Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10857 

Dated: March 9, 2009. 

Karen A. Cook, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E9–5446 Filed 3–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4R–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 223 

[Docket No. 080229343–81352–02] 

RIN 0648–XF87 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants: Proposed Threatened 

Status for Southern Distinct 

Population Segment of Eulachon 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12–month 

petition finding; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the NMFS, have 

completed a review of the status of the 

Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys 

pacificus; hereafter ‘‘eulachon’’) under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 

response to a petition submitted by the 

Cowlitz Indian Tribe to list eulachon as 

a threatened or endangered species. 

After reviewing the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

have determined that the species is 

comprised of two or more distinct 

population segments (DPSs) that qualify 

as species under the ESA. Moreover, 

after evaluating threats facing the 

species, and considering efforts being 

made to protect eulachon, we have 

determined that the southern DPS is 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. We propose to list it as 

threatened under the ESA. The southern 

DPS of eulachon consists of populations 

spawning in rivers south of the Nass 

River in British Columbia, Canada, to, 

and including, the Mad River in 

California. Within the range of the 

southern DPS, major production areas or 

‘‘core populations’’ for this species 

include the Columbia and Fraser rivers 

and may have historically included the 

Klamath River. We solicit information to 

inform the development of the final 

listing rule. 

Any protective regulations 

determined to be necessary and 

advisable for the conservation of the 

southern DPS of eulachon under ESA 

section 4(d) will be proposed in a 

subsequent Federal Register notice. We 

solicit information to inform the 

development of proposed protective 

regulations and designation of critical 

habitat in the event the DPS is listed. If 

the proposed listing is finalized, a 

recovery plan will also be prepared and 

implemented for the southern DPS. 

DATES: Comments on this proposal must 

be received by May 12, 2009. A public 

hearing will be held promptly if any 

person so requests by April 27, 2009. 

Notice of the location and time of any 

such hearing will be published in the 

Federal Register not less than 15 days 

before the hearing is held. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by 0648–XF87 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Chief, Protected Resources Division, 

Northwest Region, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., 

Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. We will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. The eulachon 

petition, status review, and other 

reference materials regarding this 

determination can be obtained via the 

Internet at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ or 

by submitting a request to the Assistant 

Regional Administrator, Protected 

Resources Division, Northwest Region, 

NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 

1100, Portland, OR 97232. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Murray, NMFS, Northwest Region (503) 

231–2378; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, 

Office of Protected Resources (301) 713– 

1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 16, 1999, we received a 

petition from Mr. Sam Wright of 

Olympia, Washington, to list and 

designate critical habitat for Columbia 

River populations of eulachon. On 

November 29, 1999, we determined that, 

while the petition indicated that 

eulachon catches had recently declined 

in the Columbia River basin, it did not 

present substantial scientific 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted (64 

FR 66601). That finding was based on 

observations that the species is likely 

more abundant than commercial 

landings indicate and, based on life 

history attributes (e.g., the species’ high 

fecundity and short life span) and 

assumptions from catch data and 

anecdotal reports, has a demonstrated 

ability to rebound from periods of low 

abundance. Additionally, the petition 

did not provide sufficient information 

regarding the distinctness of eulachon 

populations in the Columbia River 

relative to the other populations in the 

species’ range. 

On November 8, 2007, we received a 

petition from the Cowlitz Indian Tribe 

requesting that we list the eulachon that 

spawn south of the U.S./WashingtonCanada border as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. In contrast 

to our 1999 review, we concluded there 

was sufficient information showing that 

eulachon may warrant delineation into 

DPSs and that eulachon in the 

petitioned portion of the species’ range 

had substantially declined in 

abundance. On March 12, 2008, we 

determined that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted, 

and we requested information to assist 

with a status review to determine if 

eulachon warranted listing under the 

ESA (73 FR 13185). 

ESA Statutory Provisions 

The ESA defines species to include 

subspecies or a DPS of any vertebrate 

species which interbreeds when mature 

(16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS have 

adopted a joint policy describing what 

constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species 

(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The 

joint DPS policy identifies two criteria 

for making DPS determinations: (1) the 

population must be discrete in relation 

to the remainder of the taxon (species or 

subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) 

the population must be significant to the 

remainder of the taxon to which it 

belongs. 

A population segment of a vertebrate 

species may be considered discrete if it 

satisfies either one of the following 

conditions: (1) ‘‘it is markedly separated 

from other populations of the same 

taxon as a consequence of physical, 

physiological, ecological, or behavioral 

factors. Quantitative measures of genetic 

or morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation’’; or 

(2) ‘‘it is delimited by international 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
10858 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D)’’ of the ESA. 

If a population segment is found to be 

discrete under one or both of the above 

conditions, its biological and ecological 

significance to the taxon to which it 

belongs is evaluated. This consideration 

may include, but is not limited to: (1) 

‘‘persistence of the discrete population 

segment in an ecological setting unusual 

or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence 

that the loss of the discrete population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence 

that the discrete population segment 

represents the only surviving natural 

occurrence of a taxon that may be more 

abundant elsewhere as an introduced 

population outside its historic range; 

and (4) evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics.’’ 

The ESA defines an endangered 

species as one that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, and a threatened 

species as one that is likely to become 

an endangered species in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532 (6) 

and (20)). The statute requires us to 

determine whether any species is 

endangered or threatened because of 

any of the following factors: the present 

or threatened destruction of its habitat, 

overexploitation, disease or predation, 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, or any other natural or 

manmade factors (16 U.S.C. 1533). We 

are to make this determination based 

solely on the best available scientific 

and commercial information after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and taking into account any 

efforts being made by states or foreign 

governments to protect the species. 

Status Review 

To conduct the status review, we 

formed a Biological Review Team (BRT) 

comprised of Federal scientists from our 

Northwest, Southwest, and Alaska 

Fisheries Science Centers, the FWS, and 

the U.S. Forest Service. We asked the 

BRT to review the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

to determine whether eulachon warrant 

delineation into DPSs, using the criteria 

in the joint DPS policy. We then asked 

the BRT to assess the level of extinction 

risk facing the species, describing their 

confidence that the species is at high 

risk, moderate risk, or neither. We 

described a species with high risk as 

one that is at or near a level of 

abundance, productivity, and/or spatial 

structure that places its persistence in 

question. We described a species at 

moderate risk as one that exhibits a 

trajectory indicating that it is more 

likely than not to be at a high level of 

extinction risk in the foreseeable future, 

with the appropriate time horizon 

depending on the nature of the threats 

facing the species and the species’ life 

history characteristics. In evaluating the 

extinction risk, we asked the BRT to 

describe the threats facing the species, 

according to the statutory factors listed 

under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. The 

draft report of the BRT deliberations 

(Gustafson et al., 2008) (hereafter 

‘‘status report’’) thoroughly describes 

eulachon biology and natural history, 

and assesses demographic risks, threats, 

limiting factors, and overall extinction 

risk. The key background information 

and findings of the draft status report 

are summarized below. 

Biology and Life History of Eulachon 

The biology of eulachon is described 

in detail in the draft status report and 

in Willson et al. (2006), and is 

summarized below. Eulachon are a 

member of the osmerid family (smelts), 

and no subspecies have been identified. 

The following section presents biology 

and life history information gathered 

from throughout the range of eulachon, 

though much of the research on 

eulachon has occurred in Alaska and 

British Columbia. A later section 

focuses on information specific to the 

southern DPS of eulachon. 

Spawning Range 

Eulachon (also called Columbia River 

smelt, candlefish, or hooligan) are 

endemic to the northeastern Pacific 

Ocean, ranging from northern California 

to southwest and south-central Alaska 

and into the southeastern Bering Sea. In 

the portion of the species’ range that lies 

south of the U.S./Washington-Canada 

border, most eulachon production 

originates in the Columbia River Basin 

(Figure 1). Within the Columbia River 

Basin, the major and most consistent 

spawning runs return to the mainstem 

of the Columbia River (from just 

upstream of the estuary, river mile (RM) 

25, to immediately downstream of 

Bonneville Dam, RM 146) and in the 

Cowlitz River. Periodic spawning also 

occurs in the Grays, Skamokawa, 

Elochoman, Kalama, Lewis, and Sandy 

rivers (tributaries to the Columbia River) 

(Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) and Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW), 2001). Other river basins in 

the lower 48 United States where 

spawning runs of eulachon have been 

documented include the Klamath River 

in northern California and infrequently 

in some, but not all, coastal rivers 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10859 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

in northern California, Oregon and 

Washington (Emmett et al., 1991, 

Willson et al., 2006). Major production 

areas in Canada are the Fraser and Nass 

rivers (Willson et al., 2006). Numerous 

other river systems in central British 

Columbia and Alaska have consistent 

yearly runs of eulachon and historically 

supported significant levels of harvest 

(Willson et al., 2006; Gustafson et al., 

2008). Many sources note that runs 

occasionally occur in many other rivers 

and streams, although these tend to be 

erratic, appearing in some years but not 

others, and appearing only rarely in 

some river systems (Hay and McCarter, 

2000; Willson et al., 2006). 

Spawning Behavior 

Eulachon typically spend 3–5 years in 

saltwater before returning to fresh water 

to spawn from late winter through early 

summer. Spawning grounds are 

typically in the lower reaches of larger 

rivers fed by snowmelt (Hay and 

McCarter, 2000). Spawning typically 

occurs at night. Willson et al. (2006) 

concluded that the age distribution of 

eulachon in a spawning run probably 

varies among rivers and also varies 

between sexes in some years, and 

among years in the same river system. 

Males typically outnumber females by 

2:1 or more. Spawning occurs at 

temperatures from 4° to 10° C in the 

Columbia River and tributaries (ODFW 

and WDFW, 2001) and from 0° to 2° C 

in the Nass River (Langer et al., 1977) 

over sand, coarse gravel, or detrital 

substrates. The sexes must synchronize 

their activities closely, unlike some 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP13MR09.000</GPH>
10860 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

other group spawners such as herring, 

because eulachon sperm remain viable 

for only a short time, perhaps only 

minutes (Hay and McCarter, 2000). 

Some researchers report that males lie 

next to, beside, or on top of females in 

riffles (Lewis et al., 2002). Langer et al. 

(1977) report that males congregate 

upstream of groups of females, releasing 

milt simultaneously, and females lay 

eggs as the milt drifts over them. Eggs 

are fertilized in the water column, sink, 

and adhere to the river bottom typically 

in areas of gravel and coarse sand. Most 

eulachon adults die after spawning. 

In many rivers, spawning is limited to 

the part of the river that is influenced 

by tides (Lewis et al., 2002), but some 

exceptions exist. In the Berners Bay 

system of Alaska, the greatest 

abundance of eulachon was observed in 

tidally-influenced reaches, but some 

fish ascended well beyond the tidal 

influence (Willson et al., 2006). 

Eulachon once ascended more than 160 

km in the Columbia River system. There 

is some evidence that water velocity 

greater than 0.4 m/s begins to limit the 

upstream movements of eulachon 

(Lewis et al., 2002). 

Entry into the spawning rivers 

appears to be related to water 

temperature and the occurrence of high 

tides (Ricker et al., 1954; Smith and 

Saalfeld, 1955; Spangler, 2002). 

Spawning occurs in January, February, 

and March in the Columbia River, and 

April and May in the Fraser River. 

Eulachon runs in central and northern 

British Columbia typically occur in late 

February and March or late March and 

early April. Attempts to characterize 

eulachon run timing are complicated 

further by marked annual variation in 

timing. Willson et al. (2006) give several 

examples of spawning run timing 

varying by a month or more in rivers in 

British Columbia and Alaska. 

Although spawning generally occurs 

at temperatures from 4° to 7° C in the 

Cowlitz River (Smith and Saalfeld, 

1955), peak eulachon runs occurred at 

noticeably colder temperatures (between 

0° and 2° C) in the Nass River. The Nass 

River run is also earlier than the 

eulachon run that occurs at warmer 

temperatures in the Fraser River (Langer 

et al., 1977). 

Early Life History and Maturation 

Eulachon eggs are approximately 1 

mm in diameter, averaging about 43 mg 

in weight; however, in the Fraser River 

population egg weight varied from 10 

mg in fish measuring 120 mm in length 

to almost 30 mg in fish of 180–190 mm 

standard length (Hay and McCarter, 

2000). Eggs are enclosed in a double 

membrane; after fertilization in the 

water, the outer membrane breaks and 

turns inside out, creating a sticky stalk 

which helps anchor the eggs to sand 

grains and small gravel (Hart and 

McHugh, 1944; Hay and McCarter, 

2000). Eulachon eggs hatch in 20–40 

days, with incubation time dependent 

on water temperature. Shortly after 

hatching, the larvae are carried 

downstream and dispersed by estuarine 

and ocean currents. Similar to salmon, 

juvenile eulachon are thought to imprint 

on the chemical signature of their natal 

(birth) river basins. However, juvenile 

eulachon spend less time in freshwater 

environments than do juvenile salmon, 

and researchers believe that this short 

freshwater residence time may cause 

returning eulachon to stray more from 

their birth spawning sites than salmon 

(Hay and McCarter, 2000). 

After leaving estuarine rearing areas, 

juvenile eulachon move from shallow 

nearshore areas to deeper areas over the 

continental shelf. Larvae and young 

juveniles become widely distributed in 

coastal waters, with fish found mostly at 

depths up to 15 m (Hay and McCarter, 

2000) but sometimes as deep as 182 m 

(Barraclough, 1964). There is currently 

little information available about 

eulachon movements in nearshore 

marine areas and the open ocean. 

Willson et al. (2006) summarized the 

results of surveys showing 

concentrations of pre-spawning adult 

eulachon off Vancouver Island, in the 

Bering Sea, in the Gulf of Alaska, in 

Prince William Sound, and in the 

Coastal Fjords of Southeast Alaska. The 

amount of eulachon bycatch in the pink 

shrimp fishery seems to indicate that 

the distribution of these organisms 

overlap in the ocean. 

Prey 

Eulachon feed on zooplankton, 

chiefly eating crustaceans such as 

copepods and euphausiids, including 

Thysanoessa spp. (Barraclough, 1964; 

Hay and McCarter, 2000), unidentified 

malacostracans (Sturdevant et al., 1999), 

and cumaceans (Smith and Saalfeld, 

1955). Eulachon larvae and post-larvae 

eat phytoplankton, copepods, copepod 

eggs, mysids, barnacle larvae, worm 

larvae, and eulachon larvae (WDFW and 

ODFW, 2001). Adults and juveniles 

commonly forage at moderate depths 

(15 to 182 m) in inshore waters (Hay 

and McCarter, 2000). 

Predators 

Eulachon are very high in lipids, and, 

due to their availability during 

spawning runs, they are an important 

part of the Pacific coastal food web. 

They have numerous avian predators 

such as harlequin ducks, pigeon 

guillemots, common murres, 

mergansers, cormorants, gulls, and 

eagles. Marine mammals such as baleen 

whales, orcas, dolphins, pinnipeds, and 

beluga whales are known to feed on 

eulachon. During spawning runs, bears 

and wolves have been observed 

consuming eulachon. Fishes that prey 

on eulachon include white sturgeon, 

spiny dogfish, sablefish, salmon sharks, 

arrowtooth flounder, salmon, Dolly 

Varden, Pacific halibut, and Pacific cod. 

In particular, eulachon and their eggs 

seem to provide a significant food 

source for white sturgeon in the 

Columbia and Fraser Rivers. 

Age and Length 

It is difficult to compare eulachon 

body lengths among reports because 

researchers have used different length 

measures (i.e., standard, fork, and total 

length) and these must be standardized 

for across-population comparisons 

(Buchheister and Wilson, 2005). As 

expected, both length and body mass 

increase with age. Eulachon on the 

Twentymile River averaged about 180– 

200 mm and 40–58 g at age 2, to 220– 

225 mm and 80–90 g at age 5. At age 3, 

the most common age of spawners, fork 

length averaged about 200–215 mm and 

body mass averaged about 60–65 g 

(estimated from Spangler, 2002). For the 

Fraser River population, fork-length 

distribution was as follows: age 0+ fish 

were about 20–50 mm, age 1+ about 50– 

80 mm, age 2+ about 75–105 mm, age 

3+ about 105–135 mm, and age 4+ about 

135–160 mm (estimated by Willson et 

al., 2006, from Barraclough, 1964). 

Eulachon in the Kemano, Kitimat, Nass, 

Stikine, and Columbia rivers have 

similar distributions of size-at-age, but 

the increase in size-at-age is small for 

both sexes (10 mm from age 3 to 4 and 

4 mm from age 4 to 5; Lewis et al., 

2002). 

DPS Delineation 

Evidence that the BRT found 

informative for determining whether 

southern populations of eulachon may 

be discrete from northern populations of 

eulachon included differences in: 

spawning characteristics; size- and ageat-maturity of eulachon between 

northern and southern rivers in the 

species’ range; ecological features of 

both the oceanic and freshwater 

environments occupied by eulachon; 

and genetic characteristics. 

Spawning Characteristics 

Eulachon generally spawn in rivers 

that are glacier-or snowmelt-fed and 

have a pronounced peak freshet in 

spring. Some researchers hypothesize 

that the rapid flushing of eggs and 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10861 

larvae out of the spawning river reach 

by these freshets may result in eulachon 

imprinting and homing to the larger 

local estuary rather than to individual 

spawning rivers (Hay and McCarter, 

2000). Thus, the estuary has been 

invoked as the likely geographic 

population unit for eulachon (Hay and 

McCarter, 2000; Hay and Beacham, 

2005). 

Variation in spawn timing among 

rivers has also been cited as indicative 

of local adaptation in eulachon (Hay 

and McCarter, 2000), although the wide 

overlap in spawn timing among rivers 

makes it difficult to discern distinctive 

patterns in this trait. These differences 

in spawn timing result in some 

populations spawning when water 

temperatures are as low as 0–2° C, and 

sometimes under ice (e.g., in the Nass 

River; Langer et al., 1977), whereas 

other populations experience spawning 

temperatures of from 4–7° C (e.g., in the 

Cowlitz River; (Smith and Saalfield, 

1955)). In general, eulachon spawn 

earlier in southern portions of their 

range than in rivers to the north. Riverentry and spawning begin as early as 

December and January in the Columbia 

River Basin and as late as June in central 

Alaska. However, eulachon have been 

known to spawn as early as January in 

rivers of the Copper River Delta of 

Alaska and as late as May in northern 

California. The general spawn timing 

pattern is reversed along the coast of 

British Columbia where the earliest 

spawning occurs in the Nass River in 

the far north in February to early March, 

and the latest spawning occurs in the 

Fraser River in April and May in the far 

south. 

Size and Age-at-Maturity 

Coastwide, there appears to be an 

increase in both mean length and weight 

of eulachon at maturity with an increase 

in latitude. Mean eulachon fork length 

and weight at maturity range from about 

215 mm and 70 g in the Twentymile 

River in Alaska to 175 mm and 37 g in 

the Columbia River. This pattern is 

typical of many vertebrate 

poikilotherms (i.e., cold-blooded 

animals), for which higher rearing 

temperatures result in reduced size at a 

given stage of development (Lindsey, 

1966; Atkinson, 1994; Stout et al., 

2001a). 

Age determination of eulachon has 

been difficult to validate and estimates 

of age based on otolith increments may 

not be accurate (Ricker et al. 1954, Hay 

and McCarter 2000). Most studies based 

on otolith increments conclude that 

some eulachon spawn at age–2 through 

age–5, but most spawn at age–2, age–3 

or age–4 (Barraclough, 1964; Langer et 

al., 1977; Hay and McCarter, 2000; 

Willson et al., 2006). Recently, Clarke et 

al. (2007) developed a method to 

estimate eulachon age at spawning from 

analysis of variations in barium and 

calcium in the otoliths. This study 

indicated that age structure of spawners 

in the southern areas may be limited to 

one or at most two year classes (Clarke 

et al., 2007). According to Clarke et al. 

(2007), the number of peaks in the 

Barium to Calcium ratio observed in 

eulachon otoliths increased with 

increasing latitude, suggesting that the 

age at maturity is older for northern 

populations. 

Ecological Boundaries 

The fidelity with which eulachon 

return to their natal river, estuary, or 

inlet implies some association between 

a specific population and its freshwater 

and/or estuarine environment. 

Differences in life-history strategies 

among eulachon populations may have 

arisen, in part, in response to selective 

pressures of different freshwater/ 

estuarine environments. If the 

boundaries of distinct freshwater or 

estuarine habitats coincide with 

differences in life histories, it would 

suggest a certain degree of local 

adaptation. The BRT looked at the 

characteristics of the terrestrial and 

marine environments occupied by 

eulachon to assist in evaluating 

potential DPS structure. 

The BRT used the Environmental 

Protection Agency ecoregion 

designations (Omernik, 1987) to 

evaluate potential eulachon DPS 

structure based on freshwater 

distribution. These ecoregions have 

been used in past ESA status reviews 

and recovery plans to identify DPSs and 

population structure of Pacific salmon 

and other marine fishes (e.g., Good et 

al., 2005). The historical distribution of 

eulachon in Washington, Oregon, and 

California corresponds closely with the 

Coastal Range Ecoregion as defined in 

Omernik (1987). Extending from the 

Olympic Peninsula through the Coast 

Range proper and down to the Klamath 

Mountains and the San Francisco Bay 

area, this region is influenced by 

medium to high rainfall levels because 

of the interaction between marine 

weather systems and the mountainous 

nature of the region. Topographically, 

the region averages about 500 m in 

elevation, with mountain tops under 

1,200 m in elevation. The region is 

heavily forested, primarily with Sitka 

spruce, western hemlock, and western 

red cedar. Streams occupied by 

eulachon within this region generally 

follow two distinct annual flow 

patterns: (1) Streams draining coastal 

watersheds, where winter rain storms 

are common, have high flow periods 

coinciding with these storms; (2) 

streams draining more interior areas, 

such as the Columbia and Cowlitz 

Rivers, have a distinct spring freshet 

period coinciding with snow melt. 

Eulachon production is highest in these 

latter systems. 

The BRT also used Environment 

Canada’s (2008) established system of 

ecozones and ecoregions to help assess 

eulachon DPS boundaries in Canada. 

Their ‘‘Ecozones’’ are approximately the 

same size as the ecoregions defined by 

Omernik (1987), while their ecoregions 

are considerably smaller. All rivers that 

support regular runs of eulachon in 

British Columbia are within the Pacific 

Maritime Ecozone, which consists of 14 

ecoregions. The Lower Mainland, 

Pacific Ranges, and Coastal Gap 

ecoregions contain rivers supporting 

regular runs of eulachon as defined in 

Hay and McCarter (2000) and Hay 

(2002). The Lower Mainland Ecoregion 

is dominated by the Fraser River and 

includes the Fraser River valley. Mean 

annual precipitation in the Fraser River 

Valley ranges from 200 cm in the 

Cascade foothills to 85 cm at the river’s 

mouth. Mean summer and winter air 

temperatures in this region are 15° C 

and 3.5° C, respectively. Douglas fir 

dominates native forest stands while 

other common tree species include red 

alder, Pacific madrone, western red 

cedar and western hemlock. The Pacific 

Ranges Ecoregion extends from the 

southern extent of the steeply sloping 

irregular Coast Mountains at the US 

border to Bella Coola in the north. These 

mountains range from sea level to as 

high as 4000 m. Many rivers in this 

region originate in expansive ice-fields, 

and numerous glaciers extend into the 

lowlands. Mean summer and winter air 

temperatures in this region are 13.5° C 

and -1° C, respectively. Mean annual 

precipitation in this ecoregion ranges 

from 340 cm at high elevations to 150 

cm at sea level. The coastal forest zone 

is dominated by stands of western red 

cedar, western hemlock, and Pacific 

silver fir; and by Douglas fir and 

western hemlock in drier sites. The 

Coastal Gap Ecoregion extends from 

Dean Channel north to the border 

between British Columbia and Alaska 

and is bounded by the taller Pacific 

Ranges to the south and the Boundary 

Ranges to the north. The low-relief 

mountains in this ecoregion consist of 

the Kitimat Ranges, which rarely reach 

higher than 2400 m. Mean summer and 

winter air temperatures in this region 

are 13° C and -0.5° C, respectively. This 

ecoregion has the highest mean annual 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
10862 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

precipitation in British Columbia, 

ranging from 200 cm on the coast to 

over 450 cm at high elevations. Forests 

are dominated by western red cedar, 

yellow cedar, and western hemlock. 

Some Sitka spruce and shore pine are 

also present with red alder being 

common on disturbed sites. 

The Nass Basin Ecoregion contains 

two rivers, the Nass and the Skeena, 

which also support regular runs of 

eulachon. The Nass Basin Ecoregion lies 

between the interior and coastal 

portions of the Coast Mountains in westcentral British Columbia and is an area 

of low-relief composed of folded 

Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments that 

is almost encircled by mountains. Mean 

summer and winter air temperatures in 

this region are 11.5° C and -9.5° C, 

respectively. Mean annual precipitation 

ranges up to 250 cm at higher elevations 

to 150 cm in the lowlands. The moist 

montane zone is dominated by western 

red cedar and western hemlock, 

whereas forests in the subalpine zone 

contain subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, 

and Engelmann spruce. 

The BRT also looked at ecological 

features of the ocean environment to 

evaluate potential eulachon DPS 

structure. Ware and McFarlane (1989) 

built upon previous descriptions of 

oceanic domains in the northeast Pacific 

Ocean by Dodimead et al. (1963) and 

Thomson (1981) to identify three 

principal fish production domains in 

the range of eulachon: (1) a Southern 

Coastal Upwelling Domain, (2) a 

Northern Coastal Downwelling Domain, 

and (3) a Central Subarctic Domain (the 

Alaskan Gyre). The boundary between 

the Coastal Upwelling Domain and 

Coastal Downwelling Domain occurs 

where the eastward flowing Subarctic 

Current (also called the North Pacific 

Current) bifurcates to form the northflowing Alaska Current and the southflowing California Current. This occurs 

in the vicinity of a Transitional Zone 

between the northern tip of Vancouver 

Island and the northern extent of the 

Queen Charlotte Islands (an archipelago 

off the northwest coast of British 

Columbia, Canada, just south of the 

Nass River outlet). 

Similarly, Longhurst (2006) identifies 

an Alaska Downwelling Coastal 

Province and a California Current 

Province within the Pacific Coastal 

Biome in his delineation of ocean zones. 

Within Longhurst’s (2006) Pacific 

Coastal Biome, ocean distribution of 

eulachon spans the Alaska Downwelling 

Coastal Province and the northern 

portion of the California Current 

Province. Longhurst (2006) also places 

the boundary between the Alaska 

Coastal Downwelling Province and the 

California Current Province where the 

eastward flowing Subarctic Current 

(also called the North Pacific Current) 

bifurcates. 

Different modes of physical forcing 

and nutrient enrichment characterize 

these provinces. Eulachon occupying 

these different provinces likely 

experience different ocean conditions 

and selective pressures. In the Alaska 

Coastal Downwelling province, large 

amounts of precipitation and runoff 

from melting glaciers along the 

mountainous Alaskan coast provide the 

majority of freshwater input. In summer 

and fall, when runoff is at a maximum, 

waters in the fjord-like coastline and in 

this area are usually highly stratified in 

both temperature and salinity. 

Following the spring phytoplankton 

bloom, stratification in the top layers of 

the water column limits nutrient 

availability and leads to subsequent 

nutrient depletion. Occasional wind 

events lead to temporary local 

upwelling of nutrients and subsequent 

phytoplankton blooms. In general, water 

temperatures are lower in this province 

than the more southerly California 

Current Province. 

In the California Current Province, 

seasonal wind driven upwelling is a 

dominate feature of this province. This 

process carries nutrients onshore where 

they are upwelled along the coast, 

leading to high primary production that 

lasts through much of the spring and 

summer. Nearshore upwelling also 

results in higher salinities and lower 

temperatures compared to offshore 

locations. 

These two provinces are also 

characterized by distinct plankton 

communities: a boreal community in the 

Alaska Downwelling Province and a 

temperate community in the California 

Current Province. Food availability for 

eulachon differs in type and seasonal 

availability between provinces. It is 

likely that food availability highly 

influences eulachon behaviors such as 

seasonal movements. 

Genetics 

The analysis of the geographical 

distribution of genetic variation is a 

powerful method for identifying 

discrete populations. In addition, such 

analysis can sometimes be used to 

estimate historical dispersals, 

equilibrium levels of migration (gene 

flow), and past isolation. Commonly 

used molecular genetic markers include 

protein variants (allozymes), 

microsatellite loci (variable numbers of 

short tandem repeats in nuclear DNA), 

and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). 

The BRT reviewed three published 

genetic studies to consider evidence of 

population structure in eulachon. One 

of these studies (McLean et al., 1999) 

used restriction fragment length 

polymorphism analysis to examine 

variation in mtDNA. Mitochondrial 

DNA studies are generally most useful 

for detecting deep divergence patterns 

of population structure, and may not be 

very powerful for detecting structure 

among closely related populations. The 

other studies (McLean and Taylor, 2001; 

Kaukinen et al., 2004; Beacham et al., 

2005) analyzed microsatellite loci. 

Microsatellite DNA markers can 

potentially detect population structure 

on finer spatial and temporal scales than 

can other DNA or protein markers 

because of higher levels of 

polymorphism (diversity) found in 

microsatellite DNA (reflecting a high 

mutation rate). 

McLean et al. (1999) examined 

mtDNA variation in 285 eulachon 

samples collected at 11 freshwater sites 

ranging from the Columbia River to 

Cook Inlet, Alaska, and also from 29 

ocean-caught fish captured in the Bering 

Sea. They concluded that, overall, there 

was little genetic differentiation among 

eulachon collected from distinct 

freshwater locations throughout the 

eulachon range. The pattern of eulachon 

mtDNA variation does not indicate the 

existence of any highly divergent 

populations and is consistent with the 

hypothesis that eulachon dispersed 

from a single glacial formation and 

retreat event. However, McLean et al. 

(1999) did note an association of 

geographic distance with genetic 

differentiation among eulachon 

populations, and suggested this 

represented an emerging population 

subdivision throughout the range of the 

species. 

In a later study, McLean and Taylor 

(2001) used five microsatellite loci to 

examine variation in the same set of 

populations as McLean et al. (1999). 

The populations in the Columbia and 

Cowlitz rivers were represented by 2 

years of samples with a total sample size 

of 60 fish from each river. However, 

several populations were represented by 

very few samples, including just five 

fish from the three rivers in Gardner 

Canal and just 10 fish from the Fraser 

River. Results from a hierarchical 

analysis of molecular variance test were 

similar to those of the McLean et al. 

(1999) mtDNA study, with 0.85 percent 

of variation occurring among large 

regions and 3.75 percent among 

populations within regions. In contrast 

to the mtDNA analysis however, genetic 

distances among populations using 

these five microsatellite loci were not 

correlated with geographic distances. 

Overall, McLean and Taylor (2001) 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10863 

concluded that their microsatellite DNA 

results were mostly consistent with the 

mtDNA findings of McLean et al. (1999) 

and that both studies indicated that 

eulachon have some degree of 

population structure. 

The most extensive genetic study of 

eulachon, in terms of sample size and 

number of loci examined, is that of 

Beacham et al. (2005). Beacham et al. 

(2005) examined microsatellite DNA 

variation in eulachon collected at 9 sites 

ranging from the Columbia River to 

Cook Inlet, Alaska, using the 14 loci 

developed in an earlier study by 

Kaukinen et al. (2004). Sample sizes per 

site ranged from 74 fish from the 

Columbia River to 421 from the Fraser 

River. Samples collected in multiple 

years were analyzed from populations 

in the Bella Coola and Kemano rivers (2 

years of sampling) and also in the Nass 

River (3 years of sampling). Beacham et 

al. (2005) observed much greater 

microsatellite DNA diversity within 

populations than that reported by 

McLean and Taylor (2001), and all loci 

were highly polymorphic in all of the 

sampled populations. Significant 

genetic differentiation was observed 

among all comparisons of the nine 

populations in the study. A cluster 

analysis of genetic distances showed 

genetic affinities among the populations 

in the Fraser, Columbia, and Cowlitz 

rivers and also among the Kemano, 

Klinaklini, and Bella Coola rivers along 

the central British Columbia coast. In 

particular, there was evidence of a 

genetic discontinuity north of the Fraser 

River, with Fraser and Columbia/ 

Cowlitz samples being approximately 3– 

6 times more divergent from samples 

further to the north than they were to 

each other. Similar to the mtDNA study 

of McLean et al. (1999), the authors also 

found that genetic differentiation among 

populations was correlated with 

geographic distances. 

Beacham et al. (2005) found stronger 

evidence of population structure than 

the earlier genetic studies, and 

concluded that their results indicated 

that management of eulachon would be 

appropriately based at the level of the 

river drainage. In particular, the 

microsatellite DNA analysis showed 

that populations of eulachon in different 

rivers are genetically differentiated from 

each other at statistically significant 

levels. The authors suggested that the 

pattern of eulachon differentiation was 

similar to that typically found in marine 

fish, which is less than that observed in 

most salmon species. 

Although Beacham et al. (2005) found 

clear evidence of genetic structure 

among eulachon populations, the 

authors also noted that important 

questions remained unresolved. The 

most important one in terms of 

identifying DPSs for eulachon is the 

relationship between temporal and 

geographic patterns of genetic variation. 

In particular, Beacham et al. (2005) 

found that year-to-year genetic variation 

within three British Columbia coastal 

river systems was similar to the level of 

variation among the rivers, which 

suggests that patterns among rivers may 

not be temporally stable. However, in 

the comparisons involving the Columbia 

River samples, the variation between the 

Columbia samples and one north-ofFraser sample from the same year was 

approximately 5 times greater than a 

comparison within the Columbia from 2 

different years. 

When all genetic studies are 

considered, the BRT found modest 

genetic structure within eulachon, with 

the most obvious genetic break 

appearing to occur in southern British 

Columbia north of the Fraser River. This 

break indicates a degree of reproductive 

isolation between northern and 

southern populations, suggesting the 

two population segments are discrete. 

DPS Conclusions of the BRT 

Based on the foregoing, the BRT 

identified six possible DPS 

configurations or scenarios that could 

include eulachon that spawn in 

Washington, Oregon, and California 

rivers (i.e., the petitioned region). The 

geographic boundaries of possible DPSs 

considered in this evaluation were: (1) 

the entire biological species is the ‘‘ESA 

species’’ (i.e., there is no DPS structure 

within the species); (2) a DPS boundary 

near the Yakutat Forelands in Alaska 

such that eulachon in Southeast Alaska 

through Northern California consist of 

one DPS and eulachon further north and 

west consist of one or more additional 

DPS(s); (3) a DPS boundary just south of 

the Nass River/Dixon Entrance in 

British Columbia such that eulachon 

from south of the Nass River through 

Northern California consist of one DPS 

and eulachon from the Nass River and 

further north and west consist of one or 

more additional DPS(s); (4) a DPS 

boundary north of the Fraser River such 

that eulachon from the Fraser River 

through Northern California consist of 

one DPS and eulachon from the Fraser 

River and further north and west consist 

of one or more additional DPS(s); (5) a 

DPS boundary south of the Fraser River 

such that eulachon south of the USCanada border consist of one DPS and 

eulachon from the Fraser River and 

further north and west consist of one or 

more additional DPS(s); (6) multiple 

DPSs of eulachon in Washington, 

Oregon and California and one or more 

additional DPSs throughout the 

remainder of the species’ range. 

Because of the paucity of quantitative 

population data, the BRT used 

structured decision making to guide its 

determination of DPS structure and 

boundaries. To allow for expressions of 

the level of uncertainty in identifying 

the boundaries of a discrete eulachon 

population, the BRT adopted a 

‘‘likelihood point’’ method, often 

referred to as the ‘‘FEMAT’’ method 

because it is a variation of a method 

used by scientific teams evaluating 

management options under the 

Northwest Forest Plan (Forest 

Ecosystem Management and Assessment 

Team, 1993). In this approach, each BRT 

member distributed 10 ‘‘likelihood 

points’’ amongst these six DPS 

scenarios. This approach has been 

widely used by NMFS BRTs in previous 

DPS determinations (e.g., Pacific 

Salmon, Southern Resident Killer 

Whale). The BRT did not attempt to 

divide the entire species into DPSs, but 

rather focused on evaluating whether a 

DPS could be identified that contains 

eulachon that spawn in Washington, 

Oregon, and California, as discussed in 

the listing petition. 

Scenario 1 (no DPS structure) 

received about 12 percent of the total 

likelihood points. Scenarios 2 (one DPS 

inclusive of eulachon in Southeast 

Alaska to Northern California) and 5 

(one DPS south of the Fraser River) 

received no support by the BRT. There 

was also very little BRT support for 

multiple DPSs of eulachon in the 

conterminous United States; only 4 

percent of the likelihood points were 

placed in scenario 6. All remaining 

likelihood points (84 percent) were 

distributed among scenarios supporting 

a DPS at a level larger than the 

petitioned unit of Washington, Oregon, 

and California but smaller than the 

entire biological species. Scenario 3 

(one DPS south of the Nass River/Dixon 

Entrance) received over 57 percent of 

the total likelihood points. Scenario 4 

(one DPS inclusive of eulachon in the 

Fraser River through California) 

received significant support with over 

27 percent of all points placed in this 

scenario. 

After reviewing these results, it was 

the majority opinion of the BRT that 

eulachon from Washington, Oregon, and 

California are not discrete from 

eulachon north of the U.S.-Canada 

boundary (as petitioned), but that 

eulachon south of the Nass River are 

discrete from eulachon in the Nass River 

and northward (Figure 1). This opinion 

is based on the evidence indicating that 

eulachon occurring in this area are 

discrete from eulachon occurring north 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
10864 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

of this area based on differences in 

spawning temperatures; length- and 

weight-at-maturity; ecological features 

of both the oceanic and freshwater 

environments occupied by eulachon; 

and the genetic results (particularly of 

Beacham et al. 2005). 

This BRT determined the discrete 

population segment is significant to the 

species as a whole because it constitutes 

over half of the geographic range of the 

entire species’ distribution and includes 

at least two of the major production 

areas (Columbia and Fraser rivers) for 

the entire species. Therefore, the loss of 

this DPS would result in a significant 

reduction in the species’ overall 

distribution. 

During the status review, the BRT did 

not evaluate potential DPS structure of 

eulachon populations occurring north of 

the Nass River. The BRT found, 

however, that northern populations are 

discrete from southern populations. We 

conclude that this discrete northern 

population segment (from the Nass 

River (inclusive) to Bristol Bay, Alaska) 

would also be significant to the taxon 

because it comprises a substantial 

portion of the range of the species and 

because the Alaska Downwelling 

Coastal Province (described above) 

represents a unique ecological setting 

for the taxon. We have not considered 

whether this northern population 

segment of eulachon might be further 

subdivided into more than one DPS. We 

refer to the DPS south of the Nass River 

as the southern DPS. 

Extinction Risk Assessment 

Information Reviewed 

The BRT considered several types of 

information while evaluating the status 

of the southern DPS of eulachon. The 

available data types and their respective 

strengths and weaknesses are discussed 

in detail in the draft status report. 

Fishery-independent scientific 

assessments of the total number or 

biomass of spawning eulachon were 

only available for the Fraser River and 

from several other British Columbia 

rivers. In some areas, the only data 

available on eulachon abundance are 

derived from commercial or subsistence 

fisheries landings. Commercial landings 

were available from the Klamath, 

Columbia, Umpqua, Fraser, Kitimat, and 

Skeena rivers. Data from Canadian First 

Nations subsistence fisheries landings 

were available for the Fraser River and 

several other British Columbia coastal 

rivers. Recreational fisheries for 

eulachon have been poorly documented, 

even though the recreational catch may 

have been equal to the commercial catch 

on many rivers with eulachon runs. 

Some data are available for Fraser River 

recreational catches and the BRT 

considered this information. The BRT 

recognized that inferring population 

status from commercial, subsistence, or 

recreational fishery data can be 

problematic and considered this when 

drawing conclusions from fisherydependant data. 

Numerous ethnographic studies 

emphasize the nutritional and cultural 

importance of eulachon to coastal 

Indian tribes and First Nations. The BRT 

examined ethnographic sources that 

describe historical distributions and 

relative abundance of eulachon fisheries 

within the boundaries of the DPS. Many 

of the statements in these sources as to 

the historical distribution and 

abundance of eulachon consisted of 

traditional ecological knowledge or 

were anecdotal in nature. The BRT also 

examined a variety of both primary 

anecdotal sources (e.g., accounts of early 

explorers, surveyors, fur trappers, and 

settlers; and newspaper articles) and 

secondary anecdotal sources (e.g., 

agency fisheries reports and journal 

articles that cite personal 

communications) that describe 

historical distributions and relative 

abundance of eulachon within the 

boundaries of the DPS. 

Absolute Numbers 

The absolute number of individuals in 

a population is important in assessing 

two aspects of extinction risk. For small 

populations that are stable or increasing, 

population size can be an indicator of 

whether the population can sustain 

itself into the future in the face of 

environmental fluctuations and smallpopulation stochasticity. In addition to 

total numbers, the spatial and temporal 

distribution of adults is important in 

assessing risk to a species or DPS. At a 

minimum, adults need to be in the same 

place at the same time for reproduction 

to occur. 

Several aspects of eulachon biology 

indicate that large aggregations of adult 

eulachon are necessary for maintenance 

of normal reproductive output. 

Eulachon are a short-lived, highfecundity, high-mortality forage fish, 

and such species typically have large 

population sizes. Research from other 

marine fishes (Sadovy, 2001) suggests 

that there is likely a biological 

requirement for a critical threshold 

density of eulachon during spawning to 

ensure adequate synchronization of 

spawning, mate choice, gonadal sterol 

levels, and fertilization success. Since 

eulachon sperm may remain viable for 

only a short time, perhaps only minutes, 

sexes must synchronize spawning 

activities closely, unlike other fish such 

as Pacific herring (Hay and McCarter, 

2000; Willson et al., 2006). In most 

samples of spawning eulachon, males 

greatly outnumber females (although 

many factors may contribute to these 

observations) (Willson et al. 2006), and 

in some instances congregations of 

males have been observed 

simultaneously spawning upstream of 

females that laid eggs as milt drifted 

downstream (Langer et al., 1977). 

In addition, the genetically effective 

population size of eulachon may be 

much lower than the census size. 

Effective size is important because it 

determines the rate of inbreeding and 

the rate at which a population loses 

genetic variation. In marine species, 

under conditions of high fecundity and 

high mortality associated with pelagic 

larval development, local environmental 

conditions may lead to random 

‘‘sweepstake recruitment’’ events where 

only a small minority of spawning 

individuals contribute to subsequent 

generations (Hedgecock, 1994), and this 

effect appears to be more pronounced in 

larger populations (Hauser and 

Carvalho, 2008). 

Historical Abundance and Carrying 

Capacity 

Knowing the relationship of present 

abundance to present carrying capacity 

is important for evaluating the health of 

populations; but the fact that a 

population is near its current carrying 

capacity does not necessarily signify full 

health. A population near carrying 

capacity implies that short-term 

management may not be able to increase 

fish abundance. 

The relationship of current abundance 

and habitat capacity to historical levels 

is another important consideration in 

evaluating risk. Knowledge of historical 

population conditions provides a 

perspective for understanding the 

conditions under which present 

populations evolved. Historical 

abundance also provides the basis for 

scaling long-term trends in populations. 

Comparison of present and past habitat 

capacity can also indicate long-term 

population trends and problems of 

population fragmentation. For eulachon, 

current and historical abundance data 

and information was available in the 

form of spawner biomass and/or total 

spawner counts, offshore juvenile 

eulachon biomass estimates, mean 

eulachon larval density, catch-per-uniteffort, commercial/recreational/ 

subsistence fisheries landings, 

ethnographic studies, and anecdotal 

qualitative information. 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10865 

Trends in Abundance 

Short- and long-term trends in 

abundance are a primary indicator of 

risk. Trends may be calculated from a 

variety of quantitative data, which are 

discussed in detail in specific sections 

below. Interpretation of trends in terms 

of population sustainability is difficult 

for a variety of reasons: First, eulachon 

are harvested in fisheries, and shifting 

harvest goals or market conditions 

directly affect trends in spawning 

abundance and catch. Second, 

environmental fluctuations on short 

timescales affect trend estimates, 

especially for shorter trends and 

relatively short-lived species like 

eulachon. 

Recent Events 

A variety of factors, both natural and 

human-induced, affect the degree of risk 

facing eulachon populations. Because of 

time lags in these effects and variability 

in populations, recent changes in any of 

these factors may affect current risk 

without any apparent change in 

available population statistics. Thus, 

consideration of these effects must go 

beyond examination of recent 

abundance and trends. Yet forecasting 

future effects is rarely straightforward 

and usually involves qualitative 

evaluations based on informed 

professional judgment. Events affecting 

populations may include natural 

changes in the environment or humaninduced changes, either beneficial or 

detrimental. 

It is generally accepted that important 

shifts in ocean-atmosphere conditions 

occurred about 1977 and again in 1998 

that affected North Pacific marine 

ecosystems. Several studies have 

described decadal-scale oscillations in 

North Pacific climatic and oceanic 

conditions (Mantua and Hare, 2002). 

These changes have been associated 

with recruitment patterns of several 

groundfish species and Pacific herring 

(McFarlane et al., 2000). Increases in 

eulachon in the Columbia, Fraser, and 

Klinaklini rivers in 2001–2002 may be 

largely a result of the more favorable 

ocean conditions for eulachon survival 

during the transition from larvae to 

juvenile when these broods entered the 

ocean in 1998–2000. 

At this time, we do not know whether 

recent shifts in climate/ocean 

conditions represent a long-term shift in 

conditions that will continue affecting 

populations into the future or short-term 

environmental fluctuations that can be 

expected to be reversed in the near 

future. Although recent conditions 

appear to be within the range of historic 

conditions under which eulachon 

populations have evolved, the risks 

associated with poor climate conditions 

may be exacerbated by human influence 

on these populations (Lawson, 1993). 

Distribution and Abundance 

Historically important spawning areas 

for eulachon south of the Nass River 

include the Klamath, Columbia, and 

Fraser Rivers, and numerous coastal 

rivers in British Columbia (Willson et al. 

2006). 

Klamath and other Northern California 

Rivers 

There has been no long-term 

monitoring program targeting eulachon 

in California, making the assessment of 

historical abundance and abundance 

trends difficult (Gustafson et al., 2008). 

Ethnographic studies, pioneer diaries, 

interviews with local fishers, personal 

observations and communications from 

managers, and newspaper accounts are 

therefore the best scientific and 

commercial information available that 

provide documentation of eulachon 

occurrence in the Klamath River and 

other rivers on the Northern California 

coast. 

Hubbs (1925) and Schultz and DeLacy 

(1935), leading ichthyologists of their 

day, described the Klamath River in 

Northern California as the southern 

limit of the range of eulachon. More 

recent compilations state that large 

spawning aggregations of eulachon were 

reported to have once regularly occurred 

in the Klamath River (Fry 1979, Moyle 

et al., 1995; Larson and Belchik 1998; 

Moyle 2002; Hamilton et al., 2005) and 

on occasion in the Mad River (Moyle et 

al., 1995; Moyle 2002) and Redwood 

Creek (Redwood Creek is located south 

of the Klamath River near the town of 

Orick, California) (Moyle et al., 1995). In 

addition, Moyle et al. (1995) and Moyle 

(2002) stated that small numbers of 

eulachon have been reported from the 

Smith River (the Smith River is located 

just south of the Oregon/California 

border). California Department of Fish 

and Game’s ‘‘Status Report on Living 

Marine Resources’’ document 

(Sweetnam et al., 2001) stated that ‘‘The 

principal spawning run [of eulachon] in 

California is in the Klamath River, but 

runs have also been recorded in the Mad 

and Smith Rivers and Redwood Creek.’’ 

Eulachon have been occasionally 

reported from other freshwater streams 

of California. Jennings (1996) reported 

observations of adult eulachon in creeks 

tributary to Humboldt Bay, California in 

May of 1977. Although Minckley et al. 

(1986) indicate that eulachon were 

native to the Sacramento River and 

drainages within the south California 

Coastal to Baja California region, no 

verifying references or actual 

observations for these assertions were 

given. Recently, Vincik and Titus (2007) 

reported on the capture of a single 

mature male eulachon in a screw trap at 

RM 142 on the Sacramento River. 

The California Academy of Sciences 

(CAS) ichthyology collection database 

lists eulachon specimens collected from 

the Klamath River in February 1916 and 

March 1947 and 1963, and in Redwood 

Creek in February 1955 (see CAS online 

collections database at http:// 

research.calacademy.org/research/ 

Ichthyology/collection/index.asp). A 

search of available online digital 

newspaper resources revealed an early 

account of eulachon in the Klamath 

River in a newspaper account in 1879 

and runs large enough to be noted in 

local newspaper accounts occurred in 

the Klamath River in February 1919, 

March 1968, and April 1963 and 1969; 

in Redwood Creek in April 1963 and 

1967; and in the Mad River in April 

1963 (see draft BRT report Appendix B). 

An early memoir by a traveler surveying 

timber resources on the Klamath River 

reported eulachon being harvested (15– 

20 pounds in a single dipnet haul) by 

Yurok tribal members in the early 1890s 

(Pearsall, 1928). 

Eulachon were of great cultural and 

subsistence importance to the Yurok 

Tribe on the Lower Klamath River 

(Trihey and Associates, 1996) and the 

Yurok People consider eulachon to be a 

Tribal Trust Species (Trihey and 

Associates, 1996; Larson and Belchik, 

1998). Eulachon once supported 

popular recreational fisheries in 

Northern California rivers, but were 

never commercially important in 

California. The only reported 

commercial catch of eulachon in 

Northern California occurred in 1963 

when a combined total of 25 metric tons 

(56,000 lbs) was landed from the 

Klamath River, the Mad River, and 

Redwood Creek (Odemar, 1964). Larson 

and Belchik (1998), report that eulachon 

have not been of commercial 

importance in the Klamath and are 

totally unstudied as to their run 

strengths. 

Larson and Belchik (1998) also 

reported that according to accounts of 

Yurok Tribal elders, the last noticeable 

runs of eulachon were observed in the 

Klamath River in 1988 and 1989 by 

Tribal fishers. Most fishers interviewed 

perceived a decline in the mid to late 

1970s, while about a fifth thought it was 

in the 1980s. A minority of those 

interviewed noticed declines in the 

1950s and 1960s. Larson and Belchik 

(1998) further stated that ‘‘in December 

1988 and May 1989, a total of 44 

eulachon were identified in outmigrant 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
10866 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

salmonid seining operations in and 

above the Klamath River estuary (CDFG 

unpublished seining data)’’ and that 

only a single eulachon specimen (in 

1996) was positively identified between 

1991 and 1998 on the Klamath River. As 

detailed in Larson and Belchik (1998), 

the Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program 

spent over 119 hours of staff time from 

5 February to 6 May 1996 sampling for 

eulachon in the lower Klamath River at 

five different sites, where eulachon had 

been noted in the past, without 

encountering a single eulachon. 

However, one eulachon was captured by 

a Yurok Tribal member near the mouth 

of the Klamath River in 1996 (Larson 

and Belchik, 1998). Sweetnam et al. 

(2001) stated that ‘‘In recent years, 

eulachon numbers seem to have 

declined drastically; so they are now 

rare or absent from the Mad River and 

Redwood Creek and scarce in the 

Klamath River.’’ They also stated that, 

‘‘the eulachon and its fishery have been 

largely ignored in the past’’ in 

California. Sweetnam et al., 2001 

suggest the perceived lack of eulachon 

in the Klamath River, currently and in 

the recent past, represents a low point 

in a natural cycle, though they also 

admit that the declines may be due to 

human activities. In January 2007, six 

eulachon were reportedly caught by 

tribal fishermen on the Klamath River 

(Dave Hillemeier, Yurok Tribe, pers. 

comm.). 

The BRT discussed several possible 

interpretations of the available 

information. In particular, the BRT 

discussed the possibility that, 

historically, runs of eulachon in the 

Klamath River were episodic and 

perhaps only occasionally large enough 

to be noticed. This interpretation, 

however, is inconsistent with the 

numerous anecdotal but independent 

reports of regular large runs. The BRT 

also considered the possibility that 

eulachon still occur in low but viable 

numbers in Northern California rivers 

but are not frequently observed because 

of the absence of a formal monitoring 

program, or that some eulachon may 

spawn in estuarine environments and 

are therefore not observed in the 

riverine environment. These 

interpretations are inconsistent with the 

following facts: state and tribal 

biologists are monitoring rivers where 

eulachon were historically reported but 

are not regularly finding eulachon; 

sizable spawning runs of eulachon 

attract large numbers of predators, 

which are readily observable and were 

historically well-reported (see above); 

and eulachon are not known to spawn 

in estuaries in large numbers. 

After considering these possible 

interpretations of the available 

information, the BRT concluded that the 

explanation most consistent with the 

evidence is that Klamath River eulachon 

runs used to be regular and large enough 

to be readily noticeable and now are 

intermittent, small, and sporadic. In 

particular, various accounts written by 

California Department of Fish and Game 

personnel (Fry, 1979; Sweetnam et al., 

2001; CDFG, 2008), Yurok Tribal 

Fisheries Department personnel (Larson 

and Belchik, 1998), the National 

Resource Council’s Committee on 

Endangered and Threatened Fishes in 

the Klamath River Basin (NRC, 2004), 

and available academic literature 

(Moyle et al., 1995; Moyle, 2002; 

Hamilton et al., 2005) describe accounts 

of the past occurrence of eulachon in 

the Klamath River and their subsequent 

decline. Based on the available 

information, the BRT was unable to 

estimate the historical abundance of 

eulachon in northern California, but 

found no reason to discount the veracity 

of these anecdotal sources, which span 

a period of approximately 100 years and 

are consistent in their description of 

noticeable runs of eulachon having once 

ascended the Klamath River. 

Likewise, although the BRT was 

concerned about the absence of a 

contemporary monitoring program for 

eulachon, the available information 

strongly indicated that noticeable runs 

of eulachon are not currently spawning 

in Klamath River or other northern 

California rivers. In particular, the BRT 

thought it likely that if eulachon were 

returning in any substantial numbers it 

would be reported by local residents or 

those engaged in recreation, research, or 

management on rivers in Northern 

California. The BRT noted that large 

eulachon runs tend to attract the 

attention of fishers, and the previous 

runs on the Klamath River were readily 

noticeable (e.g., ‘‘the fish moved up in 

huge swarms, followed by large flocks of 

feeding seabirds’’ (Moyle, 2002)). The 

BRT therefore concluded that the 

available information was most 

reasonably interpreted as indicating that 

noticeable, regularly returning runs of 

eulachon used to be present in the 

Klamath River, but have been rare or 

sporadic for a period of several decades. 

Although the BRT was reasonably 

confident that eulachon have declined 

substantially in Northern California, it is 

also clear that they have not been totally 

absent from this area in recent years. In 

particular, recent reports from Yurok 

Tribal fisheries biologists of a few 

eulachon being caught incidentally in 

other fisheries on the Klamath in 2007 

indicates eulachon still enter the 

Klamath River on occasion in low 

numbers. We agree that the BRT’s 

conclusions regarding eulachon 

presence and declines in the Klamath 

and other Northern California rivers are 

the most persuasive interpretation of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information. 

Columbia River 

The Columbia River and its tributaries 

support the largest known eulachon run. 

Although direct estimates of adult 

spawning stock abundance are 

unavailable, records of commercial 

fishery landings begin in 1888 and 

continue as a nearly uninterrupted data 

set to the present time (Gustafson et al., 

2008). A large recreational dipnet 

fishery for which catch records are not 

maintained has taken place during the 

same time as the commercial fishery 

(WDFW and ODFW, 2001). 

Although commercial eulachon 

landings do not provide a quantitative 

measure of spawning stock abundance, 

since they can be driven by market and 

environmental conditions as well as 

population abundance, the WDFW and 

ODFW Joint Columbia River 

Management Staff (JCRMS, 2007) has 

concluded that ‘‘they do provide a 

useful measure of the relative annual 

run strength.’’ In particular, State 

fisheries managers of Columbia River 

eulachon use commercial landings to 

judge whether population trends are 

upward, neutral, or downward (JCRMS, 

2007). In their report, the BRT agreed 

with this use of commercial landings 

data. 

The Columbia River, estimated to 

have historically represented fully half 

of the taxon’s abundance, experienced a 

sudden decline in its commercial 

eulachon fishery landings in 1993–1994 

(ODFW and WDFW, 2001; JCRMS, 

2007). Commercial catch levels were 

consistently high (usually greater than 

500 metric tons and often greater than 

1,000 metric tons) for the three quarters 

of a century from about 1915 to 1992. 

In 1993, the catches declined greatly to 

233 metric tons and declined further to 

an average of less than 40 metric tons 

between 1994 and 2000. From 2001 to 

2004, the catches increased to an 

average of 266 metric tons, before falling 

to an average of less than 5 metric tons 

from 2005 to 2008 (JCRMS, 2007). Some 

of this pattern is due to fishery 

restrictions, which were in turn put in 

place due to sharp declines in apparent 

abundance. Persistent low returns and 

landings of eulachon in the Columbia 

River from 1993 to 2000 prompted the 

States of Oregon and Washington to 

adopt a Joint State Eulachon 

Management Plan in 2001 that provides 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10867 

for restricted harvest management when 

parental run strength, juvenile 

production, and ocean productivity 

indicate a poor return is likely (WDFW 

and ODFW, 2001). The fishery has 

operated at the most conservative level 

allowed for in the Joint State Eulachon 

Management Plan since 2005 owing to 

the low level of returns during this time 

period (JCRMS, 2005; 2006; 2007). 

Based on these data and the 

interpretation of them described above, 

the BRT concluded that available catch 

and effort information indicate an 

abrupt decline in eulachon abundance 

in the early 1990’s, with no evidence 

that the population has returned to its 

former level since then. 

Fraser River 

As in the Columbia River, a long-term 

data set for commercial landings dating 

back into the 1880s exists for the Fraser 

River in British Columbia. Between 

1941 and 1996 commercial landings 

averaged about 83 metric tons, but 

ranged as high as 421 metric tons (Hay 

and McCarter, 2000). For much of this 

period the commercial fishery landings 

are not a good indicator of relative 

abundance, since landings were largely 

driven by market demand (Moody, 

2008). Following a similar pattern to 

that of the Columbia River, eulachon 

abundance began to decline in 1993 to 

the point where the fishery was closed 

in 1997. This closure was also partially 

due to what the Canadian DFO 

perceived to be a lack of ability to 

control the fishery under the existing 

regulations (Hay et al., 2002). Since then 

only minor commercial landings have 

been allowed in only two of the last ten 

years (2002 and 2004) (DFO, 2006). Due 

to poor returns, recreational and First 

Nation subsistence fisheries have also 

been suspended on the Fraser River 

since 2005. 

In 1996, the Canadian Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) began to 

estimate spawning stock abundance, 

independent of the fishery landings, 

using mean egg and larval plankton 

density and river discharge rates 

(gathered throughout a seven week 

outmigrant period at five locations) in 

combination with known relative 

fecundity (egg production per gram of 

female) and sex ratio. Over the threegeneration time of approximately 10 

years, the overall biomass of the Fraser 

River eulachon population has 

undergone a 92.5 percent decline (1998, 

134 metric tons; 2008, 10 metric tons). 

The most recent population assessment 

of Fraser River eulachon by Fisheries 

and Oceans Canada (DFO, 2007) stated 

that ‘‘despite limited directed fisheries 

in recent years, the Fraser River 

eulachon population remains at a 

precariously low level and has failed to 

recover from its collapse.’’ Subsequent 

to this statement, spawner biomass for 

the 2008 eulachon run in the Fraser 

River was estimated at 10 metric tons 

(see draft BRT report citing data at 

http://www-sci.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ 

herring/herspawn/pages/river1le.htm), 

which equates to a maximum 

escapement of approximately 300,000 

fish. 

Coastal British Columbia Rivers 

Other coastal rivers and inlets in 

British Columbia south of the Nass 

River with historically consistent 

eulachon runs include rivers in Knight 

(Klinaklini River), Kingcome (Kingcome 

River), and Rivers (Wannock, 

Chuckwalla, and Kilbella rivers) inlets; 

rivers flowing into Dean (Bella Coola, 

Dean, and Kimsquit rivers) and Douglas 

(Kitimat and Kildala rivers) channels; 

rivers flowing into Gardner Canal 

(Kemano, Kowesas, and Kitlope rivers); 

and the Skeena River (Hay and 

McCarter, 2000; Willson et al., 2006). 

Spawner biomass (pounds or metric 

tons) and/or total spawner counts 

(numbers of adult fish) are available for 

the Klinaklini River (1995), Kingcome 

River (1997), Wannock/Kilbella rivers 

(2005–2006), Bella-Coola River (2001– 

2004), Kitimat River (1993–1996, 1998– 

2005), and Skeena River (1997). Many of 

these coastal rivers also have a long 

history of anecdotal reports of eulachon 

runs or sporadic records of First 

Nations’ harvest. Some areas, such as 

the Kingcome and Knight Inlet, have 

spawning stock abundance estimates for 

a single year but no trends can be 

determined from these single data 

points. The BRT concluded that 

available catch records, the extensive 

ethnographic literature, and anecdotal 

information all indicate that eulachon 

were probably present in larger annual 

runs in the past and that current run 

sizes of eulachon appear inconsistent 

with the historic level of eulachon oil or 

‘‘grease’’ production, which is 

extensively documented in the 

ethnographic literature (Macnair, 1971; 

Codere, 1990). 

Hay and McCarter (2000) reported 

that annual runs of eulachon return on 

a regular basis to the Wannock, 

Chuckwalla, and Kilbella rivers in 

Rivers Inlet on the Central Coast of 

British Columbia. The spawning stock 

biomass of eulachon in Rivers Inlet was 

estimated using scientific survey 

methods in 2005 and 2006. In 2005, an 

estimated 2,700 adults returned to the 

Wannock River, based on the capture of 

only eleven adults during spawner 

abundance surveys (Burrows, 2005 as 

cited in Moody, 2008). An additional 

three adult eulachon were taken on the 

Kilbella River in 2005 (Burrows, 2005, 

as cited in Moody, 2008). Moody (2008) 

stated that this adult spawner survey 

was repeated in 2006 and although no 

adults were captured, an estimated 

23,000 adult spawners returned. Some 

limited information is available for First 

Nation harvest in the 1960s and 1970s; 

Moody (2008) reported that catches 

were 1.81, 2.27, and 4.54 metric tons, in 

1967, 1968, and 1971, respectively. The 

BRT determined that available recent 

estimates of spawning stock abundance, 

catch records, ethnographic literature 

(Hilton, 1990), and anecdotal 

information indicate that Rivers Inlet 

eulachon were present in larger annual 

runs in the past. 

The Bella Coola, Dean, and Kimsquit 

rivers in Dean Channel support regular 

eulachon runs (Hay and McCarter, 

2000). Moody (2007) reports relative 

abundance estimates, based on egg and 

larval surveys similar to those used on 

the Fraser River, for the Bella Coola 

River in 2001 (0.039 metric tons), 2002 

(0045–0.050 metric tons), 2003 (.016 

metric tons), and 2004 (0.0072 metric 

tons). Nuxalk First Nation subsistence 

fishery landings of eulachon from the 

Bella Coola River show an average catch 

of 18 metric tons between 1948 and 

1984, with a low of 0.3 metric tons in 

1960 and a high of nearly 70 metric tons 

in 1954, based on data available in Hay 

(2002). These data suggest that recent 

(2001–2004) spawner biomass in Bella 

Coola River is approximately two orders 

of magnitude less than the average First 

Nations eulachon landings were 

between 1948 and 1984. According to 

Moody (2007), it has been nine years 

since the last First Nations fishery 

occurred on the Bella Coola River. 

The BRT concluded that that available 

spawning stock biomass data collected 

since 2001, catch records, extensive 

ethnographic literature, and anecdotal 

information indicates that Bella Coola 

River and Dean Channel eulachon in 

general were present in much larger 

annual runs in the past. In addition, the 

present run sizes of eulachon appear 

inconsistent with the historic level of 

grease production that is extensively 

documented in the ethnographic 

literature on the Nuxalk First Nations 

Peoples (Kennedy and Bouchard, 1990; 

Moody, 2008). 

The Kitimat and Kildala rivers in 

Douglas Channel support regular 

eulachon runs (Hay and McCarter, 

2000). Spawning stock biomass of 

eulachon in the Kitimat River was 

estimated using scientific survey 

methods in 1993 and First Nations 

fisheries landings are available for 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
10868 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1969–1972. Between 1969 and 1972, 

First Nations fisheries landings of 

eulachon ranged from 27.2 to 81.6 

metric tons (Moody, 2008). The First 

Nations eulachon fishery reportedly 

came to an end in 1972 as pollution by 

industrial (pulp mill) and municipal 

effluent discharges made the eulachon 

unpalatable (Pederson et al., 1995; 

Moody, 2008). Pederson et al. (1995) 

estimated a total spawning biomass in 

the Kitimat River of 22.6 metric tons or 

about 514,000 individual eulachon in 

1993. According to Moody (2008), 

catch-per-unit-effort of eulachon on the 

Kitimat River, as presented in EcoMetrix 

(2006), declined from 50–60 fish per 24 

hour gill net set in 1994–1996 to less 

than 2 eulachon per gill net set since 

1998. According to EcoMetrix (2006, as 

cited in Moody, 2008), abundance of 

eulachon from 1994 to 1996 ranged 

between 527,000 and 440,000 

individual spawners, and from 1998 to 

2005 ranged between 13,600 and less 

than 1,000. Based on anecdotal 

information, Moody (2008) stated that 

the last strong run returned to the 

Kitimat River in 1991 and runs from 

1992–1996 were estimated at half the 

size of 1991. The BRT concluded that 

given this information, Kitimat River, 

and Douglas Channel eulachon in 

general, were present in larger annual 

runs in the past and that present run 

size estimates of eulachon appear 

inconsistent with the historic level of 

grease production extensively 

documented in the ethnographic 

literature (Hamori-Torok, 1990). 

The Kemano, Kowesas, and Kitlope 

rivers in Gardner Canal support regular 

runs of eulachon with the Kemano River 

being the primary production area. First 

Nations fisheries landings on the 

Kemano River are available for 1969– 

1973 and 1988–2007 (Moody, 2008). Rio 

Tinto Alcan operates a hydroelectric 

generation facility on the Kemano River 

and, as part of an environmental 

management plan, has funded 

monitoring of eulachon since 1988 

(Lewis et al., 2002). From 1988 to 1998, 

landings ranged from 20.6 to 93.0 metric 

tons (average of 57 metric tons)(Lewis et 

al., 2002; Moody, 2008). However, 

according to Moody (2008), no run 

occurred in 1999. First Nations landings 

in the Kemano River were low from 

2000 to 2002, but improved to between 

60 and 80 metric tons in 2003 and 2004 

(ALCAN, 2005; Moody, 2008); however, 

anecdotal information indicate that 

eulachon returns were not detected in 

the Kemano River in either 2005 or 2006 

(ALCAN, 2006, 2007; EcoMetrix, 2006, 

as cited in Moody, 2008). Catch-perunit-effort data showed similar trends to 

the First Nation fishery landings, with a 

sharp drop from about 2.5 metric tons 

per set in 1998 to less than 0.5 metric 

tons per set from 1999–2002, a rebound 

to between 0.5 and 1 metric tons per set 

in 2003–2004, and no fish caught in 

2005–2007 (Lewis et al., 2002; Moody, 

2008) 

The BRT concluded that available 

catch-per-unit-effort data collected since 

1988, First Nations catch records, 

extensive ethnographic literature, and 

anecdotal information indicates that 

Kemano River, and Gardner Canal 

eulachon in general, were present in 

larger annual runs in the past and that 

present run sizes of eulachon appear 

inconsistent with the historic level of 

grease production that is well 

documented for this region in the 

ethnographic literature (Hamori-Torok, 

1990). 

The Skeena River and its tributaries 

have supported eulachon runs (Moody, 

2008), but they reportedly were small, of 

short duration, and difficult to harvest 

because of the large size of the 

mainstem Skeena River (Stoffels, 2001; 

Moody, 2008). Lewis (1997) estimated 

the total spawning stock abundance of 

the Skeena River eulachon at only 3.0 

metric tons in 1997. A small commercial 

eulachon fishery operated between 1924 

and 1946 (landings ranged from 15.4 

metric tons in 1924 to 0.9 metric tons in 

1935) (Moody, 2008). However, total 

landings records (both commercial and 

subsistence) were as high as 100 metric 

tons at one time and averaged 27.5 

metric tons from 1900–1941 (Canada 

Department of Marine and Fisheries, 

Annual Report, Fisheries (1900–1916); 

and Statistics Canada, Fisheries 

Statistics of Canada (1917–1941)). It is 

likely that demands of the local market 

have driven subsistence and past 

commercial fisheries statistics on the 

Skeena River, thus the BRT did not 

believe these data were a good index of 

abundance. Moody (2008) reported 

anecdotal information indicating that 

very few Skeena River eulachon were 

observed between 1997 and 1999, a 

good run occurred in 2005, and virtually 

no eulachon were observed in 2006 

(Moody, 2008). Although unable to 

draw strong conclusions, the BRT 

concluded that available catch records 

and anecdotal information indicate that 

Skeena River eulachon were present in 

larger annual runs in the past that at one 

time supported a fishery. Although the 

current status of this population is 

unknown, the BRT concluded that 

anecdotal information indicates 

declines in abundance have occurred. 

Demographic Risk Summary 

Eulachon in the southern DPS were 

assessed according to the four viability 

criteria of abundance, productivity, 

diversity, and spatial structure 

(including connectivity). These four 

parameters are universal indicators of 

species’ viability, and individually and 

collectively function as reasonable 

predictors of extinction risk (McElhany 

et al., 2000) that have been used 

extensively in extinction risk analysis 

for endangered species. 

Abundance 

The BRT was concerned that although 

eulachon are a relatively poorly 

monitored species, almost all of the 

available information indicates that the 

southern DPS of eulachon has 

experienced an abrupt decline in 

abundance throughout its range. The 

BRT was particularly concerned that 

two large spawning populations, in the 

Columbia and Fraser Rivers, have both 

declined to what appear to be 

historically low levels. The BRT was 

also concerned that there is very little 

monitoring data available for Northern 

California eulachon, but determined 

that the available information suggests 

that eulachon in Northern California 

experienced an abrupt decline several 

decades ago. The BRT was concerned 

that recent attempts to estimate actual 

spawner abundance in some rivers in 

B.C. that are known to have supported 

significant First Nations fisheries in the 

past have resulted in very low estimates 

of spawning stock. 

In addition, the BRT was concerned 

that the current abundance of the many 

individual populations within the DPS 

may be sufficiently low to be an 

additional risk factor, even for 

populations (such as the Columbia and 

Fraser) where the absolute population 

size seems large compared to many 

other at-risk fish populations. Of 

relevance to this issue are recent 

reviews of extinction risk in marine 

fishes illustrating that forage fish are not 

immune to risk of extirpation at the 

population scale (Dulvy et al., 2003; 

Reynolds et al., 2005). Hutchings (2000; 

2001a; 2001b) and others (Dulvy et al., 

2003; Mace and Hudson, 1999; 

Hutchings and Reynolds, 2004) cite 

empirical analyses indicating that 

marine fishes likely have similar 

extinction probabilities to those of nonmarine taxa. In evaluating this issue, the 

BRT concluded that eulachon (and other 

similar forage fishes) (see Dulvy et al., 

2004) may be at significant risk at 

population sizes that are a fraction of 

their historical levels but are still large 

compared to what would be considered 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10869 

normal for other ESA listed species. The 

BRT believe that high eulachon 

minimum viable population sizes are 

necessary to: (1) ensure a critical 

threshold density of adult eulachon are 

available during breeding events for 

maintenance of normal reproductive 

processes, (2) produce enough offspring 

to counteract high in-river egg and 

larval mortality and planktonic larval 

mortality in the ocean, and (3) produce 

enough offspring to buffer against the 

variability of local environmental 

conditions which may lead to random 

‘‘sweepstake recruitment’’ events where 

only a small minority of spawning 

individuals contribute to subsequent 

generations. In species with a life 

history pattern like eulachon, the 

genetically effective population size can 

be several orders of magnitude lower 

than the census size (Hedgecock, 1994; 

ICES, 2004). Based on the best available 

information summarized above, the 

minimum viable census sizes for 

spawning populations may therefore be 

on the order of 50,000 to 500,000 (Dulvy 

et al., 2004). The BRT was concerned 

that in a number of sub-areas of the DPS 

(Klamath, Fraser River, Bella Coola 

River, Rivers Inlet, etc.) population sizes 

of eulachon are below what would be 

considered minimum viable population 

sizes for highly fecund, broadcastspawning species. 

Productivity 

The BRT noted that variable yearclass strength in marine fishes with 

pelagic larvae is dependent on survival 

of larvae prior to recruitment and is 

driven by match-mismatch of larvae and 

their planktonic food supply (Hjort, 

1914; Lasker, 1975; Sinclair and 

Tremblay, 1984), oceanographic 

transport mechanisms (Parrish et al., 

1981), variable environmental ocean 

conditions (Shepherd et al., 1984; 

McFarlane et al., 2000), and predation 

(Bailey and Houde, 1989). If time of 

spawning does not coincide with river 

conditions conducive to successful 

fertilization and egg survival, and to the 

appearance of larval prey species in the 

oceanic environment, the result would 

be high rates of environmentally-driven 

egg and larval mortality. The BRT was 

concerned that there is evidence that 

climate change is leading to relatively 

rapid changes in both oceanic and 

freshwater environmental conditions 

that eulachon are unable to tolerate. 

Eulachon are basically a cold-water 

species and are adapted to feed on a 

northern suite of copepods in the ocean 

during the critical transition period 

from larvae to juvenile and much of 

their recent recruitment failure may be 

traced to mortality during this critical 

period. Recent studies show a shift in 

the suite of copepod species available to 

eulachon toward a more southerly 

species assemblage (Mackas et al., 2001; 

2007; Hooff and Peterson, 2006), 

contributing to a mismatch between 

eulachon life history and prey species. 

It is also likely that pelagic fish with 

their shorter life cycles may be less 

resilient to long-term climatic changes 

than longer-lived demersal species. 

The ability of the Columbia River 

eulachon population to respond rapidly 

to the good ocean conditions of the late 

1999–early 2002 period illustrates the 

species’ resiliency, which the BRT 

viewed as providing the species with a 

buffer against future environmental 

perturbations. The productivity 

potential or intrinsic rate of increase of 

eulachon (Musick et al., 2000), as 

indicated by life history characteristics 

such as low age-at-maturity, small body 

size, and planktonic larvae, was 

recognized by the BRT as likely 

conferring eulachon with some 

resilience to extinction as they retain 

the ability to rapidly respond to 

favorable ocean conditions. 

Diversity 

In terms of threats related to diversity, 

the BRT was concerned that not only are 

eulachon semelparous (spawn once and 

die) but if recent estimates of age 

structure in eulachon are correct (Clarke 

et al., 2007), then spawning adultsparticularly in southern areas such as 

the Columbia and Fraser rivers-may be 

limited to a single age class, which 

likely increases their vulnerability to 

perturbations and provides less of a 

buffer against year-class failure than 

species such as herring that spawn 

repeatedly and have variable ages at 

maturity. The BRT was also concerned 

about the apparently very low 

abundance of the Klamath River subpopulation, which might be expected to 

have unique adaptations to conditions 

at the southernmost extent of the range, 

and about the potential loss of 

biocomplexity in Fraser River eulachon 

due to contraction of spawning 

locations, as documented by Higgins et 

al. (1987). 

The BRT noted some positive signs 

including observations that eulachon 

continue to display variation in spawn 

timing, age-at-maturity, and spawning 

locations, and a high degree of 

biocomplexity (i.e., many spawning 

locations and spawn-timing variation) 

in the Columbia River, which may 

buffer this population from freshwater 

environmental perturbations. 

Spatial Structure 

The BRT also had concerns about 

risks related to spatial structure and 

distribution. In particular, because the 

major spawning populations within the 

DPS appear to have declined 

substantially, the BRT was concerned 

that if some formerly significant 

populations, such as the Klamath River, 

become extirpated, there would be less 

opportunity for successful recolonization. In addition, the apparent 

decline of populations in Northern 

California may result in contraction of 

the southern portion of the DPS’s range. 

The BRT also noted that several 

populations that used to support 

significant First Nations fisheries on the 

British Columbia coast have declined to 

very low levels (e.g., Bella Coola River 

and Wannock River). Positive signs for 

spatial structure and connectivity noted 

by the BRT include considerations that 

eulachon appear to have the potential to 

re-colonize some areas, given their 

apparent ability to stray from the natal 

spawning area, at least within rivers 

sharing the same estuary. In addition, 

the perceived historical spatial structure 

of the DPS, with the possible exception 

of the Klamath River, remains intact. 

The BRT noted several recent events 

that appear likely to impact eulachon. 

Global patterns suggest the long-term 

trend is for a warmer, less productive 

ocean regime in the California Current 

and the Transitional Pacific. The recent 

decline in abundance or relative 

abundance of eulachon in many systems 

coupled with the probable disruption of 

metapopulation structure may make it 

more difficult for eulachon to adapt to 

warming ocean conditions. In addition, 

warming conditions have allowed both 

Pacific hake (Phillips et al., 2007) and 

Pacific sardine (Emmett et al., 2005) to 

expand their distributions to the north, 

increasing predation on eulachon by 

Pacific hake, and competition for food 

resources with both species. However, 

cold ocean conditions in 2008 suggest 

that this may have been a good year for 

eulachon recruitment. The BRT 

concluded that the net effects of these 

recent positive and negative events are 

likely to be negative. 

BRT Extinction Risk Assessment 

Conclusion 

The BRT was asked to use three 

categories of risk to describe the species’ 

status – ‘‘high risk’’ of extinction; 

‘‘moderate risk’’ of extinction; or ‘‘not at 

risk’’ of extinction. To allow individuals 

to express uncertainty in determining 

the overall level of extinction risk facing 

the species, the BRT adopted the 

‘‘likelihood point’’ method referred to 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
10870 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

previously. The BRT’s scores for overall 

risk to the southern DPS of eulachon, 

throughout all of its range, were heavily 

weighted to ‘‘moderate risk,’’ with this 

category receiving 60 percent of the 

likelihood points. The ‘‘high risk’’ 

category received 32 percent of the 

likelihood points, and the ‘‘not at risk’’ 

category received 8 percent of the 

points. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Southern DPS of Eulachon 

As described above, Section 4(a)(1) of 

the ESA and NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 424) state that we 

must determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened because of 

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 

man-made factors affecting its 

continued existence. According to the 

BRT, the primary factors responsible for 

the decline of the southern DPS of 

eulachon are the destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

and inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. The following discussion 

briefly summarizes the BRT’s findings 

regarding threats to the eulachon 

southern DPS. More details can be 

found in the draft BRT report (Gustafson 

et al., 2008). For analytical purposes, 

the BRT identified and ranked threats 

for the four primary populations of this 

DPS: mainland British Columbia Rivers 

south of the Nass River, Fraser River, 

Columbia River, and Klamath River. 

The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

The BRT identified changes in ocean 

conditions due to climate change as the 

most significant threat to eulachon and 

their habitats. They ranked this as the 

most significant threat to all of the DPS 

populations. Marine, estuarine, and 

freshwater habitat in the Pacific 

Northwest has been influenced by 

climate change over the past 50–100 

years, and this change is expected to 

continue into the future. Average annual 

Northwest air temperatures have 

increased by approximately 1oC since 

1900, or about 50 percent more than the 

global average warming over the same 

period (see ISAB, 2007 for a recent 

review). The latest climate models 

project a warming of 0.1 to 0.6oC per 

decade over the next century (ISAB, 

2007). Analyses of temperature trends 

for the U.S. part of the Pacific Northwest 

(Mote et al., 1999); the maritime 

portions of Oregon, Washington, and 

British Columbia (Mote, 2003a); and the 

Puget Sound-Georgia Basin region 

(Mote, 2003b) have shown that air 

temperature increased 0.8 C, 0.9 C, and 

1.5 C, in these respective regions during 

the twentieth century. Warming in each 

of these areas was substantially greater 

than the global average of 0.6 C (Mote, 

2003b). This change in surface 

temperature has already modified, and 

is likely to continue to modify, 

freshwater, estuarine, and marine 

habitats of eulachon. 

Climate change is likely to have 

significant effects on the large river 

systems that are essential to eulachon 

production. Ferrari et al. (2007) predict 

that the Fraser River will increase in 

temperature over the next century in all 

summer months with a maximum 

increase in August temperatures of 

0.14oC per decade. Peak flows in the 

Fraser River may also shift during this 

timeframe (Morrison et al., 2002), 

potentially altering the timing of 

freshets that coincide with eulachon 

spawning. It is uncertain whether 

eulachon would adjust spawn timing to 

account for shifts in peak flows. In the 

Columbia River, climate change is likely 

to result in decreased snowpack, 

increased peak flows, decreased base 

flow, and increased water temperatures 

(ISAB, 2007). As with the Fraser River, 

peak flows in the Columbia and its 

tributaries are likely to shift, possibly 

decoupling eulachon spawning and 

spring freshets. 

Climate change could cause problems 

for the eulachon spawning in the other 

areas throughout the range of this DPS. 

In British Columbia, many of the coastal 

systems that support eulachon are fed 

by glaciers. The size of these glaciers 

and other glaciers at mid-latitude areas 

around the world has been decreasing 

(Meier et al., 2003; Barry, 2005). It is 

uncertain what effect reduction in 

glacier size might have on the hydrology 

of these systems, but in most cases a 

shift in peak stream flow timing would 

occur. Mote (2003) reports that 

anticipated reductions in snowpack in 

the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound area are 

likely to alter hydrologic patterns, 

possibly reducing peak and/or base 

stream flows. Again, shifting stream 

flow patterns may cause problems for 

eulachon spawning. 

Changes in the marine environment 

due to climate change are also likely to 

affect eulachon. Eulachon generally 

inhabit cool to cold ocean waters and 

feed on cold water assemblages of 

copepods and other marine 

invertebrates (Willson et al., 2006). The 

consequences for Pacific zooplankton 

communities of warming trends in the 

high to mid-latitudes could be 

substantial, but their magnitude and 

trajectory are not yet known (Mackas et 

al., 2007). Increases in ocean 

temperatures off the coast of the Pacific 

Northwest could alter the abundance 

and composition of copepod 

communities, thus reducing the amount 

of food available for eulachon, 

particularly larvae. Zamon and Welch 

(2005) reported these types of rapid 

shifts in zooplankton communities in 

the Northeast Pacific during recent El 

Nino-La Nina events. Warming ocean 

conditions may also lead to a general 

reduction in eulachon forage. For 

instance, Roemmich and McGowan 

(1995) noted an 80 percent reduction of 

macrozooplankton biomass off Southern 

California between 1951 and 1993. 

Warming ocean temperatures could also 

facilitate the northward expansion of 

warm-water eulachon predators and 

competitors for food resources, such as 

Pacific hake (Rexstad and Pikitch, 1986; 

McFarlane et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 

2007). 

Changes in the freshwater and marine 

environment due to climate change are 

likely to cause adverse effects on 

eulachon abundance, productivity, 

spatial distribution, and diversity. There 

is still a great deal of uncertainty 

associated with predicting specific 

changes in timing, location, and 

magnitude of future climate change. It is 

also likely that the intensity of climate 

change effects on eulachon will vary by 

geographic area. 

The BRT identified dams and water 

diversions as moderate threats to 

eulachon in the Columbia and Klamath 

Rivers where hydropower generation 

and flood control are major activities, 

and a low to moderate risk for eulachon 

in the Fraser and mainland British 

Columbia rivers where dams are less 

common. Dams can slow or block 

eulachon migration. Dams and water 

divisions alter the natural hydrograph of 

river systems, in many cases reducing 

the magnitude of spring freshets with 

which eulachon have evolved. Dams 

can also impede or alter bedload 

movement, changing the composition of 

river substrates important to spawning 

eulachon. 

Water quality degradation is common 

in some areas occupied by southern DPS 

eulachon. In the Columbia and Klamath 

systems, large-scale impoundment of 

water has increased water temperatures, 

potentially altering the water 

temperature during eulachon spawning 

periods (NMFS, 2008). Numerous 

chemical contaminants are also present 

in freshwater systems where eulachon 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10871 

spawn, but the exact effect these 

compounds may have on spawning and 

egg development is unknown (NMFS, 

2008). 

The BRT identified dredging as a low 

to moderate threat to eulachon in the 

Fraser and Columbia Rivers and a low 

severity threat for eulachon in mainland 

British Columbia rivers as less dredging 

for commercial shipping occurs in these 

areas. Dredging during eulachon 

spawning would be particularly 

detrimental, as eggs associated with 

benthic substrates are likely to be 

destroyed. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific or Educational 

Purposes 

Commercial harvest of eulachon in 

the Columbia and Fraser rivers was 

identified as a low to moderate threat. 

Current harvest levels are orders of 

magnitude lower than historic harvest 

levels, and a relatively small number of 

vessels operate in this fishery. No 

significant commercial fishing for 

eulachon occurs in the Klamath or 

British Columbia rivers north of the 

Fraser. The BRT ranked recreational and 

Tribal/First Nations harvest of eulachon 

as a very low to low severity threat to 

eulachon in all four DPS populations. It 

is likely that these harvests have a 

negligible effect on population 

abundance. 

Commercial Fisheries 

In Oregon, commercial fishing for 

eulachon is allowed in the Pacific 

Ocean, Columbia River, Sandy River, 

and Umpqua River. In the Pacific 

Ocean, eulachon can be harvested yearround using any method otherwise 

authorized to harvest food fish in the 

open ocean. In the Sandy River, 

commercial fishing with dip nets is 

allowed in a small portion of the lower 

river downstream from the U.S. Route 

30 Alternate bridge at Troutdale Oregon, 

year-round, 7 days a week, 24 hours a 

day. The last large harvest of eulachon 

in the Sandy River occurred in 1985 

(304,500 lb (138 metric tons)), with a 

moderate harvest occurring in 2003 

(23,000 lb (10 metric tons)) (John North, 

ODFW, pers. comm.). In the Umpqua 

River, commercial fishing for eulachon 

is allowed year-round and 24 hours a 

day with dip nets and gill nets not more 

than 600 ft (183 m) in length and of a 

mesh size no more than 2 inches (51 

mm). Those areas of the Umpqua River 

not closed to commercial fishing for 

shad (upstream from approximately 

river mile 21 (34 km)) are open for 

commercial eulachon fishing. However, 

commercial fishing for eulachon has not 

occurred for many years in the Umpqua 

River (John North, ODFW, pers. comm.). 

In the mainstem Columbia River, 

permissible commercial gear includes 

gill nets with a mesh size of no more 

than 2 inches (51 mm), dip nets having 

a bag frame no more than 36 inches (91 

cm) in diameter, and small trawl nets 

(Oregon Administrative Rule 635–004– 

0075). In the past several years, the 

Columbia River commercial fishery has 

been open 7 days a week in December 

and 2 days a week from January 1– 

March 31. Commercial fishing in the 

Columbia River is now managed 

according to the joint ODFW and 

WDFW management plan for eulachon 

(ODFW and WDFW, 2001). Under this 

plan, three eulachon harvest levels can 

be authorized based on the strength of 

the prior years’ parental run, resultant 

juvenile production estimates, and 

ocean productivity indices. Current 

effort in the Columbia River mainstem 

fishery is typically low (less than 10 

vessels) (John North, ODFW, pers. 

comm.). 

In Washington, year-round 

commercial fishing for eulachon is 

allowed in the Columbia and Cowlitz 

rivers. In the Columbia River, 

commercial fishing for eulachon is 

permitted during 9 hour periods on 

Mondays and Thursdays. In the Cowlitz 

River, commercial fishing is allowed for 

6 hour periods on Sunday and 

Wednesday nights. The Canadian DFO 

did not authorize any commercial 

fishing for eulachon in 2008 due to low 

abundance. Historically, commercial 

fishing for eulachon occurred at low 

levels in the Fraser River (as compared 

to the Columbia River). DFO has only 

allowed a commercial harvest of 

eulachon in the Fraser River twice since 

1997 (DFO, 2008). 

Recreational Fishing 

The states of Oregon and Washington 

have altered sport fishing regulations in 

the past due to declining eulachon 

abundance (WDFW and ODFW, 2001). 

During the eulachon run, the ODFW 

allows recreational fishers to capture 25 

lb (11 kg) per day of eulachon, using a 

dip net. Each fisher must have his or her 

own container; the first 25 lbs (11 kg) of 

fish captured may be retained. No 

angling license is required to harvest 

eulachon in Oregon. The WDFW 

currently allows harvest of eulachon by 

dip netting on the Cowlitz River, from 

6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturdays from 

January 1st-March 31st. The daily limit 

on the Cowlitz River is 10 lb (4.5 kg) per 

person per day. In Washington, the 

mainstem Columbia River is open for 

eulachon harvest 24 hours per day, 7 

days per week during the eulachon run, 

and the daily limit is 25 lb (11 kg) per 

person per day. Washington and Oregon 

developed a joint eulachon management 

plan in 2001 (WDFW and ODFW, 2001). 

The two states plan to continue 

authorizing eulachon sport fishing at 

various levels depending on predicted 

yearly eulachon abundance. Under the 

strictest proposed regulations, harvest 

would be limited to less than 10 percent 

of the run. If run sizes increase beyond 

current levels, the states would consider 

allowing additional harvest, but these 

more liberal harvest rates have not been 

specifically identified. In the State of 

California, the California Department of 

Fish and Game (CDFG) currently allows 

licensed recreational fishers to dipnet 

up to 25 lb (11 kg) of eulachon per day 

per person year-round (CDFG, 2008). 

However, in practice, little to no fishing 

is taking place because so few fish 

return each year. In 2008, the Canadian 

DFO did not authorize any recreational 

fishing for eulachon due to low 

abundance. In general, interest in 

recreational fishing for eulachon has 

decreased significantly due to the 

difficulty of harvesting these fish at 

their currently low abundance. 

Tribal Subsistence Fishing 

In the past, eulachon were an 

important food source for many Native 

American tribes and Canadian First 

Nations from northern California to 

Alaska. In more recent history, tribal 

members in the United States harvest 

eulachon under recreational fishing 

regulations. The Canadian DFO 

typically authorizes a small subsistence 

fishery for First Nation members, 

primarily in the Fraser River. 

Historically, members of the Yurok 

Tribe harvested eulachon in the 

Klamath River in California for 

subsistence purposes. The Yurok Tribe 

does not have a fishery management 

plan for eulachon at this time, and 

eulachon abundance levels on the 

Klamath are too low to support a 

fishery. 

Disease or Predation 

The BRT identified disease as a low 

risk to all four DPS populations of 

eulachon. Although Willson et al. 

(2006) identify common parasites of 

eulachon, the BRT did not present any 

information indicating that disease was 

a significant problem for this DPS. 

Predation primarily from marine 

mammals, fishes, and birds was 

identified as a moderate threat to 

eulachon in the Fraser River and 

mainland British Columbia rivers and a 

low severity threat to eulachon in the 

Columbia and Klamath where there are 

fewer predators. Large numbers of 

predators commonly congregate at 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
10872 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

eulachon spawning runs (Willson et al., 

2006). Eulachon rely on high abundance 

and synchronized spawn timing to 

ensure that adequate numbers of male 

and female fish escape predators and 

reproduce successfully. At low 

eulachon abundance, predation at 

historic levels may jeopardize 

population viability. 

The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Bycatch 

The BRT identified bycatch of 

eulachon in commercial fisheries as a 

moderate threat to all four populations. 

In the past, protection of forage fishes 

has not been a priority when developing 

ways to reduce shrimp fishing bycatch. 

Eulachon are particularly vulnerable to 

capture in shrimp fisheries in the 

United States and Canada as the marine 

areas occupied by shrimp and eulachon 

often overlap. In Oregon, the bycatch of 

various species of smelt (including 

eulachon) has been as high as 28 

percent of the total catch of shrimp by 

weight (Hannah and Jones, 2007). In 

Canada, bycatch of eulachon in shrimp 

fisheries has been significant enough to 

cause the Canadian Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans to close the 

fishery in some years (DFO, 2008). 

In 2000, we declared canary rockfish 

overfished, as recommended by the 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 

In response, the states of Oregon, 

Washington, and California enacted 

regulations to reduce canary rockfish 

bycatch that require bycatch reduction 

devices (BRDs) on trawl gear used in the 

ocean shrimp fishery. The BRDs were 

successful in reducing bycatch of all 

finfish species (Hannah and Jones, 

2007). In Oregon, these devices have 

been shown to reduce the smelt 

(including eulachon) bycatch to 

between 0.25 and 1.69 percent of the 

total catch weight (Hannah and Jones, 

2007). 

The DFO sets bycatch limits for the 

Canadian shrimp fishery and the shrimp 

trawl industry in Canada adopted 100 

percent use of BRDs in 2000. The DFO 

will implement further management 

actions if estimated eulachon bycatch 

meets or exceeds the identified level. 

Management actions that may be taken 

include: closure of the shrimp trawl 

fishery, closure of certain areas to 

shrimp trawling, or restricting trawling 

to beam trawlers, which have been 

found to have a lower impact on 

eulachon than otter trawlers. 

Little is known about the degree of 

injury and mortality eulachon 

experience as they pass through BRDs. 

Suuronen et al. (1996a; 1996b) found 

that herring passing through mesh and 

rigid trawl net sorting devices (similar 

to BRDs) often die (mortality estimates 

ranging from 30–100 percent depending 

on herring size and season caught). 

Although eulachon bycatch rates in 

shrimp fisheries have declined 

significantly, it is not certain what 

percent of eulachon traveling through 

BRDs survive. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Natural events such as volcanic 

eruptions may cause significant local 

declines in eulachon abundance by 

causing catastrophic debris flows in 

rivers and drastically increasing fine 

sediments in benthic substrates. After 

the eruption of Mt. Helens in 1980, the 

Army Corps of Engineers constructed a 

sediment retention structure on the 

Toutle River. This structure was placed 

to prevent debris avalanches resulting 

from the eruption from moving 

downstream and causing navigation 

problems. Although the structure is 

designed to reduce the level of fine 

sediment traveling down the Toutle and 

into the Cowlitz River, there is some 

concern (as mentioned in the 2007 

petition to list eulachon) that water 

released from the structure in the spring 

may contain high sediment levels that 

adversely affect eulachon spawning. 

Efforts Being Made to Protect Southern 

DPS Eulachon 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires 

the Secretary of Commerce to take into 

account efforts being made to protect a 

species that has been petitioned for 

listing. Accordingly, we assessed 

conservation measures being taken to 

protect eulachon to determine whether 

they ameliorate this species’ extinction 

risk (50 CFR 424.11(f)). In judging the 

efficacy of conservation efforts that have 

yet to be implemented or to show 

effectiveness, we consider the following: 

the substantive, protective, and 

conservation elements of such efforts; 

the degree of certainty that such efforts 

will reliably be implemented; the degree 

of certainty that such efforts will be 

effective in furthering the conservation 

of the species; and the presence of 

monitoring provisions that track the 

effectiveness of recovery efforts, and 

that inform iterative refinements to 

management as information is accrued 

(68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). 

Although no efforts specific to 

eulachon are currently being made to 

protect freshwater habitat in the United 

States, this species indirectly benefits 

from several Federal, state, and tribal 

regulatory and voluntary aquatic habitat 

improvement programs aimed at other 

species. Based on the available 

information on eulachon biology, the 

physical habitat features most likely to 

be important to eulachon reproduction 

in fresh water are water quantity, water 

quality (especially temperature), free 

passage, and substrate condition. 

Federal programs carried out under 

legislation such as the Federal Clean 

Water Act (CWA) of 1972 help to ensure 

that water quality is maintained or 

improved and that discharge of fill 

material into rivers and streams is 

regulated. Several sections of this law, 

such as section 404 (discharge of fill 

into wetlands), section 402 (discharge of 

pollutants into water bodies), and 

section 404(d) (designation of water 

quality limited streams and rivers) 

regulate activities that might degrade 

eulachon habitat. Although programs 

carried out under the CWA are well 

funded and enforcement of this law 

occurs, it is unlikely that programs are 

sufficient to fully protect eulachon 

habitat. Despite the existence and 

enforcement of this law, a significant 

percent of stream reaches in the range 

of Pacific eulachon do not meet current 

water quality standards. 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Act prohibits placement of any structure 

in any navigable waterway of the United 

States without approval from the Army 

Corps of Engineers. Most or all 

freshwater eulachon habitat in the 

United States is considered to be 

navigable, and it is not expected that 

any additional major obstructions (i.e., 

dams) to eulachon migration would be 

authorized within their range in this 

area. Smaller structures such as weirs 

and fish traps intended for fishery 

management may be placed in some 

tributaries of the Columbia River (see: 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonHarvest-Hatcheries/Hatcheries/MitchellAct-EIS.cfm and NMFS, 2004; for more 

information). 

In Canada, dredging is not allowed in 

the Fraser River during early March to 

June to protect spawning eulachon. We 

are not aware of any other specific 

measures taken to protect eulachon 

freshwater habitat in Canada. 

State regulatory programs that protect 

eulachon habitat include wetland/ 

waterway fill-removal programs such as 

those administered by the Oregon 

Department of State Lands and the 

Washington Department of Ecology. 

Similar to the Federal CWA, these 

programs regulate filling of wetlands 

and discharge of fill material that might 

adversely affect eulachon spawning 

habitats. In addition, the State of 

California protects water quality and 

associated beneficial uses through 

administration of the Porter-Cologne 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10873 

Act, (similar to the Federal CWA), and 

implementation of CDFG 1602 

regulations. In general, the described 

regulatory programs within these three 

states are aimed at protecting the 

important functions of riverine and 

wetland ecology, such as maintaining a 

properly functioning riparian plant 

community, storing groundwater, and 

preserving floodplain roughness. They 

are also aimed at reducing the discharge 

of fine sediments that might alter or 

degrade eulachon spawning substrates. 

It is thus reasonable to conclude that 

these laws will provide some protection 

to eulachon habitat. 

The range of eulachon in the Pacific 

Northwest and California largely or 

completely overlaps with the range of 

several ESA-listed stocks of salmon and 

steelhead and green sturgeon. Although 

the habitat requirements of these fishes 

differ somewhat from eulachon, habitat 

protection generally focuses on the 

maintenance of aquatic habitat forming 

processes expected to benefit eulachon. 

In particular, the numerous ESA section 

7 consultations carried out on Federal 

activities throughout the range of 

eulachon provide a level of habitat 

protection. The protective efforts for 

salmon and steelhead are described in 

detail in our proposed listing 

determinations for 27 species of West 

Coast salmon and steelhead (69 FR 

33102; June 14, 2004). Efforts to protect 

green sturgeon are described in our 

proposed listing determination for this 

species (70 FR 17386; April 6, 2005). 

The development and operation of the 

Federal Columbia River Power System 

(FCRPS) and Bureau of Reclamation 

irrigation projects in the Columbia River 

basin have altered the hydrology of this 

river system. We have worked with the 

Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville 

Power Administration, and Bureau of 

Reclamation to develop mitigation 

measures to minimize the adverse 

effects of these projects on ESA-listed 

salmon and steelhead. On May 5, 2008, 

we issued final biological opinions on 

the operation of the FCRPS and Upper 

Snake River Irrigation Projects. The 

planned mitigation measures, including 

additional spring water spill and 

predator control programs, will benefit 

eulachon as well. Since eulachon are 

known to be plentiful in systems with 

a strong spring freshet, spilling 

additional water in the spring to 

increase survival of juvenile salmon and 

steelhead is likely to move the 

hydrograph of the Columbia River to a 

state more similar to that under which 

eulachon evolved. The Northern 

Pikeminnow Sport Reward Fishery 

should reduce predation levels in the 

Columbia River on all small fishes, 

including eulachon. 

Throughout the eulachon’s range in 

Oregon, Washington, and California, an 

array of Federal, state, tribal, and local 

entities carry out aquatic habitat 

restoration programs. These programs 

are generally intended to benefit other 

fish species such as salmon, steelhead, 

trout, etc. Eulachon also benefit from 

improvements in water quality and 

physical habitat attributes resulting 

from these projects. Although these 

programs are too numerous to list 

individually, some of the larger 

programs include the Bonneville Power 

Administration’s Columbia Basin Fish 

and Wildlife Program, the Pacific Coast 

Salmon Recovery Fund, the Lower 

Columbia Fish Recovery Board, and the 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. 

The Federal land managers, U.S. Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, 

and National Park Service also carry out 

aquatic restoration projects in some 

watersheds where eulachon migrate and 

spawn. These agencies have been 

conducting restoration projects in these 

areas for many years and projects 

located in the lower reaches of rivers 

(where eulachon spawn) are likely to 

provide some benefit to eulachon 

habitat. 

Marine waters of the United States are 

managed by state and Federal 

Governments. At this time, we do not 

know enough about eulachon use of 

near shore ocean habitats to determine 

the degree to which existing marine 

habitat management benefits eulachon. 

Proposed Determination 

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 by any 

state or foreign nation to protect and 

conserve the species. We have reviewed 

the petition, the report of the BRT 

(Gustafson et al., 2008), co-manager 

comments, and other available 

published and unpublished 

information, and we have consulted 

with species experts and other 

individuals familiar with eulachon. 

Based on this review, we conclude 

that eulachon populations spawning 

from the Skeena River in British 

Columbia south to the Mad River in 

Northern California meet the 

discreteness and significance criteria for 

a DPS (Gustafson et al., 2008). Eulachon 

occurring in this area are discrete from 

eulachon occurring north of this area 

based on differences in spawning 

temperatures; length- and weight-atmaturity in the species’ range; 

ecological features of both the oceanic 

and freshwater environments occupied 

by eulachon; and genetic characteristics. 

This group of fish is significant to the 

species as a whole because it constitutes 

over half of the geographic range of the 

entire species’ distribution and includes 

two of the known major production 

areas (Columbia and Fraser rivers) and 

a third area that may have been 

historically a major production area 

(Klamath River). Although eulachon are 

currently rarely seen in the Klamath 

River, sampling in 2007 confirmed they 

are still present there in small numbers. 

The loss of this group of fish would 

create a significant reduction in the 

species’ overall distribution. 

Ongoing efforts to protect Pacific 

salmonids, as described in the previous 

section, are likely to also benefit Pacific 

eulachon habitat. Taken together, 

however, these efforts do not 

comprehensively address the threats to 

eulachon from climate change and 

bycatch in the shrimp fishery. 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, 

including the draft BRT report, we 

propose that the southern DPS of 

eulachon is not presently in danger of 

extinction, but is likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range. Factors supporting a 

conclusion that the DPS is not presently 

in danger of extinction include: (1) two 

core spawning areas have sufficient 

numbers of eulachon to maintain 

spawning, at least at low levels; (2) as 

observed in the past (2001–2003), a 

reversion to favorable environmental 

ocean conditions could result in a 

rebound in abundance; and (3) the 

species likely strays at a moderate-tohigh rate, so that in the presence of 

favorable environmental conditions rebuilding of depressed populations may 

occur. 

Factors supporting a conclusion that 

the DPS is likely to become in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future 

include: (1) abundance in all surveyed 

populations, and in the two remaining 

core populations, is low and declining; 

and (2) the available information 

suggests that eulachon in Northern 

California experienced an abrupt 

decline several decades ago, and 

although still present at very low 

numbers, it is unknown if these 

represent a viable self-sustaining 

population, and (3) eulachon require 

minimum population sizes to achieve 

successful reproduction. 

In sum, future declines in population 

abundance may occur as a result of 

climate change and continued bycatch 

in the shrimp fishery. These threats 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
10874 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

indicate that the southern DPS of 

eulachon is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, NMFS proposes to list the 

southern DPS of eulachon as threatened. 

Take Prohibitions and Protective 

Regulations 

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain 

activities that directly or indirectly 

affect endangered species. These 9(a) 

prohibitions apply to all individuals, 

organizations, and agencies subject to 

U.S. jurisdiction. In the case of 

threatened species, ESA section 4(d) 

requires the Secretary of Commerce to 

issue regulations necessary and 

appropriate for the conservation of the 

species. We have flexibility under 

section 4(d) to tailor protective 

regulations based on the needs of, and 

threats to, the species. The 4(d) 

protective regulations may prohibit, 

with respect to threatened species, some 

or all of the acts which section 9(a) of 

the ESA prohibits with respect to 

endangered species. We will evaluate 

protective regulations pursuant to 

section 4(d) for the southern DPS of 

eulachon and propose any considered 

necessary and advisable for 

conservation of the species in future 

rulemaking. In order to inform our 

consideration of appropriate protective 

regulations for southern DPS eulachon, 

we seek information from the public on 

the threats to this species and possible 

measures for its conservation. 

Other Protections 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and NMFS/ 

FWS regulations require Federal 

agencies to confer with us on actions 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of species proposed for listing 

or that result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. If a proposed species is 

ultimately listed, Federal agencies must 

consult on any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out if those actions may 

affect the listed species or its critical 

habitat. Examples of Federal actions that 

may affect the southern DPS of eulachon 

include: water diversions, hydropower 

operations, discharge of pollution from 

point sources, non-point source 

pollution, contaminated waste disposal, 

dredging, water quality standards, 

fishery management practices, and a 

variety of land management practices 

such as development, logging, and 

transportation management. 

Peer Review 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review establishing minimum peer 

review standards, a transparent process 

for public disclosure of peer review 

planning, and opportunities for public 

participation. The OMB Bulletin, 

implemented under the Information 

Quality Act (Public Law 106–554), is 

intended to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Federal government’s 

scientific information, and applies to 

influential or highly influential 

scientific information disseminated on 

or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our 

requirements under the OMB Bulletin, 

we are obtaining independent peer 

review of the draft status review report, 

which supports this proposal to list the 

southern DPS of eulachon as threatened; 

all peer reviewer comments will be 

addressed prior to dissemination of the 

final report and publication of the final 

rule. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the ESA as: ‘‘(i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 1533 of this title, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed in accordance with the 

provisions of 1533 of this title, upon a 

determination by the Secretary that such 

areas are essential for the conservation 

of the species’’ (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). 

‘‘Conservation’’ means the use of all 

methods and procedures needed to 

bring the species to the point at which 

listing under the ESA is no longer 

necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). Section 

4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to 

the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, critical habitat be 

designated concurrently with the listing 

of a species (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)). 

Designations of critical habitat must be 

based on the best scientific data 

available and must take into 

consideration the economic, national 

security, and other relevant impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. 

Once critical habitat is designated, 

section 7 of the ESA requires Federal 

agencies to ensure that they do not fund, 

authorize, or carry out any actions that 

are likely to destroy or adversely modify 

that habitat. This requirement is in 

addition to the section 7 requirement 

that Federal agencies ensure that their 

actions do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species. 

We are currently compiling 

information to prepare a critical habitat 

proposal for the southern DPS of 

eulachon, and in this document are 

seeking public input and information to 

assist in gathering and analyzing the 

best available scientific data to support 

a critical habitat designation. We will 

continue to meet with co-managers and 

other stakeholders to review this 

information and the overall designation 

process. We will then initiate 

rulemaking with the publication of a 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

in the Federal Register, opening a 

period for public comment and the 

opportunity for public hearings. 

Joint NMFS/FWS regulations for 

listing endangered and threatened 

species and designating critical habitat 

at 50 CFR 424.12(2)(b) state that the 

agency ‘‘shall consider those physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of a given species 

and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection.’’ Pursuant to the regulations, 

such requirements include, but are not 

limited to the following: (1) space for 

individual and population growth, and 

for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; (3) cover or 

shelter; (4) sites for breeding, 

reproduction, rearing of offspring, 

germination, or seed dispersal; and 

generally; (5) habitats that are protected 

from disturbance or are representative of 

the historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. The 

regulations also state that the agency 

shall focus on the principal biological or 

physical constituent elements within 

the specific areas considered for 

designation. These primary constitutent 

elements may include, but are not 

limited to: spawning sites, feeding sites, 

seasonal wetland or dryland, water 

quality or quantity, geological 

formation, vegetation type, tide, and 

specific soil types. 

In accordance with the Secretarial 

Order on American Indian Tribal Rights, 

Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 

and the Endangered Species Act, we 

will coordinate with federally 

recognized American Indian Tribes on a 

Government-to-Government basis to 

determine how to make critical habitat 

assessments in areas that may impact 

Tribal trust resources. In accordance 

with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.13, 

we will consult as appropriate with 

affected states, interested persons and 

organizations, other affected Federal 

agencies, and, in cooperation with the 

Secretary of State, with the country or 

countries in which the species 

concerned are normally found or whose 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 10875 

citizens harvest such species from the 

high seas. 

Public Comments Solicited 

To ensure that the final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and effective as possible, we 

solicit comments and suggestions from 

the public, other governmental agencies, 

the Government of Canada, the 

scientific community, industry, 

environmental groups, and any other 

interested parties. Comments are 

encouraged on this proposal (See DATES

and ADDRESSES). Specifically, we are 

interested in information regarding: (1) 

eulachon spawning habitat within the 

range of the southern DPS that was 

present in the past, but may have been 

lost over time; (2) biological or other 

relevant data concerning any threats to 

the southern DPS of eulachon; (3) the 

range, distribution, and abundance of 

the southern DPS of eulachon; (4) 

current or planned activities within the 

range of the southern DPS of eulachon 

and their possible impact on this DPS; 

(5) recent observations or sampling of 

eulachon in Northern California rivers 

including but not limited to the Klamath 

River, Mad River, and Redwood Creek; 

and (6) efforts being made to protect the 

southern DPS of eulachon. 

Critical Habitat 

We also request quantitative 

evaluations describing the quality and 

extent of freshwater and marine habitats 

for juvenile and adult eulachon as well 

as information on areas that may qualify 

as critical habitat for the proposed 

southern DPS. Specific areas that 

include the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the DPS, where such features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection, should be 

identified. We also solicit biological and 

economic information relevant to 

making a critical habitat designation for 

the southern DPS of eulachon. Although 

the range of this DPS extends into 

Canada, ESA implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12(h) specify that critical 

habitat shall not be designated within 

foreign countries or in other areas 

outside of United States jurisdiction. 

Therefore, we request information only 

on potential areas of critical habitat 

within the United States or waters 

within U.S. jurisdiction. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the 

Secretary to consider the ‘‘economic 

impact, impact on national security, and 

any other relevant impact,’’ of 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat. For this, section 4(b)(2) 

authorizes the Secretary to exclude from 

a critical habitat designation those 

particular areas where the Secretary 

finds that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of designation, 

unless excluding that area will result in 

extinction of the species. We seek 

information regarding the conservation 

benefits of designating areas in the 

Columbia River and its tributaries, the 

Klamath River, other coastal rivers in 

Washington, Oregon and California, and 

marine areas, as critical habitat. We also 

seek information on the economic 

benefit of excluding areas from the 

critical habitat designation, and the 

economic benefits of including an area 

as part of the critical habitat 

designation. In keeping with the 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (2000; 2003), 

we seek information that would allow 

us to monetize these effects to the extent 

possible, as well as information on 

qualitative impacts to economic values. 

We also seek information on impacts to 

national security and any other relevant 

impacts of designating critical habitat in 

these areas. 

Data reviewed may include, but are 

not limited to: (1) scientific or 

commercial publications, (2) 

administrative reports, maps or other 

graphic materials, information received 

from experts, and (3) comments from 

interested parties. Comments and data 

particularly are sought concerning: (1) 

maps and specific information 

describing the amount, distribution, and 

use type (e.g., spawning, rearing, or 

migration) of eulachon habitat (both 

freshwater and marine), as well as any 

additional information on occupied and 

unoccupied habitat areas; (2) the 

reasons why any habitat should or 

should not be determined to be critical 

habitat as provided by sections 3(5)(A) 

and 4(b)(2) of the ESA; (3) information 

regarding the benefits of designating 

particular areas as critical habitat; (4) 

current or planned activities in the areas 

that might be proposed for designation 

and their possible impacts; (5) any 

foreseeable economic or other potential 

impacts resulting from designation, and 

in particular, any impacts on small 

entities; (6) whether specific 

unoccupied areas (e.g., areas where 

eulachon have been extirpated) may be 

essential to provide additional habitat 

areas for the conservation of this DPS; 

and (7) potential peer reviewers for a 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

including persons with biological and 

economic expertise relevant to the 

species, region, and designation of 

critical habitat. We seek information 

regarding critical habitat for the 

southern DPS of eulachon as soon as 

possible, but by no later than May 12, 

2009. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

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), we have concluded 

that ESA listing actions are not subject 

to the environmental assessment 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (See NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6). 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

As noted in the Conference Report on 

the 1982 amendments to the ESA, 

economic impacts cannot be considered 

when assessing the status of a species. 

Therefore, the economic analysis 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act are not applicable to the 

listing process. In addition, this 

proposed rule is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. This 

proposed rule does not contain a 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Federalism 

In keeping with the intent of the 

Administration and Congress to provide 

continuing and meaningful dialogue on 

issues of mutual State and Federal 

interest, this proposed rule will be given 

to the relevant state agencies in each 

state in which the species is believed to 

occur, and those states will be invited 

to comment on this proposal. We have 

conferred with the states of Washington, 

Oregon, and California in the course of 

assessing the status of the southern DPS 

of eulachon, and considered, among 

other things, Federal, state and local 

conservation measures. As we proceed, 

we intend to continue engaging in 

informal and formal contacts with the 

states, and other affected local or 

regional entities, giving careful 

consideration to all written and oral 

comments received. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Transportation. 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
10876 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: March 6, 2009. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 

§ 223.206(d)(9) et seq. 

2. In § 223.102, paragraph (c) is 

revised by adding and reserving 

paragraphs (c)(25) and (c)(26) and 

adding a new paragraph (c)(27) to read 

as follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

(c) * * * 

Species1

Where Listed Citation(s) for listing determination(s) 

Citation(s) for critical habitat 

designation(s) Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

(27) eulachon - southern DPS Thaleichthys 

pacificus 

California, Oregon, 

Washington, and 

British Columbia. 

[INSERT FR CITATION & 

DATE WHEN PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE] 

[INSERT FR CITATION & 

DATE WHEN PUBLISHED AS 

A FINAL RULE] 

[FR Doc. E9–5403 Filed 3–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS