Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43937

(ii) Provider or supplier not subject to

additional requirements. For a provider

or supplier that is not subject to

additional requirements, the effective

date is the date of the provider’s or

supplier’s initial request for

participation if on that date the provider

or supplier met all Federal

requirements.

(2) Special rule: Retroactive effective

date. If a provider or supplier meets the

requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) and

(d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii) of this section, the

effective date may be retroactive for up

to one year to encompass dates on

which the provider or supplier

furnished, to a Medicare beneficiary,

covered services for which it has not

been paid.

4. Section 489.53 is amended to revise

the heading of paragraph (b) and

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 489.53 Termination by HCFA.

* * * * *

(b) Termination of agreements with

certain hospitals. * * *

(c) Notice of termination—(1) Timing:

Basic rule. Except as provided in

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, HCFA

gives the provider notice of termination

at least 15 days before the effective date

of termination of the provider

agreement.

(2) Timing exceptions: Immediate

jeopardy situations—(i) Hospital with

emergency department. If HCFA finds

that a hospital with an emergency

department is in violation of § 489.24,

paragraphs (a) through (e), and HCFA

determines that the violation poses

immediate jeopardy to the health or

safety of individuals who present

themselves to the hospital for

emergency services, HCFA—

(A) Gives the hospital a preliminary

notice indicating that its provider

agreement will be terminated in 23 days

if it does not correct the identified

deficiencies or refute the finding; and

(B) Gives a final notice of termination,

and concurrent notice to the public, at

least 2 , but not more than 4, days before

the effective date of termination of the

provider agreement.

(ii) Skilled nursing facilities (SNFs).

For an SNF with deficiencies that pose

immediate jeopardy to the health or

safety of residents, HCFA gives notice at

least 2 days before the effective date of

termination of the provider agreement.

* * * * *

PART 498—APPEALS PROCEDURES

FOR DETERMINATIONS THAT AFFECT

PARTICIPATION IN THE MEDICARE

PROGRAM AND FOR

DETERMINATIONS THAT AFFECT THE

PARTICIPATION OF CERTAIN ICFs/MR

AND CERTAIN NFs IN THE MEDICAID

PROGRAM

E. Part 498 is amended as set forth

below.

1. The authority citation for part 498

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1102, and 1871 of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and

1395hh).

2. Section 498.3 is amended to revise

paragraph (a), republish the

introductory text of paragraph (b) and

add a paragraph (b)(14), revise the

introductory text of paragraph (d) and

add new paragraphs (d)(14) and (d)(15),

to read as follows:

§ 498.3 Scope and applicability.

(a) Scope. This part sets forth

procedures for reviewing initial

determinations that HCFA makes with

respect to the matters specified in

paragraph (b) of this section, and that

the OIG makes with respect to the

matters specified in paragraph (c) of this

section. It also specifies, in paragraph

(d) of this section, administrative

actions that are not subject to appeal

under this part.

(b) Initial determinations by HCFA.

HCFA makes initial determinations with

respect to the following matters:

* * * * *

(14) The effective date of a Medicare

provider agreement or supplier

approval.

* * * * *

(d) Administrative actions that are not

initial determinations. Administrative

actions that are not initial determination

(and therefore not subject to appeal

under this part) include but are not

limited to the following:

* * * * *

(14) The choice of alternative sanction

or remedy to be imposed on a provider

or supplier.

(15) A decision by the State survey

agency as to when to conduct an initial

survey of a prospective provider or

supplier.

* * * * *

F. Technical correction.

§ 489.1 [Amended]

In § 489.11(c), the following changes

are made:

a. At the end of paragraph (c)(1), the

word ‘‘and’’ is added.

b. At the end of paragraph (c)(2), ‘‘;

and’’ is removed and a period is

inserted in its place.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital

Insurance; Program No. 93.774, Medicare—

Supplementary Medical Insurance; and

Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance.)

Dated: September 20, 1996.

Bruce C. Vladeck,

Administrator, Health Care Financing

Administration.

Dated: December 27, 1996.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–21731 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 222 and 227

[Docket No. 960730210–7193–02; I.D.

050294D]

RIN 0648–XX65

Endangered and Threatened Species:

Listing of Several Evolutionary

Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast

Steelhead

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On August 9, 1996, NMFS

completed a comprehensive status

review of west coast steelhead

(Oncorhynchus mykiss, or O. mykiss)

populations in Washington, Oregon,

Idaho, and California, and identified 15

Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)

within this range. NMFS is now issuing

a final rule to list two ESUs as

endangered and three ESUs as

threatened under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). The endangered

steelhead ESUs are located in California

(Southern California) and Washington

(Upper Columbia River). The threatened

steelhead ESUs are located in California

(Central California Coast and SouthCentral California Coast) and Idaho,

Washington, and Oregon (Snake River

Basin). For the endangered ESUs,

section 9(a) prohibitions will be

effective 60 days from the publication of

this final rule. For the threatened ESUs,

NMFS will issue shortly protective

regulations under section 4(d) of the

ESA, which will apply section 9(a)

prohibitions with certain exceptions.

NMFS has examined the relationship

between hatchery and natural

populations of steelhead in these ESUs,

and has assessed whether any hatchery
43938 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

populations are essential for their

recovery. Only the Wells Hatchery stock

in the Upper Columbia River ESU is

essential for recovery and included in

this listing. Aside from the Wells

Hatchery stock, only naturally spawned

populations of steelhead (and their

progeny) residing below long-term,

naturally and man-made impassable

barriers (i.e., dams) are listed in all five

ESUs identified as threatened or

endangered.

At this time, NMFS is listing only

anadromous life forms of O. mykiss.

DATES: Effective October 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Protected Resources

Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525

NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland,

OR 97232–2737.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Garth Griffin, 503–231–2005, Craig

Wingert, 562–980–4021, or Joe Blum,

301–713–1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Species Background

Oncorhynchus mykiss exhibit one of

the most complex suites of life history

traits of any salmonid species.

Oncorhynchus mykiss may exhibit

anadromy (meaning they migrate as

juveniles from fresh water to the ocean,

and then return to spawn in fresh water)

or freshwater residency (meaning they

reside their entire life in fresh water).

Resident forms are usually referred to as

‘‘rainbow’’ or ‘‘redband’’ trout, while

anadromous life forms are termed

‘‘steelhead.’’ Few detailed studies have

been conducted regarding the

relationship between resident and

anadromous O. mykiss and as a result,

the relationship between these two life

forms is poorly understood. Recently

the scientific name for the biological

species that includes both steelhead and

rainbow trout was changed from Salmo

gairdneri to O. mykiss. This change

reflects the premise that all trouts from

western North America share a common

lineage with Pacific salmon.

Steelhead typically migrate to marine

waters after spending 2 years in fresh

water. They then reside in marine

waters for typically 2 or 3 years prior to

returning to their natal stream to spawn

as 4-or 5-year-olds. Unlike Pacific

salmon, steelhead are iteroparous,

meaning they are capable of spawning

more than once before they die.

However, it is rare for steelhead to

spawn more than twice before dying;

most that do so are females. Steelhead

adults typically spawn between

December and June (Bell, 1990; Busby et

al., 1996). Depending on water

temperature, steelhead eggs may

incubate in ‘‘redds’’ (nesting gravels) for

1.5 to 4 months before hatching as

‘‘alevins’’ (a larval life stage dependent

on food stored in a yolk sac). Following

yolk sac absorption, young juveniles or

‘‘fry’’ emerge from the gravel and begin

actively feeding. Juveniles rear in fresh

water from 1 to 4 years, then migrate to

the ocean as ‘‘smolts.’’

Biologically, steelhead can be divided

into two reproductive ecotypes, based

on their state of sexual maturity at the

time of river entry and the duration of

their spawning migration. These two

ecotypes are termed ‘‘stream maturing’’

and ‘‘ocean maturing.’’ Stream maturing

steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually

immature condition and require several

months to mature and spawn. Ocean

maturing steelhead enter fresh water

with well-developed gonads and spawn

shortly after river entry. These two

reproductive ecotypes are more

commonly referred to by their season of

freshwater entry (e.g., summer and

winter steelhead).

Two major genetic groups or

‘‘subspecies’’ of steelhead occur on the

west coast of the United States: a coastal

group and an inland group, separated in

the Fraser and Columbia River Basins

approximately by the Cascade crest

(Huzyk & Tsuyuki, 1974; Allendorf,

1975; Utter & Allendorf, 1977; Okazaki,

1984; Parkinson, 1984; Schreck et al.,

1986; Reisenbichler et al., 1992). Behnke

(1992) proposed to classify the coastal

subspecies as O. m. irideus and the

inland subspecies as O. m. gairdneri.

These genetic groupings apply to both

anadromous and non-anadromous forms

of O. mykiss. Both coastal and inland

steelhead occur in Washington and

Oregon. California is thought to have

only coastal steelhead while Idaho has

only inland steelhead.

Historically, steelhead were

distributed throughout the North Pacific

Ocean from the Kamchatka Peninsula in

Asia to the northern Baja Peninsula.

Presently, the species distribution

extends from the Kamchatka Peninsula,

east and south along the Pacific coast of

North America, to at least Malibu Creek

in southern California. There are

infrequent anecdotal reports of

steelhead occurring as far south as the

Santa Margarita River in San Diego

County (McEwan & Jackson, 1996).

Historically, steelhead likely inhabited

most coastal streams in Washington,

Oregon, and California as well as many

inland streams in these states and Idaho.

However, during this century, over 23

indigenous, naturally-reproducing

stocks of steelhead are believed to have

been extirpated, and many more are

thought to be in decline in numerous

coastal and inland streams in

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California. Forty-three stocks have been

identified by Nehlsen et al. (1991) as

being at moderate or high risk of

extinction.

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related

to West Coast Steelhead

The history of petitions received

regarding west coast steelhead is

summarized in the proposed rule

published on August 9, 1996 (61 FR

56138). The most comprehensive

petition was submitted by Oregon

Natural Resources Council and 15 copetitioners on February 16, 1994. In

response to this petition, NMFS

assessed the best available scientific and

commercial data, including technical

information from Pacific Salmon

Biological Technical Committees

(PSBTCs) and interested parties in

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California. The PSBTCs consisted

primarily of scientists (from Federal,

state, and local resource agencies,

Indian tribes, industries, universities,

professional societies, and public

interest groups) possessing technical

expertise relevant to steelhead and their

habitats. A total of seven PSBTC

meetings were held in the states of

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California during the course of the west

coast steelhead status review. NMFS

also established a Biological Review

Team (BRT), composed of staff from

NMFS’ Northwest and Southwest

Fisheries Science Centers and

Southwest Regional Office, as well as a

representative of the National Biological

Service, which conducted a coastwide

status review for west coast steelhead

(Busby et al., 1996).

Based on the results of the BRT

report, and after considering other

information and existing conservation

measures, NMFS published a proposed

listing determination (61 FR 56138,

August 9, 1996) that identified 15 ESUs

of steelhead in the states of Washington,

Oregon, Idaho, and California. Ten of

these ESUs were proposed for listing as

threatened or endangered species, four

were found not warranted for listing,

and one was identified as a candidate

for listing.

NMFS has now analyzed new

information and public comments

received in response to the August 9,

1996, proposed rule. NMFS’ BRT has

likewise analyzed this new information

and has updated its conclusions

accordingly (NMFS, 1997a). Copies of

the BRT’s updated conclusions, entitled

‘‘Status Review Update for West Coast

Steelhead from Washington, Idaho,

Oregon, and California,’’ are available

upon request (see ADDRESSEES). This

final rule identifies five ESUs of west
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43939

coast steelhead in the four states that

currently warrant listing as threatened

or endangered species under the ESA.

Summary of Comments Received in

Response to the Proposed Rule

NMFS held 16 public hearings in

California, Oregon, Idaho, and

Washington to solicit comments on the

proposed rule. One hundred and eightyeight individuals presented testimony at

the public hearings. During the 90-day

public comment period, NMFS received

939 written comments on the proposed

rule from Federal, state, and local

government agencies, Indian tribes, nongovernmental organizations, the

scientific community, and other

individuals. A number of comments

addressed specific technical issues

pertaining to a particular geographic

region or O. mykiss population. These

technical comments were considered by

NMFS’ BRT in its re-evaluation of ESU

boundaries and status and are discussed

in the updated Status Review document

(NMFS, 1997a).

On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

published a series of policies regarding

listings under the ESA, including a

policy for peer review of scientific data

(59 FR 34270). In accordance with this

policy, NMFS solicited 22 individuals

to take part in a peer review of its west

coast steelhead proposed rule. All

individuals solicited are recognized

experts in the field of steelhead biology

and represent a broad range of interests,

including Federal, state, and tribal

resource managers, private industry

consultants, and academia. Eight

individuals took part in the peer review

of this action; comments from peer

reviewers were considered by NMFS’

BRT and are summarized in the updated

Status Review document (NMFS,

1997a).

A summary of comments received in

response to the proposed rule is

presented below.

Issue 1: Sufficiency and Accuracy of

Scientific Information and Analysis

Comment: Numerous commenters

disputed the sufficiency and accuracy of

data which NMFS employed in its

proposed rule to list ten steelhead ESUs

as either threatened or endangered

under the ESA. Several commenters

urged NMFS to delay any ESA listing

decisions for steelhead until additional

scientific information is available

concerning this species.

Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the

ESA requires that NMFS make its listing

determinations solely on the basis of the

best available scientific and commercial

data after reviewing the status of the

species. NMFS believes that information

contained in the agency’s status review

(Busby et al., 1996), together with more

recent information obtained in response

to the proposed rule (NMFS, 1997a),

represent the best scientific information

presently available for the steelhead

ESUs addressed in this final rule. NMFS

has conducted an exhaustive review of

all available information relevant to the

status of this species. NMFS has also

solicited information and opinion from

all interested parties, including peer

reviewers as described above. If in the

future new data become available to

change these conclusions, NMFS will

act accordingly.

Section 4(b)(6) of the ESA requires

NMFS to publish a final determination

whether a species warrants listing as

threatened or endangered within 1 year

from publishing a proposed

determination. If such a final listing is

not warranted, NMFS must withdraw

the proposed regulation. In certain cases

where NMFS concludes that substantial

disagreement exists regarding the

sufficiency or accuracy of available data

relevant to its determinations, NMFS

may extend this 1-year period by not

more than 6 months for the purposes of

soliciting additional data. (ESA

§ 4(b)(6)(B)(i)).

With respect to those steelhead ESUs

addressed in this final rule, NMFS

concludes no basis exists to delay final

ESA listings. State resource agencies,

peer reviewers, and other

knowledgeable parties are in general

agreement that steelhead stocks in these

areas are at risk. As described in a

separate Federal Register notice,

however, NMFS has determined a 6-

month extension is warranted for five

remaining ESUs of west coast steelhead.

These ESUs include the following:

Lower Columbia River, Oregon Coast,

Klamath Mountains Province, Northern

California, and the Central Valley of

California. For these particular ESUs,

NMFS concludes that substantial

disagreement exists regarding the

sufficiency and accuracy of the data.

Several efforts are underway that may

resolve scientific disagreement

regarding the sufficiency and accuracy

of data relevant to these ESUs. NMFS

has undertaken an intensive effort to

analyze the data received during and

after the comment period on the

proposed ESUs from the States of

Washington, Oregon, and California, as

well as from peer reviewers. This work

will include evaluating the Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW) models, analyzing population

abundance trends where new data are

available, and examining new genetic

data relative to the relationship between

winter and summer steelhead and

between hatchery and wild fish. In light

of these disagreements and the fact that

more data are forthcoming, NMFS

extends the final determination

deadline for these ESUs for 6 months,

until February 9, 1998.

Issue 2: Description and Status of

Steelhead ESUs

Comment: A few commenters

disputed NMFS’ conclusions regarding

the geographic boundaries for some of

the ESUs and questioned NMFS’ basis

for determining these boundaries. Most

of these comments pertained to the

ESUs south of San Francisco Bay,

suggesting particular river systems be

excluded from listing due to historical

or occasional absence of steelhead or

rainbow trout.

Response: NMFS has published a

policy describing how it will apply the

ESA definition of ‘‘species’’ to

anadromous salmonid species (56 FR

58612, November 20, 1991). More

recently, NMFS and FWS published a

joint policy, consistent with NMFS’

policy, regarding the definition of

‘‘distinct population segments’’ (61 FR

4722, February 7, 1996). The earlier

policy is more detailed and applies

specifically to Pacific salmonids and,

therefore, was used for this

determination. This policy indicates

that one or more naturally reproducing

salmonid populations will be

considered to be distinct and, hence,

species under the ESA, if they represent

an ESU of the biological species. To be

considered an ESU, a population must

satisfy two criteria: (1) It must be

reproductively isolated from other

population units of the same species;

and (2) it must represent an important

component in the evolutionary legacy of

the biological species. The first

criterion, reproductive isolation, need

not be absolute but must have been

strong enough to permit evolutionarily

important differences to occur in

different population units. The second

criterion is met if the population

contributes substantially to the

ecological or genetic diversity of the

species as a whole. Guidance on

applying this policy is contained in a

scientific paper entitled: ‘‘Pacific

Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and the

Definition of ‘Species’ under the

Endangered Species Act.’’ It is also

found in a NOAA Technical

Memorandum: ‘‘Definition of ‘Species’

Under the Endangered Species Act:

Application to Pacific Salmon’’ (Waples,

1991). A more detailed discussion of

individual ESU boundaries is provided

below under ‘‘Summary of Conclusions

Regarding Listed ESUs.’’
43940 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: Several commenters

questioned NMFS’ methodology for

determining whether a given steelhead

ESU warranted listing. In most cases,

such commenters also expressed

opinions regarding whether listing was

warranted for a particular steelhead

ESU. A few commenters provided

substantive new information relevant to

making risk assessments.

Response: Section 3 of the ESA

defines the term ‘‘endangered species’’

as ‘‘any species which is in danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range.’’ The term

‘‘threatened species’’ is defined as ‘‘any

species which is likely to become an

endangered species within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.’’ NMFS

has identified a number of factors that

should be considered in evaluating the

level of risk faced by an ESU, including:

(1) Absolute numbers of fish and their

spatial and temporal distribution; (2)

current abundance in relation to

historical abundance and current

carrying capacity of the habitat; (3)

trends in abundance; (4) natural and

human-influenced factors that cause

variability in survival and abundance;

(5) possible threats to genetic integrity

(e.g., from strays or outplants from

hatchery programs); and (6) recent

events (e.g., a drought or changes in

harvest management) that have

predictable short-term consequences for

abundance of the ESU. A more detailed

discussion of status of individual ESUs

is provided below under ‘‘Summary of

Conclusions Regarding Listed ESUs.’’

Issue 3: Factors Contributing to the

Decline of West Coast Steelhead

Comment: Many commenters

identified factors they believe have

contributed to the decline of west coast

steelhead. Factors identified include

overharvest by recreational fisheries,

predation by pinnipeds and piscivorous

fish species, effects of artificial

propagation, and the deterioration or

loss of freshwater and marine habitats.

Response: NMFS agrees that many

factors, past and present, have

contributed to the decline of west coast

steelhead. NMFS also recognizes that

natural environmental fluctuations have

likely played a role in the species’

recent declines. However, NMFS

believes other human-induced impacts

(e.g., incidental catch in certain

fisheries, hatchery practices, and habitat

modification) have played an equally

significant role in this species’ decline.

Moreover, these human-induced

impacts have likely reduced the species’

resiliency to natural factors for decline

such as drought, poor ocean conditions,

and predation (NMFS, 1996a).

Since the time of this proposed

listing, NMFS has published a report

describing the impacts of California Sea

Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals upon

salmonids and on the coastal

ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and

California (NMFS, 1997b). This report

concludes that in certain cases where

pinniped populations co-exist with

depressed salmonid populations,

salmon populations may experience

severe impacts due to predation. An

example of such a situation is Ballard

Locks, WA, where sea lions are known

to consume significant numbers of adult

winter steelhead. This study further

concludes that data regarding pinniped

predation is quite limited and that

substantial additional research is

needed to fully address this issue. For

additional information on this issue see

the ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting

Steelhead’’ below.

Comment: One peer reviewer and

several commenters stated that NMFS’

assessment underestimated the

significant influence of natural

environmental fluctuations on salmonid

populations. Several commenters stated

that ocean conditions are one of the

primary factors for decline. These

commenters suggested that any listing

activity should be postponed until the

complete oceanographic cycle can be

observed.

Response: Environmental changes in

both marine and freshwater habitats can

have important impacts on steelhead

abundance. For example, a pattern of

relatively high abundance in the mid1980s followed by (often sharp) declines

over the next decade occurred in

steelhead populations from most

geographic regions of the Pacific

Northwest. This result is most plausibly

explained by broad-scale changes in

ocean productivity. Similarly, 6 to 8

years of drought in the late 1980s and

early 1990s adversely affected many

freshwater habitats for steelhead

throughout the region. These natural

phenomena put increasing pressure on

natural populations already stressed by

anthropogenic factors such as habitat

degradation, blockage of migratory

routes, and harvest (NMFS, 1996a).

Improvement of cyclic or episodic

environmental conditions (for example,

increases in ocean productivity or shifts

from drought to wetter conditions) can

help alleviate extinction risk to

steelhead populations. However, NMFS

cannot reliably predict future

environmental conditions, making it

unreasonable to assume improvements

in abundance as a result of

improvements in such conditions.

Furthermore, steelhead and other

species of Pacific salmon have evolved

over the centuries with such cyclical

environmental stresses. This species has

persisted through time in the face of

these conditions largely due to the

presence of freshwater and estuarine

refugia. As these refugia are altered and

degraded, Pacific salmon species are

more vulnerable to episodic events such

as shifts in ocean productivity and

drought cycles (NMFS, 1996a).

Issue 4: Consideration of Existing

Conservation Measures

Comment: Several commenters argued

that NMFS had not considered existing

conservation programs designed to

enhance steelhead stocks within a

particular ESU. Some commenters

provided specific information on some

of these programs to NMFS concerning

the efficacy of existing conservation

plans.

Response: NMFS has reviewed

existing conservation plans and

measures relevant to the five ESUs

addressed in this final rule and

concludes that existing conservation

efforts in these areas are not sufficient

to preclude listing of individual ESUs at

this time. Several of the plans addressed

in comments show promise of

ameliorating the risks facing steelhead.

However, in most cases, measures

described in comments have not been

implemented or are in their early stages

of implementation and have not yet

demonstrated success. Some of these

measures are also geographically limited

to individual river basins or political

subdivisions, thereby improving

conditions for only a small portion of

the entire ESU.

While existing conservation efforts

and plans are not sufficient to preclude

the need for listings at this time, they

are nevertheless valuable for improving

watershed health and restoring fishery

resources. In those cases where well

developed, reliable conservation plans

exist, NMFS may choose to incorporate

them into the recovery planning

process. In the case of threatened

species, NMFS also has flexibility under

section 4(d) to tailor section 9 take

regulations based on the contents of

available conservation measures. NMFS

fully intends to recognize local

conservation efforts to the fullest extent

possible. Endangered Species Act listing

should not be viewed as the failure of

such plans; rather, it should be viewed

as a challenge to better coordinate

existing conservation efforts to address

the underlying problems of watershed

degradation and species health.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43941

Issue 5: Steelhead Biology and Ecology

Comment: Several commenters and a

peer reviewer asserted that resident

rainbow trout should be included in

listed steelhead ESUs. Several

commenters also stated that NMFS and

FWS should address how the presence

of rainbow trout populations may

ameliorate risks facing anadromous

populations within listed ESUs.

Response: In its August 9, 1996,

proposed rule, NMFS stated that based

on available genetic information, it was

the consensus of NMFS scientists, as

well as regional fishery biologists, that

resident fish should generally be

considered part of the steelhead ESUs.

However, NMFS concluded that

available data were inconclusive

regarding the relationship of resident

rainbow trout and steelhead. NMFS

requested additional data in the

proposed rule to clarify this relationship

and determine if resident rainbow trout

should be included in listed steelhead

ESUs.

In response to this request for

additional information, many groups

and individuals expressed opinions

regarding this issue. In most cases these

opinions were not supported by new

information that resolves existing

uncertainty. Two state fishery

management agencies (California

Department of Fish and Game and

Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife) and one peer reviewer

provided comments and information

supporting the inclusion of resident

rainbow trout in listed steelhead ESUs.

In general, these parties also felt that

rainbow trout may serve as an important

reservoir of genetic material for at risk

steelhead stocks.

While conclusive evidence does not

yet exist regarding the relationship of

resident and anadromous O. mykiss,

NMFS believes available evidence

suggests that resident rainbow trout

should be included in listed steelhead

ESUs in certain cases. Such cases

include: (1) Where resident O. mykiss

have the opportunity to interbreed with

anadromous fish below natural or manmade barriers; or (2) where resident fish

of native lineage once had the ability to

interbreed with anadromous fish but no

longer do because they are currently

above human-made barriers, and they

are considered essential for recovery of

the ESU. Whether resident fish that

exist above any particular man-made

barrier meet these criteria, must be

reviewed on a case-by-case basis by

NMFS. NMFS recognizes that there may

be many such cases in California alone.

Resident fish above long-standing

natural barriers, and those that are

derived from the introduction of nonnative rainbow trout, would not be

considered part of any ESU. Several lines of evidence exist to

support this conclusion. Under certain

conditions, anadromous and resident O.

mykiss are apparently capable not only

of interbreeding, but also of having

offspring that express the alternate life

history form, that is, anadromous fish

can produce nonanadromous offspring,

and vice versa (Shapovalov and Taft,

1954; Burgner et al., 1992). Mullan et al.

(1992) found evidence that in very cold

streams, juvenile steelhead had

difficulty attaining ‘‘mean threshold size

for smoltification’’ and concluded that

‘‘[m]ost fish here [Methow River, WA]

that do not emigrate downstream early

in life are thermally-fated to a resident

life history regardless of whether they

were the progeny of anadromous or

resident parents.’’ Additionally,

Shapovalov and Taft (1954) reported

evidence of O. mykiss maturing in fresh

water and spawning prior to their first

ocean migration; this life history

variation has also been found in

cutthroat trout (O. clarki) and Atlantic

salmon (Salmo salar).

NMFS believes resident fish can help

buffer extinction risks to an anadromous

population by mitigating depensatory

effects in spawning populations (e.g.,

inability of spawning adults to find

mates due to low population sizes), by

providing offspring that migrate to the

ocean and enter the breeding population

of steelhead, and by providing a

‘‘reserve’’ gene pool in freshwater that

may persist through times of

unfavorable conditions for anadromous

fish. In spite of these potential benefits,

presence of resident populations is not

a substitute for conservation of

anadromous populations. A particular

concern is isolation of resident

populations by human-caused barriers

to migration. This interrupts normal

population dynamics and population

genetic processes and can lead to loss of

a genetically based trait (anadromy). As

discussed in NMFS’ ‘‘species

identification’’ paper (Waples 1991), the

potential loss of anadromy in distinct

population segments may in and of

itself warrant listing the species as a

whole.

On February 7, 1996, FWS and NMFS

adopted a joint policy to clarify their

interpretation of the phrase ‘‘distinct

population segment (DPS) of any

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife’’ for

the purposes of listing, delisting, and

reclassifying species under the ESA (61

FR 4722). DPSs are ‘‘species’’ pursuant

to section 3(15) of the ESA. Previously,

NMFS had developed a policy for stocks

of Pacific salmon where an ESU of a

biological species is considered

‘‘distinct’’ (and hence a species) if it is

substantially reproductively isolated

from other conspecific population units,

and it represents an important

component in the evolutionary legacy of

the species (November 20, 1991, 56 FR

58612). NMFS believes available data

suggest that resident rainbow trout are

in many cases part of steelhead ESUs.

However, the FWS, which has ESA

authority for resident fish, maintains

that behavioral forms can be regarded as

separate DPSs (e.g., western snowy

plover) and that absent evidence

suggesting resident rainbow trout need

ESA protection, the FWS concludes that

only the anadromous forms of each ESU

should be listed under the ESA (DOI,

1997; FWS, 1997).

In its review of west coast steelhead,

the NMFS BRT stated that rainbow trout

and steelhead in the same area may

share a common gene pool, at least over

evolutionary time periods (NMFS,

1997a). The importance of any recovery

action is measured in terms of its ability

to recover the listed species in the

foreseeable future. The FWS believes

that steelhead recovery will not rely on

the intermittent exchange of genetic

material between resident and

anadromous forms (FWS, 1997). As a

result, without a clear demonstration of

any risks to resident rainbow trout or

the need to protect rainbow trout to

recover steelhead in the foreseeable

future, the FWS concludes that only the

anadromous forms of O. mykiss should

be included in the listed steelhead ESUs

at this time (FWS 1997). Moreover,

including resident forms of O. mykiss in

any future listing action under the ESA

would necessitate that the two forms

combined meet the definition of an

endangered or threatened species (FWS,

1997).

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and the

listing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set

forth procedures for listing species. The

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) must

determine, through the regulatory

process, if a species is endangered or

threatened based upon any one or a

combination of the following factors: (1)

The present or threatened destruction,

modification, or curtailment of its

habitat or range; (2) overutilization for

commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes; (3) disease or

predation; (4) inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other

natural or human-made factors affecting

its continued existence.

As noted earlier, NMFS received

numerous comments regarding the

relative importance of various factors

contributing to the decline of west coast
43942 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

steelhead. Several recent documents

describe in more detail the impacts of

various factors contributing to the

decline of steelhead and other

salmonids (e.g., NMFS, 1997c). Relative

to west coast steelhead, NMFS has

prepared a supporting document that

addresses the factors leading to the

decline of this species entitled ‘‘Factors

for Decline: A supplement to the notice

of determination for west coast

steelhead’’ (NMFS, 1996a). This report,

available upon request (see ADDRESSES),

concludes that all of the factors

identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA

have played a role in the decline of the

species. The report identifies

destruction and modification of habitat,

overutilization for recreational

purposes, and natural and human-made

factors as being the primary reasons for

the decline of west coast steelhead. The

following discussion briefly summarizes

findings regarding factors for decline

across the range of west coast steelhead.

While these factors have been treated

here in general terms, it is important to

underscore that impacts from certain

factors are more acute for specific ESUs.

For example, impacts from hydropower

development are more pervasive for

ESUs in the Upper Columbia River and

Snake River ESUs than for some coastal

ESUs.

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range

Steelhead on the west coast of the

United States have experienced declines

in abundance in the past several

decades as a result of natural and

human factors. Forestry, agriculture,

mining, and urbanization have

degraded, simplified, and fragmented

habitat. Water diversions for agriculture,

flood control, domestic, and

hydropower purposes (especially in the

Columbia River and Sacramento-San

Joaquin Basins) have greatly reduced or

eliminated historically accessible

habitat. Studies estimate that during the

last 200 years, the lower 48 states have

lost approximately 53 percent of all

wetlands and the majority of the rest are

severely degraded (Dahl, 1990; Tiner,

1991). Washington and Oregon’s

wetlands are estimated to have

diminished by one-third, while

California has experienced a 91-percent

loss of its wetland habitat (Dahl, 1990;

Jensen et al., 1990; Barbour et al., 1991;

Reynolds et al., 1993). Loss of habitat

complexity has also contributed to the

decline of steelhead. For example, in

national forests in Washington, there

has been a 58-percent reduction in large,

deep pools due to sedimentation and

loss of pool-forming structures such as

boulders and large wood (FEMAT,

1993). Similarly, in Oregon, the

abundance of large, deep pools on

private coastal lands has decreased by

as much as 80 percent (FEMAT, 1993).

Sedimentation from land use activities

is recognized as a primary cause of

habitat degradation in the range of west

coast steelhead.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Steelhead support an important

recreational fishery throughout their

range. During periods of decreased

habitat availability (e.g., drought

conditions or summer low flow when

fish are concentrated), the impacts of

recreational fishing on native

anadromous stocks may be heightened.

NMFS has reviewed and evaluated the

impacts of recreational fishing on west

coast steelhead populations (NMFS,

1996a). Steelhead are not generally

targeted in commercial fisheries. High

seas driftnet fisheries in the past may

have contributed slightly to a decline of

this species in local areas, but could not

be solely responsible for the large

declines in abundance observed along

most of the Pacific coast over the past

several decades.

A particular problem occurs in the

main stem of the Columbia River where

listed steelhead from the Upper

Columbia and Snake River Basin ESUs

migrate at the same time and are subject

to the same fisheries as unlisted,

hatchery-produced steelhead, chinook

and coho salmon. Incidental harvest

mortality in mixed-stock sport and

commercial fisheries may exceed 30

percent of listed populations.

C. Disease or Predation

Infectious disease is one of many

factors that can influence adult and

juvenile steelhead survival. Steelhead

are exposed to numerous bacterial,

protozoan, viral, and parasitic

organisms in spawning and rearing

areas, hatcheries, migratory routes, and

the marine environments. Specific

diseases such as bacterial kidney

disease (BKD), ceratomyxosis,

columnaris, Furunculosis, infectious

hematopoietic necrosis (IHNV),

redmouth and black spot disease,

Erythrocytic Inclusion Body Syndrome

(EIBS), and whirling disease among

others are present and are known to

affect steelhead and salmon (Rucker et

al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Foott

et al., 1994; Gould and Wedemeyer,

undated). Very little current or

historical information exists to quantify

changes in infection levels and

mortality rates attributable to these

diseases for steelhead. However, studies

have shown that native fish tend to be

less susceptible to pathogens than

hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al.,

1983; Sanders et al., 1992).

Introductions of non-native species

and habitat modifications have resulted

in increased predator populations in

numerous river systems, thereby

increasing the level of predation

experienced by salmonids. Predation by

pinnipeds is also of concern in areas

experiencing dwindling steelhead run

sizes. However, salmon and marine

mammals have coexisted for thousands

of years and most investigators consider

predation an insignificant contributing

factor to the large declines observed in

west coast steelhead populations.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory

Mechanisms

1. Federal and State Forest Practices

The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) is a

Federal management policy with

important benefits for steelhead. While

the NFP covers a very large area, the

overall effectiveness of the NFP in

conserving steelhead is limited by the

extent of Federal lands and the fact that

Federal land ownership is not uniformly

distributed in watersheds within the

affected ESUs. The extent and

distribution of Federal lands limits the

NFP’s ability to achieve its aquatic

habitat restoration objectives at

watershed and river basin scales and

highlights the importance of

complementary salmon habitat

conservation measures on non-Federal

lands within the subject ESUs. For

example, there are no Federal lands

managed under the NFP within the

Central California, South-Central

California, or Southern California ESUs.

On February 25, 1995, the U.S. Forest

Service and Bureau of Land

Management adopted Implementation of

Interim Strategies for Managing

Anadromous Fish-producing

Watersheds in eastern Oregon and

Washington, Idaho, and portions of

California (known as PACFISH). The

strategy was developed in response to

significant declines in naturallyreproducing salmonid stocks, including

steelhead, and widespread degradation

of anadromous fish habitat throughout

public lands in Idaho, Washington,

Oregon, and California outside the range

of the northern spotted owl. Like the

NFP, PACFISH is an attempt to provide

a consistent approach for maintaining

and restoring aquatic and riparian

habitat conditions which, in turn, are

expected to promote the sustained

natural production of anadromous fish.

However, as with the NFP, PACFISH is
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43943

limited by the extent of Federal lands

and the fact that Federal land ownership

is not uniformly distributed in

watersheds within the affected ESUs. In

the South-Central California and

Southern California ESU, for example,

Federal lands managed by the U.S.

Forest Service represent less than 15–25

percent of each ESU. Moreover, much of

these Federal lands are located in upper

elevation areas above currently

impassible barriers. Furthermore,

PACFISH was designed to be a shortterm land management/anadromous fish

conservation strategy to halt habitat

degradation and begin the restoration

process until a long-term strategy could

be adopted. Interagency PACFISH

implementation reports from 1995 and

1996 indicate PACFISH has not been

consistently implemented and has not

achieved the level of conservation

anticipated for the short-term.

Additionally, because PACFISH was

expected to be replaced within 18

months, it required only minimal levels

of watershed analysis and restoration.

The interim PACFISH strategy could be

effective until summer 1998, when the

Interior Columbia River basin

Environmental Impact Statements

replace it. In total, PACFISH would be

in place for a period of approximately

42 months and its long-term limitations

have already resulted in lost

conservation opportunities for

threatened and proposed anadromous

fishes.

The California Department of Forestry

and Fire Protection (CDF) enforces the

State of California’s forest practice rules

(CFPRs) that are promulgated through

the Board of Forestry (BOF). The CFPRs

contain provisions that can be

protective of steelhead if fully

implemented. However, NMFS believes

the CFPRs do not secure properly

functioning riparian habitat.

Specifically, the CFPRs do not

adequately address large woody debris

recruitment, streamside tree retention to

maintain bank stability, and canopy

retention standards that assure stream

temperatures are properly functioning

for all life stages of steelhead. The

current process for approving Timber

Harvest Plans (THPs) under the CFPRs

does not include monitoring of timber

harvest operations to determine whether

a particular operation damaged habitat

and, if so, how it might be mitigated in

future THPs. The CFPR rule that permits

salvage logging is also an area where

better environmental review and

monitoring could ensure better

protection for steelhead. For these

reasons, NMFS is working to improve

the condition of riparian buffers in

ongoing habitat conservation plan

negotiations with private landowners.

The Washington Department of

Natural Resources implements and

enforces the State of Washington’s forest

practice rules (WFPRs) which are

promulgated through the Forest

Practices Board. These WFPRs contain

provisions that can be protective of

steelhead if fully implemented. This is

possible given that the WFPR’s are

based on adaptive management of forest

lands through watershed analysis,

development of site-specific land

management prescriptions, and

monitoring. Watershed Analysis

prescriptions can exceed WFPR minima

for stream and riparian protection.

However, NMFS believes the WFPRs,

including watershed analysis, do not

provide properly functioning riparian

and instream habitats. Specifically, the

base WFPRs do not adequately address

large woody debris recruitment, tree

retention to maintain stream bank

integrity and channel networks within

floodplains, and chronic and episodic

inputs of coarse and fine sediment that

maintain habitats that are properly

functioning for all life stages of

steelhead.

The majority of land area within the

Snake River ESU (about 70 percent) is

under Federal management; therefore,

in most watersheds the State of Idaho’s

forest practice rules play a lesser role in

forest management relative to Federal

measures (i.e., PACFISH). Even so,

NMFS believes that certain aspects of

the State’s forest practice rules do not

avoid adverse effects to anadromous fish

populations or their habitat.

Specifically, current riparian buffer

width requirements are inadequate, as

well as rules which do not prohibit

logging on unstable hillsides and

landslide prone areas.

2. Dredge, Fill, and Inwater

Construction Programs

The Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

regulates removal/fill activities under

section 404 of the Clean Water Act

(CWA), which requires that the COE not

permit a discharge that would ‘‘cause or

contribute to significant degradation of

the waters of the United States.’’ One of

the factors that must be considered in

this determination is cumulative effects.

However, the COE guidelines do not

specify a methodology for assessing

cumulative impacts or how much

weight to assign them in decisionmaking. Furthermore, the COE does not

have in place any process to address the

additive effects of the continued

development of waterfront, riverine,

coastal, and wetland properties.

3. Water Quality Programs

The Federal CWA is intended to

protect beneficial uses, including

fishery resources. To date,

implementation has not been effective

in adequately protecting fishery

resources, particularly with respect to

non-point sources of pollution.

Section 303(d)(1) (C) and (D) of the

CWA requires states to prepare Total

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for all

water bodies that do not meet State

water quality standards. TMDLs are a

method for quantitative assessment of

environmental problems in a watershed

and identifying pollution reductions

needed to protect drinking water,

aquatic life, recreation, and other use of

rivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs may

address all pollution sources including

point sources such as sewage or

industrial plant discharges, and nonpoint discharges such as runoff from

roads, farm fields, and forests.

The CWA gives state governments the

primary responsibility for establishing

TMDLs. However, EPA is required to do

so if a state does not meet this

responsibility. In California, as a result

of recent litigation, the EPA has made a

legal commitment guaranteeing that

either EPA or the State of California will

establish TMDLs, that identify pollution

reduction targets, for 18 impaired river

basins in northern California by the year

2007. The State of California has made

a commitment to establish TMDLs for

approximately half the 18 river basins

by 2007. The EPA will develop TMDLs

for the remaining basins and has also

agreed to complete all TMDLs if the

State fails to meet its commitment

within the agreed upon time frame.

State agencies in Oregon are

committed to completing TMDLs for

coastal drainages within 4 years, and all

impaired waters within 10 years.

Similarly ambitious schedules are in

place, or being developed for

Washington and Idaho.

The ability of these TMDLs to protect

steelhead should be significant in the

long term; however, it will be difficult

to develop them quickly in the short

term and their efficacy in protecting

steelhead habitat will be unknown for

years to come.

4. Hatchery and Harvest Management

In the past, non-native steelhead

stocks have been introduced as

broodstock in hatcheries and widely

transplanted in many coastal rivers and

streams in California (Bryant, 1994;

Busby et al., 1996; NMFS, 1997a).

Because of problems associated with

this practice, California Department of

Fish and Game (CDFG) developed its
43944 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Salmon and Steelhead Stock

Management Policy. This policy

recognizes that such stock mixing is

detrimental and seeks to maintain the

genetic integrity of all identifiable

stocks of salmon and steelhead in

California, as well as minimize

interactions between hatchery and

natural populations. To protect the

genetic integrity of salmon and

steelhead stocks, this policy directs

CDFG to evaluate each salmon and

steelhead stream and classify it

according to its probable genetic source

and degree of integrity. This has not yet

been accomplished by the State.

California’s Steelhead Management

Plan [or plan] was adopted and

published in February 1996. The plan

recognizes that restoration of

California’s steelhead populations

requires a broad approach that

emphasizes ecosystem restoration. The

plan focuses on restoration of native and

naturally produced steelhead stocks

because of their importance in

maintaining genetic and biological

diversity and for their aesthetic values.

The Steelhead Plan presents a historical

account of the decline of California’s

steelhead populations, and identifies

needed restoration measures both on a

broad, programmatic scale and on a

stream-specific scale. The Steelhead

Plan identifies recent changes in the

State’s steelhead fishery management

and regulations (e.g., steelhead trout

catch report—restoration card [AB

2187], seasonal closures and zero bag

limits for nearly all coastal streams from

Santa Barbara County southward) and

also identifies recommendations for

further management changes to protect

and conserve steelhead populations.

These recommended changes include

marking of all hatchery-produced

steelhead in the State, implementation

of an 8-inch minimum size limit for all

anadromous waters in the State, and a

reduction in the State-wide bag limit to

one steelhead per day. CDFG has just

recently begun implementation of some

of the measures identified in this plan.

Hatchery programs and harvest

management have strongly influenced

steelhead populations in the Upper

Columbia and Snake River Basin ESUs.

Hatchery programs intended to

compensate for habitat losses have

masked declines in natural stocks and

have created unrealistic expectations for

fisheries. Collection of natural steelhead

for broodstock and transfers of stocks

within and between ESUs has

detrimentally impacted some

populations.

The three state agencies (Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Washington Department of Fish and

Game, and Idaho Department of Fish

and Game) have adopted and are

implementing natural salmonid policies

designed to limit hatchery influences on

natural, indigenous steelhead. Sport

fisheries are based on marked, hatcheryproduced steelhead, and sport fishing

regulations are designed to protect wild

fish. While some limits have been

placed on hatchery production of

anadromous salmonids, more careful

management of current programs and

scrutiny of proposed programs is

necessary in order to minimize impacts

on listed species.

E. Other Natural or Human-Made

Factors Affecting Its Continued

Existence

Natural climatic conditions have

exacerbated the problems associated

with degraded and altered riverine and

estuarine habitats. Persistent drought

conditions have reduced already limited

spawning, rearing and migration habitat.

Climatic conditions appear to have

resulted in decreased ocean

productivity which, during more

productive periods, may help offset

degraded freshwater habitat conditions

(NMFS, 1996a).

In an attempt to mitigate the loss of

habitat, extensive hatchery programs

have been implemented throughout the

range of steelhead on the West Coast.

While some of these programs have

succeeded in providing fishing

opportunities, the impacts of these

programs on native, naturallyreproducing stocks are not well

understood. Competition, genetic

introgression, and disease transmission

resulting from hatchery introductions

may significantly reduce the production

and survival of native, naturallyreproducing steelhead. Collection of

native steelhead for hatchery broodstock

purposes often harms small or

dwindling natural populations.

Artificial propagation can play an

important role in steelhead recovery

through carefully controlled

supplementation programs.

Summary of ESU Determinations

Below follows a summary of NMFS’

ESU determinations for these species. A

more detailed discussion of ESU

determinations is presented in the

‘‘Status Review Update for West Coast

Steelhead from Washington, Idaho,

Oregon, and California’’ (NMFS, 1997a).

Copies of this document are available

upon request (see ADDRESSES).

(1) Central California Coast ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies

river basins from the Russian River,

Sonoma County, CA, (inclusive) to

Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz County, CA,

(inclusive), and the drainages of San

Francisco and San Pablo Bays eastward

to the Napa River (inclusive), Napa

County, CA. The Sacramento-San

Joaquin River Basin of the Central

Valley of California is excluded.

Environmental features show a

transition in this region from the

northern redwood forest ecosystem to

the more xeric southern chaparral and

coastal scrub ecosystems. This area is

characterized by very erosive soils in

the coast range mountains; redwood

forest is the dominant coastal vegetation

for these drainages. Precipitation is

lower here than in areas to the north,

and elevated stream temperatures

(greater than 20° C) are common in the

summer. Coastal upwelling in this

region is strong and consistent, resulting

in a relatively productive nearshore

marine environment.

NMFS has determined that no

changes in the proposed boundaries of

the Central California Coast ESU are

warranted; however, the original written

description of this ESU inadvertently

left a gap between Soquel Creek and the

Pajaro River. This ESU includes

steelhead occupying the Russian River

and all basins south to Aptos Creek but

not including the Pajaro River Basin.

One peer reviewer questioned the

basis for the location of the boundary

between this ESU and the South-Central

California Coast, effectively splitting the

basins that flow into Monterey Bay. The

ESU break between Aptos Creek and the

Pajaro River is largely based on

ecological differences of the river

basins. The Pajaro River and river basins

south of there drain an arid interior and

end in broad coastal plains, whereas

north of the Pajaro River, the river

basins largely drain coastal mountains

at the southern end of the natural range

of the redwood forest. This boundary is

also consistent with the southern limit

of coho salmon, further suggesting a

natural ecological break.

NMFS finds no biological basis to

exclude steelhead from the basins of

either San Francisco or San Pablo Bays

from this ESU, as some commenters

have suggested. The characteristics of

hydrology, geology, and upper basin

vegetation in the basins draining into

San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay

are more similar to those attributes of

the coastal portion of this ESU than to

the Central Valley ESU, although

resource management activities and

urbanization have altered much of the

habitat. Life history characteristics of

steelhead, such as period of emigration

and spawning, are also consistent

within this ESU.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43945

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This

ESU

Hatchery populations considered part

of this ESU include Big Creek Hatchery

stock and San Lorenzo River Hatchery

stock which is reared at the Big Creek

hatchery. The basis for this conclusion

is the minimal influence of releases of

fish from outside of the ESU and the

genetic similarity between these and

other regional stocks. Furthermore,

adult collection and spawning

procedures practiced by the hatcheries

(which include using naturally

produced fish) have helped reduce

selection for domestication and small

population effects during the course of

hatchery operations.

Hatchery populations not included in

the listed ESU at this time include the

Dry Creek stock at the Warm Springs

hatchery. Information concerning this

stock is sparse and therefore this stock’s

relationship to the entire ESU is

uncertain. NMFS will continue to

evaluate any new information

concerning this stock in the future to

determine if its inclusion is warranted.

(2) South-Central California Coast ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies

rivers from the Pajaro River, located in

Santa Cruz County, CA, (inclusive) to

(but not including) the Santa Maria

River, San Luis Obispo County, CA.

Most rivers in this ESU drain the Santa

Lucia Mountain Range, the

southernmost unit of the California

Coast Ranges. The climate is drier and

warmer than in the north, which is

reflected in the vegetational change

from coniferous forest to chaparral and

coastal scrub. Another biological

transition at the north of this area is the

southern limit of the distribution of

coho salmon (O. kisutch). The mouths

of many of the rivers and streams in this

area are seasonally closed by sand

berms that form during periods of low

flow in the summer. The southern

boundary of this ESU is near Point

Conception, a well-known transition

area for the distribution and abundance

of marine flora and fauna.

NMFS has determined that no

changes in the proposed boundaries of

the South-Central California Coast ESU

are warranted. See discussion of the

Central California Coast ESU, above,

regarding the break between Aptos

Creek and the Pajaro River.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This

ESU

Hatchery populations considered part

of this ESU include Whale Rock

Reservoir stock. Although this stock was

established from a steelhead population

that was trapped behind the Whale Rock

Dam in the 1950s, it apparently retains

an anadromous component. Juvenile

steelhead are able to emigrate from

Whale Rock Reservoir during high spill

years, and anecdotal information

indicates that some of these juveniles

return as adults to the base of the dam

2 years later.

(3) Southern California ESU

This coastal steelhead ESU occupies

rivers from the Santa Maria River, San

Luis Obispo County, CA (inclusive) to

the southern extent of the species’

range. Available data indicate that

Malibu Creek, Los Angeles County is the

southernmost stream generally

recognized as supporting a persistent,

naturally spawning population of

anadromous O. mykiss (Behnke, 1992;

Burgner et al., 1992).

Migration and life history patterns of

southern California steelhead depend

more strongly on rainfall and

streamflow than is the case for steelhead

populations farther north (Moore, 1980;

Titus et al., in press). River entry ranges

from early November through June, with

peaks in January and February.

Spawning primarily begins in January

and continues through early June, with

peak spawning in February and March.

Average rainfall is substantially lower

and more variable in this ESU than

regions to the north, resulting in

increased duration of sand berms across

the mouths of streams and rivers and, in

some cases, complete dewatering of the

marginal habitats. Environmental

conditions in marginal habitats may be

extreme (e.g., elevated water

temperatures, droughts, floods, and

fires) and presumably impose selective

pressures on steelhead populations.

Steelhead use of southern California

streams and rivers with elevated

temperatures suggests that populations

within this ESU are able to withstand

higher temperatures than those to the

north. The relatively warm and

productive waters of the Ventura River

resulted in more rapid growth of

juvenile steelhead than occurred in

northerly populations (Moore, 1980;

McEwan & Jackson, 1996). However,

relatively little life history information

exists for steelhead from this ESU.

In the proposed rule NMFS stated that

this ESU presently extends to the

southern extent of the species range

which is currently thought to be Malibu

Creek, Los Angeles County. Many

comments were received regarding this

issue; most supported placing the

southern boundary of this ESU further

south. NMFS has reviewed numerous

references to steelhead occurring

historically and recently in streams as

far south as the U.S.-Mexico border.

While available data indicate that

steelhead may occasionally occur as far

south as the Santa Margarita River, the

relationship of these individuals to

those populations occurring further

north is poorly understood.

Based on available data, NMFS

concludes that insufficient information

exists to justify revision of the proposed

southern boundary of this ESU.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This

ESU

No hatchery production of steelhead

currently occurs in this ESU.

(4) Upper Columbia River Basin ESU

This inland steelhead ESU occupies

the Columbia River Basin upstream

from the Yakima River, Washington, to

the United States-Canada border. The

geographic area occupied by this ESU

forms part of the larger Columbia Basin

Ecoregion (Omernik, 1987). The

Wenatchee and Entiat Rivers are in the

Northern Cascades Physiographic

Province, and the Okanogan and

Methow Rivers are in the Okanogan

Highlands Physiographic Province. The

geology of these provinces is somewhat

similar and very complex, developed

from marine invasions, volcanic

deposits, and glaciation (Franklin &

Dyrness, 1973). The river valleys in this

region are deeply dissected and

maintain low gradients except in

extreme headwaters. The climate in this

area includes extremes in temperatures

and precipitation, with most

precipitation falling in the mountains as

snow. Streamflow in this area is

provided by melting snowpack,

groundwater, and runoff from alpine

glaciers. Mullan et al. (1992) described

this area as a harsh environment for fish

and stated that ‘‘it should not be

confused with more studied, benign,

coastal streams of the Pacific

Northwest.’’

Life history characteristics for Upper

Columbia River Basin steelhead are

similar to those of other inland

steelhead ESUs; however, some of the

oldest smolt ages for steelhead, up to 7

years, are reported from this ESU. This

may be associated with the cold stream

temperatures (Mullan et al., 1992).

Based on limited data available from

adult fish, smolt age in this ESU is

dominated by 2-year-olds. Steelhead

from the Wenatchee and Entiat Rivers

return to fresh water after 1 year in salt

water, whereas Methow River steelhead

are primarily two-ocean resident

(Howell et al., 1985).

In 1939, the construction of Grand

Coulee Dam on the Columbia River

blocked over 1,800 kilometers of river
43946 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

from access by anadromous fish (Mullan

et al., 1992). In an effort to preserve fish

runs affected by Grand Coulee Dam, all

anadromous fish migrating upstream

were trapped at Rock Island Dam from

1939 through 1943 and either released

to spawn in tributaries between Rock

Island and Grand Coulee Dams or

spawned in hatcheries and the offspring

released in that area (Peven, 1990;

Mullan et al., 1992; Chapman et al.,

1994). Through this process, stocks of

all anadromous salmonids, including

steelhead, which were historically

native to several separate subbasins

above Rock Island Dam, were

redistributed among tributaries in the

Rock Island-Grand Coulee reach without

regard to their origin. Exactly how this

has affected stock composition of

steelhead is unknown.

NMFS has determined that no

changes in the boundaries of the Upper

Columbia River ESU are warranted. No

new information was received from peer

reviewers or other commenters

regarding the boundaries of this ESU.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This

ESU

Hatchery populations considered part

of this ESU include the Wells Hatchery

stock of steelhead (Summer run).

Although this stock represents a mixture

of native populations, it probably

retains the genetic resources of

steelhead populations above Grand

Coulee Dam that are now extinct from

those native habitats. Operations at the

Wells Hatchery have utilized large

numbers of spawning adults (>500) and

have incorporated some naturally

spawning adults (10 percent of the total)

into the broodstock each year,

procedures which should help

minimize the negative genetic effects of

artificial propagation. Because of the

incorporation of naturally-spawning

adults into the hatchery broodstock and

the large number of hatchery-propagated

fish that spawn naturally, there is a

close genetic resemblance between

naturally spawning populations in the

ESU and the Wells Hatchery stock that

could be used for recovery purposes.

Hatchery populations not considered

part of this ESU include the Skamania

Hatchery stock (Summer run) because of

its non-native heritage.

(5) Snake River Basin ESU

This inland steelhead ESU occupies

the Snake River Basin of southeast

Washington, northeast Oregon and

Idaho. The Snake River flows through

terrain that is warmer and drier on an

annual basis than the upper Columbia

Basin or other drainages to the north.

Geologically, the land forms are older

and much more eroded than most other

steelhead habitat. The eastern portion of

the basin flows out of the granitic

geological unit known as the Idaho

Batholith. The western Snake River

Basin drains sedimentary and volcanic

soils of the Blue Mountains complex.

Collectively, the environmental factors

of the Snake River Basin result in a river

that is warmer and more turbid, with

higher pH and alkalinity, than is found

elsewhere in the range of inland

steelhead.

Snake River Basin steelhead are

summer steelhead, as are most inland

steelhead, and have been classified into

two groups, A-run and B-run, based on

migration timing, ocean-age, and adult

size. Snake River Basin steelhead enter

fresh water from June to October and

spawn in the following spring from

March to May. A-run steelhead are

thought to be predominately one-ocean,

while B-run steelhead are thought to be

two-ocean (IDFG, 1994). Snake River

Basin steelhead usually smolt at age-2 or

-3 years (Whitt, 1954; BPA, 1992;

Hassemer, 1992).

NMFS concludes that no changes in

the proposed boundaries of the Snake

River Basin ESU are warranted. While

several commenters stated that A- and

B-run steelhead are distinctive and

therefore warrant consideration as

separate ESUs, no new scientific

evidence was provided to support this.

As one peer reviewer noted, the

distinction between A- and B-run fish

currently is made using either timingbased or length-based divisions of

steelhead passing Bonneville Dam, on

the mainstem Columbia River. Above

Bonneville dam, run-timing separation

is not observed, and the groups are

separated based on ocean age and body

size (IDFG, 1994). It is unclear if the life

history and body size differences

observed upstream are correlated with

groups forming the bimodal migration

observed at Bonneville dam.

Furthermore, the relationship between

patterns observed at the dams and the

distribution of adults in spawning areas

through the Snake River basin is not

well understood. Based on the inability

to clearly distinguish between A- and Brun steelhead once above Bonneville,

NMFS concludes their division into

separate ESUs is not warranted.

Hatchery Populations Pertaining to This

ESU

Hatchery populations considered part

of this ESU include Dworshak National

Fish Hatchery (NFH) stock (Summer

run); Imnaha River stock (Summer run);

and Oxbow Hatchery stock (Summer

run). Although the historical spawning

and rearing habitat for the Dworshack

Hatchery stock is not available to

anadromous migrants (due to the

construction of Dworshak Dam), this

stock represents the only source of a

genetically distinct component of the

ESU. Furthermore, due to the absence of

any introgression from other

populations, the purity of this stock

likely has been maintained. While some

concern exists for potential

domestication or genetic founder effects,

hatchery records indicate that a

minimum of a thousand adults have

been used annually to perpetuate the

stock, which would reduce the

possibility of genetic drift leading to

reduced genetic variation within the

stock.

NMFS concludes that the Imnaha

River Hatchery stock is part of the Snake

River ESU. This stock was recently

founded from an undiluted stock (with

no previous history of non-native

hatchery releases) for the purpose of

preserving the native genetic resources

of this area. Therefore, this stock

represents an important component of

the evolutionary legacy of this ESU.

Finally, NMFS concludes that the

Oxbow Hatchery stock is part of the

Snake River ESU. Although this stock

has been under artificial propagation for

several generations and has been

propagated almost entirely from

hatchery-derived adults, NMFS believes

this stock represents the only source of

a unique genetic resource and as such

is important to preserve as part of the

ESU.

Hatchery populations not considered

part of the Snake River ESU include the

Lyons Ferry stock (Summer run),

Pahsimeroi Hatchery stock (Summer

run), East Fork Salmon River Trap

(Summer run), and Wallowa Hatchery

stock (Summer run). The Lyons Ferry

Hatchery stock is excluded primarily

based on the use of steelhead from

stocks that originated outside of this

ESU. The Pahsimeroi Hatchery stock

consists of a mixture of populations, all

of which originate within the ESU;

however, NMFS believes that because

these populations came from

ecologically-distinct regions throughout

the Snake River Basin, the assemblage of

these populations does not closely

resemble any naturally spawning

counterpart. In recent years, hatchery

practices have focused on propagating

this stock solely from hatchery derived

adults. The East Fork Salmon River Trap

consists of a mixture of Pahsimeroi and

Dworshak Hatchery stocks which are

not included in the ESU.

NMFS concludes that the Wallowa

Hatchery stock is not included in this

ESU. This stock was founded by

collections of adults from lower Snake
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43947

River mainstem dams, and there was no

clear consensus on which populations

within the Snake River Basin were

represented in the mixture. Also,

populations not native to the Snake

River (e.g., Skamania stock) have been

incorporated into Wallowa Hatchery

broodstock. Many of the reasons for not

including this stock are similar to those

given for the Pahsimeroi Hatchery stock.

Existing Conservation Efforts

Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA,

the Secretary of Commerce is required

to make listing determinations solely on

the basis of the best scientific and

commercial data available and after

taking into account efforts being made

to protect a species. During the status

review for west coast steelhead, NMFS

reviewed an array of protective efforts

for steelhead and other salmonids,

ranging in scope from regional strategies

to local watershed initiatives. NMFS has

summarized some of the major efforts in

a document entitled ‘‘Steelhead

Conservation Efforts: A Supplement to

the Notice of Determination for West

Coast Steelhead under the Endangered

Species Act’’ (NMFS, 1996b). In

addition, NMFS has compiled

inventories of locally based, watershed

conservation planning and restoration

efforts for steelhead in the Central

California, South-Central, and Southern

California ESUs (NMFS, 1997d). These

documents are available upon request

(see ADDRESSES).

Despite numerous efforts to halt and

reverse declining trends in west coast

steelhead, it is clear that the status of

many native, naturally-reproducing

populations has continued to

deteriorate. NMFS therefore believes it

highly likely that past efforts and

programs to address the conservation

needs of these stocks are inadequate,

including efforts to reduce mortalities

and improve the survival of these stocks

through all stages of their life cycle.

Important factors include the loss of

habitat, continued decline in the

productivity of freshwater habitat for a

wide variety of reasons, significant

potential negative impacts from

interactions with hatchery stocks,

overfishing, and natural environmental

variability.

NMFS recognizes that many of the

ongoing Federal, state, and local

protective efforts are likely to promote

the conservation of steelhead and other

salmonids. However, NMFS has also

determined that, collectively, these

efforts are not sufficient to achieve longterm conservation and recovery of

steelhead at the scale of individual

ESUs. There have been significant

improvements in migration conditions

in the Columbia River Basin as a result

of NMFS’ 1995 Biological Opinion on

the operation of the Federal hydropower

system. However, mainstem passage

conditions are only one of many threats

facing the species. NMFS believes most

existing efforts lack some of the critical

elements needed to provide a high

degree of certainty that the efforts will

be successful.

The best available scientific

information on the biological status of

the species supports a final listing of

five steelhead ESUs under the ESA at

this time. NMFS concludes that existing

protective efforts are inadequate to alter

the proposed determination of

threatened or endangered for these five

steelhead ESUs.

Status of Steelhead ESUs

Section 3 of the ESA defines the term

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species

which is in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of

its range.’’ The term ‘‘threatened

species’’ is defined as ‘‘any species

which is likely to become an

endangered species within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.’’

Thompson (1991) suggested that

conventional rules of thumb, analytical

approaches, and simulations may all be

useful in making this determination. In

previous status reviews (e.g., Weitkamp

et al., 1995), NMFS has identified a

number of factors that should be

considered in evaluating the level of

risk faced by an ESU, including: (1)

Absolute numbers of fish and their

spatial and temporal distribution; (2)

current abundance in relation to

historical abundance and current

carrying capacity of the habitat; (3)

trends in abundance; (4) natural and

human-influenced factors that cause

variability in survival and abundance;

(5) possible threats to genetic integrity

(e.g., from strays or outplants from

hatchery programs); and (6) recent

events (e.g., a drought or changes in

harvest management) that have

predictable short-term consequences for

abundance of the ESU.

During the coastwide status review for

steelhead, NMFS evaluated both

quantitative and qualitative information

to determine whether any proposed ESU

is threatened or endangered according

to the ESA. The types of information

used in these assessments are described

below, followed by a summary of results

for each ESU.

Quantitative Assessments

A significant component of NMFS’

status determination was analyses of

abundance trend data. Principal data

sources for these analyses were

historical and recent run size estimates

derived from dam and weir counts,

stream surveys, and angler catch

estimates. Of the 160 steelhead stocks

on the west coast of the United States

for which sufficient data existed, 118

(74 percent) exhibited declining trends

in abundance, while the remaining 42

(26 percent) exhibited increasing trends

in abundance. Sixty-five of the stock

abundance trends analyzed were

statistically significant. Of these, 57 (88

percent) indicated declining trends in

abundance and the remaining 8 (12

percent) indicated increasing trends in

abundance. NMFS’ analysis assumes

that catch trends reflect trends in overall

population abundance. NMFS

recognizes there are many problems

with this assumption and, therefore, the

index may not represent trends in the

total population in a river basin.

However, angler catch is the only

information available for many

steelhead populations, and changes in

catch still provide a useful indication of

trends in total population abundance.

Furthermore, where alternate

abundance data existed, NMFS used

them in its risk analyses.

Analyses of steelhead abundance

indicate that across the species’ range,

the majority of naturally reproducing

steelhead stocks have exhibited longterm declines in abundance. The

severity of declines in abundance tends

to vary by geographic region. Based on

historical and recent abundance

estimates, stocks in the southern extent

of the coastal steelhead range (i.e.,

California’s Central Valley, SouthCentral and Southern California ESUs)

appear to have declined significantly,

with widespread stock extirpations. In

several areas, a lack of accurate run size

and trend data make estimating

abundance difficult.

Qualitative Assessments

Although numerous studies have

attempted to classify the status of

steelhead populations on the west coast

of the United States, problems exist in

applying results of these studies to

NMFS’ ESA evaluations. A significant

problem is that the definition of ‘‘stock’’

or ‘‘population’’ varies considerably in

scale among studies, and sometimes

among regions within a study. In several

studies, identified units range in size

from large river basins, to minor coastal

streams and tributaries. Only two

studies (Nehlsen et al., 1991; Higgins et

al., 1992) used categories that relate to

the ESA ‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered’’

status. Even these studies applied their

own interpretations of these terms to

individual stocks, not to broader
43948 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

geographic units such as those

discussed here. Another significant

problem in applying previously

published studies to this evaluation is

the manner in which stocks or

populations were selected to be

included in the review. Several studies

did not evaluate stocks that were not

perceived to be at risk, making it

difficult to determine the proportion of

stocks they considered to be at risk in

any given area.

Nehlsen et al. (1991) considered

salmon and steelhead stocks throughout

Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and

California and enumerated all stocks

they found to be extinct or at risk of

extinction. They considered 23

steelhead stocks to be extinct, one

possibly extinct, 27 at high risk of

extinction, 18 at moderate risk of

extinction, and 30 of special concern.

Steelhead stocks that do not appear in

their summary were either not at risk of

extinction or there was insufficient

information to classify them.

Washington Department of Fisheries et

al. (1993) categorized all salmon and

steelhead stocks in Washington on the

basis of stock origin (‘‘native,’’ ‘‘nonnative,’’ ‘‘mixed,’’ or ‘‘unknown’’),

production type (‘‘wild,’’ ‘‘composite,’’

or ‘‘unknown’’) and status (‘‘healthy,’’

‘‘depressed,’’ ‘‘critical,’’ or ‘‘unknown’’).

Of the 141 steelhead stocks identified in

Washington, 36 were classified as

healthy, 44 as critical, 10 as depressed,

and 60 as unknown.

The following summaries draw on

these quantitative and qualitative

assessments to describe NMFS’

conclusions regarding the status of each

steelhead ESU. Furthermore, in these

summaries, NMFS identifies those

hatchery populations that are essential

for the recovery of the ESU. An

‘‘essential’’ hatchery population is one

that is currently vital to the success of

recovery efforts for the ESU within

which it occurs. In evaluating the

importance of hatchery stocks for

recovery, NMFS considers the

relationship between the natural and

hatchery populations and the degree of

risk faced by the natural populations. A

more detailed discussion of the status of

these steelhead ESUs is presented in the

‘‘Status Review Update for West Coast

Steelhead from Washington, Idaho,

Oregon, and California’’ (NMFS, 1997a).

Copies of this document are available

upon request (see ADDRESSES).

(1) Central California Coast ESU

Only two estimates of historical (pre1960s) abundance specific to this ESU

are available: an average of about 500

adults in Waddell Creek in the 1930s

and early 1940s (Shapovalov & Taft,

1954), and an estimate of 20,000

steelhead in the San Lorenzo River

before 1965 (Johnson, 1964). In the mid1960s, CDFG (1965) estimated 94,000

steelhead spawning in many rivers of

this ESU, including 50,000 and 19,000

fish in the Russian and San Lorenzo

Rivers, respectively. NMFS has

comparable recent estimates for only the

Russian (approximately 7,000 fish) and

San Lorenzo (approximately 500 fish)

Rivers. These estimates indicate that

recent total abundance of steelhead in

these two rivers is less than 15 percent

of their abundance 30 years ago.

Additional recent estimates for several

other streams (Lagunitas Creek, Waddell

Creek, Scott Creek, San Vincente Creek,

Soquel Creek, and Aptos Creek) indicate

individual run sizes are 500 fish or less.

No recent estimates of total run size

exist for this ESU. McEwan and Jackson

(1996) noted that steelhead in most

tributary streams in San Francisco and

San Pablo Bays have been extirpated.

Additional information received in

response to the proposed rule suggests

that steelhead in this ESU may be

exhibiting slight increases in abundance

in recent years (NMFS, 1997a). Updated

abundance data for the Russian and San

Lorenzo Rivers indicate increasing run

sizes over the past 2–3 years, but it is

not possible to distinguish the relative

proportions of hatchery and natural

steelhead in those estimates. Additional

data from a few smaller streams in the

region also show general increases in

juvenile abundance in recent years.

Presence/absence data available since

the proposed rule show that in a subset

of streams sampled in the central

California coast region, most contain

steelhead. This is in contrast to the

pattern exhibited by coho, which are

absent from many of those same

streams. Those streams in which

steelhead were not present are

concentrated in the highly urbanized

San Francisco Bay region. While there

are several concerns with these data

(e.g., uncertainty regarding origin of

juveniles), NMFS believes it is generally

a positive indicator that there is a

relatively broad distribution of

steelhead in smaller streams throughout

the region.

In evaluating trends in productivity

throughout the ESU, NMFS considered

difficulties arising from the inability to

separate out the effects of hatchery

productivity from overall run size

increases in recent years. The Russian

and San Lorenzo Rivers have the highest

steelhead productivity in the ESU, but

it is likely that many of the fish are of

hatchery origin (estimates in both

streams range from 40–60 percent over

the last 5 years).

After considering available

information, NMFS concludes that

steelhead in the Central California Coast

ESU warrant listing as a threatened

species—a change from its proposed

status as endangered. Factors

contributing to the present conclusion

include new evidence for greater

absolute numbers of steelhead in the

larger rivers of the central California

coast region and the possible increases

in juvenile abundance over the last few

years. In addition, the broad geographic

distribution of steelhead throughout the

region, as indicated by the presence/

absence data, also convinced NMFS this

ESU does not warrant an endangered

listing at this time.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the

Recovery of the ESU

NMFS concludes that the Big Creek

and San Lorenzo River Hatchery stocks

are not essential for recovery of this

ESU. Current information indicates

sufficient naturally spawning

populations exist for recovery efforts.

The significant degree of hatchery

contribution to steelhead runs in the

San Lorenzo River may require the use

of this stock in recovery efforts in the

future.

(2) South-Central California Coast ESU

Historical estimates of steelhead

abundance are available for a few rivers

in this region. In the mid-1960s, CDFG

(1965) estimated a total of 27,750

steelhead spawning in this ESU. Recent

estimates for those rivers where

comparative abundance information is

available show a substantial decline

during the past 30 years. In contrast to

the CDFG (1965) estimates, McEwan

and Jackson (1996) reported runs

ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 in the Pajaro

River in the early 1960s, and Snider

(1983) estimated escapement of about

3,200 steelhead for the Carmel River for

the 1964–1975 period. No recent

estimates for total run size exist for this

ESU; however, recent run-size estimates

are available for five rivers (Pajaro River,

Salinas River, Carmel River, Little Sur

River, and Big Sur River). The total of

these estimates is less than 500 fish,

compared with a total of 4,750 for the

same rivers in 1965, which suggests a

substantial decline for the entire ESU

from 1965 levels.

Updated data on abundance and

trends for steelhead in this ESU indicate

slight increases in recent years. New

data from the Carmel River show

increases in adult and juvenile

steelhead abundance over the past 2 to

5 years.

After weighing this new information,

NMFS concludes that steelhead in the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43949

South-Central California Coast ESU

warrant listing as a threatened species—

a change from its proposed status as

endangered. Reasons for this slightly

more optimistic assessment include new

abundance data indicating recent

increases in adult and juvenile

abundance in the Carmel River and

several small coastal tributaries in the

southern part of the region. In addition,

risks to genetic integrity to steelhead in

this ESU are relatively low because of

low levels of hatchery stocking. (There

are a few scattered reports of rainbow

trout introductions from rivers outside

the central California coast region.)

Hatchery Populations Essential for the

Recovery of the ESU

NMFS concludes that the Whale Rock

Reservoir Hatchery stock is not essential

for recovery of this ESU. Current

information indicates sufficient

naturally spawning populations exist for

recovery efforts. If in the future the

status of steelhead in this ESU worsens,

this stock may become essential for

recovery efforts.

(3) Southern California ESU

Historically, steelhead occurred

naturally south into Baja California.

Estimates of historical (pre-1960s)

abundance for several rivers in this ESU

are available: Santa Ynez River, before

1950, 20,000 to 30,000 (Shapovalov &

Taft, 1954; CDFG, 1982; Reavis, 1991;

Titus et al., in press); Ventura River,

pre-1960, 4,000 to 6,000 (Clanton &

Jarvis, 1946; CDFG, 1982; AFS, 1991;

Hunt et al., 1992; Henke, 1994; Titus et

al., in press); Santa Clara River, pre1960, 7,000 to 9,000 (Moore, 1980;

Comstock, 1992; Henke, 1994); Malibu

Creek, pre-1960, 1,000 (Nehlsen et al.,

1991; Reavis, 1991). In the mid-1960s,

CDFG (1965) estimated steelhead

spawning populations for smaller

tributaries in San Luis Obispo County as

20,000 fish; however, no estimates for

streams further south were provided.

The present estimated total run size

for 6 streams (Santa Ynez River, Gaviota

Creek, Ventura River, Matilija Creek,

Santa Clara River, Malibu Creek) in this

ESU are summarized in Titus et al., and

each is less than 200 adults. Titus et al.

concluded that populations have been

extirpated from all streams south of

Ventura County, with the exception of

Malibu Creek in Los Angeles County.

While there are no comprehensive

stream surveys conducted for steelhead

trout occurring in streams south of

Malibu Creek, there continue to be

anecdotal observations of steelhead in

rivers as far south as the Santa Margarita

River, San Diego County, in years of

substantial rainfall (Barnhart, 1986,

Higgins, 1991, McEwan & Jackson,

1996). Titus et al. (in press) cited

extensive loss of steelhead habitat due

to water development, including

impassable dams and dewatering.

No time series of data are available

within this ESU to estimate population

trends. Titus et al. summarized

information for steelhead populations

based on historical and recent survey

information. Of the populations south of

San Francisco Bay (including part of the

Central California Coast ESU) for which

past and recent information was

available, 20 percent had no discernable

change, 45 percent had declined, and 35

percent were extinct. Percentages for the

counties comprising this ESU show a

very high percentage of declining and

extinct populations.

The sustainability of steelhead

populations in the Southern California

ESU continues to be a major concern,

evidenced by consistently low

abundance estimates in all river basins.

There are fairly good qualitative

accounts of historical abundances of

steelhead in this ESU, and recent adult

counts are severely depressed relative to

the past. The few new data that have

become available since the proposed

rule do not suggest any consistent

pattern of change in steelhead

abundance in this region.

NMFS concludes that the Southern

California ESU is, as proposed,

endangered. The primary reasons for

concern about steelhead in this ESU are

the widespread, dramatic declines in

abundance relative to historical levels.

Low abundance leads to increased risks

due to demographic and genetic

variability in small populations. In

addition, NMFS believes the restricted

spatial distribution of remaining

populations places the ESU as a whole

at risk because of reduced opportunities

for recolonization of streams suffering

local population extinctions. The main

sources of the extensive population

declines in steelhead in this ESU are

similar to those described in the SouthCentral California Coast ESU. In

addition, because of fire suppression

practiced throughout the area, NMFS

believes the effects of increased fire

intensity and duration is likely to be a

significant risk to the steelhead in this

ESU.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the

Recovery of the ESU

No hatchery production of steelhead

currently occurs in this ESU.

(4) Upper Columbia River Basin ESU

Estimates of historical (pre-1960s)

abundance specific to this ESU are

available from fish counts at dams.

Counts at Rock Island Dam from 1933 to

1959 averaged 2,600 to 3,700, suggesting

a pre-fishery run size in excess of 5,000

adults for tributaries above Rock Island

Dam (Chapman et al., 1994). Runs may

already have been depressed by lower

Columbia River fisheries at this time.

Recent five-year (1989–93) average

natural escapements are available for

two stock units: Wenatchee River, 800

steelhead, and Methow and Okanogan

Rivers, 450 steelhead. Recent average

total escapements for these stocks were

2,500 and 2,400, respectively. Average

total run size at Priest Rapids Dam for

the same period was approximately

9,600 adult steelhead.

Trends in total (natural and hatchery)

adult escapement are available for the

Wenatchee River (2.6 percent annual

increase, 1962–1993) and the Methow

and Okanogan Rivers combined (12

percent annual decline, 1982–93). These

two stocks represent most of the

escapement to natural spawning habitat

within the range of the ESU; the Entiat

River also has a small spawning run

(WDF et al., 1993).

Steelhead in the Upper Columbia

River ESU continue to exhibit low

abundances, both in absolute numbers

and in relation to numbers of hatchery

fish throughout the region. Data from

this ESU include separate total and

natural run sizes, allowing the

separation of hatchery and natural fish

abundance estimates for at least some

areas in some years. Review of the most

recent data indicates that natural

steelhead abundance has declined or

remained low and relatively constant in

the major river basins in this ESU

(Wenatchee, Methow, Okanogan) since

the early 1990s. Estimates of natural

production of steelhead in the ESU are

well below replacement (approximately

0.3:1 adult replacement ratios estimated

in the Wenatchee and Entiat Rivers.)

These data indicate that natural

steelhead populations in the Upper

Columbia River Basin are not selfsustaining at the present time. The BRT

also discussed anecdotal evidence that

resident rainbow trout, which are in

numerous streams throughout the

region, contribute to anadromous run

abundance. This phenomenon would

reduce estimates of the natural

steelhead replacement ratio.

The proportion of hatchery fish is

high in these rivers (65–80 percent). In

addition, substantial genetic mixing of

populations within this ESU has

occurred, both historically (as a result of

the Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance

Project) and more recently as a result of

the Wells Hatchery program. Extensive

mixing of hatchery stocks throughout

this ESU, along with the reduced
43950 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

opportunity for maintenance of locally

adapted genetic lineages among

different drainages, represents a

considerable threat to steelhead in this

region.

Based on the considerations above,

NMFS concludes the Upper Columbia

ESU is endangered, as proposed. In their

comments on the proposed rule,

Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife states its general concurrence

with this conclusion (WDFW, 1997).

The primary cause for concern for

steelhead in this ESU are the extremely

low estimates of adult replacement

ratios. The dramatic declines in natural

run sizes and the inability of naturally

spawning steelhead adults to replace

themselves suggest that if present trends

continue, this ESU will not be viable.

Habitat degradation, juvenile and adult

mortality in the hydrosystem, and

unfavorable environmental conditions

in both marine and freshwater habitats

have contributed to the declines and

represent risk factors for the future.

Harvest in lower river fisheries and

genetic homogenization from composite

broodstock collections are other factors

that may contribute significantly to risk

to the Upper Columbia ESU.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the

Recovery of the ESU

NMFS concludes the Wells Hatchery

stock including progeny is essential for

recovery efforts in this ESU, and

therefore should be listed. This

conclusion is primarily based on very

low estimates of the recruits per

spawner ratio, which indicate that

productivity of naturally spawning

steelhead in this ESU is far below the

replacement rate.

(5) Snake River Basin ESU

Prior to Ice Harbor Dam completion in

1962, there were no counts of Snake

River Basin naturally spawned

steelhead. However, Lewiston Dam

counts during the period from 1949 to

1971 averaged about 40,000 steelhead

per year in the Clearwater River, while

the Ice Harbor Dam count in 1962 was

108,000, and averaged approximately

70,000 until 1970.

All steelhead in the Snake River Basin

are summer steelhead, which for

management purposes are divided into

‘‘A-run’’ and ‘‘B-run’’ steelhead. Each

has several life history differences

including spawning size, run timing,

and habitat type. Although there is little

information for most stocks within this

ESU, there are recent run-size and/or

escapement estimates for several stocks.

Total recent-year average (1990–1994)

escapement above Lower Granite Dam

was approximately 71,000, with a

natural component of 9,400 (7,000 Arun and 2,400 B-run). Run size estimates

are available for only a few tributaries

within the ESU, all with small

populations.

Snake River Basin steelhead recently

have suffered severe declines in

abundance relative to historical levels.

Low run sizes over the last ten years are

most pronounced for naturally

produced steelhead. In addition, average

parr densities recently have dropped for

both A-and B-run steelhead, resulting in

many river basins in this region being

characterized as critically underseeded

relative to the carrying capacity of

streams. Declines in abundance have

been particularly serious for B-run

steelhead, increasing the risk that some

of the life history diversity may be lost

from steelhead in this ESU. Recently

obtained information indicates a record

low smolt survival and ocean

production for Snake River steelhead in

1992–94.

The proportion of hatchery steelhead

in the Snake River Basin is very high for

the ESU as a whole (over 80 percent

hatchery fish passing Lower Granite

Dam), yet hatchery fish are rare to

nonexistent in several drainages in the

region. In places where hatchery release

sites are interspersed with naturallyspawning reaches, the potential for

straying and introgression is high,

resulting in a risk to the genetic integrity

of some steelhead populations in this

ESU. Hatchery/natural interactions that

do occur for Snake River steelhead are

of particular concern because many of

the hatcheries use composite stocks that

have been domesticated over a long

period of time.

Based on this information, NMFS

concludes that the Snake River ESU is

threatened, as proposed. The primary

indicator of risk to the ESU is declining

abundance throughout the region.

Demographic and genetic risks from

small population sizes are likely to be

important, because few natural

steelhead are spread over a wide

geographic area. In their comments on

the proposed rule, the State of Idaho

concurred with NMFS’ assessment that

steelhead stocks in this ESU are

imperiled (State of Idaho, 1997).

Steelhead in this ESU face risks similar

to those in the Upper Columbia River

ESU: Widespread habitat blockage from

hydrosystem management and

potentially deleterious genetic effects

from straying and introgression from

hatchery fish. The reduction in habitat

capacity resulting from large dams such

as the Hells Canyon dam complex and

Dworshak Dam is somewhat mitigated

by several river basins with fairly good

production of natural steelhead runs.

Hatchery Populations Essential for the

Recovery of the ESU

NMFS concludes that the hatchery

stocks considered part of this ESU

(Dworshak NFH stock, Imnaha Hatchery

stock, and Oxbow Hatchery stock) are

not currently essential for the recovery

of the ESU. The Dworshak NFH stock

and Oxbow Hatchery stock both

represent the remnants of population(s)

of steelhead that have been excluded

from their historical spawning and

rearing habitat by impassable dams.

These stocks represent the only legacy

for the reintroduction of native

populations into these areas. If such

reintroduction programs are undertaken,

these stocks will likely be essential to

the recovery of steelhead in these areas.

Currently, naturally spawning steelhead

populations in the Imnaha River are

relatively healthy; however, if naturally

spawning populations decline

considerably in the future, this stock

may become essential for recovery.

Listing Determination

Section 3 of the ESA defines an

endangered species as any species in

danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range, and a

threatened species as any species likely

to become an endangered species within

the foreseeable future throughout all or

a significant portion of its range. Section

4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the

listing determination be based solely on

the best scientific and commercial data

available, after conducting a review of

the status of the species and after taking

into account those efforts, if any, being

made to protect such species.

Based on results from its coastwide

assessment, NMFS has determined that

on the west coast of the United States,

there are fifteen ESUs of steelhead that

constitute ‘‘species’’ under the ESA.

NMFS has determined that two ESUs of

steelhead are currently endangered

(Southern California and Upper

Columbia River ESUs) and three ESUs

are currently threatened (Central

California Coast, South-Central

California Coast, and Snake River Basin

ESUs). The geographic boundaries (i.e.,

the watersheds within which the

members of the ESU spend their

freshwater residence) for these ESUs are

described under ‘‘Summary of ESUs

Determinations.’’

NMFS has examined the relationship

between hatchery and natural

populations of steelhead in these ESUs

and has assessed whether any hatchery

populations are essential for their

recovery. While NMFS has concluded

that several hatchery stocks are part of

the ESU in which they occur, only the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43951

Wells Hatchery stock in the Upper

Columbia River ESU is deemed essential

for recovery at this time and therefore,

included in this listing. Aside from the

Wells Hatchery stock, only naturally

spawned populations of steelhead (and

their progeny) which are part of the

biological ESU residing below longterm, naturally and man-made

impassable barriers (i.e., dams) are

listed in all five ESUs identified as

threatened or endangered.

In some cases unlisted hatchery fish

that are part of the ESU may not return

to the hatchery but instead spawn

naturally. In that event, the progeny of

that naturally spawning hatchery fish is

considered listed. This final rule

includes in the listing determination

those naturally spawned fish that have

at least one parent that was derived

from current ESU hatchery broodstock.

In some cases these fish may be hybrids;

that is, they may have one parent that

is part of the biological ESU and one

that is not. By listing these fish and

extending to them the protections of the

ESA, NMFS does not mean to imply that

these hybrids are suitable for use in

conservation. That decision would need

to be made on a case-by-case basis.

NMFS’ ‘‘Interim Policy on Artificial

Propagation of Pacific Salmon Under

the Endangered Species Act’’ (April 5,

1993, 58 FR 17573) provides guidance

on the treatment of hatchery stocks in

the event of a listing. Under this policy,

‘‘progeny of fish from the listed species

that are propagated artificially are

considered part of the listed species and

are protected under the ESA.’’ In

accordance with this interim NMFS

policy, all progeny of listed steelhead

are themselves considered part of the

listed species. Such progeny include

those resulting from the mating of listed

steelhead with non-listed hatchery

stocks.

At this time, NMFS is listing only

anadromous life forms of O. mykiss.

NMFS concludes the Wells Hatchery

stock including progeny is essential for

recovery efforts in this ESU, and

therefore should be listed. This

conclusion is primarily based on very

low estimates of the recruits per

spawner ratio, which indicate that

productivity of naturally spawning

steelhead in this ESU is far below the

replacement rate. It is possible that in

some years returns to this hatchery may

exceed the number of returns necessary

to produce the number of offspring

NMFS considers advisable for release

into this ESU. This surplus may

therefore be, by definition, not essential

for recovery efforts. In that case,

hatchery operators may be faced with a

choice between destroying the excess

returns or using them for some other

purpose. In making its decision today to

include the Wells Hatchery stock as part

of the listed population, NMFS does not

intend to foreclose the possibility of

using such excess returns to provide

limited harvest opportunities consistent

with the conservation of this ESU.

Prohibitions and Protective Measures

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain

activities that directly or indirectly

affect endangered species. These

prohibitions apply to all individuals,

organizations, and agencies subject to

U.S. jurisdiction. Section 9 prohibitions

apply automatically to endangered

species; as described below, this is not

the case for threatened species.

Section 4(d) of the ESA directs the

Secretary to implement regulations ‘‘to

provide for the conservation of

[threatened] species,’’ which may

include extending any or all of the

prohibitions of section 9 to threatened

species. Section 9(a)(1)(g) also prohibits

violations of protective regulations for

threatened species implemented under

section 4(d). NMFS will issue shortly

protective regulations pursuant to

section 4(d) for the Central California

Coast, South-Central California Coast,

and Snake River ESUs.

Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires

that Federal agencies consult with

NMFS on any actions likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a

species proposed for listing and on

actions likely to result in the destruction

or adverse modification of proposed

critical habitat. For listed species,

section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies

to ensure that activities they authorize,

fund, or conduct are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a

listed species or to destroy or adversely

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal

action may affect a listed species or its

critical habitat, the responsible Federal

agency must enter into consultation

with NMFS.

Examples of Federal actions likely to

affect steelhead in the listed ESUs

include authorized land management

activities of the U.S. Forest Service and

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, as

well as operation of hydroelectric and

storage projects of the Bureau of

Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (COE). Such activities include

timber sales and harvest, hydroelectric

power generation, and flood control.

Federal actions, including the COE

section 404 permitting activities under

the CWA, COE permitting activities

under the River and Harbors Act,

National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System permits issued by

the Environmental Protection Agency,

highway projects authorized by the

Federal Highway Administration,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

licenses for non-Federal development

and operation of hydropower, and

Federal salmon hatcheries, may also

require consultation. These actions will

likely be subject to ESA section 7

consultation requirements that may

result in conditions designed to achieve

the intended purpose of the project and

avoid or reduce impacts to steelhead

and its habitat within the range of the

listed ESU. It is important to note that

the current listing applies only to the

anadromous form of O. mykiss;

therefore, section 7 consultations will

not address resident forms of O. mykiss

at this time.

There are likely to be Federal actions

ongoing in the range of the listed ESUs

at the time these listings become

effective. Therefore, NMFS will review

all ongoing actions that may affect the

listed species with Federal agencies and

will complete formal or informal

consultations, where requested or

necessary, for such actions pursuant to

ESA section 7(a)(2).

Sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of

the ESA provide NMFS with authority

to grant exceptions to the ESA’s

‘‘taking’’ prohibitions (see regulations at

50 CFR 222.22 through 222.24). Section

10(a)(1)(A) scientific research and

enhancement permits may be issued to

entities (Federal and non-Federal)

conducting research that involves a

directed take of listed species.

NMFS has issued section 10(a)(1)(A)

research or enhancement of survival

permits for other listed species (e.g.,

Snake River chinook salmon and

Sacramento River winter-run chinook

salmon) for a number of activities,

including trapping and tagging,

electroshocking to determine population

presence and abundance, removal of

fish from irrigation ditches, and

collection of adult fish for artificial

propagation programs. NMFS is aware

of several sampling efforts for steelhead

in the listed ESUs, including efforts by

Federal and state fishery management

agencies. These and other research

efforts could provide critical

information regarding steelhead

distribution and population abundance.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take

permits may be issued to non-Federal

entities performing activities that may

incidentally take listed species. The

types of activities potentially requiring

a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take

permit include the operation and release

of artificially propagated fish by state or

privately operated and funded

hatcheries, state or university research

on species other than steelhead, not
43952 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

receiving Federal authorization or

funding, the implementation of state

fishing regulations, and timber harvest

activities on non-Federal lands.

Take Guidance

NMFS and the FWS published in the

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34272), a policy that NMFS shall

identify, to the maximum extent

practicable at the time a species is

listed, those activities that would or

would not constitute a violation of

section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this

policy is to increase public awareness of

the effect of a listing on proposed and

on-going activities within the species’

range. NMFS believes that, based on the

best available information, the following

actions will not result in a violation of

section 9: (1) Possession of steelhead

from the listed ESUs acquired lawfully

by permit issued by NMFS pursuant to

section 10 of the ESA, or by the terms

of an incidental take statement pursuant

to section 7 of the ESA; and (2)

Federally funded or approved projects

that involve activities such as

silviculture, grazing, mining, road

construction, dam construction and

operation, discharge of fill material,

stream channelization or diversion for

which a section 7 consultation has been

completed, and when such an activity is

conducted in accordance with any terms

and conditions provided by NMFS in an

incidental take statement accompanied

by a biological opinion pursuant to

section 7 of the ESA.

Activities that NMFS believes could

potentially harm, injure or kill steelhead

in the endangered listed ESUs and

result in a violation of section 9 include,

but are not limited to: (1) Land-use

activities that adversely affect steelhead

habitat in this ESU (e.g., logging,

grazing, farming, road construction in

riparian areas, and areas susceptible to

mass wasting and surface erosion); (2)

Destruction or alteration of steelhead

habitat in the listed ESUs, such as

removal of large woody debris and

‘‘sinker logs’’ or riparian shade canopy,

dredging, discharge of fill material,

draining, ditching, diverting, blocking,

or altering stream channels or surface or

ground water flow; (3) discharges or

dumping of toxic chemicals or other

pollutants (e.g., sewage, oil, gasoline)

into waters or riparian areas supporting

listed steelhead; (4) violation of

discharge permits; (5) pesticide

applications; (6) interstate and foreign

commerce of steelhead from the listed

ESUs and import/export of steelhead

from listed ESUs without an ESA

permit, unless the fish were harvested

pursuant to legal exception; (7)

collecting or handling of steelhead from

listed ESUs. Permits to conduct these

activities are available for purposes of

scientific research or to enhance the

propagation or survival of the species;

and (8) introduction of non-native

species likely to prey on steelhead in

these ESUs or displace them from their

habitat. These lists are not exhaustive.

They are intended to provide some

examples of the types of activities that

might or might not be considered by

NMFS as constituting a take of west

coast steelhead under the ESA and its

regulations. Questions regarding

whether specific activities will

constitute a violation of this rule, and

general inquiries regarding prohibitions

and permits, should be directed to

NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Effective Date of Final Listing

Given the cultural, scientific, and

recreational importance of this species,

and the broad geographic range of these

listings, NMFS recognizes that

numerous parties may be affected by

this listing. Therefore, to permit an

orderly implementation of the

consultation requirements and take

prohibitions associated with this action,

this final listing will take effect October

17, 1997.

Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the ESA include

recognition, recovery actions, Federal

agency consultation requirements, and

prohibitions on taking. Recognition

through listing promotes public

awareness and conservation actions by

Federal, state, and local agencies,

private organizations, and individuals.

Several conservation efforts are

underway that may help reverse the

decline of west coast steelhead and

other salmonids. These include the

Northwest Forest Plan (on Federal lands

within the range of the northern spotted

owl), PACFISH (on all additional

Federal lands with anadromous

salmonid populations), Oregon’s Coastal

Salmon Restoration Initiative,

Washington’s Wild Stock Restoration

Initiative, overlapping protections from

California’s listing of coho salmon

stocks in California under both the

Federal and State ESAs, implementation

of California’s Steelhead Management

Plan, and NMFS’ Proposed Recovery

Plan for Snake River Salmon. NMFS is

very encouraged by a number of these

efforts and believes they have or may

constitute significant strides in the

efforts in the region to develop a

scientifically well grounded

conservation plan for these stocks.

Other efforts, such as the Middle

Columbia River Habitat Conservation

Plan, are at various stages of

development, but show promise of

ameliorating risks facing listed

steelhead ESUs. NMFS intends to

support and work closely with these

efforts—staff and resources permitting—

in the belief that they can play an

important role in the recovery planning

process.

Based on information presented in

this final rule, general conservation

measures that could be implemented to

help conserve the species are listed

below. This list does not constitute

NMFS’ interpretation of a recovery plan

under section 4(f) of the ESA.

1. Measures could be taken to

promote land management practices

that protect and restore steelhead

habitat. Land management practices

affecting steelhead habitat include

timber harvest, road building,

agriculture, livestock grazing, and urban

development.

2. Evaluation of existing harvest

regulations could identify any changes

necessary to protect steelhead

populations.

3. Artificial propagation programs

could be required to incorporate

practices that minimize impacts upon

natural populations of steelhead.

4. Efforts could be made to ensure that

existing and proposed dam facilities are

designed and operated in a manner that

will less adversely affect steelhead

populations.

5. Water diversions could have

adequate headgate and staff gauge

structures installed to control and

monitor water usage accurately. Water

rights could be enforced to prevent

irrigators from exceeding the amount of

water to which they are legally entitled.

6. Irrigation diversions affecting

downstream migrating steelhead trout

could be screened. A thorough review of

the impact of irrigation diversions on

steelhead could be conducted.

NMFS recognizes that, to be

successful, protective regulations and

recovery programs for steelhead will

need to be developed in the context of

conserving aquatic ecosystem health.

NMFS intends that Federal lands and

Federal activities play a primary role in

preserving listed populations and the

ecosystems upon which they depend.

However, throughout the range of all

five ESUs listed, steelhead habitat

occurs and can be affected by activities

on state, tribal, or private land.

Agricultural, timber, and urban

management activities on nonFederal

land could and should be conducted in

a manner that minimizes adverse effects

to steelhead habitat.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43953

NMFS encourages nonfederal

landowners to assess the impacts of

their actions on potentially threatened

or endangered salmonids. In particular,

NMFS encourages the establishment of

watershed partnerships to promote

conservation in accordance with

ecosystem principles. These

partnerships will be successful only if

state, tribal, and local governments,

landowner representatives, and Federal

and nonFederal biologists all participate

and share the goal of restoring steelhead

to the watersheds.

Critical Habitat

Section 4(b)(6)(C) of the ESA requires

that, to the extent prudent, critical

habitat be designated concurrently with

the listing of a species unless such

critical habitat is not determinable at

that time. While NMFS has completed

its initial analysis of the biological

status of steelhead populations from

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California, it has not completed the

analyses necessary for designating

critical habitat. Therefore, critical

habitat is not now determinable for

these five listed steelhead ESUs. NMFS

intends to develop and publish a critical

habitat determination for west coast

steelhead within one year from the

publication of this notice.

Classification

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the

information that may be considered

when assessing species for listing. Based

on this limitation of criteria for a listing

decision and the opinion in Pacific

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d

825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has

categorically excluded all ESA listing

actions from environmental assessment

requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) under

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6.

As noted in Conference Report on the

1982 amendments to the ESA, economic

considerations have no relevance to

determinations regarding the status of

species. Therefore, the analytical

requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq., are not required. Similarly, this

final rule is exempt from review under

E.O. 12866.

At this time NMFS is not

promulgating protective regulations

pursuant to ESA section 4(d). In the

future, prior to finalizing its 4(d)

regulations for the threatened ESUs,

NMFS will comply with all relevant

NEPA and RFA requirements.

References

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available upon request (see

ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 222

Administrative practice and

procedure, Endangered and threatened

species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

50 CFR Part 227

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Marine mammals,

Transportation.

Dated: August 11, 1997.

Rolland A. Schmitten,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 50 CFR parts 222 and 227 are

amended as follows:

PART 222—ENDANGERED FISH OR

WILDLIFE

1. The authority citation of part 222

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart D,

§ 222.32 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et

seq.

2. In § 222.23, paragraph (a) is

amended by revising the second

sentence to read as follows:

§ 222.23 Permits for scientific purposes or

to enhance the propagation or survival of

the affected endangered species.

(a) * * * The species listed as

endangered under either the

Endangered Species Conservation Act of

1969 or the Endangered Species Act of

1973 and currently under the

jurisdiction of the Secretary of

Commerce are: Shortnose sturgeon

(Acipenser brevirostrum); Totoaba

(Cynoscian macdonaldi), Snake River

sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchusnerka),

Umpqua River cutthroat trout

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki); Southern

California steelhead (Oncorhynchus

mykiss), which includes all naturally

spawned populations of steelhead (and

their progeny) in streams from the Santa

Maria River, San Luis Obispo County,

California (inclusive) to Malibu Creek,

Los Angeles County, California

(inclusive); Upper Columbia River

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),

which includes the Wells Hatchery

stock and all naturally spawned

populations of steelhead (and their

progeny) in streams in the Columbia

River Basin upstream from the Yakima

River, Washington, to the United StatesCanada Border; Sacramento River

winter-run chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); Western

North Pacific (Korean) gray whale

(Eschrichtius robustus), Blue whale

(Balaenoptera musculus), Humpback

whale (Megaptera novaeangliae),

Bowhead whale (Balaenamysticetus),

Right whales (Eubalaena spp.), Fin or

finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus),

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis),

Sperm whale (Physeter catodon);

Cochito (Phocoena Sinus), Chinese river

dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer); Indus River

dolphin (Platanista minor); Caribean

monk seal (Monachus tropicalis)

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus

schauinslandi); Mediterranean monk

seal (Monachus monachus); Saimaa seal

(Phoca hispida saimensis); Steller sea

lion (Eumetopias jubatus), western

population, which consists of Steller sea

lions from breeding colonies located

west of 144° W. long.; Leatherback sea

turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Pacific

hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys

imbricata bissa), Atlantic hawksbill sea

turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata

imbricata), Atlantic ridley sea turtle

(Lepidochelys kempii). * * *

* * * * *

PART 227—THREATENED FISH AND

WILDLIFE

1. The authority citation for part 227

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart B,

§ 227.12 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et

seq.

2. In § 227.4, paragraphs (j), (k), and

(l) are added to read as follows:

§ 227.4 Enumeration of threatened

species.

* * * * *

(j) Central California Coast steelhead

(Oncorhynchus mykiss). Includes all

naturally spawned populations of

steelhead (and their progeny) in streams

from the Russian River to Aptos Creek,

Santa Cruz County, California

(inclusive), and the drainages of San

Francisco and San Pablo Bays eastward

to the Napa River (inclusive), Napa

County, California. Excludes the

Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin of

the Central Valley of California;

(k) South-Central California Coast

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Includes all naturally spawned

populations of steelhead (and their

progeny) in streams from the Pajaro

River (inclusive), located in Santa Cruz

County, California, to (but not

including) the Santa Maria River;

(l) Snake River Basin steelhead

(Oncorhynchus mykiss). Includes all

naturally spawned populations of

steelhead (and their progeny) in streams
43954 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

in the Snake River Basin of southeast

Washington, northeast Oregon, and

Idaho.

[FR Doc. 97–21661 Filed 8–13–97; 9:14 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 970613138–7138–01; I.D.

081397A]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Scallop Fishery;

Closure in Registration Area Q

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the scallop

fishery in Registration Area Q (Bering

Sea). This action is necessary to prevent

exceeding the Chionoecetes opilio (C.

opilio) Tanner crab bycatch limit (CBL)

in this area.

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), August 13, 1997, until 2400

hrs, A.l.t., June 30, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Smoker, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

scallop fishery in the exclusive

economic zone off Alaska is managed by

NMFS according to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Scallop

Fishery off Alaska (FMP) prepared by

the North Pacific Fishery Management

Council under authority of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act.

Fishing for scallops is governed by

regulations appearing at subpart F of 50

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. In

accordance with § 679.62(b) the 1997 C.

opilio CBL for Registration Area Q was

established by the Final 1997–98

Harvest Specifications of Scallops (62

FR 34182, June 25, 1997) as 172,000 C.

opilio crab.

The Administrator, Alaska Region,

NMFS, has determined, in accordance

with § 679.62(c), that the C. opilio CBL

for Registration Area Q has been

reached. Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting

the taking and retention of scallops in

Registration Area Q.

Classification

This action responds to the best

available information recently obtained

from the fishery. It must be

implemented immediately to prevent

overharvesting the 1997 CBL for

Registration Area Q. Providing prior

notice and an opportunity for public

comment on this action is impracticable

and contrary to public interest. The fleet

has already taken the CBL for

Registration Area Q. Further delay

would only result in overharvest and

disrupt the FMP’s objective of allowing

incidental catch to be retained

throughout the year. NMFS finds for

good cause that the implementation of

this action cannot be delayed for 30

days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C.

553(d), a delay in the effective date is

hereby waived.

This action is required by § 679.62

and is exempt from review under E.O.

12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: August 13, 1997.

Gary C. Matlock,

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–21826 Filed 8-13-97; 2:40 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F