a hearing was held 

September 21, 2000, in Aberdeen, 

Washington, based on a request during 

the initial public comment period. In 

addition, the comment period on the 

proposed rule to list the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River DPS of 

coastal cutthroat trout was again 

reopened for an additional 30 days on 

November 23, 2001 (66 FR 58706). 

On July 5, 2002, we published a 

notice of withdrawal of the proposed 

rule to list the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River DPS of the 

coastal cutthroat trout as threatened (67 

FR 44934; July 5, 2002). The notice set 

forth the following bases for our 

determination that the DPS did not meet 

the listing criteria as a threatened 

species: (1) new data indicating that 

coastal cutthroat trout are more 

abundant in southwest Washington than 

was previously thought, and that 

population sizes were comparable to 

those of healthy populations in other 

areas; (2) new information and analyses 

calling into question prior interpretation 

of the size of the anadromous portion of 

the population in the Columbia River, 

and indicating higher numbers than 

previously described; (3) new data and 

analyses no longer showing declining 

adult populations in the Grays Harbor 

tributaries; (4) new analyses calling into 

question the past interpretation of trend 

data, and, therefore, the magnitude of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8623 

the trend in the anadromous portion of 

the population in the Columbia River; 

(5) new information describing the 

production of anadromous progeny by 

non-anadromous and above-barrier 

cutthroat trout; and, (6) two large-scale 

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and 

significant changes in Washington 

Forest Practices Regulations, 

substantially reducing threats to aquatic 

and riparian habitat on forest lands in 

Washington. The withdrawal notice 

concluded that, based on reduced 

threats and new information and 

understanding regarding the status of 

the DPS, the Southwestern Washington/ 

Columbia River DPS of coastal cutthroat 

trout was not in danger of becoming 

endangered in the foreseeable future, 

and, therefore, did not meet the 

definition of a threatened species. 

On February 3, 2005, the Center for 

Biological Diversity, Oregon Natural 

Resources Council, Pacific Rivers 

Council, and WaterWatch filed a legal 

challenge to the Service’s withdrawal of 

the proposed listing in the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Oregon (Center 

for Biological Diversity, et al. v. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Case No. 05– 

165–KI). The Court ruled that the 

Service’s decision to withdraw the 

proposed rule complied with the Act 

and was not arbitrary and capricious, 

and dismissed the action on November 

16, 2005. Plaintiffs appealed. On April 

18, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district 

court’s decision in part and reversed the 

decision in part. The Ninth Circuit 

found no error in the Service’s 

determination that the DPS as a whole 

did not merit listing, but held that the 

Service had failed to consider whether 

the marine and estuarine portions of the 

DPS constitute a significant portion of 

the range of the coastal cutthroat trout 

within that DPS under the Act (Center 

for Biological Diversity, et al. v. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 274 Fed. 

Appx. 542 (9th Cir. 2008)). The Ninth 

Circuit reversed the district court’s 

decision and remanded the matter to the 

district court. 

On July 1, 2008, the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Oregon issued 

an amended order remanding the listing 

decision to the Service for further 

consideration in light of the opinion of 

the Ninth Circuit. On March 24, 2009, 

we reopened a comment period on the 

proposed rule (74 FR 12297), soliciting 

information on the question of whether 

the estuary and other marine areas 

constitute a significant portion of the 

range of the Southwestern Washington/ 

Columbia River DPS of the coastal 

cutthroat trout. The comment period 

closed on April 23, 2009. 

Species Information 

The following descriptions of the 

subspecies coastal cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), its habitat, 

and life history, are excerpted from our 

July 5, 2002, withdrawal of the 

proposed rule to list the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River DPS of the 

coastal cutthroat trout as threatened 

(hereafter ‘‘withdrawal notice’’) (67 FR 

44934; July 5, 2002). We incorporate all 

of the information in the withdrawal 

notice by reference. Where new 

information has become available, we 

have updated these descriptions to 

ensure we are using the best available 

scientific and commercial information. 

Where certain information is critical to 

the understanding of our reasoning, we 

have included it here. We have focused 

on cutthroat exhibiting anadromous lifehistory strategies as these are the only 

individuals that use the marine and 

estuarine areas under consideration 

here. Please see the withdrawal notice 

(67 FR 44934; July 5, 2002) for 

additional information. 

The coastal cutthroat trout is 1 of 10 

formally described subspecies of 

cutthroat trout (Behnke 1992) and is a 

member of the family Salmonidae 

(collectively known as salmonids). The 

coastal cutthroat trout is distributed 

along the Pacific Coast of North America 

from Prince William Sound in Alaska to 

the Eel River in California (Behnke 

1992, p. 65; Trotter 2008, p. 62) and 

inland from the Coast Range of Alaska 

to roughly the crest of the Cascades of 

Washington and Oregon (Trotter 2008, 

p. 62). 

The Southwestern Washington/ 

Columbia River DPS of coastal cutthroat 

trout includes the Columbia River and 

its tributaries from the mouth to the 

Klickitat River on the Washington side 

of the river and Fifteenmile Creek on the 

Oregon side; the Willamette River and 

its tributaries from its confluence with 

the Columbia upstream to Willamette 

Falls; Willapa Bay and its tributaries; 

and Grays Harbor and its tributaries. 

The portion of the range of the DPS 

being considered here includes three 

estuaries and areas of nearshore marine 

ocean habitat off the coasts of these 

estuaries. In the Columbia River, we 

have defined the estuary as extending to 

approximately river mile (rmi) 28 (river 

kilometer (rkm) 45) where the upstream 

extent of saltwater intrusion occurs. The 

Columbia River estuary, from the mouth 

to the extent of saltwater intrusion, 

covers approximately 148 square miles 

(sq mi) (about 383 square kilometers (sq 

km)). In Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay 

estuaries, the extent of saltwater 

intrusion is less distinguishable from 

the extent of tidal influence, largely due 

to the less linear shape of the water 

body. As a result, we define the estuary 

as extending approximately as far 

upstream as the extent of saltwatertolerant shoreline vegetation along each 

of the respective tributaries. Defined 

this way, Grays Harbor estuary covers 

approximately 91 sq mi (about 236 sq 

km), and Willapa Bay estuary covers 

approximately 129 sq mi (about 334 sq 

km). 

The marine area included is far more 

difficult to identify, since anadromous 

coastal cutthroat trout from within this 

DPS could potentially intermingle with 

coastal cutthroat trout from Olympic 

Peninsula populations to the north, and 

the Oregon coast populations to the 

south (Johnson et al. 1999, pp. 126– 

130). We define the nearshore marine 

area by considering the marine areas 

known or likely to be used by Columbia 

River anadromous coastal cutthroat 

trout. To the south of the mouth of the 

Columbia River, an acoustic-tagged 

coastal cutthroat trout from a study by 

Zydlewski et al. (2008, p. 34) was 

detected by an unrelated acoustic 

tracking study off the mouth of Nehalam 

Bay, approximately 38 miles (mi) (about 

61 kilometers (km)) south of the 

Columbia River mouth. We can 

therefore reasonably assume that coastal 

cutthroat trout from Grays Harbor 

estuary in Washington might swim 

about the same distance north of the 

mouth of its bay, or approximately to 

the mouth of the Queets River. 

According to Trotter (2008, p. 71), 

coastal cutthroat trout have been 

collected as far out into the Columbia 

River plume as 41 mi (about 66 km) 

from the mouth. The ‘‘plume’’ refers to 

the area where river water extends into 

and mixes with the waters of the ocean 

at the mouth of the river. 

The marine areas included in this 

analysis, therefore, include 

approximately 4,952 sq mi (about 

12,826 sq km) of ocean ranging from the 

mouth of the Nehalam River in Oregon, 

out to a point approximately 30 mi 

(about 48 km) from shore, then to a 

point approximately 41 mi (about 66 

km) west of the Columbia River mouth, 

then a point approximately 30 mi (about 

48 km) west of the mouth of the Queets 

River, in Washington. The Columbia 

River plume exhibits highly variable 

flow and location, depending on river 

flow, wind patterns, El Nixntilde;o 

oscillations, and other oceanographic or 

climatic factors (Hickey et al. 2005, p. 

1632; Thomas and Weatherbee 2006, p. 

169). The area described above is 

heavily influenced by plume conditions, 

and thus might provide suitable habitat 

for anadromous coastal cutthroat trout 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8624 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

that may access the ocean from the three 

estuaries mentioned. Actual distribution 

of coastal cutthroat trout in the marine 

areas may be highly variable at any 

given time, and, as mentioned above, 

coastal cutthroat trout from the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS may mingle with coastal 

cutthroat trout from other populations 

in this area. 

Coastal cutthroat trout spend more 

time in the freshwater environment and 

make more extensive use of this habitat, 

particularly small streams, than do most 

other Pacific salmonids. The life history 

of coastal cutthroat trout may be one of 

the most complex of the Pacific 

salmonids (Johnson et al. 1999, p. 120). 

Coastal cutthroat trout exhibit a variety 

of life-history strategies across their 

range (Northcote 1997, p. 24; Johnson et 

al. 1999, pp. 44–45) that includes three 

basic variations: resident or primarily 

nonmigratory; freshwater migrants; and 

marine migrants. Residents may stay 

within the same stream segment their 

entire life. Freshwater migrants may 

make migrations from small tributaries 

to larger tributaries or rivers, or may 

migrate from tributary streams to lakes 

or reservoirs. Marine migrations 

(anadromy) are generally thought to be 

limited to nearshore marine areas; 

individuals may not venture out of the 

estuary in some cases (ODFW 2008, p. 

8; Krentz 2007, pp. 71–75). There are 

numerous exceptions to these 

generalized behaviors. In areas above 

long-standing barriers, coastal cutthroat 

trout are generally limited to resident or 

freshwater migratory life-history 

strategies, though some individuals may 

pass the barrier and end up in the ocean 

but be barred from returning by the 

barrier. In areas accessible to the ocean, 

all three life-history strategies (resident, 

freshwater migratory, and anadromous) 

are likely to be expressed in the same 

area. 

Coastal cutthroat trout appear to 

exhibit diverse and very flexible lifehistory strategies. The significance of 

the various life-history strategies, the 

extent to which each strategy is 

controlled by genetic versus 

environmental factors, and the extent to 

which individuals expressing these 

various strategies are isolated from other 

life-history forms is largely unknown. 

There is some evidence that individuals 

may express multiple life-history 

behaviors in their lifetimes (Johnson et 

al. 1999, pp. 43–44); in other words, 

apparently an individual fish at various 

times in its life may switch between 

these life-history forms, some years 

acting as a freshwater resident or 

migrant, and some years acting as a 

marine migrant (see the ‘‘Anadromy and 

Life History Diversity’’ section below for 

more information). For convenience we 

refer to individuals that migrate to 

marine waters as anadromous, or as the 

anadromous life form (also known as 

‘‘sea-run’’ cutthroat trout). In doing so, 

we do not intend to imply that they 

represent a separate population from 

freshwater forms. We are treating all 

forms as part of a single population in 

this analysis, due to their flexibility in 

life-history expression and genetic 

information showing more 

differentiation between river or stream 

systems than between individuals 

expressing various life histories in a 

single system, as described below. 

Coastal cutthroat trout are repeat 

spawners. Some individuals have been 

documented to spawn each year for at 

least 5 years (Giger 1972, p. 33), others 

may not spawn every year, and some do 

not return to seawater after spawning, 

remaining in fresh water for at least a 

year, demonstrating the flexibility of 

individual life history strategies. Eggs 

begin to hatch within 6 to 7 weeks of 

spawning and fry emerge between 

March and June, with peak emergence 

in mid-April. At emergence, fry appear 

to seek refugia near channel margins 

and backwater habitats, although they 

may use fast water habitats (riffles and 

glides) when exposed to competitive 

interactions with other native salmonids 

(Johnson et al. 1999, pp. 51–52). 

Migratory coastal cutthroat trout 

juveniles generally remain in upper 

tributaries until they are 1 or 2 years of 

age. Like other anadromous salmonids, 

coastal cutthroat trout on marinedirected migrations undergo 

physiological changes to adapt to salt 

water; these changes are called 

‘‘smoltification,’’ and individuals that 

have undergone this process are referred 

to as ‘‘smolts.’’ Smoltification of coastal 

cutthroat trout has been reported to 

occur from 1 to 6 years of age, but is 

most common at age 2 (Trotter 2008, p. 

71). Migration of juvenile cutthroat from 

tributaries of the lower Columbia River 

occurs most months of the year, but 

peak movement occurs from March 

through June (Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 

7–9; ODFW 2008, p. 7). 

Anadromous coastal cutthroat trout 

that enter nearshore marine waters 

reportedly move moderate distances 

along the shoreline. Anadromous 

cutthroat trout along the Oregon coast 

may swim or be transported long 

distances with the prevailing currents 

during the summer; individual marked 

fish have been reported to move from 45 

to 180 mi (72 to 290 km) off the Oregon 

Coast (Pearcy 1997, p. 30). It is unclear 

how far offshore coastal cutthroat trout 

migrate. Cutthroat trout have been 

routinely caught up to 4 mi (6 km off the 

mouth of the Nestucca River (Sumner 

1953, 1972). Coastal cutthroat trout have 

also been captured between 6 to 41 mi 

(10 and 66 km) offshore of the Columbia 

River (Trotter 2008, p. 71), though it is 

unclear whether they were carried by 

the plume of the Columbia River or 

moved offshore in search of prey. 

Resident (non-migratory) fish appear to 

mature earlier (2 to 3 years), are shorterlived than the migratory form, and are 

smaller and less fecund (Trotter 2008, p. 

85). Sexual maturity rarely occurs before 

age four in anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout (Johnson et al. 1999, p. 

51). Growth rates increase during the 

initial period of ocean residence, but 

decrease following the first spawning 

due to energy expenditures from 

migration and spawning (Giger 1972, 

pp. 29–31). Behnke (1992, p. 70) reports 

the maximum age of sea-run cutthroat to 

be approximately 10 years. 

The timing of fish returns to estuary 

and freshwater habitat varies 

considerably across the range and 

within river basins (Trotter 2008, p. 73; 

Behnke 1992, p. 70). For example, 

return migrations of anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout in the Columbia River 

system usually begin as early as late 

June and continue through October, 

with peaks in late September and 

October. Anadromous coastal cutthroat 

trout spawning typically starts in 

December and continues through June, 

with peak spawning in February. 

Significant progress had been made in 

understanding the biology of 

anadromous cutthroat trout in the 

Columbia River since 2002, when we 

published our initial withdrawal notice 

(67 FR 44934; July 5, 2002). We received 

new information from a suite of recent 

companion studies conducted on 

coastal cutthroat trout from tributaries 

on the Washington side of the lower 

Columbia River. Johnson et al. (2008, 

entire) examined the timing and 

prevalence of juvenile movement out of 

tributaries and timing of adult returns. 

Zydlewski et al. (2008, entire) examined 

movement patterns and extent of use of 

the mainstem and estuary by coastal 

cutthroat trout entering the Columbia 

River from four tributaries known to 

support anadromous life forms. Finally, 

Hudson et al. (2008, entire) examined 

movement of adult coastal cutthroat in 

the lower Columbia River mainstem and 

estuary. These studies, combined with 

similar research conducted by the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW 2008, entire) on several 

tributaries on the Oregon side of the 

lower Columbia River, contribute 

significantly to our understanding of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8625 

coastal cutthroat trout. We summarize 

the findings from these studies below. 

Johnson et al. (2008, entire) 

monitored cutthroat trout from three 

tributaries of the lower Columbia River: 

Abernathy Creek, rmi 54.0 (rkm 87), 

Chinook River, rmi 3.7 (rkm 6), and Gee 

Creek, rmi 87.0 (rkm 140). A total of 

4,923 cutthroat were tagged with 

passive integrated transponders (‘‘PIT 

tagged’’) over a 4–year period and 

subsequently monitored by antennas 

placed near the confluence of the 

streams with the Columbia River. 

Detections of tagged cutthroat followed 

a seasonal pattern of movement 

consistent among years with most 

emigration (downstream migration) 

occurring between March and May. 

Although some individuals in this study 

did not move out of the tributary in 

which they were tagged, and others 

were documented moving upstream 

once they entered the Columbia River, 

the majority of emigrating fish were 

assumed to migrate downstream to the 

Columbia River estuary, plume, and 

marine environments (i.e., exhibit 

anadromous behavior). 

The number of tagged fish detected 

emigrating to the Columbia River varied 

considerably between streams, but 

within streams the proportion of 

detected migrants versus the total 

number tagged was generally consistent 

among years. In Abernathy Creek, the 

proportion of detected migrants 

(percentage of tagged fish emigrating 

versus total number tagged) averaged 9.0 

percent over 4 years; in Chinook River, 

the proportion averaged 45.2 percent; 

and in Gee Creek, the average was 12.4 

percent. Outmigrating cutthroat trout 

were generally age 1 or 2. Adults 

returned between October and 

December. Cutthroat trout returned from 

all reaches sampled during initial 

tagging, suggesting there was no distinct 

spatial separation between resident and 

migratory cutthroat. 

Adult returns to Abernathy Creek 

totaled 15 individual tagged fish (2.5 

percent of the total number of tagged 

fish detected emigrating). Subsequently, 

8 of those 15 exhibited a second 

migration to the Columbia River, one of 

which subsequently returned for a third 

spawning migration. Adult returns to 

Chinook River totaled 43 tagged 

individuals (7.4 percent of the total 

number of tagged fish detected 

emigrating). Subsequently, 16 exhibited 

a second migration to the Columbia 

River, 10 of which returned. Of those 10 

fish, 4 exhibited a third migration back 

to the Columbia River of which 1 

individual returned for a fourth 

spawning season. Of the 132 fish PITtagged from Gee Creek, 17 emigrated to 

the Columbia River and none were 

documented returning in subsequent 

years. 

The authors suggested the higher 

adult return rates and the higher 

likelihood of multiple migrations in the 

Chinook River as compared to 

Abernathy Creek could be due to (1) 

migrants from the Chinook River being 

larger relative to those emigrating from 

Abernathy Creek, which may confer a 

competitive advantage and predator 

avoidance, and (2) less loss of Chinook 

River fish because its confluence with 

the Columbia River is in the estuary at 

the mouth of the Columbia River, 

resulting in a short corridor in which 

migrants are less subject to 

anthropogenic and natural threats. The 

information from this study suggests a 

large degree of variability among 

streams in regards to the proportion of 

the population that exhibits 

anadromous behavior (i.e., emigrating 

annually to the Columbia River). 

Zydlewski et al. (2008, entire) studied 

cutthroat trout from four tributaries of 

the lower Columbia River using radio 

and acoustic telemetry. Individual fish 

were tracked as they migrated down the 

Columbia River, through the estuary, 

and into the ocean. In 2002, cutthroat 

trout leaving Germany, Abernathy, and 

Mill creeks took a median of 6.6 days to 

reach the mouth of the Columbia River 

(i.e., where the Columbia River meets 

the Pacific Ocean). Many individuals in 

this study traveled the distance in 1 to 

2 days consistent with the speeds of 

other species of anadromous salmonids 

in the Columbia River. The authors of 

this study suggested that rapid and 

directed downstream movement 

seaward may be the most advantageous 

migratory strategy in this and other large 

river systems. The observed directed 

seaward movement documented in this 

study differs from observations in other 

estuaries where cutthroat trout make 

greater use of the estuary (Krentz 2007, 

entire). The findings of Zydlewski et al. 

(2008, entire) are generally consistent 

with migration patterns of coastal 

cutthroat smolts from several tributaries 

on the Oregon side of the lower 

Columbia River by the ODFW (2008, 

entire). Together these data suggest less 

use of the Columbia River estuary by 

anadromous cutthroat trout on their first 

seaward migration than previously 

thought. Zydlewski et al. (2008, p. 35) 

speculated this somewhat uniform 

migratory pattern may be a recent 

condition based on a loss of life-history 

diversity due to estuary habitat 

degradation and altered hydrograph, 

although this speculation was not 

supported by any data. 

Hudson et al. (2008, entire) 

investigated adult coastal cutthroat trout 

behavior in the lower Columbia River 

mainstem and estuary using radio 

telemetry. Post-spawning adult 

cutthroat trout were captured and 

tagged in multiple tributaries on the 

Washington side of the lower Columbia 

River. Of the 44 fish radio-tagged over 

2 years, 30 left tributary habitat between 

February and May and utilized the 

lower mainstem Columbia River and 

estuary. Radio-tracking showed these 

fish utilize a variety of habitats in the 

mainstem Columbia River and estuary. 

In this study the suspected or confirmed 

mortality rate for tagged, post-spawning 

anadromous cutthroat trout that moved 

from spawning streams to the Columbia 

River and estuary was 59.1 percent. 

In summary, these recent studies 

documented the prevalence of juvenile 

movements out of tributaries and 

migration patterns of anadromous 

cutthroat trout in the lower Columbia 

River. Cutthroat trout on their first 

anadromous migration utilized the 

estuary to a lesser degree than 

previously thought, although returning 

adults and those on second or third 

migrations were documented utilizing 

the estuary extensively. Emigration rates 

from natal tributaries to the Columbia 

River varied among tributaries with 

rates ranging from 3.5 percent to 45 

percent, and adult returns vary from 0.0 

percent to 7.4 percent. Although timing 

of peak outmigrations and return 

migrations were documented, these 

studies suggest cutthroat trout can be 

found in the Columbia River estuary 

year-round. 

Anadromy and Life History Diversity 

The presence of an anadromous lifehistory strategy could be valuable to the 

DPS for genetic mixing in the long-term 

and for potential recolonization after 

large catastrophic events, assuming 

some level of straying and mixing of 

breeding cutthroat. Genetic exchange 

can be important in evolutionary time 

scales to maintain diversity within 

populations, though complete genetic 

mixing requires that only a few 

individuals interbreed successfully over 

generation-scale timeframes. The Pacific 

Northwest is subject to periodic 

catastrophic events such as volcanic 

eruptions and stand replacement fires 

that can seriously depress, and even 

extirpate, local populations. These types 

of events occur on very long time scales 

and at watershed or sub-basin scales; 

the risk of full river basin impacts is 

unlikely. Anadromous cutthroat 

represent one possible source of 

individuals for recolonization, another 

being resident or freshwater migratory 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8626 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

cutthroat trout above or outside the area 

of the catastrophic event. However, the 

ability of anadromous cutthroat trout to 

recolonize is limited by barriers. Since 

the fish cannot make it past large 

natural barriers, there is no possibility 

of providing rescue above such barriers. 

All of these functions can be 

accomplished with relatively small 

proportions of the population 

expressing an anadromous life-history 

strategy. 

The original proposal to list the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS of the coastal cutthroat trout 

stated that ‘‘[a] significant risk factor for 

coastal cutthroat trout in this [DPS] was 

a reduction of life-history diversity’’ 

based on serious declines in 

anadromous life-history forms and near 

extirpation in at least two rivers on the 

Oregon side of the basin (64 FR 16407; 

April 5, 1999). The proposed rule 

acknowledged that freshwater forms 

remained well distributed and in 

relatively high abundance (64 FR 16407; 

April 5, 1999). The proposed rule 

indicated that habitat degradation in 

stream reaches accessible to 

anadromous cutthroat trout, and poor 

ocean and estuarine conditions, likely 

had combined to severely deplete the 

anadromous life-history form 

throughout the lower Columbia River 

Basin. Finally, the proposed rule further 

stated that ‘‘Reduced abundance in 

anadromous fish will tend to restrict 

connectivity of populations in different 

watersheds, which can increase genetic 

and demographic risks. ... The 

significance of this reduction in life 

history diversity to the [sic] both the 

integrity and the likelihood of this 

[DPS’s] long-term persistence is a major 

concern to NMFS.’’ (64 FR 16407; April 

5, 1999). 

The ODFW and the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) presented preliminary 

evidence to the NMFS Status Review 

team that freshwater cutthroat trout 

could produce anadromous migrants, 

which could mitigate risks to the 

anadromous portion of the population. 

The proposed rule did note that the 

presence of well-distributed freshwater 

forms in relatively high abundance, 

coupled with the possibility that 

freshwater forms could produce 

anadromous progeny ‘‘could act to 

mitigate risk to anadromous forms of 

coastal cutthroat trout,’’ though the 

observation that anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout population sizes 

remained consistently low remained a 

cause for concern at that time (64 FR 

16407; April 5, 1999). 

The extent to which each life-history 

expression is partitioned or isolated 

among and within populations is largely 

unknown; however, there is evidence 

that individuals may express multiple 

life-history behaviors over time 

(Johnson et al. 1999, p. 43). Coastal 

cutthroat trout believed to be freshwater 

forms one year may migrate to the sea 

another year; some individuals may not 

make their initial migration to sea until 

age six (Trotter 2008, p. 71). Some searun cutthroat trout may not enter 

saltwater every year after their initial 

seaward migration (Tomasson 1978). 

Existing studies show that, although 

both allele frequencies and morphology 

may differ some between populations 

above and below barriers, individuals 

exhibiting different life-history 

strategies within a single drainage are 

generally more closely related to each 

other than are individuals exhibiting 

similar life-history strategies from 

different drainages (Johnson et al. 1999, 

p. 75; Ardren et al. (in press)). In other 

words, a resident fish and an 

anadromous fish from the same drainage 

would be more closely related to one 

another than either would be to another 

fish with the same life-history 

expression in a different drainage. These 

results indicate that migratory and 

nonmigratory portions of the population 

of cutthroat trout likely represent a 

single evolutionary lineage in which the 

various life-history characteristics have 

arisen repeatedly in different geographic 

regions (Johnson et al. 1999, p. 75). 

For other salmonids with multiple 

life-history forms, Jonsson and Jonsson 

(1993, p. 356) suggested that in a single 

mating, parents may produce offspring 

with different migratory strategies, 

though this has not been confirmed 

experimentally for coastal cutthroat 

trout (Johnson et al. 1999, p. 40). 

Studies of brown trout have 

demonstrated that non-anadromous 

adults can produce anadromous 

offspring, though at lower levels than 

anadromous adults. Both the ODFW 

(1998, p. 4; 2008, entire) and Anderson 

(2008, p. 12) presented information 

showing evidence of production of 

anadromous progeny by freshwater 

resident coastal cutthroat trout. Many 

coastal cutthroat populations are 

isolated above natural barriers. Studies 

have shown low levels of downstream 

migration over these natural barriers, 

indicating that these isolated 

populations likely are contributing 

demographically and genetically to 

populations below them (Griswold 

1996, p. 40; Johnson et al. 1999, p. 75). 

There is increasing evidence that 

coastal cutthroat trout isolated for 

relatively long periods of time above 

impassable dams retain the capacity to 

produce marine migrants (anadromous 

fish). The WDFW (2001) reported that 

between 476 and 1,756 smolts were 

produced from the freshwater form of 

coastal cutthroat trout above Cowlitz 

Falls Dam on the Cowlitz River in 1997 

and 1998. A downstream migrant trap at 

Mayfield Dam recorded between 60 and 

812 migrants per year from 1978 to 

1999. There was a single release of 

hatchery-derived anadromous cutthroat 

trout above Mayfield Dam in 1981, but 

all cutthroat trout currently above the 

dam are considered to be freshwater 

forms (WDFW 2001b, p. 7). Mayfield 

Dam was built in 1962, blocking 

upstream migration. WDFW has marked 

coastal cutthroat trout smolts produced 

by upstream resident freshwater fish at 

Cowlitz Falls, which lies above 

Mayfield Dam. Two adults returned 

from smolts tagged in 1997, one of 

which was sacrificed and 

microchemistry results confirmed it had 

migrated to salt water and returned. 

Eight fish from smolts tagged returned 

in 1998; thus, while this portion of the 

DPS may contain residualized 

anadromous cutthroat trout trapped 

behind the dam, it has continued to 

produce downstream migrants for over 

40 years (more than 10 generations). 

These results are consistent with the 

hypothesis that resident fish in 

anadromous fish zones are capable of 

producing migratory juveniles (i.e., 

smolts) and sea-run adults. 

Information submitted by the ODFW 

(2008, p. 1) documents the outmigration 

of cutthroat trout smolts to the lower 

Columbia River estuary that are 

offspring of resident cutthroat trout 

isolated above a man-made barrier in 

Big Creek that has been in place since 

1941. Despite the fact that the barrier 

prevented upstream passage of 

anadromous cutthroat for more than 65 

years (until 2004), anadromy has 

continued to persist in this basin. The 

level of outmigration (about 5 percent 

emigration of fish tagged), although at a 

considerably lower level than in 

adjacent Bear Creek, which has no such 

barrier to anadromous returns (about 30 

percent emigration of fish tagged), still 

represents a substantial demographic 

and genetic input to the downstream 

population. These reports suggest 

resident cutthroat trout make potentially 

important contributions to the 

anadromous portion of the population, 

despite extreme selective pressure 

against anadromy (no anadromous 

cutthroat had returned to spawn above 

the barrier for many generations). 

As mentioned earlier, a few studies 

show that, although both allele 

frequencies and morphology may differ 

between populations above and below 

barriers, fish with differing life-history 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8627 

forms are generally more closely related 

within a drainage than are populations 

from different drainages (Johnson et al. 

1999, p. 75). Ardren et al. (In Press) 

examined coastal cutthroat trout to test 

for genetic separation of sympatric (cooccurring) life-history forms within and 

between two Columbia River tributaries, 

Abernathy Creek and the Chinook River. 

No distinct genetic separation was 

found between sympatric migratory and 

resident cutthroat forms within each 

tributary, and genetic differences were 

an order of magnitude higher between 

tributary samples than between life 

forms within a tributary. These results 

are consistent with a population that 

freely interbreeds within each tributary 

producing progeny that have the genetic 

capacity to express different life-history 

forms. Based on the results from this 

study the authors suggest that sympatric 

migrant and resident forms of coastal 

cutthroat trout in the lower Columbia 

River may be best described as a 

continuum of life-history forms 

expressed from a single population. 

This life history variation likely affords 

resilience to environmental fluctuation 

as has been demonstrated with bull 

trout where loss of life history forms 

results in higher extirpation 

probabilities (Dunham and Rieman 

1999, pp. 650–651). Considering lower 

Columbia River cutthroat trout as a 

single population is consistent with the 

views of McPhee et al. (2007, p. 7), who 

suggest that, due to lack of reproductive 

isolation, it may not be appropriate to 

consider sympatric resident and 

anadromous rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) as separate 

biological units, as they are currently 

managed. 

Anadromous cutthroat trout, 

particularly in the lower Columbia River 

estuary, are exposed to the full array of 

habitat loss or degradation reported for 

the estuary. However, there are few data 

describing how they respond to this 

exposure. The degree to which the 

reduced numbers of the anadromous 

portion of the population of coastal 

cutthroat trout represent a risk to the 

DPS as a whole depends, in part, on the 

importance of this life-history strategy 

and the extent to which the expression 

of life history strategies are genetically 

versus environmentally controlled. 

NMFS (Johnson et al. 1999, p. 201) 

acknowledged that, if freshwater coastal 

cutthroat trout can produce smolts, this 

could mitigate the risks to the 

anadromous portion of the population, 

though at the time they lacked 

information on the length of isolation of 

populations above Mayfield Dam to 

fully evaluate this phenomenon. They 

did note that, even if smolts were being 

produced, the anadromous portion of 

the population remains consistently low 

in many areas, which NMFS concluded 

was cause for concern at that time. The 

fact that resident cutthroat isolated by 

artificial barriers for over 40 years in the 

Cowlitz and over 65 years in Big Creek 

in Oregon continue to produce smolts 

suggests that even if the anadromous 

portion of the population continues to 

experience low numbers and possible 

declines, smolts will be produced that 

can supplement the anadromous portion 

of the population and take advantage of 

any improvement in anadromous 

habitat (e.g., ocean, estuary, mainstem 

rivers and tributaries). Further, the 

reported rates of smolt to adult returns 

are consistent with literature reports of 

return ratios among healthy populations 

of other Pacific salmon species 

(Bradford 1995, p. 1332; Beckman et al. 

1999, p. 1130), suggesting that return 

rates of anadromous cutthroat are not 

unusually low. 

In addition, there is no evidence at 

this time that coastal cutthroat trout 

pursuing the anadromous life-history 

strategy are segregated from the 

remainder of the population. This 

further supports the conclusion that 

anadromous and resident forms are not 

substantially separate subpopulations. 

Therefore, based on the evidence that 

freshwater and isolated portions of the 

population are capable of producing 

anadromous migrants and demonstrate 

rates of return consistent with literature 

reports of other Pacific salmon species, 

we conclude that freshwater and 

isolated portions of the coastal cutthroat 

trout population are mitigating risks to 

anadromous forms to some degree. We 

believe that the ability for nonanadromous cutthroat trout to produce 

anadromous progeny reduces the risk of 

loss of the anadromous life-history 

strategy. 

Population Size and Trends 

In our 2002 withdrawal (67 FR 44934; 

July 5, 2002), we acknowledged that 

little data existed to determine the 

actual population size of cutthroat trout 

in the DPS due to the fact that most 

information was collected incidental to 

monitoring of salmon and steelhead, 

counts were generally conducted only 

in areas monitored for salmon and 

steelhead, and abundance information 

originated from trapping facilities not 

designed for capturing cutthroat trout, 

thereby limiting the value of the 

datasets. Given the information 

available, and acknowledging the 

limitations of the datasets analyzed, we 

concluded ‘‘... while the anadromous 

portion of the population of coastal 

cutthroat trout is likely at lower-thanhistorical levels, there is little 

information available to determine the 

actual size of runs or to indicate that 

populations, or even the anadromous 

portion alone, are at extremely low 

levels in most areas of the DPS.’’ 

In assessing trends, we cited similar 

problems with the reliability of the 

information based on the short-term 

nature and gaps in many of the datasets, 

and biases due to unknown trapping 

efficiencies and other confounding 

factors. In regard to trends in the 

southwest Washington portion of the 

DPS, we stated in our 2002 withdrawal 

‘‘there was no reliable evidence that the 

adult population in the Grays Harbor 

tributaries is declining over the long 

term and some indication that the adult 

population may be stable or increasing 

in at least some areas’’ and concluded by 

stating ‘‘we no longer conclude that 

trends of the adult anadromous portion 

of the population and outmigrating 

juveniles in the southwest Washington 

portion of the DPS are all declining 

markedly as described in the proposed 

rule (64 FR 16407) .’’ (67 FR 44934; July 

5, 2002). 

We have little new data to assess 

status and trend of anadromous 

cutthroat trout in the Grays Harbor and 

Willapa Bay portion of the DPS beyond 

what we previously assessed. The only 

new information we have comes from 

Anderson (2008, p. 16), who concluded 

the estimated anadromous smolt 

production in Bingham Creek between 

2002 and 2004 indicated production of 

coastal cutthroat trout was relatively 

stable, though somewhat cyclical. This 

data was not analyzed using regression 

analysis, and we are not able to 

determine the significance of this trend 

or how well the data fit the trend line. 

In addition, the time series of the study 

is too short to detect a trend with any 

statistical confidence. However, this 

study does show that smolts continue to 

be produced from the Bingham Creek 

system. We have no other information 

since the withdrawal notice on adult or 

juvenile coastal cutthroat trout in the 

Grays Harbor watershed, and have no 

new information from the Willapa Bay 

watershed. Our evaluation of this 

information does not alter our original 

conclusions regarding the status and 

trend of anadromous cutthroat in these 

areas. 

In our 2002 withdrawal notice, we 

stated ‘‘[d]ata for the lower Columbia 

River are limited and there are 

significant concerns about the reliability 

of the results. There are indications of 

declines in the anadromous component 

of the adult portion of the population in 

the Columbia River, though the rate of 

the decline is uncertain due to concerns 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8628 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

over the reliability of the analyses and 

potential biases in the data sets. While 

the number of anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout have likely declined in 

the Columbia River, we do not have 

sufficient data to determine a reliable 

rate of recent decline and, therefore, no 

longer conclude that returns of 

anadromous cutthroat trout in almost all 

lower Columbia River streams have 

declined markedly over the last 10 to 15 

years as described in the proposed rule 

(64 FR 16407; April 5, 1999). Based on 

these data, we do not find that the 

population trends indicate that coastal 

cutthroat trout are likely to be extirpated 

from any significant portion of their 

range in the foreseeable future.’’ (67 FR 

44934; July 5, 2002). Our evaluation of 

what new information there is does not 

alter our previous conclusion regarding 

the status and trend of anadromous 

cutthroat in this area, as described 

above. 

We have little new data to assess 

status and trend of anadromous 

cutthroat trout in the Columbia River 

portion of the DPS. The production of 

cutthroat trout smolts from Abernathy 

and Germany creeks shows a slightly 

declining trend, with an increasing 

trend in Mill Creek, for the years 2001– 

2007 (WDFW 2009, p. 2). The number 

of returning natural-origin anadromous 

cutthroat trout to the Cowlitz River 

Hatchery has averaged 107 over the last 

7 years, and the trend is positive 

(WDFW 2009, p. 2). Survival rates of 

hatchery-origin anadromous cutthroat 

trout to the Cowlitz River Hatchery have 

been consistent in recent years, 

averaging 4.2 percent ± 1.6 percent for 

the years 1998–2003 and 2005–2006; 

this range overlaps the hatchery’s goal 

of achieving an average 4.71 percent 

smolt-to-adult survival (WDFW 2005, as 

cited in Anderson 2008, p. 13). No 

information is available to assess 

population size of anadromous cutthroat 

trout in the Columbia River, although 

several new studies cited above in the 

Background section document the 

continued expression of anadromy by 

cutthroat trout from tributaries of the 

Columbia River. 

Thus, while the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

do not allow us to determine overall 

status and trend for anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout in the DPS, the limited 

information above documents the 

continued persistence of the 

anadromous life-history form and 

suggests trends in streams that are 

monitored for coastal cutthroat trout are 

variable. Although not reflective of a 

trend in anadromous population size, 

new information on emigration of 

cutthroat juveniles from lower Columbia 

River tributaries in both Oregon and 

Washington indicates tributaries that are 

monitored for cutthroat trout are still 

delivering anadromous smolts to the 

estuary and that adults are returning at 

rates that are similar to those of healthy 

salmon and steelhead populations 

(ODFW 2008, pp. 6–11; WDFW 2009, p. 

2; Johnson et al. 2008, pp. 16–20; 

Bradford 1995, p. 1332; Beckman et al. 

1999, p. 1130). Although we 

acknowledge the anadromous lifehistory form in the DPS is likely at 

lower levels than it may have been in 

the past, our current assessment 

reaffirms the conclusions drawn in our 

2002 withdrawal notice (64 FR 16407; 

April 5, 1999), regarding the 

unreliability of much of the available 

data for assessing population status and 

trend. We do not have evidence that 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout are 

experiencing severe declines, or that the 

life-history form is likely to be in danger 

of extinction now or within the 

foreseeable future. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

As defined under the Act, an 

endangered species is any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (hereafter SPR), and a 

threatened species is any species likely 

to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Due to 

a number of legal challenges 

surrounding the meaning of the SPR 

phrase, on March 16, 2007, the Solicitor 

of the Department of the Interior issued 

a formal opinion, ‘‘The Meaning of ‘In 

Danger of Extinction Throughout All or 

a Significant Portion of Its Range’’’ (U.S. 

DOI 2007). In the opinion, the Solicitor 

concluded: 

(1) The SPR phrase is a substantive 

standard for determining whether a 

species is an endangered species— 

whenever the Secretary concludes 

because of the statutory five factor 

analysis that a species is ‘‘in danger of 

extinction throughout ... a significant 

portion of its range,’’ it is to be listed 

and the protections of the Act applied 

to the species in that portion of its range 

where it is specified as an ‘‘endangered 

species’’; 

(2) The word ‘‘range’’ in the SPR 

phrase refers to the range in which a 

species currently exists, not to the 

historical range of the species where it 

once existed; 

(3) The Secretary has broad discretion 

in defining what portion of a range is 

‘‘significant,’’ and may consider factors 

other than simply the size of the range 

portion in defining what is ‘‘significant’’; 

and 

(4) The Secretary’s discretion in 

defining ‘‘significant’’ is not unlimited; 

he/she may not, for example, define 

‘‘significant’’ to require that a species is 

endangered only if the threats faced by 

a species in a portion of its range are so 

severe as to threaten the viability of the 

species as a whole. 

The Service has defined an SPR as a 

portion of the range of the listed entity 

(whether a full species, subspecies, or 

DPS of a vertebrate) that contributes 

meaningfully to the conservation of that 

entity. We consider the significance of 

an SPR to be based on its contribution 

to the conservation (resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation) of the 

listable entity being considered. 

Resiliency of a species allows for 

recovery from periodic disturbance, 

such as ensuring that large populations 

persist in areas of high-quality habitat. 

Redundancy of populations provides for 

the spread of risk among populations 

through distribution, such that the 

species is capable of withstanding 

catastrophic events. Representation 

ensures that the species’ adaptive 

capabilities are conserved, such as 

through genetic variability or the 

conservation of unique morphological, 

physiological, or behavioral 

characteristics. 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth the procedures for listing 

species, reclassifying species, or 

removing species from listed status. 

‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as 

including any species or subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment (DPS) of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife that 

interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 

1532(16)). The first step in considering 

a listing action is to determine the 

listable entity, whether it is a species, 

subspecies, or DPS. It is important to 

note that a significant portion of the 

range is not a ‘‘species,’’ i.e., it is not a 

listable entity as defined in the Act; 

rather it is the portion of a range of a 

listable entity where we may determine 

that species to be threatened or 

endangered. Upon a determination that 

a species is not endangered or 

threatened throughout all its range, we 

then examine whether there are any 

significant portions of the range where 

the species is threatened or endangered. 

The range of a species can 

theoretically be divided into portions in 

an infinite number of ways. However, to 

meet the intended purpose of the Act, 

there is no point in analyzing portions 

of a species’ range that are not 

reasonably likely to be significant and 

threatened or endangered. To identify 

only those portions that warrant further 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8629 

consideration under the Act, we must 

determine whether there is substantial 

information indicating that (i) the 

portions are significant and (ii) the 

species is in danger of extinction there 

or is likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future. To be considered a 

significant portion of the range that may 

warrant the protections of the Act, both 

questions must be answered in the 

affirmative; the order in which they are 

answered is not of consequence, and 

both are equally valid approaches to 

determining a significant portion of the 

range that may warrant the protections 

of the Act. 

In practice, a key part of our analysis 

is whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in some way. If the threats 

to the species are essentially uniform 

throughout its range, and are not 

concentrated in some portion such that 

the species may be in danger of 

extinction there or likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future, no portion 

is likely to warrant further 

consideration. Alternatively, if any 

concentration of threats applies only to 

portions of the range that do not 

contribute meaningfully to the 

conservation of the species, such 

portions will not warrant further 

consideration. In cases where we do not 

identify any portions that warrant 

further consideration for either reason, 

we document that conclusion and no 

further analysis is conducted beyond 

our analysis of whether a species is 

threatened or endangered throughout its 

entire range. 

Depending on the biology of the 

species, its range, and the threats it 

faces, it may be more efficient to address 

the contribution to conservation 

question first or the status question first. 

The first alternative relies on an 

assessment of significance based on a 

portion’s contribution to the 

conservation (resiliency, redundancy, 

representation) of the listable entity. If 

a portion of the range is identified that 

is considered as making a meaningful 

contribution to the conservation of the 

species, a five-factor threats assessment 

is then conducted to determine if the 

species is threatened or endangered in 

that portion. If we determine that a 

portion of the range does not make a 

meaningful contribution to the 

conservation of the species, we need not 

continue with our analysis to determine 

whether the species is threatened or 

endangered there. 

The second alternative is to first 

conduct a five-factor threats assessment 

on the portion under consideration to 

determine whether the species is 

threatened or endangered in this 

geographic area. If we determine that 

the species is not threatened or 

endangered in that portion of its range, 

we need not determine if that portion 

makes a meaningful contribution to the 

conservation of the species. If, however, 

we determine that the portion of the 

range under consideration does make a 

meaningful contribution to the 

conservation of the species and the 

species is threatened or endangered in 

that portion, we would then propose to 

add that species to the appropriate list 

and specify that significant portion of 

the range as threatened or endangered, 

as provided under section 4(c)(1) of the 

Act. 

In this case, the Court, based on 

information presented in the 2002 

withdrawal of the proposed rule, has 

directed us to assess whether the marine 

and estuarine areas of the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River DPS 

represent a significant portion of the 

coastal cutthroat’s range. The portion of 

the species’ range to be considered as a 

potential SPR has, therefore, already 

been defined for the Service. In order to 

address the Court’s remand, we have 

elected to conduct a five-factor threats 

assessment on the portion under 

consideration, the marine and estuarine 

areas of the DPS, to determine whether 

the coastal cutthroat trout is threatened 

or endangered in this geographic area. 

According to the process described 

above, if we determine through our fivefactor threats assessment that coastal 

cutthroat trout are not threatened or 

endangered in the marine and estuarine 

areas of the DPS, the question of 

whether that portion may make a 

meaningful contribution to the 

conservation of the species would not 

warrant further consideration. If, on the 

other hand, we determine that coastal 

cutthroat trout are threatened or 

endangered in that portion, we would 

then proceed to consider the question of 

whether those marine and estuarine 

areas make a meaningful contribution to 

the conservation of the species in terms 

of resiliency, redundancy or 

representation. If the importance of 

those marine and estuarine areas to the 

conservation of coastal cutthroat trout in 

the DPS were affirmed, we would then 

propose to add the DPS to the 

appropriate list and would specify 

coastal cutthroat trout in that significant 

portion of the range as threatened or 

endangered. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

As noted above in the Previous 

Federal Actions section, the District 

Court’s remand of our 2002 withdrawal 

(67 FR 44934; July 5, 2002) of the 

proposed rule (64 FR 16397; April 5, 

1999) was due to the Ninth Circuit’s 

determination that we did not properly 

consider whether the estuaries and 

other marine areas of the DPS constitute 

a significant portion of the range of the 

DPS. The Court’s focus on marine and 

estuarine areas was due to statements in 

our record that included: first, 

acknowledgement of degradation of 

estuary and marine areas that are vital 

to the anadromous life-form of the DPS; 

second, that the anadromous life-form is 

important to the DPS’s long-term 

survival strategy; and, third, that though 

there is evidence that resident life-forms 

can spawn anadromous life-forms, this 

is only significant if estuary habitat 

conditions and near-shore environments 

can support the persistence of this lifehistory strategy. 

To address the Court’s remand, the 

following analysis focuses on current 

threats, and threats reasonably likely to 

occur in the foreseeable future, to 

anadromous cutthroat trout in marine 

and estuarine areas of the DPS. As 

described above, we define ‘‘estuary’’ to 

mean a semi-enclosed coastal body of 

water that has a free connection with 

the open sea and within which sea 

water is measurably diluted with 

freshwater derived from land drainage 

(Lauff 1967, as cited in ISAB 2000, p. 2). 

In the Columbia River, salt water 

intrusion extends up to roughly rmi 28 

(rkm 45) depending on daily tide cycles 

and seasonal flow volume. For this 

analysis, we define the Columbia River 

estuary to rmi 28 (rkm 45). This is 

distinguished from definitions created 

for other management processes that are 

tied to tidal influence rather than salt 

water intrusion. Because the primary 

issue for coastal cutthroat trout is based 

on the expression of anadromy, defining 

the estuary based on salt water intrusion 

is more biologically relevant. 

There are three estuaries in the DPS: 

the Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and 

Grays Harbor. Although the Court did 

not ask us to revisit status, trends, and 

threats to anadromous cutthroat trout or 

other life-history forms outside of 

marine and estuarine areas, we have 

considered any new information 

available for these areas that would 

suggest a significant change in status, 

trend, or threats. 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 

set forth the procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8630 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Listing actions may be 

warranted based on any of the above 

threat factors, singly or in combination. 

Each of these factors relevant to coastal 

cutthroat trout in the marine and 

estuarine portion of the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River DPS are 

discussed below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

In 1999, the proposed rule (64 FR 

16407; April 5, 1999) listed forest 

management and estuary degradation as 

principal factors in the decline of 

coastal cutthroat rangewide, and estuary 

degradation as the principal factor 

affecting coastal cutthroat trout in the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS. Our 2002 withdrawal of the 

proposed rule (67 FR 44934; July 5, 

2002) assessed effects to coastal 

cutthroat trout from forest management 

and estuary degradation, as well as from 

agriculture and livestock management, 

dams and barriers, urban and industrial 

development, and mining. Our analysis, 

combined with information presented in 

the proposed rule, confirmed that all of 

these land uses, to varying degrees, had 

previously impacted, and continue to 

impact, habitat utilized by all lifehistory forms of coastal cutthroat trout 

in the DPS. Despite these impacts, we 

determined that coastal cutthroat trout, 

including anadromous forms, were not 

threatened to the degree portrayed in 

the proposed rule, and further, current 

regulatory mechanisms conferred a low 

risk of significant additional destruction 

or modification of habitat in the 

foreseeable future. 

In regard to curtailment of range, our 

analysis in the withdrawal notice 

confirmed that coastal cutthroat trout, 

especially the freshwater forms, 

remained well distributed throughout 

the DPS, at densities comparable to 

healthy-sized populations in large 

portions of the subspecies’ range outside 

the DPS. We acknowledged a change in 

accessibility of some areas to 

anadromous cutthroat trout due to 

barriers created by dams, diversions, 

culverts, dikes, and tidegates, and some 

streams that were lost to development, 

such as streams around Portland, 

Oregon. However, we determined these 

areas of inaccessibility to the 

anadromous life form comprised a 

relatively small portion of the DPS, and 

that while the anadromous portion of 

the DPS was likely at lower-thanhistorical levels, there was little specific 

information available to support the 

statement in the proposed rule that the 

abundance of the anadromous portion 

was at extremely low levels. 

Subsequently, we concluded in the 

withdrawal of the proposed rule that 

none of the impacts assessed under 

Factor A were likely to result in coastal 

cutthroat trout becoming threatened or 

endangered in the foreseeable future. 

We present some new information 

below regarding potential impacts to 

habitat utilized by cutthroat trout in 

marine and estuarine areas, such as the 

proposed development of liquefied 

natural gas terminals in the Columbia 

River estuary and shellfish aquaculture 

impacts in Willapa Bay and Grays 

Harbor. In addition, there is also 

information newly available on the 

significant actions that have occurred, 

or are currently under way, to restore 

and protect estuary habitats in the DPS, 

particularly in the Columbia River. 

These restoration and conservation 

actions are summarized in this section 

following discussion of factors relevant 

to estuary degradation. 

Columbia River Estuary and Marine 

Areas 

Proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 

Development 

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) projects 

include berths for unloading liquefied 

gas, storage tanks, facilities to vaporize 

the liquid back to natural gas, and 

pipelines from the projects to deliver 

the gas to its final destination. There are 

two LNG terminals approved or 

proposed in the lower Columbia River: 

Bradwood Landing (approved) and 

Oregon LNG (proposed). In addition, 

another potential site at St. Helens, 

Oregon, has been identified. 

Aspects of LNG development that 

could potentially affect aquatic 

resources include construction activities 

and associated habitat modification, 

water appropriations, artificial lighting, 

accidental spills or leaks of hazardous 

materials, and operation of the LNG 

terminal. In-water construction 

activities include dredging, 

development of the shoreline, and pile 

driving and could result in increased 

sedimentation and turbidity, increased 

noise, permanent habitat alteration, loss 

of benthic organisms, re-suspension of 

contaminants, entrainment through 

water intake pipes, and alterations to 

sediment transport and deposition. 

Activities associated with construction 

of the terminal, access facilities, and 

pipelines could indirectly affect aquatic 

resources through ground disturbances 

that lead to increased sediment inputs 

and turbidity in adjacent water bodies, 

increased water temperature from 

vegetation removal, noise, and artificial 

lighting that could alter species 

behavior (FERC 2008). 

Operation of the LNG terminals 

would entail maintenance dredging of 

the access channel, potential for 

accidental spills of hazardous materials, 

stormwater runoff from impervious 

surfaces, lighting of ship berth and 

unloading facilities, operation of noiseproducing equipment, and routine 

discharge of water from the vaporization 

process and testing of fire suppression 

equipment. Impacts to aquatic resources 

could include loss of habitat from 

increased water temperature, increased 

turbidity and sedimentation, and 

modification of animal behavior. 

Potential impacts to cutthroat trout 

would vary depending on location of 

the facilities relative to cutthroat use 

areas in the estuary (FERC 2008), but is 

not expected to be a limiting factor. 

Although the construction and 

operation of LNG terminals have the 

potential to impact anadromous 

cutthroat trout and associated habitat in 

the Columbia River, the area of impact 

relative to the total area of available 

habitat in the Columbia River and 

estuary is small. In addition, regulatory 

mechanisms required through the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) and through State land use 

regulations are expected to provide 

protective mechanisms to minimize 

impacts of construction and operation of 

LNG facilities. For these reasons we do 

not believe potential impacts rise to a 

level that constitutes a significant threat 

to anadromous cutthroat trout in the 

Columbia River portion of the DPS. 

Wave Energy 

Currently, there are five wave energy 

projects being evaluated or proposed in 

Oregon: (1) Coos Bay Ocean Power 

Technologies (OPT) Wave Park Project 

located in the Pacific Ocean about 2.5 

mi (1.6 km) offshore in Coos County; (2) 

Newport OPT Wave Park Project about 

3 to 6 mi (1.9 to 3.7 km) offshore in 

Lincoln County; (3) Oregon Coastal 

Wave Energy Project in the Pacific 

Ocean in Tillamook County; (4) 

Reedsport OPT Wave Park Project 

(FERC license pending); and (5) Douglas 

County Wave Energy Project off the 

Umpqua South jetty. In addition, 

Oregon State University has an 

experimental buoy offshore of Newport, 

Oregon. Given that wave energy is an 

emerging technology and new to 

Oregon, there is uncertainty as to its 

effects on the marine environment. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8631 

These potential projects would not 

occur within the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River DPS, and 

thus we do not believe potential impacts 

constitute a threat to anadromous 

cutthroat trout. 

Channel Improvement Project Update 

The Columbia River Channel 

Improvement Project (CRCIP) is a 

collaborative effort between the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and 

six river ports in Oregon and 

Washington to deepen the navigation 

channel to accommodate the current 

fleet of international bulk cargo and 

container ships. The USACE Record of 

Decision, signed in January of 2004, was 

to (1) deepen the 40-ft (12.2 m) 

navigation channel by 3 ft (1 m) to 

facilitate navigation, and (2) improve 

the natural environment through several 

ecosystem restoration projects designed 

to enhance salmon habitat. The Service 

and NMFS issued a non-jeopardy 

opinion on the project in 2002. 

Project construction has been largely 

consistent with the decision criteria 

developed by the Adaptive 

Environmental Management Team. 

Several short-term discrepancies 

involving monitoring results for 

temperature and salinity were explained 

by corresponding variations in river 

flows or storms. The monitoring of 

dredging and dredged material disposal 

continues to show that actual 

construction volumes and their disposal 

are within the specifications developed 

for the project and that these 

specifications were considered in the 

non-jeopardy biological opinion. 

Several monitored deviations of crosschannel survey results from the decision 

criteria were shown to have returned to 

pre-project conditions in follow-up 

monitoring. 

Reporting of extensive sediment 

identified only two locations, well 

outside the navigation channel, where 

sediment contaminants might be of 

concern. Shallow water habitat surveys 

and fish stranding monitoring are not 

scheduled to be addressed in detail 

until project construction has been 

completed. While completion and 

maintenance of the CRCIP may cause 

short-term and low-level impacts now 

and in the foreseeable future to 

anadromous cutthroat trout and their 

habitat, we do not believe these 

potential impacts constitute a 

significant threat because of the 

adequacy of current regulatory 

mechanisms and limited project scope 

relative to available habitat. 

Columbia River Estuary Restoration 

Actions 

Habitat restoration activities that may 

offset the threat of habitat destruction or 

modification in the lower Columbia 

River have been ongoing since 1999 

through a variety of entities and are 

aimed at restoring habitat conditions to 

benefit primarily salmon and steelhead. 

However, they may well provide 

benefits for cutthroat trout and other 

species as well by restoring estuary 

rearing habitat. The database of the 

Lower Columbia River Estuary 

Partnership (LCREP) identifies 44 

completed and/or ongoing projects in 

the lower 25 rmi (47 rkm) of the 

Columbia River and a total of 152 for the 

Columbia River from the mouth 

upstream to Bonneville Dam (LCREP 

2009). The projects include a variety of 

conservation and restoration activities 

designed to benefit salmonids including 

culvert removal, tidegate alteration or 

removal, large wood placement, tidal 

reconnection, dike breaching, invasive 

species removal, revegetation, water 

control structures, conservation 

easements, channel modification, 

velocity barrier removal, and land 

acquisitions. 

Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay Estuaries 

and Marine Areas 

Loss of estuary habitat 

Currently, coastal cutthroat trout use 

of the various portions of Willapa Bay 

and Grays Harbor estuaries and marine 

habitat is unknown. However, recent 

studies have documented estuary use by 

coastal cutthroat trout within (Hudson 

et al. 2008, entire) and outside of the 

DPS (Haque 2008, entire; Krentz et al. 

2007, entire). Krentz et al. (2007, p. 81) 

examined migratory patterns of coastal 

cutthroat trout in the Salmon River 

Estuary, Oregon. Two main life-history 

forms were identified: Ocean migrants 

that move quickly through the estuary to 

marine environments, and estuarine 

residents that remain in the estuary 

throughout the spring and summer 

months. In addition, this study 

documented trout residing in the 

estuary but making brief forays into the 

marine environment and individuals 

overwintering in the estuary. In South 

Puget Sound, Haque (2008, p. 26) 

documented overwintering use of 

estuaries by coastal cutthroat trout. She 

also concluded that observed movement 

patterns and travel distances may 

indicate different life-history strategies 

among anadromous coastal cutthroat 

trout. Both studies may support the 

existence of opportunistic and adaptable 

behavior of coastal cutthroat trout. 

Coastal cutthroat trout are 

opportunistic feeders that forage in 

eelgrass beds in estuary environments 

(Trotter 1997, p. 10). In nearshore 

environments in Washington and 

Oregon, coastal cutthroat trout were 

found to prey on salmonids, herring, 

pacific sand lance, shiner perch, surf 

smelt, anchovy, and invertebrates 

including gammarid amphipods (family 

Crangonyctidae), shrimp, and isopods 

(Jauquet 2008, p. 152; Jones et al. 2008, 

p. 146). Although we have no new 

information on coastal cutthroat trout 

migration in estuary or marine areas 

offshore from Willapa Bay and Grays 

Harbor, it is likely that estuary habitat 

within these areas is used extensively 

by anadromous coastal cutthroat trout. 

The proposed rule (64 FR 16402; 

April 5, 1999) described the potential 

loss of important estuary habitat 

through the ‘‘[d]redging, filling, and 

diking of estuarine areas for agricultural, 

commercial, or municipal uses’’ and 

stated ‘‘reductions in the quantity and 

quality of estuarine ... habitat have 

probably contributed to declines, but 

the relative importance of these risks is 

not well understood’’ (64 FR 16408; 

April 5, 1999). 

The withdrawal notice (72 FR 44948; 

July 5, 2002) stated ‘‘30 percent of the 

historical wetland habitat in Grays 

Harbor estuary has been lost, as well as 

31 percent of the historical Willapa Bay 

estuary wetlands.’’ During the public 

comment period we received additional 

information on the historical loss of 

estuary habitats to Willapa Bay and 

Grays Harbor estuaries (WDFW 2009, 

pp. 2–3). WDFW reported estimates of a 

19 percent loss of native tidal marsh 

plant communities and extensive 

dendritic slough systems in the Willapa 

River Basin and a 36 percent loss in the 

Bay Basin due to diking and filling 

along the lower Willapa River. Diking of 

the river’s upper intertidal wetlands, 

downstream of South Bend, is estimated 

at 89 percent. However, we have no 

information documenting any effects of 

the historical loss of eelgrass and 

wetland habitat on coastal cutthroat 

trout populations in Willapa and Grays 

Harbor estuary habitat. 

Ongoing and planned restoration 

projects in the Columbia River and 

southwest Washington estuary habitats 

should benefit coastal cutthroat trout 

and their prey species (WDFW 2009, p. 

2). We have no specific information on 

restoration projects occurring in Willapa 

and Grays Harbor estuaries. In addition, 

we do not have information at this time 

regarding the responses of coastal 

cutthroat trout or their prey to estuary 

enhancement and restoration. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8632 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Shellfish Aquaculture 

Shellfish aquaculture is likely to 

degrade water quality temporarily and 

reduce available foraging habitat for 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout and 

prey species. In Willapa Bay and Grays 

Harbor estuaries, activities that may 

potentially affect anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout are those that involve 

bed preparation, mechanical harvest, 

and shellfish grow-out. Although these 

specific activities have not been directly 

investigated, bed preparation activities 

such as tilling, disking, raking, 

harrowing, and dragging in eelgrass 

beds may reduce the density and 

biomass of eelgrass and their related 

communities (USFWS 2009, p. 120). 

Approximately 55 percent of the 

Willapa Bay estuary is intertidal land 

(42,502 of 78,876 acres (ac) (17,200 of 

31,920 hectares (ha)), and 

approximately 21 percent (9,000 ac 

(3,642 ha)) of that intertidal land is 

intensively cultured. Commercial 

aquaculture is limited to 3 percent (900 

ac (364 ha)) of the intertidal land in the 

Grays Harbor estuary (Burrowing 

Shrimp Committee 1992 as cited in 

Feldman et al. 2000, p. 146). Within 

intertidal areas, eelgrass provides cover, 

refuge, and supports a prey base for 

coastal cutthroat trout. Although the 

loss of eelgrass density and abundance 

as a result of shellfish aquaculture may 

have negative effects to individual 

coastal cutthroat trout, due to the 

limited area dedicated to intensive 

shellfish culture, we do not believe 

these potential impacts rise to the level 

of a significant threat to coastal 

cutthroat trout in the marine and 

estuarine areas, or the DPS as a whole. 

Since 1963, the Washington 

Department of Ecology has issued 

permits to oyster growers to apply 

carbaryl to intertidal areas for the 

purpose of controlling burrowing 

shrimp (USACE 2008, as cited in 

USFWS 2009, p. 143). Carbaryl is 

applied annually in July or August. 

Between 2000 and 2003, carbaryl was 

applied on 541 ac (219 ha) on Willapa 

Bay and Grays Harbor intertidal lands. 

In 2007, approximately 420 ac (170 ha) 

in Willapa Bay and approximately 140 

ac (55 ha) in Grays Harbor were treated 

with carbaryl (Booth and Tufts 2007 as 

cited in USFWS 2009, p. 143). Labenia 

et al. (2007, p. 6) found that coastal 

cutthroat trout do not avoid carbarylcontaminated seawater at ecologically 

representative concentrations 

potentially found in Willapa Bay. Brief 

exposure to carbaryl affects the 

swimming performance of cutthroat 

trout (Labenia et al. 2007, pp. 6–7). 

Decreased swimming performance may 

increase predation on coastal cutthroat 

trout smolts. Because cutthroat trout 

forage in shallow waters during the 

summer months it is likely that wild 

fish will be exposed to carbaryl. 

Carbaryl is absorbed onto sediments 

relatively quickly and may remain toxic 

to burrowing shrimp for up to 28 days 

(Labenia et al. 2007, p. 9). 

Carbaryl is acutely toxic to 

invertebrates (USFWS 2009, p. 144). A 

secondary indirect exposure pathway to 

anadromous salmonids may exist 

through dietary consumption of dead 

and dying invertebrates and fish 

(USFWS 2009, p. 146). We have no 

information as to whether or not coastal 

cutthroat trout may consume dead and 

dying invertebrates or fish or how the 

potential uptake of the chemical in this 

manner may affect coastal cutthroat 

trout. The reduction of prey species for 

several weeks after treatment of oyster 

beds may indirectly reduce the growth 

of anadromous cutthroat trout by 

temporarily reducing the amount of 

prey species. One or two tidal cycles 

after spraying, the area may be relatively 

devoid of macroinvertebrate prey. 

Recolonization of an area by epibenthic 

invertebrates is variable, depends on the 

species and site, and can take anywhere 

from 2 to 52 days (Simenstad and Fresh 

1995, as cited in USFWS 2009, p. 137). 

Fish would likely recolonize the area 

more quickly. Given the relatively small 

portion of the estuaries treated with 

carbaryl, we do not believe the potential 

impacts constitute a significant threat to 

anadromous cutthroat trout in the 

Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor portion 

of the DPS. The use of carbaryl on oyster 

beds is planned to be phased out in 

2012 (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/ 

REDs/factsheets/carbaryl_factsheet.pdf). 

Summary of Threat Factor A 

As discussed in Bottom et al. (2005, 

entire), the Columbia River estuary and 

plume have undergone significant 

alteration from historical conditions, 

which has likely reduced the amount 

and quality of habitat for anadromous 

coastal cutthroat trout. While not as 

much information is available regarding 

current conditions and foreseeable 

threats to anadromous cutthroat trout 

from the Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor 

watersheds, it is clear these estuaries 

have also undergone significant 

alteration. 

Despite these altered conditions, 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout 

continue to persist in the DPS and 

return rates appear to be within the 

normal range for Pacific salmon, as 

documented in recent studies on 

hatchery and wild-origin cutthroat trout 

returning to Cowlitz River Hatchery 

(Johnson et al. 2008, entire; ODFW 

2008, entire; WDFW 2009, pp. 5–7). In 

addition to documenting the persistence 

of returning anadromous adults, these 

studies also provided new information 

on the prevalence of outmigrating 

coastal cutthroat smolts, even above 

long-standing artificial barriers, from 

tributaries of the lower Columbia River. 

Although very little new information is 

available on trend of anadromous 

cutthroat trout in the DPS, the limited 

information available does not suggest 

an overall declining trend of returning 

adults, or significant limiting factors to 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout. 

While development and operation of 

LNG terminals and completion and 

maintenance of the Columbia River 

Channel Improvement Project may 

cause short-term and low-level impacts 

now and in the foreseeable future to 

anadromous cutthroat trout and their 

habitat, we do not believe these 

potential impacts constitute a 

significant threat or a limiting factor 

because of the adequacy of current 

regulatory mechanisms and limited 

project scope relative to available 

habitat. In Willapa Bay, shellfish 

aquaculture may be impacting 

anadromous cutthroat trout, but we 

have no information to determine the 

nature of these effects; however, we do 

know that the area of intensive culture 

represents a small fraction of the habitat 

utilized by coastal cutthroat trout. 

Similarly, while the use of carbaryl to 

control burrowing shrimp in shellfish 

aquaculture has been shown through lab 

studies to potentially impact coastal 

cutthroat trout, the area of exposure 

within the estuary is relatively small, 

and we have no information to indicate 

this pesticide has caused a decline in 

anadromous cutthroat trout. 

Given the adequacy of current 

regulatory mechanisms and the 

restoration actions that have occurred, 

as well as those under way, the overall 

baseline condition of the estuary is more 

likely on a positive versus negative 

trajectory. Furthermore, we have no 

information to suggest any correlation 

between the threat factors considered 

here and any decline in the anadromous 

life-history form, such that we would 

consider anadromous coastal cutthroat 

trout likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future. We have 

thus evaluated the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

and determined anadromous cutthroat 

trout are not threatened by destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range in marine and estuarine 

areas, or the DPS as a whole. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8633 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes. 

Our 2002 withdrawal of the proposed 

rule identified only one potential threat, 

recreational angling, under Factor B. 

Based on our analysis we determined 

the potential threats from recreational 

angling did not represent a significant 

threat to the DPS as a whole. In our 

current review of available information 

we did not identify any new threats, nor 

did we find evidence that any 

previously identified threats had 

significantly changed. As noted in our 

withdrawal of the proposed rule, coastal 

cutthroat trout are not harvested 

commercially, and bycatch of cutthroat 

trout in commercial gillnet fisheries is 

minimal due to the large mesh size of 

the nets (NMFS 2003; pp. 3–73). 

Scientific research and collection for 

educational programs have probably 

had no discernible negative impact on 

the anadromous life-history form or the 

DPS as a whole. 

Anadromous cutthroat were a soughtafter sportfish for many years, due in 

part to the multiple hatchery programs 

operated by the States of Oregon and 

Washington. While it is likely that sport 

angler harvest within the DPS 

contributed to reductions in the 

anadromous form over time, due in part 

to liberal size and bag limits (Trotter 

2008, p. 95), the legacy of overharvest 

on today’s status of anadromous 

cutthroat is unknown. Current angling 

effort for anadromous cutthroat trout 

has significantly declined in the last two 

decades (67 FR 44934, July 5, 2002; 

Rawding 2001 as cited in Anderson 

2005, p. 17), and in many areas coastal 

cutthroat trout harvest is primarily 

incidental to recreational fisheries for 

other species of salmonids. Because of 

harvest restrictions on naturally 

produced coastal cutthroat trout in 

many areas and the lack of targeted 

fisheries, direct mortality due to fishing 

pressure is thought to be relatively low, 

at least in recent years (Hooton 1997, p. 

66; Gerstung 1997, pp. 53–54). 

Washington’s fishing regulations have 

been designed to increase the survival of 

rearing and migrating cutthroat smolts 

and to allow adult females to spawn at 

least once (Washington Department of 

Game 1984, as cited in Anderson 2008, 

p. 13). (Note: for additional information 

on the changes in coastal cutthroat trout 

angling regulations over time, see the 

withdrawal notice (67 FR 44934; July 5, 

2002)). In 2009, new anti-snagging 

restrictions were implemented in 

Washington State (WDFW 2009, p. 15), 

which may provide further protection of 

coastal cutthroat trout. In 1998, 

Washington adopted a catch and release 

regulation for any coastal cutthroat trout 

caught in marine waters. Washington’s 

freshwater fishing regulations in the 

Willapa Bay and Washington zone of 

the Columbia River provide protection 

to coastal cutthroat trout by requiring 

catch and release of naturally produced 

cutthroat trout. Catch and release 

restrictions are generally required in the 

mainstem Columbia River, except for 

adipose-clipped (removal of fin behind 

dorsal fin) hatchery fish. Below the 

Bonneville Dam, two hatchery trout can 

be retained daily with a minimum size 

of 12 inches (in) (30.5 centimeters (cm)). 

A bag limit of five hatchery trout over 

12-in (30.5 cm), including no more than 

two over 20 in (50.8 cm) is allowed in 

the Cowlitz River. Harvest restrictions 

are not as restrictive in the Grays Harbor 

watershed, where harvest of wild 

coastal cutthroat is allowed in many of 

its tributaries. Regulations require a 14- 

in (35.6-cm) minimum size and daily 

bag limit of two wild cutthroat trout. 

Current Oregon sport fishing 

regulations (ODFW 2009b) in the 

Columbia Zone, which includes most of 

the Columbia River in Oregon within 

the Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS, have required catch and 

release of wild unmarked coastal 

cutthroat trout since 1997. 

Summary of Threat Factor B 

We have evaluated the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

on the overutilization of anadromous 

cutthroat trout for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes. We identified no new or 

significantly increased threats under 

this threat factor beyond those analyzed 

in the 2002 withdrawal notice (67 FR 

44934; July 5, 2002). The most relevant 

information pertaining to this threat 

factor are the current angling regulations 

within the DPS in Oregon and 

Washington, which with few exceptions 

require the release of naturally 

produced cutthroat trout. Current 

fishing regulations within the DPS for 

Oregon and Washington are generally 

protective of naturally produced coastal 

cutthroat trout. Where regulations allow 

the retention of wild cutthroat trout 

(some Grays Harbor tributaries), the 

regulation is designed to increase the 

likelihood that juveniles and migrating 

smolts are protected and the majority of 

adult females are able to spawn at least 

once (Anderson 2008, p. 13). Based on 

the information above, we conclude that 

anadromous cutthroat trout are not 

threatened now or in the foreseeable 

future by overutilization in marine and 

estuarine areas, or any of the remaining 

portions of the DPS. 

C. Disease or Predation. 

Our 2002 withdrawal of the proposed 

rule provided information on several 

threats to anadromous coastal cutthroat 

trout identified under Factor C, 

including the parasite Ceratomyxa 

shasta in the Columbia and Willamette 

rivers, gas bubble disease below large 

hydroelectric dams in the Columbia 

River, and predation by nonnative 

fishes, pinnipeds, and fish-eating birds 

such as Caspian terns (Hydroprogne 

caspia) and double-crested cormorants 

(Phalacrocorax auritus) (67 FR 44934; 

July 5, 2002). We determined these 

potential threats did not represent 

significant threats to the DPS as a 

whole. In our current review of 

available information we did not 

identify any new disease or predation 

threats, nor did we find evidence that 

any previously identified threats had 

significantly changed. We did receive 

new information allowing us to quantify 

the potential effect of avian predation in 

the lower Columbia River, which we 

were forced to deal with qualitatively in 

the withdrawal notice (67 FR 44934; 

July 5, 2002). 

Estuary predation of outmigrating 

salmon and steelhead juveniles by fisheating birds has been studied 

extensively in the lower Columbia 

River, focused on colonies of Caspian 

terns and double-crested cormorants, 

which have grown in number in recent 

decades. The largest breeding colony of 

Caspian terns in the world (10,700 

breeding pairs in 2008), and the largest 

breeding colony of double-crested 

cormorants (13,700 breeding pairs) in 

western North America, now nest on 

East Sand Island. The reasons for these 

concentrations of fish-eating birds are: 

(1) the creation of artificial nesting 

habitat; (2) reliable food supply 

produced by salmon hatcheries; and, (3) 

loss of secure nesting sites and food 

resources elsewhere (BRNW 2009). 

From 1999 to 2001, about 4 percent of 

the PIT tags that were placed on 

juvenile salmon in the Columbia River 

system were detected on these island 

nesting habitats, suggesting a minimal 

predation rate on salmon and steelhead, 

varying from 2.6 percent of yearling 

chinook to 11.5 percent of the juvenile 

steelhead (Ryan et al. 2001 as cited in 

Quinn 2005, p. 238). The magnitude of 

predation on salmon and steelhead has 

more recently been estimated to be 

approximately 10 percent of salmon and 

steelhead that survive to the estuary 

(BRNW 2009). Recent work by Hudson 

et al. (2008, entire) examined estuary 

bird predation on anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout based on PIT tagging of 

cutthroat trout in 11 tributaries of the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8634 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Columbia River from 2001 to 2008. 

Avian mortality was estimated to be 

16.6 percent for all cutthroat trout that 

were tagged. Mortality rates in 

individual tributaries ranged from 3.7 

percent to 24.2 percent. 

PIT tags from Bear Creek and Big 

Creek coastal cutthroat trout were 

detected on Caspian tern and doublecrested cormorant colonies on East Sand 

Island during both years of an ODFW 

study (ODFW 2008, p. 9). Tag detection 

was not 100 percent efficient, so 

estimates are conservative. Confirmed 

mortalities from avian predation made 

up 5.3 percent of the total outmigrant 

cutthroat from Big Creek in 2006, 15.4 

percent of the Big Creek migrants in 

2007, and 14.7 percent of Bear Creek 

migrants in 2007 (ODFW 2008, p. 9). 

The studies by Hudson et al. (2008, 

entire) and ODFW (2008, entire) present 

new information on impacts to 

anadromous cutthroat trout from avian 

predation that was not considered in the 

withdrawal notice (67 FR 44934; July 5, 

2002). Despite the avian predation rates 

documented in Hudson et al. (2008, 

entire) and ODFW (2008, entire), return 

rates of adults are similar to or exceed 

adult return rates for many wild, 

healthy anadromous salmon and 

steelhead populations in all but one 

tributary that was monitored (Bradford 

1995, p. 1332; Beckman et al. 1999, p. 

1130), suggesting avian predation is not 

a limiting factor for anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout. 

The USACE initiated a program in 

2008 to disperse and relocate the tern 

and cormorant colonies outside the 

Columbia Basin to reduce predation 

impacts on threatened Columbia River 

salmon and steelhead by creating new 

nesting habitat in a number of locations 

along the west coast, including Crump 

and Summer lakes in southeast Oregon, 

Fern Ridge Reservoir in the southern 

Willamette Valley, and in San Francisco 

Bay, California. Concurrent with the 

creation of new habitats outside the 

lower Columbia River estuary, current 

nesting habitat on East Sand Island is 

being gradually reduced through 

vegetation management. Available 

nesting habitat on East Sand Island in 

2009 was reduced by approximately 50 

percent from that available in 2008 

(BRNW 2009). Nesting by Caspian terns 

has occurred at the newly created 

Crump Lake habitat, and evidence from 

banded birds indicates some of the birds 

are from the East Sand Island colony. 

Two newly created islands in Summer 

Lake are being used by nesting terns. 

Results from monitoring terns at Crump 

and Summer lakes indicate initial 

success. Recent video camera footage 

revealed that Caspian terns visited 

newly created nesting habitat at Fern 

Ridge Reservoir following the 2009 

nesting season. Construction of sites in 

San Francisco Bay will take place prior 

to the 2010 nesting season. 

While there is evidence that 

relocation efforts are showing success, 

fish-eating birds have likely always been 

present in the marine and estuarine 

portions of the DPS. Research 

documenting the extent of the predation 

on salmon and steelhead, and now on 

coastal cutthroat trout, has begun to 

portray the nature of the impact of these 

predators, but does not serve to explain 

the full measure of the impact. Though 

we have some data on bird predation, 

we have no data to explain what 

proportion of all predation faced by 

outmigrating coastal cutthroat trout is 

bird-caused versus other sources. To 

determine whether this bird predation 

presents an extinction risk to 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout, we 

reviewed comments submitted by 

WDFW (2009, pp. 2–7) on hatchery 

releases and returns at its Cowlitz River 

hatchery. 

Between brood year 1996 and brood 

year 2004, the rate of returns of released 

coastal cutthroat trout 2 years after 

release ranged from a low of 2.36 

percent to a high of 7.41 percent 

(excluding 2004, when some fish may 

have been double-counted by mistake). 

Subsequent to brood year 2004, the 

broodstock trap was moved, making 

comparisons between the years before 

and after the move inappropriate. For 

brood years 2005 and 2006, return rates 

were measured at 0.92 percent and 1.77 

percent, respectively. The Cowlitz 

Hatchery has as its program goal to 

achieve an average 4.71 percent smoltto-adult survival, including harvest and 

return of up to 5,000 fish at current 

production levels (WDFW 2005, as cited 

in Anderson 2008, p. 13). WDFW’s 

submitted comments state that returns 

for brood years 1998–2006 (excluding 

2004) averaged 4.2 percent, ± 1.6 

percent., the range of which includes 

the program goals for smolt-to-adult 

survival (Anderson 2008, p. 13). 

A 3–year study on the Oregon side of 

the lower Columbia River estuary 

documented adult return rates of PIT- or 

acoustic-tagged coastal cutthroat trout 

that emigrated from Big Creek and Bear 

Creek (ODFW 2008, entire). ODFW 

reports: ‘‘In Big Creek, none of 30 

acoustically tagged fish that emigrated 

in Spring 2006 returned to the stream, 

and one of 53 PIT and/or acoustic 

tagged migrants (two percent) returned 

to the stream after emigrating in Spring 

2007. In Bear Creek, 1 of 20 fish (5 

percent) returned to the stream from the 

2007 acoustic tagged group, and 2 of 25 

PIT-tagged fish that were detected 

emigrating in spring 2008 returned in 

autumn 2008 (8 percent). One of the two 

returning fish from Bear Creek returned 

to Big Creek, however, indicating that 

some straying among tributaries occurs. 

Accordingly, it is possible that some 

tagged fish may have returned to other 

unmonitored streams.’’ In the streams 

that show returns, the rates of return are 

consistent with literature reports of 

smolt-to-adult return ratios among other 

healthy populations of Pacific salmon 

species (Bradford 1995, p. 1332, 

Beckman et al. 1999, p. 1130), 

suggesting that conditions experienced 

post-emigration in the estuary and 

marine habitats, including present 

levels of avian predation, do not present 

a limiting factor to coastal cutthroat 

trout. 

Summary of Threat Factor C 

We have evaluated the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

on the threat of disease and predation. 

We did not identify any new disease or 

predation threats to anadromous coastal 

cutthroat beyond those identified 

previously in the proposed rule (64 FR 

16397; April 5, 1999) or the withdrawal 

of the proposed rule (67 FR 44934; July 

5, 2002). We did receive information 

allowing us to quantify the potential 

level of predation by birds. We found no 

new evidence to suggest previously 

identified threats under Factor C are 

significant sources of mortality to 

anadromous cutthroat in marine and 

estuarine areas or the DPS as a whole. 

While the recent work by Hudson et al. 

(2008, entire) confirms that anadromous 

cutthroat trout, like other migrating 

fishes in the estuary, are vulnerable to 

predation by terns and cormorants, the 

overall impact to the anadromous lifehistory form in the Columbia River is 

unknown. However, we do know that, 

despite the avian predation rates 

documented in Hudson et al. (2008, pp. 

54–55) and ODFW (2008, p. 9), return 

rates of adults are similar to or exceed 

adult return rates for many wild, 

healthy anadromous salmon and 

steelhead populations (Bradford 1995, 

p. 1332, Beckman et al. 1999, p. 1130) 

in all but one tributary that was 

monitored, suggesting avian predation is 

not a limiting factor for anadromous 

coastal cutthroat trout. Fish-eating birds 

will continue to be, and have always 

been, present in the marine and 

estuarine portions of the DPS. Although 

we expect efforts to redistribute Caspian 

terns and cormorants may reduce 

predation impacts on anadromous 

cutthroat trout in the Columbia River 

estuary, in the near-term, we expect this 

source of mortality to continue at 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8635 

current levels. Based on the information 

above, we conclude that anadromous 

cutthroat trout are not threatened by 

disease or predation in marine and 

estuarine areas, or any of the remaining 

portions of the DPS. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms. 

In the 2002 withdrawal of the 

proposed rule, we concluded that 

coastal cutthroat trout are not 

threatened as a result of the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms, 

including Federal land management 

practices; Oregon and Washington land 

use practices; dredge, fill, and in-water 

construction programs; water quality 

programs; and hatchery management (67 

FR 44934; July 5, 2002). We further 

noted that many of these regulatory 

mechanisms were contributing to the 

recovery of aquatic habitats from 

degradation that occurred prior to the 

creation and implementation of many of 

these State and Federal regulatory 

mechanisms. Our review of available 

information indicates that there has 

been no significant weakening of State 

and Federal regulatory mechanisms 

since 2002. Hence, we again conclude 

that the species is not threatened as a 

result of inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Summary of Threat Factor D 

Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms 

was not identified as a threat in the 

proposed rule, nor was this considered 

a significant threat at the time of the 

withdrawal (2002). Based on our current 

analysis, we have no evidence that any 

of the previously identified regulatory 

mechanisms have been significantly 

weakened from 2002 to 2009, and 

several changes during this time have 

strengthened regulatory mechanisms. 

Although we believe that our 2002 

analysis adequately assessed the role of 

these existing regulatory mechanisms on 

coastal cutthroat trout in marine and 

estuarine environments, we have 

reassessed their role in these geographic 

areas, considered any changes from 

2002 to 2009, and again conclude that 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout are 

not threatened in marine and estuarine 

areas, or in any remaining portions of 

the DPS, by inadequacies in these 

mechanisms. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence. 

Under Factor E in the withdrawal of 

the proposed rule, we assessed the 

potential threats of climate change, 

catastrophic natural events, and 

hybridization to coastal cutthroat trout 

(67 FR 44934: July 5, 2002). We 

concluded from our analysis that none 

of these factors were anticipated to 

significantly threaten the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River DPS of 

coastal cutthroat trout in the foreseeable 

future. With the exception of climate 

change, we have no new significant 

evidence to analyze that would 

potentially alter our previous 

conclusion that these factors do not 

pose a significant threat to coastal 

cutthroat trout in marine and estuarine 

areas or the remaining portions of the 

DPS. 

Climate Change 

According to the Climate Impacts 

Group, an interdisciplinary research 

group studying the impacts of natural 

climate variability and global climate 

change (‘‘global warming’’) on the U.S. 

Pacific Northwest, it is unclear how 

coastal ocean conditions in the Pacific 

Northwest will respond to climate 

change because of the complexity of 

these systems and the lack of long-term 

studies (CIG 2009). Considerable 

research has provided evidence for the 

likelihood and potential consequences 

of climate change associated with 

greenhouse gas emissions. Climate 

change is anticipated to result in sea 

level rise, ocean acidification, increased 

winter precipitation and intensity of 

storm events, accelerated coastal 

erosion, and increased water 

temperatures (OPWG 2006, p. 23). The 

rate of sea level rise in the Pacific 

Northwest is projected to be faster than 

the global average. Sea level rise could 

result in increased coastal erosion rates 

and degraded nearshore habitat. 

Bottom et al. (2005, pp. 80–88) 

assessed impacts of climate change in 

the Columbia River Basin. They 

concluded that the near-term effects of 

climate change are not large enough to 

rival the impacts of anthropogenic 

alterations to the hydrological cycle. 

Climate change may exacerbate current 

conditions and conflicts over water 

supply by increasing demand and 

decreasing natural flows during the 

critical spring-freshet period (Hamlet 

and Lettenmaier 1999, as cited in 

Bottom et al. 2005, p. 80). While 

physical changes to the near-shore 

environment appear likely, much 

remains to be learned about the 

magnitude, geographic extent, and 

temporal and spatial patterns of change, 

and their effects on coastal cutthroat 

trout. 

In this section we summarize new 

information regarding potential impacts 

to coastal cutthroat trout in marine 

environments. New information 

regarding the condition of the marine 

environment in Washington and Oregon 

includes information regarding harmful 

algal blooms, dead zones, prey 

availability and quality, and the 

potential exacerbation of these 

conditions from climate change. 

California Current System 

The California Current System (CCS) 

extends about 190 mi (~300 km) 

offshore from southern British 

Columbia, Canada, to Baja California, 

Mexico, and is dominated by a 

southward surface current of colder 

water from the north Pacific (Miller et 

al. 1999, p. 1; Dailey et al. 1993, as cited 

in USFWS 2009b, p. 34). The system is 

characterized by upwelling, particularly 

in spring-summer. This is an 

oceanographic phenomenon involving 

wind-driven movement of dense, cooler, 

and usually nutrient-rich water towards 

the ocean surface, which replaces 

warmer and usually nutrient-depleted 

surface water (Smith 1983, as cited in 

USFWS 2009b, p. 34). Coastal upwelling 

replenishes nutrients near the surface 

where photosynthesis occurs, resulting 

in increased productivity (Batchelder et 

al. 2002, as cited in USFWS 2009b, p. 

35). 

The CCS is affected by El Nixntilde;oSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) and Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation climatic processes. 

ENSO is used to describe periodic 

changes, typically lasting 1 to 2 years, 

in air-sea interaction in the equatorial 

Pacific Ocean region. El Nixntilde;o 

events (warm-water events) result in 

increased sea-surface temperatures, 

reduced flow of eastern boundary 

currents such as the CCS, and reduced 

coastal upwelling (Norton and McLain 

1994, pp. 16,019–16,030; Schwing et al. 

2006, as cited in USFWS 2009b, p. 35). 

La Nixntilde;a events (cold-water 

events) produce effects in the northeast 

Pacific Ocean that tend to be the reverse 

of those during El Nixntilde;o events, 

resulting in colder, more-nutrient rich 

waters than usual, due to strong 

upwelling-favorable winds and cold 

waters near the surface due to a shallow 

thermocline (zone of rapid temperature 

change in the water column that 

typically separates warm water above 

from cold water below) (Murphree and 

Reynolds 1995, p. 52; Oedekoven et al. 

2001, as cited in USFWS 2009b, p. 35). 

In addition to climate events such as 

El Nixntilde;o and La Nixntilde;a, the 

mid-latitude Pacific Ocean experiences 

warm and cool phases that occur on 

decadal time scales (Mantua 2000, as 

cited in USFWS 2009b, p. 35). The term 

‘‘Pacific Decadal Oscillation’’ was coined 

to describe long-term climate variability 

in the Pacific Ocean, in which there are 

observed warm and cool phases, or 

‘‘regime shifts’’ (Mantua et al. 1997, pp. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8636 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1069–1079; Mantua 2000, as cited in 

USFWS 2009b, p. 35). Recently, the 

North Pacific Gyre Oscillation concept 

was developed to help explain the basis 

for the changing Pacific Decadal 

Oscillation patterns in the northeast 

Pacific (Ceballos et al. 2009, as cited in 

USFWS 2009b, p. 35). 

Should climate change affect the 

timing, variability, and/or magnitude of 

coastal upwelling in the species’ range, 

it could negatively affect coastal 

cutthroat trout and prey resources. The 

available information is equivocal, with 

studies to date reaching different 

conclusions on whether such upwelling 

changes are expected. Bakun (1990, as 

cited in USFWS 2009b, p. 43) outlined 

a physical mechanism by which coastal 

upwelling should intensify under global 

warming. While Bakun’s mechanism 

has received much support, and is based 

on simple physical principles, two other 

modeling studies have predicted little 

change in the magnitude and 

seasonality of upwelling in the next 

century (Mote and Mantua 2002; Mote 

et al. 2008, as cited in USFWS 2009b, 

p. 43). The differing predictions of 

ocean conditions and changes in 

upwelling patterns due to climate 

change prevent an informative threat 

assessment to coastal cutthroat trout. 

We, therefore, have no information at 

this time indicating that climate change 

poses a significant threat to anadromous 

coastal cutthroat trout in the marine and 

estuarine areas, or any remaining areas 

of the DPS, within the foreseeable 

future. 

Harmful Algal Blooms and Biotoxins 

Some algal species cause harm to 

animals and the environment through 

toxin production or excessive growth. 

These algal species are known as 

harmful algae and can include 

microalgae that live suspended in the 

water or macroalgae that live attached to 

plants or other substrates. Harmful algal 

blooms are a natural phenomenon, but 

human activities are thought to 

contribute to the increased frequency of 

some of these, e.g., increased nutrient 

loading is a factor that contributes to 

increased occurrence of high biomass 

harmful algal blooms (Lopez et al. 2008, 

as cited in USFWS 2009b, p. 36). All 

coastal States in the United States have 

experienced harmful algal bloom events 

and ‘‘it is generally believed that the 

frequency and distribution of [harmful 

algal blooms] and their impacts have 

increased considerably in recent years’’ 

(Lopez et al. 2008, as cited in USFWS 

2009b, p. 36). 

The consequences of harmful algal 

blooms can include the death of whales, 

sea lions, dolphins, manatees, sea 

turtles, birds, fish, and invertebrates 

from direct exposure to toxins; exposure 

to toxins via contaminated food, water, 

or aerosols; damaged gills; and 

starvation due to low or poor food 

quality (Lopez et al. 2008, as cited in 

USFWS 2009b, p. 36). Ecosystems can 

be degraded through the formation of 

such large blooms that they alter habitat 

quality through overgrowth, shading, or 

oxygen depletion (see dead zone section 

below). In addition, mortalities from 

harmful algal blooms can degrade 

habitat quality indirectly through 

altered food webs or hypoxic (low 

oxygen) events caused by the decay of 

dead animals (Lopez et al. 2008, as cited 

in USFWS 2009b, p. 36). 

Blooms of Heterosigma akashiwo, a 

raphidophyte known to kill fish have 

been documented in the Pacific 

Northwest annually since the 1960s and 

blooms of Chanttonella, another 

raphidophyte, have also killed fish 

along the Pacific coast. Macroalgal 

blooms along Washington’s coast harm 

seagrasses, fish, and invertebrates due to 

hypoxia and potentially due to the 

production of bioactive compounds 

(Lopez et al. 2008, as cited in USFWS 

2009b, p. 37). These blooms may reduce 

survival of coastal cutthroat trout 

through exposure to toxins, reducing 

habitat, and reducing the quality and 

quantity of prey species. We have no 

information at this time documenting 

the effect of these blooms on coastal 

cutthroat trout, prey species, or foraging 

habitat in the marine environment 

within the DPS, or to suggest that these 

blooms pose a significant threat to 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout in 

the marine and estuarine areas of the 

DPS within the foreseeable future. 

Dead Zones 

Ecosystems can be degraded through 

the formation of such large algal blooms 

that they alter habitat quality through 

overgrowth, shading, or oxygen 

depletion (hypoxia or anoxia) (Lopez et 

al. 2008, as cited in USFWS 2009b, p. 

38). Hypoxia or anoxia (low or no 

dissolved oxygen) can suffocate fish and 

bottom-dwelling organisms and can 

sometimes lead to hydrogen sulfide 

poisoning (Lopez et al. 2008, p. 22; 

Grantham et al. 2004, p. 750; Chan et al. 

2008, as cited in USFWS 2009b, p. 38). 

In addition, mortality from harmful 

algal blooms can degrade habitat quality 

indirectly through altered food webs or 

hypoxic events caused by the decay of 

dead animals (Lopez et al. 2008, as cited 

in USFWS 2009b, p. 38). Hypoxic and 

anoxic events along the Pacific Coast 

can also be caused by large-scale 

changes in ocean conditions on nearshore upwelling ecosystem dynamics. 

Upwelling is part of the California 

Current coastal ecosystem, but typically, 

northerly winds alternate throughout 

the summer with southerly winds. The 

wind shifts suppress upwelling, mix the 

water, and prevent nutrient overload. 

However, every summer since 2002, the 

Oregon Coast has experienced a 

hypoxic/anoxic event (also referred to as 

‘‘dead zone’’) (Grantham et al. 2004; 

Chan et al. 2008, as cited in USFWS 

2009b, p. 38), due to changes in typical 

summer wind patterns along with 

upwelling of nutrient-rich, but oxygenpoor, waters. 

While hypoxic conditions are known 

to be related to upwelling events, the 

hypoxic events off Oregon’s coast 

extend from the shallowest reaches 

(inshore of 30 meter (98 feet) isobath) to 

the nearshore stations (1.2 to 3.1 mi (2 

to 5 km) offshore), which is unusual. 

Further complicating matters, 

phytoplankton are two to three times 

more abundant during these hypoxic 

events, resulting in increased 

respiration (expiration of carbon 

dioxide), which exacerbates the 

dissolved oxygen deficits (Grantham et 

al. 2004, as cited in USFWS 2009b, p. 

38). The severe hypoxic event in 2006 

extended into Washington at least as far 

north as the Quinault River and affected 

crabs in pots at depths of about 45 to 90 

ft (14 to 27m). In addition to unusual 

summer wind patterns, researchers are 

also interested in large phytoplankton 

blooms that occur in the late spring and 

early summer in the waters off 

Washington and Vancouver Island. The 

large blooms in the north might explain 

why waters off the Oregon coast that 

now upwell at the coastal shelf break 

are unusually low in oxygen. The 

change in wind patterns and the 

response of the marine ecosystem may 

be an interlude in a natural cycle or may 

signal a more permanent shift in the 

regional climate and the health of the 

ecosystem (Chan et al. 2008, as cited in 

USFWS 2009b, p. 38). 

These seasonal dead zones begin as 

early as June and typically end in 

September, times when coastal cutthroat 

trout are present in nearshore and 

marine environments. It is unclear how 

far offshore coastal cutthroat trout 

migrate; those entering nearshore waters 

reportedly move moderate distances 

along the shoreline. These hypoxic 

events in Oregon and Washington may 

occur within the marine areas used by 

coastal cutthroat trout and avoidance of 

these areas may impact migratory 

patterns. In addition, dead zones can 

result in significant mortality of fish and 

invertebrates (Grantham et al. 2004; 

Chan et al. 2008 as cited in USFWS 

2009b, p. 39). Reduction of these species 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8637 

may contribute to low quality and 

quantity of prey for coastal cutthroat 

trout. However, we have no information 

at this time documenting the effects of 

dead zones on coastal cutthroat trout 

migration or prey availability. 

Summary of Threat Factor E 

Although climate change will 

undoubtedly impact ocean productivity 

as well as estuary and freshwater 

habitats, the likely effects to 

anadromous cutthroat trout and the DPS 

as a whole are uncertain. At this point 

we have no information that allows us 

to make a reliable projection of climate 

change effects on coastal cutthroat trout 

within the foreseeable future. We note 

that coastal cutthroat trout are habitat 

generalists and, like other generalist 

species, may be less vulnerable to 

changing environmental conditions 

brought on by climate change compared 

to other species that have a narrower 

range of habitat requirements (Foden et 

al. 2008, p. 3). As discussed above, we 

also assessed the potential threats of 

catastrophic natural events and 

hybridization under Factor E in the 

2002 withdrawal of the proposed rule 

(67 FR 44934: July 5, 2002). However, as 

we have no new information to analyze 

regarding these threats, we consider our 

previous assessment as still representing 

the best available information on these 

subjects. Therefore, we reaffirm our 

original conclusion that catastrophic 

natural events and hybridization do not 

pose a significant threat to coastal 

cutthroat trout. 

We have evaluated the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

on natural or manmade factors affecting 

its continued existence, and we 

conclude that anadromous cutthroat 

trout are not threatened in marine and 

estuarine areas, or any of the remaining 

portions of the DPS, by climate change, 

potential catastrophic natural events, or 

hybridization. 

Finding 

Based on the remand of the 

withdrawal of the proposed rule and the 

direction provided by the Court, we 

have reassessed our previous analysis to 

focus on anadromous cutthroat trout in 

the marine and estuarine portion of the 

DPS. We relied heavily on our past 

analysis in order to make a new finding 

for several reasons. Our previous 

analysis was comprehensive and 

included an assessment of threats to 

anadromous cutthroat upon which we 

could build. Also, we found that threats 

have not significantly changed between 

the date of the withdrawal and now. It 

was logical to compare the threats we 

previously identified to any change in 

threats now or how we projected those 

threats into the foreseeable future, and 

to consider whether any new threats 

have been identified since our last 

status determination. In this analysis, 

we have, therefore, considered all 

information previously evaluated in the 

2002 withdrawal notice (67 FR 44934; 

July 5, 2002), as well as any new 

information that has become available 

since that time. 

Although 7 years have passed since 

our withdrawal of the proposed rule, we 

have little new information available to 

further assess current status and trend of 

anadromous cutthroat trout in the 

Columbia River, Grays Harbor or 

Willapa Bay watersheds, and marine 

areas. Although not reflective of a trend, 

new information on emigration of 

cutthroat juveniles from lower Columbia 

River tributaries in both Oregon and 

Washington indicates tributaries that are 

monitored for cutthroat trout are still 

delivering anadromous smolts to the 

estuary and that adults are returning at 

rates that are similar to healthy salmon 

and steelhead populations (ODFW 2008, 

entire; Johnson et al. 2008, entire; 

Zydlewski et al. 2008, entire; Hudson et 

al. 2008, entire; Bradford 1995, p. 1332; 

Beckman et al. 1999 p. 1130). New 

information from ODFW (2008, entire) 

provides additional evidence that 

resident cutthroat trout isolated above 

long-standing anthropogenic barriers 

still produce anadromous smolts. This 

suggests that, to the extent that there is 

a hereditary basis for life history, it is 

not lost rapidly even under strong 

selection against the anadromous form. 

We have no evidence of any new 

significant threats or significant changes 

in previously identified threats to 

anadromous cutthroat trout, though we 

now have additional quantitative 

information on predation by Caspian 

terns and cormorants in the lower 

estuary at East Sand Island. While we 

acknowledge that avian predation is a 

source of mortality for anadromous 

cutthroat trout, its overall impact to 

anadromous cutthroat trout is unknown. 

However, we have no evidence to 

suggest it is a limiting factor. Trends of 

returning hatchery and naturally 

produced cutthroat trout at Cowlitz 

Hatchery have been relatively stable in 

recent years, suggesting that the large 

releases of anadromous cutthroat smolts 

are not being significantly impacted by 

avian predation. Furthermore, USACE is 

seeking to reduce this impact. The goal 

of the program is to reduce the size of 

the Caspian tern colony by half by 2015. 

Early results of the USACE’s relocation 

program for Caspian terns, as well as the 

concurrent program to reduce suitable 

nesting habitat on East Sand Island, are 

encouraging. 

Future climate change will 

undoubtedly impact aquatic habitat and 

aquatic species in the lower Columbia 

River, and few species will be 

unaffected. However, coastal cutthroat 

trout, because of their complex lifehistory diversity, may be better 

equipped than many salmonids to 

handle the environmental stochasticity 

we may expect to see under future 

climate change. This fact underscores 

the importance of conserving and 

restoring the life-history diversity 

present in this complex subspecies. 

The Columbia River estuary and 

plume, as well as Willapa Bay and 

Grays Harbor estuaries, have undergone 

significant alteration from historical 

conditions, which has likely reduced 

the amount and quality of habitat for 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout. 

Despite these altered conditions, 

anadromous cutthroat continue to 

persist in the DPS. New information 

documents the prevalence of 

outmigrating coastal cutthroat smolts, 

even above long-standing artificial 

barriers, from many tributaries of the 

lower Columbia River, which supports 

the continued existence of the 

anadromous life-history form. Although 

numbers of anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout may be lower than they 

have been historically, the limited 

information available on trends in 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout does 

not suggest an ongoing decline, or the 

existence of significant limiting factors 

to anadromous coastal cutthroat trout. 

Projects such as proposed LNG 

terminals and completion and 

maintenance of the Columbia River 

Channel Improvement Project may 

cause short-term and low-level impacts 

now and in the foreseeable future to 

anadromous cutthroat trout and their 

habitat. However, we do not believe 

these potential impacts constitute a 

significant threat because of the 

adequacy of current regulatory 

mechanisms and limited project scope 

relative to available habitat. In Willapa 

Bay, shellfish aquaculture and the use of 

carbaryl to control burrowing shrimp in 

shellfish aquaculture has been shown 

through lab studies to potentially 

impact coastal cutthroat trout, but we 

lack information to suggest these have 

caused declines in anadromous 

cutthroat trout; in addition, the areas 

affected are small compared to available 

habitat. Given the adequacy of current 

regulatory mechanisms and the 

restoration actions that have occurred, 

as well as those under way, we 

conclude the overall baseline habitat 

condition of the Columbia River estuary 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8638 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

is likely on a positive trajectory. Based 

on our evaluation of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we have, therefore, determined 

anadromous cutthroat trout are not 

threatened by destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of their habitat or range 

in marine and estuarine areas, or the 

DPS as a whole. 

We have evaluated the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

on the overutilization of anadromous 

cutthroat trout for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes. We identified no new or 

significantly increased threats under 

this threat factor beyond those analyzed 

in the 2002 withdrawal. We, therefore, 

conclude that anadromous cutthroat 

trout are not threatened now or in the 

foreseeable future by overutilization in 

marine and estuarine areas, or any of the 

remaining portions of the DPS. 

While recent studies confirm that 

anadromous cutthroat trout, like other 

migrating fishes in the estuary, are 

vulnerable to predation by terns and 

cormorants, the overall impact to the 

anadromous life-history form in the 

Columbia River is unknown. However, 

we do know that, despite the avian 

predation rates documented in recent 

studies, return rates of adults are similar 

to or exceed adult return rates for many 

wild, healthy anadromous salmon and 

steelhead populations, suggesting that 

avian predation is not a limiting factor 

for anadromous coastal cutthroat trout. 

We previously determined that potential 

threats due to disease did not represent 

significant threats to the DPS as a 

whole. In our current review of 

available information we did not 

identify any new disease threats, nor 

did we find evidence that any 

previously identified threats had 

significantly changed. We, therefore, 

conclude that anadromous cutthroat 

trout are not threatened by disease or 

predation in marine and estuarine areas, 

or any of the remaining portions of the 

DPS. 

Few regulatory mechanisms were 

identified as a threat in the proposed 

rule and none were considered a 

significant threat at the time of the 

withdrawal (2002). Based on our current 

analysis, we have no evidence that any 

of the previously identified regulatory 

mechanisms have been significantly 

weakened from 2002 to 2009, and 

several changes during this time have 

strengthened regulatory mechanisms. 

We, therefore, conclude that 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout are 

not threatened in marine and estuarine 

areas, and in the remaining portions of 

the DPS by inadequacies in regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Although climate change will 

undoubtedly impact ocean productivity 

as well as estuary and freshwater 

habitats, the likely effects to 

anadromous cutthroat trout and the DPS 

as a whole, are uncertain. Equivocal 

projections of future conditions do not 

allow for a reliable prediction of the 

effects of climate change on the DPS. 

Coastal cutthroat trout are habitat 

generalists and, like other generalists, 

may be less impacted due to changing 

environmental conditions brought on by 

climate change and, therefore, more 

resilient compared to other species that 

have a narrower range of habitat. We 

have no new information available that 

would alter our previous conclusion 

from the 2002 withdrawal notice that 

potential catastrophic events and 

hybridization do not pose a significant 

threat to coastal cutthroat trout (67 FR 

44934; July 5, 2002). We have evaluated 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information on natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence, and we conclude that 

anadromous cutthroat trout are not 

threatened in marine and estuarine 

areas, nor in any of the remaining 

portions of the DPS, by climate change, 

potential catostrophic natural events, or 

hybridization. 

Although marine habitats comprise a 

significant portion (about 90 percent) of 

the combined marine and estuarine 

analysis area, we found no information 

on threats specific to anadromous 

coastal cutthroat trout or similar fish 

species in marine habitats. The new 

information that is available primarily 

addresses the potential effects of climate 

change on marine habitat such as 

seasonal upwelling, El Nixntilde;o and 

La Nixntilde;a events, near-shore dead 

zones, and harmful algal blooms (see 

discussion under Threat Factor E). 

These events influence primary 

productivity and thus likely influence 

the forage base and overall productivity 

of these marine environments for 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout. 

However, the degree to which these 

events are impacted now and in the 

foreseeable future by climate change is 

uncertain, as are the subsequent 

potential impacts to anadromous 

cutthroat trout. Although we 

acknowledge uncertainty around the 

potential impacts of climate change, the 

limited information available on threats 

to marine habitats within the analysis 

area does not suggest that current or 

future conditions represent a threat to 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout. 

It is also helpful to note that, while 

we have no evidence of potential threats 

in marine areas, but do know of some 

potential threats in estuarine areas, 

based on estuary utilization information 

from the Columbia River, it appears the 

vast majority of anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout rely less on estuarine 

habitat than on marine habitat. The 

degree of this reliance on the estuary 

varies over the life of an individual fish. 

New information on coastal cutthroat 

trout movement from the Columbia 

River estuary suggests anadromous 

coastal cutthroat trout on their first 

outmigration use the estuary largely as 

a migration corridor only, and spend 

relatively little time exposed to those 

threats that may exist in estuarine areas. 

These younger fish are the ones most 

susceptible to the types of threats 

described, but their limited exposure to 

these threats on their way to marine 

habitats reduces the likelihood of a 

response, so such exposure is not likely 

a limiting factor. 

Those anadromous coastal cutthroat 

trout that return from marine habitats 

exhibit more extensive use of the 

estuary than is typical for a first year 

outmigrant. However, at the older age 

and larger size they have reached after 

spawning, they are also generally less 

vulnerable to potential estuarine threats. 

Therefore, in the marine areas that 

comprise 90 percent of the analysis area, 

we see few if any potential threats 

specific to anadromous coastal cutthroat 

trout. In the remaining 10 percent of the 

analysis area, a small percentage of 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout are 

exposed to, but are less susceptible to, 

the potential or known estuarine threats. 

We have carefully considered the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the status of and 

threats to coastal cutthroat trout in the 

marine and estuarine portions of the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS. On the basis of our review 

and analysis of the five threat factors 

considered under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we have concluded that 

anadromous cutthroat trout are not 

threatened or endangered in the marine 

and estuarine portions of the 

Southwestern Washington/ Columbia 

River DPS. As stated earlier, to be 

considered a significant portion of the 

range that may warrant the protections 

of the Act, there must be substantial 

information indicating that both (i) the 

portions are significant and (ii) the 

species is in danger of extinction there 

or is likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future. Both questions must 

be answered in the affirmative. Since we 

have determined that the marine and 

estuarine areas of the DPS (i.e., the 

portion of the DPS’ range under 

consideration) are not threatened, then 

we have determined that the marine and 

estuarine areas of the DPS do not 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8639 

warrant the protections of the Act. 

Furthermore, we have reviewed the 

comments received for indications of 

significant changes in threats to coastal 

cutthroat trout throughout the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS, and concluded there is no 

new indication that coastal cutthroat 

trout are threatened or endangered in 

any other portions of the DPS or the 

DPS as a whole. 

Therefore, based on the lack of 

significant present or foreseeable 

threats, we have determined that the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS of coastal cutthroat trout is 

not likely to become in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, including the marine and 

estuarine areas of the DPS, and, 

therefore, does not meet the Act’s 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species. Consequently, we withdraw our 

April 5, 1999, proposed rule to list the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS as threatened (64 FR 16397; 

April 5, 1999). 

Current and Future Conservation 

Actions 

While the following information did 

not contribute to our determination, we 

believe it is worthwhile to highlight 

current and planned conservation 

efforts for coastal cutthroat trout. 

In the 2002 withdrawal of the 

proposed rule, we committed to 

providing technical assistance to 

Federal, State, and other entities to 

encourage them to address the 

conservation needs of coastal cutthroat 

trout. We committed to work with these 

agencies and entities to collect 

additional biological information, 

monitor the status of coastal cutthroat 

trout, and monitor the progress of 

conservation efforts for the DPS (67 FR 

44934; July 5, 2002). 

The Service initiated efforts in 2003 to 

involve the States in development and 

implementation of a multi-state coastal 

cutthroat trout conservation strategy. 

Meetings with ODFW resulted in a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

signed in January 2005 (Goodson 2008, 

pp. 9–10). Three products to be 

accomplished under the MOU included: 

(1) a cooperative coastal cutthroat trout 

research, monitoring, and evaluation 

(RM&E) plan, to be implemented under 

the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds and ODFW’s Native Fish 

Conservation Policy; (2) a coastal 

cutthroat trout conservation plan, 

developed via ODFW’s Native Fish 

Conservation Policy; and, (3) a 

Conservation Agreement between the 

Service and ODFW to specifically 

identify the RM&E and conservation 

actions and responsibilities necessary to 

conserve coastal cutthroat trout in 

Oregon. The risk assessments identified 

in the 2005 Native Fish Status Report 

(ODFW 2005) were used to set 

conservation plan priorities under the 

Native Fish Conservation Policy (OAR 

635-007-0505(3)). Monitoring of coastal 

cutthroat trout has been incorporated 

into existing ODFW programs, although 

it does not encompass all coastal 

cutthroat trout habitat (K. Goodson, 

pers. comm. 2009). 

The 2005 Coastal Cutthroat Trout 

Symposium was held in Port Townsend, 

Washington, with major support 

provided by the Service, Oregon 

Chapter of the American Fisheries 

Society, and the Pacific States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). The 

objectives of the symposium were to: (1) 

update coastal cutthroat trout 

information presented during the 1995 

symposium in Reedsport, Oregon; (2) 

enhance knowledge on all facets of 

coastal cutthroat trout life history and 

ecology; (3) provide a current 

assessment of the range-wide status of 

coastal cutthroat trout populations; and, 

(4) encourage development of a 

coordinated range-wide coastal 

cutthroat trout conservation and 

monitoring plan (Young et al. 2008, p. 

xi). The Service’s presentation 

encouraged the exploration of 

opportunities to speed implementation 

of conservation strategies through the 

newly formed Western Native Trout 

Initiative (WNTI) partnership (Finn et 

al. 2008, p. 134). The partnership is 

funded by a multi-state grant issued 

through the Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies. The 17 species and 

subspecies covered by WNTI are 

divided into 5 geographically based 

groups. The Northwest Group focuses 

on bull trout and coastal cutthroat trout. 

WNTI is seen as a way not only to 

address funding the development of 

conservation plans and actions, but also 

an opportunity to raise the visibility of 

coastal cutthroat trout (K. Griswold, 

pers. comm. 2009). 

Following the 2005 symposium and 

inclusion of coastal cutthroat trout in 

WNTI, a working group composed of 

experts throughout the range of coastal 

cutthroat trout was formed, known as 

the Coastal Cutthroat Trout Interagency 

Committee (Committee). The Committee 

is composed of State wildlife agency 

representatives from the western States 

and British Columbia, Federal agencies 

(Service, U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Forest Service, and 

U.S. Geologic Survey), and the 

Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission; the Committee is 

sponsored by the PSMFC (K. Griswold, 

pers. comm. 2009). The Committee was 

formalized in 2006, and identified the 

goal of ‘‘developing a consistent 

framework to help guide and prioritize 

conservation, management, research, 

and restoration of coastal cutthroat trout 

throughout their native range’’ (Griswold 

2008, p. 169). 

In pursuit of their goal, the Committee 

has sponsored two workshops; the latest 

focusing on monitoring needs was held 

in 2007. As a result of that workshop, 

the Committee initiated a database 

project whereby information about the 

distribution, abundance, and diversity 

of coastal cutthroat trout could be 

housed and shared. The project has 

three current products: (1) a searchable 

library housed within PSMFC’s 

StreamNet Library; (2) a database with 

an initial focus on documented 

occurrence; and, (3) an interactive webbased map to display documented 

occurrence (K. Griswold, pers. comm. 

2009). Work has also started on a draft 

outline of a coastal cutthroat trout 

conservation plan, which includes a 

section addressing research, monitoring, 

and evaluation. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

To ensure that any action resulting 

from the request for information is 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, we solicited 

comments or suggestions from the 

public, other concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested parties. 

We particularly sought comments 

concerning: 

(1) Information on those marine and 

estuarine areas that could potentially 

constitute a significant portion of the 

range of the Southwestern Washington/ 

Columbia River DPS of the coastal 

cutthroat trout, and the suggested 

boundaries of those areas; 

(2) Information on whether and why 

those marine and estuarine areas 

constitute a significant portion of the 

range of the Southwestern Washington/ 

Columbia River DPS of coastal cutthroat 

trout as defined by sections 3(6) or 3(20) 

of the Act; 

(3) Other information on the status, 

distribution, population trends, 

abundance, habitat conditions, or 

threats specific to those marine and 

estuarine areas that could constitute a 

significant portion of the range of the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS of coastal cutthroat trout; and 

(4) Information on the effects of 

potential threat factors that are the basis 

for a species’ listing determination 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8640 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; the ‘‘five listing 

factors’’) specifically with respect to 

those marine and estuarine areas of the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS of coastal cutthroat trout. The 

five listing factors considered under the 

Act are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; and, 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In the reopening of public comment 

(74 FR 12297; March 24, 2009), we 

defined ‘‘estuary’’ to mean a semienclosed coastal body of water that has 

a free connection with the open sea and 

within which sea water is measurably 

diluted with fresh water derived from 

land drainage (Lauff 1967, as cited in 

ISAB 2000, p. 2). All interested parties 

were requested to submit factual reports 

or information on the marine and 

estuarine areas of the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River DPS of 

coastal cutthroat trout with particular 

regard to whether these areas constitute 

a significant portion of the range of the 

DPS under the Act, and if so, whether 

the subspecies is threatened or 

endangered in those areas. 

Additionally, we contacted 

appropriate Federal and State agencies, 

county governments, scientific 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and requested comment, 

pursuant to section 4(b)(5)(A) of the Act. 

During the comment period, a total of 

four comment letters were submitted 

from government agencies, 

organizations, or individuals. 

Specifically, comment letters were 

submitted by the States of Oregon and 

Washington, from one individual, and 

from the Center for Biological Diversity. 

The following is a summary of 

substantive issues that were identified 

within the comments received and our 

response to each issue. 

Comments from the States of Oregon 

and Washington 

Representatives of both the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) and the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) submitted comment letters in 

response to the request for comments. 

The ODFW comments provided updated 

biological information on studies 

conducted by, or in conjunction with, 

ODFW, as well as ODFW’s opinion that 

the lower Columbia River estuary ‘‘may 

be considered a significant portion of 

the range’’ of the DPS, although no 

statement was made about the rest of the 

estuarine and marine areas of the DPS. 

The ODFW comments also stated that 

‘‘[w]e do not feel the coastal cutthroat 

trout in the lower Columbia River 

estuary are threatened at this time due 

to their fairly wide distribution in the 

tributaries of the Columbia River and 

the fact that many of the threats facing 

them are being addressed in salmon 

recovery efforts’’ (ODFW 2009a, p. 7). 

The WDFW provided summarized 

data and a number of citations for recent 

coastal cutthroat trout studies, and 

stated that ‘‘marine and estuarine habitat 

is vital for the individual cutthroat trout 

that utilize this habitat for foraging’’ but 

that ‘‘[e]xisting information on 

abundance and size at return of the seagoing cutthroat trout of the [DPS] does 

not indicate that these fish are at risk of 

becoming endangered (WDFW 2009, p. 

1).’’ We have considered all data 

submitted by ODFW and WDFW in our 

analysis. In one instance, a comment 

raised made by the ODFW was similar 

to those of others who commented; we 

responded to this comment in the 

Public Comments section below with 

attribution. 

Public Comments 

Comment 1: Several commenters, 

including the State of Oregon, suggested 

our definition of estuary is too limited 

and that we should consider the estuary 

as areas under tidal influence, not just 

areas of saltwater intrusion. 

Our Response: Although there are 

many accepted definitions of the term 

estuary, we chose to use the definition 

by Lauff (1967, as cited in ISAB 2000, 

p. 2) that describes an estuary as a semienclosed coastal body of water that has 

a free connection with the open sea and 

within which sea water is measurably 

diluted with fresh water derived from 

land drainage. This definition is 

consistent with how we have used this 

term since publication of the proposed 

rule in 1999 (64 FR 16397; April 5, 

1999), and parallels the life-history 

terminology that coastal cutthroat trout 

are not anadromous until they 

experience salt water. 

Comment 2: One commenter 

suggested estuaries may be of greater 

relative importance to anadromous 

cutthroat than to Pacific salmon based 

on the number of times they visit or 

pass through this habitat during their 

lifetimes, since anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout can spawn up to four 

times during their lifetime. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

anadromous cutthroat trout have the 

potential to move through and utilize 

estuaries multiple times during their 

lifetimes, and recent information from 

studies of cutthroat trout movement in 

the lower Columbia River document this 

(Hudson et al. 2008, entire; Johnson et 

al. 2008, entire). However, although 

anadromous cutthroat have the 

capability of spawning multiple times, 

studies suggest a relatively low 

percentage of individuals return to 

spawn a second or third time (Hudson 

et al. 2008, pp. 54–55; Johnson et al. 

2008, pp. 16–18). Consequently, 

estuaries may be of greater relative 

importance only to those individuals 

that return to spawn multiple times, 

which represent a small fraction of this 

life history form. 

Comment 3: One commenter stated 

the importance of the Columbia River 

plume (i.e., the mix of salt and 

freshwater that extends into the marine 

environment) to anadromous cutthroat 

and suggested that the Service consider 

the plume, as well as the estuary and 

near-shore travel zones along the 

mainstem Columbia River, in any future 

considerations regarding critical habitat 

designation for coastal cutthroat trout. 

Our Response: Since our finding is 

that listing is not warranted, we are not 

considering developing a proposed 

critical habitat rule for the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River DPS of 

coastal cutthroat trout. 

Comment 4: Several commenters 

suggested that headwater resident 

cutthroat above barriers do not 

commonly migrate below these barriers 

and should not be relied upon to 

contribute to anadromous populations 

below the barriers. 

Our Response: New information 

supports the fact that headwater 

resident cutthroat migrate below natural 

barriers at low rates (Bateman et al. 

2008, pp. 62–64). Given this low rate of 

emigration, it is unlikely that they 

contribute significantly to anadromous 

populations downstream. However, 

there is evidence within the DPS that 

resident freshwater forms within the 

zone of anadromy (i.e., not isolated 

above natural barriers impassable to 

anadromous fish), even those that have 

been isolated for long periods of time 

above man-made barriers, are 

contributing substantial numbers of 

emigrating smolts to the Columbia River 

estuary (ODFW 2008, pp. 9–11, Johnson 

et al. 2008, pp. 19–20). For this reason 

we expect resident freshwater forms 

within the zone of current or historical 

anadromy to continue to contribute to 

the maintenance of the anadromous lifehistory strategy 

Comment 5: Several commenters 

suggested there is evidence of genetic 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8641 

distinctness between anadromous 

coastal cutthroat, freshwater migratory, 

and resident cutthroat trout, and that 

this distinctness provides support for 

the existence of an SPR within the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS. 

Our Response: The best available 

information suggests there is little 

genetic differentiation between 

anadromous and sympatric resident 

freshwater cutthroat trout. Ardren et al. 

(in press) found no genetic differences 

between sympatric anadromous and 

resident life forms within two 

tributaries of the lower Columbia River. 

They further found genetic differences 

were an order of magnitude higher 

between tributary samples than between 

life forms within a tributary. Their 

results are consistent with a population 

made up of multiple life histories that 

freely interbreed within each tributary 

producing anadromous, freshwater 

migratory and resident life forms. In 

contrast, there is information to suggest 

resident cutthroat trout isolated above 

natural barriers may be genetically 

distinct from cutthroat below natural 

barriers due in part to low rates of 

emigration over these barriers and the 

inability of anadromous and resident 

migratory cutthroat to reproduce with 

coastal cutthroat trout that exist above 

these barriers (Griswold 1997, pp. 167– 

169; Bateman et al. 2008 pp. 62–64). We 

find that available information on 

genetic distinctness between life forms 

of coastal cutthroat trout does not 

support the existence of an SPR in the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS, especially for the 

anadromous life form, which is not 

genetically distinct from resident forms 

below natural barriers. 

Comment 6: One commenter 

suggested that resident cutthroat trout 

above barriers contribute little to 

anadromous and freshwater migratory 

forms below barriers and that the 

designation of DPSs and SPRs should 

consider this information. 

Our Response: We agree that resident 

cutthroat trout above natural barriers 

likely contribute little to the 

maintenance of anadromous and 

freshwater migratory forms. We have 

considered this information in our 

current analysis. 

Comment 7: One commenter stated 

that if the Service finds a marine and 

estuarine SPR that warrants listing as 

threatened or endangered, then the 

whole Southwestern Washington/ 

Columbia River DPS should be listed. 

Our Response: Current Service policy 

per the DOI solicitor’s M-Opinion on 

significant portion of the range allows 

for applying the protections of the Act 

to an SPR that is a portion of a listable 

entity, whether that entity is a DPS, 

subspecies, or species. In any event, 

because the Service has determined that 

the subspecies is not threatened or 

endangered in the marine and estuarine 

areas of the DPS, the Service need not 

decide what the appropriate scope of a 

listing would be. 

Comment 8: One commenter cited the 

definition of SPR from the Service’s 

draft guidance and suggested, ‘‘based on 

this criteria, marine and estuarine areas 

easily qualify as an SPR of the range of 

the Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River coastal cutthroat trout because 

these areas are essential to the survival 

of sea-run coastal cutthroat trout.’’ 

Our Response: Our draft guidance 

states that a portion of a species’ range 

is significant if it is important to the 

conservation of the species because it 

contributes meaningfully to the 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the species. While we 

agree that marine and estuarine areas 

are important to the survival of sea-run 

(anadromous) coastal cutthroat trout, 

our analysis indicates that the species is 

not threatened or endangered in these 

areas and thus further consideration of 

an SPR is not warranted. 

Comment 9: One commenter stated 

that the Service’s withdrawal of the 

proposed rule failed to provide any 

evidence that sea-run cutthroat trout are 

abundant or widespread and that, in 

fact, most of the information the Service 

presented indicates continued cause for 

concern. 

Our Response: Our five-factor analysis 

in the 2002 withdrawal found coastal 

cutthroat trout to be generally 

widespread and abundant throughout 

the DPS. While we acknowledged that 

the anadromous life form was likely 

reduced from historical levels, and 

perhaps was still declining in some 

areas, we presented new information 

and highlighted changes in regulations 

that changed our conclusion about the 

risk that the DPS may become 

endangered in the foreseeable future. 

The Service’s withdrawal of the 

proposed rule did not require we 

demonstrate that sea-run (anadromous) 

cutthroat trout be widespread and 

abundant, only that they are not 

threatened or endangered, as these 

terms are defined in section 3 of the Act. 

Comment 10: One commenter said 

that the reopening of the public 

comment (74 FR 12297; March 24, 2009) 

misrepresented the court’s direction to 

the Service by suggesting that some 

portions of the withdrawal of the 

proposed rule were insulated from 

review. 

Our Response: While we believe the 

Court’s remand was based solely on our 

failure to adequately consider whether 

the marine and estuarine portions of the 

DPS constituted a ‘‘significant portion of 

the range’’ of the DPS, we agree that the 

withdrawal decision was remanded in 

full by the Court’s ruling, and that data 

regarding impacts in areas of the DPS 

outside marine and estuarine areas are 

also relevant to the current finding. The 

reopening of the public comment (74 FR 

12297; March 24, 2009) on the proposed 

rule specifically sought data on the five 

listing factors within the marine and 

estuarine areas, but did not limit 

submissions to these areas. We have 

received and considered comments on 

issues specific to the marine and 

estuarine as well as the DPS as a whole. 

Comment 11: One commenter pointed 

out that the Service based its reversal of 

the proposed rule in part on the fact that 

resident cutthroat trout can occasionally 

produce anadromous offspring, but that 

this same information was available to 

NMFS when it conducted its status 

review and NMFS still concluded that 

listing was warranted. 

Our Response: Information on the 

contribution of resident cutthroat trout 

to anadromy was not available to NMFS 

when completing its status review, 

although it was available prior to the 

proposal to list the ESU (now DPS). Our 

withdrawal of the proposed rule was 

based on multiple factors, including 

additional information that was not 

available to NMFS suggesting that 

resident cutthroat trout do produce 

anadromous offspring. New information 

in our current analysis further supports 

the fact that resident cutthroat trout 

below natural barriers are contributing 

to the anadromous life-history 

component of cutthroat trout in this 

DPS. 

Comment 12: One commenter 

suggested that, if poor habitat 

conditions are suppressing anadromous 

cutthroat trout, then any anadromous 

progeny produced by resident cutthroat 

trout would face the same habitat 

limitations, thereby providing limited 

contribution to the conservation of the 

anadromous life-history form. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

anadromous component of coastal 

cutthroat trout in the DPS is likely 

reduced from historical levels and that 

this reduction has likely been caused in 

part by habitat degradation. We also 

agree that any anadromous progeny 

produced by resident cutthroat trout 

would face the same habitat limitations. 

However, even with historical habitat 

degradation in the three estuaries within 

the DPS, our analysis indicates 

anadromous cutthroat trout are still 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8642 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

present and are still returning to many 

tributaries within the DPS at rates that 

are generally comparable to return rates 

for healthy anadromous salmonid 

species, and that the nature of threats 

are such that the anadromous lifehistory form is not likely to become 

threatened or endangered in the 

foreseeable future. 

Comment 13: One commenter 

suggested that forest management 

practices will continue to impact coastal 

cutthroat trout for decades to come 

through ongoing impacts from past 

activities. 

Our Response: While it is true that 

some legacy effects of past logging 

practices will continue into the future, 

there is no information demonstrating 

anything more than a speculative link 

suggesting that these types of impacts 

pose a risk of extinction of coastal 

cutthroat trout throughout the DPS, or 

in the marine and estuarine areas of the 

DPS. In fact, in our 2002 withdrawal of 

the proposal to list, we concluded that 

management of forested landscapes is 

expected to improve in the future due 

to improvements in the requirements for 

private timber harvest regulations in 

Washington State, and information 

received during the recent comment 

period from the State of Washington 

describes improvements in migratory 

corridors and other watershed 

improvements under the Washington 

State Forest and Fish rules. 

Comment 14: One commenter 

asserted that private lands forest 

management in proximity to the 

estuaries has a disproportional impact 

to anadromous coastal cutthroat trout as 

compared to upper tributary 

populations that may be more affected 

by Federal forest management. 

Our Response: While it is true that 

there are more acres of privately 

managed forest lands in close proximity 

to the estuarine areas of the DPS, the 

commenter offers no information to 

show that forest management in these 

areas has had impacts to coastal 

cutthroat trout. Exposure to some of the 

negative aspects of these practices is 

described in the comment, but no 

response by coastal cutthroat trout is 

articulated. 

Comment 15: One commenter 

provided an expansive list of potential 

threats or factors to a variety of coastal 

cutthroat trout life-history forms (e.g., 

‘‘anadromous,’’ ‘‘sea-run,’’ ‘‘migratory’’), 

many of which cite back to the 2002 

withdrawal notice or documents used 

by the Service in support of the 

withdrawal notice, but without any new 

information cited in support of these as 

actual threats. The commenter failed to 

identify how coastal cutthroat trout that 

may be exposed to some of these 

potential threats may respond, for 

example in terms of population 

declines, increases in extinction risk, 

reductions in reproductive capacity or 

output, or any other measure indicating 

that the exposed fish are responding to 

these factors such that they should be 

considered threats. The factors 

addressed in this manner include, but 

are not limited to: 

• Urban and industrial sprawl 

• Agriculture 

• Grazing 

• Mining 

•Cumulative effects, or a synergy of 

impacts ‘‘greater than the sum of the 

parts’’ 

•The fish diseases Ceratomyxa shasta 

and gas bubble disease 

• Predation by other fishes, mammals, or 

birds 

•The inadequacy of Federal Forest 

management in Oregon and 

Washington to protect coastal 

cutthroat trout, because the Federal 

forests are too far away from the 

estuary and marine areas 

•The inadequacy of regulations 

covering urban, industrial, and 

agricultural ‘‘sprawl’’ in Oregon and 

Washington 

• Oregon Forest Practices Act. 

Our Response: In conducting a ‘‘5- 

factor’’ analysis in the listing process, 

we must consider all factors that the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information identifies as threats faced 

by the species in question. In 

considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine how 

significant a threat it is. If the threat is 

significant, it may drive or contribute to 

the risk of extinction of the species such 

that the species warrants listing as 

threatened or endangered as those terms 

are defined by the Act. This does not 

necessarily require empirical proof of a 

threat. The combination of exposure and 

some corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively is not 

sufficient to compel a finding that 

listing is appropriate; we require 

evidence that these factors are operative 

threats that act on the species to the 

point that the species meets the 

definition of threatened or endangered 

under the Act. 

For the factors offered here, the 

commenter argues that they exist in 

places across the landscape and that 

coastal cutthroat trout in the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia 

River DPS are exposed to these factors 

to varying degrees. However, the 

commenter has not provided evidence 

that coastal cutthroat trout in the DPS 

are responding to these factors in 

negative ways such that they constitute 

actual threats. In some cases, the 

commenter provides evidence that 

other, similar species are affected 

negatively by these factors, and we have 

considered these instances carefully. 

Where we lack species-specific studies, 

and the best available scientific and 

commercial information does not at 

least offer corroborating support, we 

cannot portray such a factor as a threat 

on the basis of mere exposure. To do so 

would obviate the need to consider the 

biology of the species at all. 

In the case of coastal cutthroat trout 

and the factors listed in this issue above, 

most of these were raised and 

considered in the 2002 withdrawal of 

the proposed rule (67 FR 44934; July 5, 

2002). We have reconsidered them here, 

looked for any new information among 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information received in 

response to our reopening of the 

comment period, and considered 

whether this new information, in 

conjunction with the data previously 

evaluated in our 2002 withdrawal notice 

(67 FR 44934; July 5, 2002) would lead 

us to a different conclusion now, even 

when applied just to the marine and 

estuarine areas of the DPS. In doing so 

we find that these factors do not 

constitute significant threats because, 

while coastal cutthroat trout may be 

exposed to them, and in some cases may 

suffer some degree of harm, there is 

insufficient evidence to suggest that the 

species responds in ways that would 

contribute to a finding of threatened or 

endangered status in marine and 

estuarine areas within the DPS or the 

DPS as a whole. 

Comment 16: One commenter stated 

that the State of Washington’s Forest 

and Fish rules should not have been 

considered ‘‘adequate regulatory 

mechanisms’’ for coastal cutthroat trout 

in our 2002 withdrawal because these 

rules governing private land timber 

harvest do not: (a) adequately address 

the anadromous life history of coastal 

cutthroat trout; (b) encompass enough of 

the anadromous form to offer any 

protection to it; and (c) were speculative 

at the time we made the original 

withdrawal finding. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8643 

Our Response: At the time of our 2002 

withdrawal notice, the finding being 

reached was on the DPS as a whole, and 

did not single out life-history forms. We 

have reconsidered that finding here in 

light of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, including any 

new information received in response to 

the reopening of the comment period 

even when applied just to the marine 

and estuarine areas of the DPS. In all of 

these analyses, we have considered the 

impact of the State of Washington’s 

Forest and Fish rules to the full extent, 

as is appropriate, regardless of lifehistory form. We acknowledged at the 

time of the 2002 withdrawal that the 

rules were relatively new, but we 

recognized, and still recognize, that they 

were consistent with improving fish 

habitat conditions on forested lands 

over time. The State of Washington’s 

comments articulated significant 

improvements in fish habitat as a result 

of the rules supporting the removal of 

culverts and other barriers to fish 

migration; we note that no new 

information was received to suggest 

these rules have not improved 

conditions. 

Comment 17: One commenter stated 

that coastal cutthroat trout are more 

susceptible now to stochastic 

disturbances and catastrophic natural 

events because in historical times they 

were more widespread and thus prior 

populations would have more resilience 

to these impacts. 

Our Response: At the time of the 2002 

withdrawal notice, we found no major 

gaps in the range or local extirpations 

within the DPS, and the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

including any new information received 

in response to the reopening of the 

comment period, even when applied 

just to the marine and estuarine areas of 

the DPS, reaffirms this finding. As a 

result, stochastic disturbances and 

catastrophic natural events should 

constitute no more of a threat to coastal 

cutthroat trout now than in historical 

times. 

Comment 18 : One commenter cited a 

number of sources of water pollution, 

including industrial and sewage 

effluents, pesticides, fertilizers, mining 

wastes, metals and others, that coastal 

cutthroat trout are exposed to in lower 

rivers and estuaries, using data 

generally gathered prior to the 2002 

withdrawal notice. This commenter 

then stated that the cumulative effects of 

pollution are especially dangerous to 

sea-run cutthroat trout as they spend a 

great deal of their lives in these areas. 

Our Response: As with other issues 

raised in the comments received, most 

of these were raised and considered in 

the 2002 withdrawal of the proposed 

rule. We have reconsidered them here, 

looked for any new information among 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information, including 

information received in response to our 

reopening of the comment period, and 

considered whether this information 

would lead us to a different conclusion 

now, even when applied just to the 

marine and estuarine areas of the DPS. 

In doing so we find that these factors do 

not constitute significant threats 

because, while coastal cutthroat trout 

may be exposed to them, there is 

insufficient evidence to suggest that the 

species responds in ways that would 

support a finding of threatened or 

endangered status in the marine and 

estuarine areas within the DPS or the 

DPS as a whole. 

Comment 19: One commenter 

requested that we consider the impacts 

of climate change on coastal cutthroat 

trout in the Southwest Washington/ 

Columbia River DPS in both marine and 

freshwater habitats, but did not provide 

any new information since the 2002 

withdrawal notice regarding climate 

change impacts. 

Our Response: The 2002 withdrawal 

of the proposed rule (67 FR 44934; July 

5, 2002) addressed climate change, and 

we have extensively reconsidered this 

issue in this finding (see ‘‘Climate 

Change’’ discussion, above, under Factor 

E) in light of the best available scientific 

and commercial information. We have 

also considered whether any new 

information, when considered in 

conjunction with the data considered in 

the 2002 withdrawal notice, would lead 

us to a different conclusion now, even 

when applied just to the marine and 

estuarine areas of the DPS. As detailed 

in our threats analysis under Factor E, 

in doing so we find that current climate 

change risk does not constitute a 

significant threat to coastal cutthroat 

trout. 

Comment 20: One commenter noted 

that sea-run cutthroat trout make 

extensive use of estuarine habitat and 

have likely been negatively impacted by 

current and historical habitat 

degradation and loss. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

estuaries of Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, 

and the Columbia River have been 

significantly modified from historical 

condition, and that these habitats are 

often occupied by the anadromous 

cutthroat trout life-history form. While 

we acknowledge that degradation and 

habitat loss in estuaries has likely had 

some level of impact on anadromous 

cutthroat trout, there is no information 

available directly correlating the loss 

and degradation of habitat to a 

significant population decline. For 

example, the commenter cited new 

information on habitat degradation and 

loss of shallow-water habitats in the 

Columbia River estuary and resulting 

impacts to detritus- based food webs 

that support Pacific salmon (Bottom et 

al. 2006, p. 524), thereby suggesting that 

these same impacts are affecting 

anadromous cutthroat trout. Despite the 

documentation of these changes in the 

food web of the Columbia River estuary, 

the authors did not provide empirical 

evidence of a linkage between the loss 

of a detritus-based food web and the 

status of Pacific salmon in the Columbia 

Basin, much less any link to 

anadromous coastal cutthroat trout. 

Comment 21: One commenter 

described various impacts of dams and 

barriers on anadromous cutthroat trout 

ranging from complete blockage to 

habitat, loss of access to spawning areas, 

passage mortality and injury through 

entrainment at dams, gas supersaturation below dams, and inadequate 

or poor passage at culverts. 

Our Response: Much of the 

information that comprised this 

comment was derived from the 

withdrawal of the proposed rule (67 FR 

44934; July 5, 2002), or from Moynan 

(2002, entire), which is an internal 

Service document associated with our 

administrative record of the withdrawal 

of the proposed rule. Although we 

previously considered this information 

in support of our withdrawal of the 

proposed rule, we have reconsidered 

this information in light of our analysis 

on anadromous cutthroat trout. 

Although we acknowledge that dams 

and barriers have likely contributed to 

a decline in anadromous cutthroat, there 

is evidence that anadromous cutthroat 

continue to persist throughout the DPS, 

except for above barriers, and there is no 

evidence that the loss of this life-history 

form is likely in the foreseeable future. 

In addition, there have been a number 

of passage improvements in recent years 

that have restored significant amounts 

of habitat for anadromous coastal 

cutthroat trout. For example, in 2007, 

Marmot dam was removed on the Sandy 

River, thereby removing a potential 

passage impediment and possible 

source of entrainment mortality that had 

been in place for 90 years, and the Little 

Sandy River Dam is also scheduled for 

removal in the near future. In addition, 

comments submitted by the State of 

Washington noted that new Forest and 

Fish Rules have provided benefits to 

cutthroat trout by removing hundreds of 

barriers on commercial forest lands, 

doubling the available cutthroat habitat 

with unobstructed access. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8644 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Comment 22: One commenter stated 

that there are many projects planned for 

the lower Columbia River that will 

impact coastal cutthroat trout, including 

the planned Bradwood Landing 

Liquified Natural Gas Project. In regards 

to the Bradwood Landing Project, the 

commenter noted that a biological 

assessment developed by NorthernStar 

Energy, the entity proposing the project, 

concluded the proposed action ‘‘may 

affect, and is likely to adversely affect’’ 

a number of stocks of federally listed 

salmon and steelhead. The commenter 

stated that coastal cutthroat trout are 

associated with and have a similar life 

history to salmon and steelhead, and 

thus it can be inferred that they too will 

be adversely affected by the project. 

Our Response: In our five-factor 

analysis we considered the effects of 

this and other potential liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) projects in the 

Columbia River. While we acknowledge 

that individual cutthroat trout might be 

impacted from these types of 

developments, we note that the scope of 

potential impacts is small relative to the 

total area of available habitat in the 

Columbia River and estuary. In 

addition, regulatory mechanisms 

required through the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC), and 

through State land uses regulations, are 

expected to provide protective 

mechanisms to minimize impacts of 

construction and operation of LNG 

facilities. Although a final consultation 

has not been completed by NMFS and 

FERC on the Bradwood Landing LNG 

Project, NMFS has the authority under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act to require nondiscretionary actions on behalf of the 

project proponent that may serve to 

modify how the project is constructed 

and operated to minimize impacts to 

salmon and steelhead listed under the 

Act. 

Although the biological assessment 

developed by NorthernStar Energy 

determined the project ‘‘may affect, and 

is likely to adversely affect’’ a number of 

stocks of listed salmon and steelhead, 

this determination is not a populationlevel finding. Rather, it is an 

acknowledgment that individual fish 

may be adversely impacted from the 

action. In regards to potential impacts to 

anadromous cutthroat trout, we agree 

that adverse effects to individual fish 

are possible but there are no data to 

support a conclusion that such impacts 

would increase a population-level 

extinction risk. The commenter’s 

statement regarding NMFS’s assertion 

that ‘‘massive numbers of fish’’ will be 

entrained in both process water and 

ballast water withdrawals from the 

Bradwood Landing LNG Project is 

unsupported. 

Comment 23: One commenter noted 

that hybridization between cutthroat 

trout and rainbow trout is widespread 

and that hybridization may reduce 

productivity of coastal cutthroat 

populations. The commenter also noted 

that cutthroat trout hatchery programs 

and hatchery programs for salmon and 

steelhead also have the potential to 

negatively impact coastal cutthroat 

trout. 

Our Response: We agree that 

hybridization with native rainbow trout 

and hatchery rainbow trout is known to 

occur, but there is no evidence that 

hybridization has contributed to a 

decline of anadromous coastal cutthroat 

trout in the DPS. As we noted in our 

withdrawal of the proposed rule (67 FR 

44934; July 5, 2002), although the data 

on hybridization between coastal 

cutthroat trout and rainbow trout/ 

steelhead trout are limited, indications 

are that hybridization does occur at low 

levels where these two species coexist. 

Much scientific uncertainty currently 

surrounds the causes of hybridization 

and its evolutionary consequences. In 

view of the limited nature of 

hybridization in the DPS and the natural 

co-occurrence of these species, 

hybridization between cutthroat trout 

and rainbow/steelhead trout is not 

currently considered a significant threat 

to anadromous cutthroat trout in the 

DPS. Low levels of hybridization may 

represent natural interactions between 

rainbow/steelhead trout and coastal 

cutthroat trout. Populations with high 

levels of hybridization are few and 

isolated. 

Likewise, we acknowledge the 

potential impacts of reduced fitness that 

could result from wild cutthroat 

reproducing with hatchery coastal 

cutthroat trout, but have no evidence 

that this is occurring in the DPS. As 

noted in the withdrawal of the proposed 

action, coastal cutthroat trout 

production has been reduced to a single 

hatchery (Cowlitz River Hatchery), and 

there is no information at this time to 

indicate the limited ongoing coastal 

cutthroat trout hatchery releases are 

having a negative impact on wild 

cutthroat trout in the DPS. 

Hatchery programs for salmon and 

steelhead, particularly coho and 

steelhead, have the potential to impact 

coastal cutthroat trout through 

competition. However, information 

demonstrating effects from releases of 

coho and steelhead in the DPS is limited 

and the extent to which hatchery 

management affects the DPS of coastal 

cutthroat as a whole is unknown. We 

have no new evidence beyond that 

previously considered in our 2002 

withdrawal of the proposed rule that 

hatchery releases of salmon and 

steelhead in the DPS are producing 

competition above natural levels or 

represent a significant risk to the DPS. 

Thus, our conclusion that competition 

with hatchery fish does not pose a 

significant threat to coastal cutthroat 

trout remains the same (67 FR 44934; 

July 5, 2002). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references we 

cited in this document is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or by contacting 

the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, 

Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: February 5, 2010. 

Sam D. Hamilton, 

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3803 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS