![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat: 12-Month Finding on Petition to List Puget Sound Steelhead as an Endangered or Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: March 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 60)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15666-15680]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29mr06-30]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 060313064-6064-01; I.D.031006D]
RIN 0648-AU43
Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating
Critical Habitat: 12-Month Finding on Petition to List Puget Sound
Steelhead as an Endangered or Threatened Species under the Endangered
Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) have completed an updated Endangered Species Act
(ESA) status review of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) populations in
the Puget Sound area (Washington). We initiated this review in response
to a petition received from Mr. Sam Wright on September 13, 2004, to
list Puget Sound steelhead as a threatened or endangered species. We
have determined that naturally spawned winter- and summer-run steelhead
populations and two hatchery steelhead stocks, below natural and
manmade impassable barriers, in the river basins of the Strait of Juan
de Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal (Washington) constitute a Distinct
Population Segment (DPS) and hence a ``species'' for listing
consideration under the ESA. After reviewing the best available
scientific and commercial information, evaluating threats facing the
species, and taking into account those efforts being made to protect
the species, we conclude that the Puget Sound steelhead DPS is likely
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we are
proposing that the Puget Sound steelhead DPS be listed under the ESA as
a threatened species. We will announce the timing and location of a
public hearing to be held in the Puget Sound area, and propose 4(d)
protective regulations and critical habitat for the Puget Sound
steelhead DPS in subsequent Federal Register notices. We are soliciting
public comment on this proposed listing determination, as well as any
other information relevant to the designation of critical habitat and
the promulgation of 4(d) protective regulations for the Puget Sound
steelhead DPS.
DATES: Information and comments on the proposed action must be received
by June 27, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and information by any of the
following methods. Please identify submittals as pertaining to the
``Puget Sound Steelhead Proposed Listing''
?E-mail: PS.Steelhead.nwr@noaa.gov. Include ``Puget Sound
Steelhead Proposed Listing'' in the subject line of the message.
?Internet: Comments may also be submitted electronically
through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal at: http://www.regulations.gov.
?Mail: Submit written comments and information to Chief,
NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite
1100, Portland, OR 97232.
?Hand Delivery/Courier: NMFS, Protected Resources 1201 NE
Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
?Fax: 503-230-5441
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this
notice contact Dr. Scott Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest Region, (503) 872-2791,
or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 13, 2004, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright
of Olympia, Washington, to list Puget Sound steelhead as an endangered
or threatened species under the ESA, and to designate critical habitat.
On April 5, 2005, we issued our finding that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted (70 FR 17223), and we announced that we would initiate an
updated review of the species' status. This Federal Register notice
summarizes the information gathered and the analyses conducted as part
of this review, and announces our finding regarding the ESA listing
status of steelhead in Puget Sound.
For a more detailed summary of the specific information presented
in the petition, the reader is referred to the Federal Register notice
which describes our analysis of the petition (70 FR 17223; April 5,
2005). Most significantly, the petitioner provided 10 years of new
harvest, spawning escapement, and total-run-size data for nine natural-
origin Puget Sound steelhead stocks. The petitioner concluded that the
new information describes significant short- and long-term declining
trends in nearly all river systems where data are available, despite
significant reductions by the State of Washington in recreational and
tribal harvest rates on wild steelhead. The petitioner argued that the
populations of Puget Sound steelhead are at such low levels of
abundance that risks posed by catastrophic events, environmental and
demographic variability, and depensation confer a high level of
extinction risk for the foreseeable future. The petitioner also
underscored concerns regarding the widespread propagation of
domesticated and non-indigenous stocks of hatchery steelhead, a lack of
adequate monitoring of steelhead stocks, and habitat loss and
degradation in the Puget Sound area.
Policies for Delineating Species under the ESA
Section 3 of the ESA defines ``species'' as including ``any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
when mature.'' The term ``distinct population segment'' is not
recognized in the scientific literature. In 1991 we issued a policy for
delineating distinct population segments (DPSs) of Pacific salmon (56
FR 58612; November 20, 1991). Under this policy a group of Pacific
salmonid populations is considered an
[[Page 15667]]
``evolutionarily significant unit'' (ESU) if it is substantially
reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations, and it
represents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the
biological species. Further, an ESU is considered to be a ``DPS'' (and
thus a ``species'') under the ESA. On February 7, 1996, we and FWS
adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy;
61 FR 4722). The DPS Policy adopts criteria similar to, but somewhat
different from, those in the ESU Policy for determining when a group of
vertebrates constitutes a DPS: the group must be discrete from other
populations; and it must be significant to its taxon. A group of
organisms is discrete if it is ``markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors.'' Significance is
measured with respect to the taxon (species or subspecies). Although
the ESU Policy did not by its terms apply to steelhead, the DPS Policy
states that NMFS will continue to implement the ESU Policy with respect
to ``Pacific salmonids'' (which include O. mykiss). FWS, however, does
not use our ESU policy in any of its ESA listing decisions. In a
previous instance of shared jurisdiction over a species (Atlantic
salmon), we and FWS used the DPS policy in our determination to list
the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon as endangered (65 FR 69459;
November 17, 2000).
In the recently published findings of our updated status review of
listed West Coast steelhead ESUs (71 FR 834; January 5, 2006), we
departed from our previous practice of applying the ESU policy to
delineate species of O. mykiss, and instead applied the joint DPS
policy. Given our shared jurisdiction with FWS over O. mykiss, and
consistent with our approach for Atlantic salmon, we believe that
application of the joint DPS policy is logical, reasonable, and
appropriate for delineating species of O. mykiss under our
jurisdiction. In applying the joint DPS policy, we concluded that the
resident and anadromous life forms of identified population groups of
O. mykiss are ``discrete,'' and we delineated 10 steelhead-only DPSs of
O. mykiss. In this notice we similarly apply the joint DPS policy in
defining the group of steelhead populations in the Puget Sound area
that qualifies for listing consideration under the ESA. The reader is
referred to previously published Federal Register notices for further
discussion of the delineation of O. mykiss DPSs under the joint DPS
policy (70 FR 67131, November 4, 2005; 71 FR 834, January 5, 2006).
Listing Determinations under the ESA
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 endangered in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively). The statute requires us to
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened because of
any of the following five 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) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (section 4(a)(1)(A) (E)). We are to
make this determination based solely on the best available scientific
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. The focus of our evaluation of the
ESA section 4(a)(1) factors is to evaluate whether and to what extent a
given factor represents a threat to the future survival of the species.
The focus of our consideration of protective efforts is to evaluate
whether and to what extent they address the identified threats and so
ameliorate a species' risk of extinction. The steps we follow in
implementing this statutory scheme are to: (1) delineate the species
under consideration; (2) review the status of the species; (3) consider
the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors to identify threats facing the species;
(4) assess whether certain protective efforts mitigate these threats;
and (5) predict the species' future persistence.
As noted above, as part of our listing determinations we must
consider efforts being made to protect a species, and whether these
efforts ameliorate the threats facing the species and reduce risks to
its survival. Some protective efforts may be fully implemented, and
empirical information may be available demonstrating their level of
effectiveness in conserving the species. Other protective efforts are
new, not yet implemented, or have not demonstrated effectiveness. We
evaluate such unproven efforts using the criteria outlined in the
Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts (``PECE''; 68 FR 15100;
March 28, 2003) to determine their certainties of implementation and
effectiveness.
Life History of West Coast Steelhead
Steelhead is the name commonly applied to the anadromous form of
the biological species O. mykiss. The present distribution of steelhead
extends from Kamchatka in Asia, east to Alaska, and extending south
along the Pacific coast to the U.S. Mexico border (Busby et al., 1996;
67 FR 21586, May 1, 2002). O. mykiss exhibit perhaps the most complex
suite of life-history traits of any species of Pacific salmonid. O.
mykiss can be anadromous (``steelhead''), or freshwater residents
(``rainbow or redband trout''), and under some circumstances yield
offspring of the opposite life-history form. Those that are anadromous
can spend up to 7 years in freshwater prior to smoltification (the
physiological and behavioral changes required for the transition to
salt water), and then spend up to 3 years in salt water prior to first
spawning. O. mykiss are also iteroparous (meaning individuals may spawn
more than once), whereas the Pacific salmon species are principally
semelparous (meaning individuals generally spawn once and die). Within
the range of West Coast steelhead, spawning migrations occur throughout
the year, with seasonal peaks of activity. In a given river basin there
may be one or more peaks in migration activity; since these ``runs''
are usually named for the season in which the peak occurs, some rivers
may have runs known as winter, spring, summer, or fall steelhead.
Steelhead can be divided into two basic reproductive ecotypes,
based on the state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry and
duration of spawning migration (Burgner et al., 1992). The summer or
``stream-maturing'' type enters fresh water in a sexually immature
condition between May and October, and requires several months to
mature and spawn. The winter or ``ocean-maturing'' type enters fresh
water between November and April with well-developed gonads and spawns
shortly thereafter. In basins with both summer and winter steelhead
runs, the summer run generally occurs where habitat is not fully
utilized by the winter run, or where an ephemeral hydrologic barrier
separates them, such as a seasonal velocity barrier at a waterfall.
Summer steelhead usually spawn farther upstream than winter steelhead
(Withler, 1966; Roelofs, 1983; Behnke, 1992).
Previous ESA Status Review
In 1996, we conducted a comprehensive status review of coastal and
inland steelhead stocks in
[[Page 15668]]
California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (Busby et al., 1996). We
convened a Biological Review Team (BRT) (an expert panel of scientists
from NMFS' Northwest and Southwest Fisheries Science Centers, FWS, the
U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Forest Service) to: (1) identify
ESUs of West Coast steelhead; and (2) evaluate the risk of extinction
for the identified ESUs. As part of this review we identified a Puget
Sound ESU of coastal steelhead occupying river basins of the Strait of
Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal (Washington), as far west as
the Elwha River, and as far north as the Nooksack River and Dakota
Creek (inclusive), and the United States/Canada border. The Puget Sound
ESU is primarily composed of winter steelhead stocks, but also includes
several small stocks of summer steelhead occupying limited habitat. The
BRT also included the resident life-history form in the Puget Sound
ESU. Genetic studies generally show that, in the same geographic area,
the resident and anadromous life forms of O. mykiss are more similar to
each other than either is to the same form from a different geographic
area. In particular, the BRT cited a scientific study indicating that
rainbow trout and steelhead are not reproductively isolated in two
river basins within the Puget Sound ESU (Leider et al., 1995).
In the 1996 status review the BRT concluded that the Puget Sound
steelhead ESU was not in danger of extinction or likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. However, the BRT did express concern that 17 of
21 stocks in the ESU for which there were adequate data exhibited
overall declining trends. Positive trends in abundance for the two
largest steelhead runs in the ESU (the Skagit and Snohomish Rivers)
mitigated the immediacy of extinction risk, although there was
significant concern regarding the sustainability of other steelhead
runs in the ESU (most notably the Deer Creek summer and Lake Washington
winter steelhead populations, and populations in the Hood Canal area).
Given the lack of strong trends in abundance for the major populations
and the apparent limited contribution of hatchery fish to natural
production, the BRT concluded that most winter steelhead stocks in the
Puget Sound ESU appeared to be naturally self-sustaining.
The BRT noted concern about the potential threat to the genetic
integrity of Puget Sound steelhead posed by past and present hatchery
practices in the Puget Sound area. Hatchery production in this ESU is
widespread, and it is managed to support harvest. Most of the hatchery
fish propagated in the Puget Sound region are winter-run steelhead
derived from a single stock (the Chambers Creek hatchery stock) that is
indigenous to the ESU but generally is not native to the local river
basins where it is propagated. The summer steelhead hatchery programs
in the Puget Sound area are derived from an out-of-ESU stock (the
Skamania summer steelhead stock from the Columbia River). The Skamania
hatchery stock has generally been introduced in river systems where
summer steelhead did not naturally exist, although it has been
introduced in some Puget Sound river basins having native summer
steelhead populations (e.g., the Stillaguamish and Snohomish Rivers).
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) employs a
hatchery management strategy of promoting isolation between hatchery
and natural stocks by releasing smolts early and selecting for early
spawn timing in winter steelhead hatchery programs. This separation in
run timing is intended to: allow for high rates of selective harvest on
returning hatchery fish, while limiting harvest mortality on wild
stocks; and minimize competition (as smolts and adults) and
opportunities for interbreeding between naturally spawning hatchery
fish and wild fish. However, the BRT noted that separation of run
timing is seldom complete. High harvest rates targeting early-returning
hatchery fish have likely resulted in high mortality levels for early-
run natural fish and reduced the natural diversity in spawn timing.
Naturally spawning hatchery fish comprise a substantial proportion of
the spawning escapement in many of the rivers in the ESU, possibly
competing with, and posing genetic risks to, the local steelhead
populations. Additionally, the BRT discussed evidence for hatchery
introgression in some natural Puget Sound winter steelhead populations
(Phelps et al., 1994).
Informed by the BRT's findings (Busby et al., 1996), we concluded
that the Puget Sound steelhead ESU did not warrant listing under the
ESA (61 FR 41541; August 9, 1996), but expressed concern regarding the
sustainability of summer steelhead populations and potentially adverse
impacts from hatchery practices in Puget Sound.
Updated Status Review of Puget Sound Steelhead
To ensure that our review was based on the best available and most
recent scientific information, we solicited information during a 60-day
public comment period regarding the ESU structure and extinction risk
of, and efforts being made to protect, the species (70 FR 17223; April
5, 2005). In July 2005 we convened a BRT to review the available
information regarding the ESU structure and extinction risk of O.
mykiss in the Puget Sound area. Specifically, the BRT addressed: (1)
whether the geographic boundaries of the previously identified Puget
Sound ESU warrant redelineation or refinement; (2) the relationship to
the defined ESU of hatchery programs propagating O. mykiss within the
Puget Sound area; (3) the relationship to the defined ESU of resident
rainbow trout above and below impassable barriers; and (4) the level of
extinction risk of the ESU throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, including the consideration of the contribution of within-
ESU hatchery programs and resident populations to the viability of the
ESU. The data reviewed, analyses conducted, and findings by the BRT are
summarized in a July 26, 2005, memorandum ``Status Review Update for
Puget Sound Steelhead'' (NMFS, 2005).
On June 28, 2005, NMFS finalized a new policy for the consideration
of hatchery-origin fish in ESA listing determinations (``Hatchery
Listing Policy;'' 70 FR 37204). Under the Hatchery Listing Policy,
hatchery stocks are considered part of an ESU if they exhibit a level
of genetic divergence relative to the local natural population(s) that
is no more than what occurs within the ESU (70 FR at 37215; June 28,
2005). We recognize that there are a number of ways to compute and
compare genetic divergence and that it is not possible to sample all
fish within the ESU to precisely determine the range of genetic
diversity within an ESU. In evaluating hatchery stocks associated with
Puget Sound steelhead, the BRT included as part of the ESU those
hatchery stocks that are no more than moderately diverged from local,
native populations in the watershed(s) in which they are released. This
approach is consistent with our recent status review updates for 27
West Coast ESUs (see 71 FR 835, January 5, 2006; 70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005; NMFS, 2003; NMFS, 2004). In factoring artificial propagation into
the extinction risk assessment for the ESU, the BRT evaluated potential
risks to the naturally-spawned components of the ESU posed by Puget
Sound area hatchery programs determined not to be part of the ESU; as
well as the specific benefits and risks for each of the hatchery
programs included in the ESU.
[[Page 15669]]
As noted above, we have adopted the approach of applying the joint
DPS policy in delineating species of West Coast O. mykiss for listing
consideration under the ESA (see 71 FR, 834; January 5, 2006). Although
the BRT applied the ESU policy in delineating the species of Puget
Sound steelhead for ESA listing consideration, their findings directly
inform the delineation of the geographic boundaries for an O. mykiss
DPS (summarized below).
Review of ``Species'' Delineation
The BRT concluded that the best available scientific information
did not warrant a reconsideration of the previously described
geographic boundaries for the Puget Sound O. mykiss ESU (Busby et al.,
1996). The BRT's findings delineating a Puget Sound ESU of O. mykiss
directly inform our species delineation under the joint DPS policy.
Based on established phylogenetic groupings, available population
genetic data, differences in migration and spawn timing, patterns in
the duration of freshwater and marine residence, and the geographic
separation of populations, the BRT concluded that steelhead in Puget
Sound are substantially reproductively isolated from other such
groupings of West Coast O. mykiss (Busby et al., 1996). These
observations regarding reproductive isolation similarly satisfy the
discreteness criterion under the joint DPS policy, as Puget Sound
steelhead are markedly separated from other such population groups of
O. mykiss as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological or
behavioral factors.
The BRT also concluded that the Puget Sound steelhead represent an
important component in the evolutionary legacy of the O. mykiss species
based on its unique life-history, genetic, and ecological
characteristics, as well as the unique glacial and fjord-like
characteristics of the ecoregion it occupies (Busby et al., 1996).
These traits that establish the evolutionary importance of the Puget
Sound steelhead ESU also satisfy the ``significance'' criterion of the
DPS Policy. The proposed Puget Sound steelhead DPS, if lost, would
represent: the loss of unusual or unique habitats and ecosystems
occupied by the species; a significant gap in the species' range; and a
significant loss to the ecological, life-history, and genetic diversity
of the taxon.
Based on the BRT's findings summarized above, and our
considerations under the joint DPS policy, we conclude that Puget Sound
steelhead warrant delineation as a DPS. Consistent with previous
findings under the ESU policy, the geographic boundaries of the Puget
Sound steelhead DPS continue to include winter- and summer-run
steelhead runs in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget
Sound, and Hood Canal, Washington, bounded to the west by the Elwha
River (inclusive) and to the north by the Nooksack River and Dakota
Creek (inclusive).
DPS Membership of Resident O. mykiss
The BRT concluded that where resident and anadromous O. mykiss co-
occur there is likely to be interbreeding between the two life-history
forms. Applying the ESU policy, the BRT concluded that resident and
anadromous O. mykiss below long-standing impassable barriers are not
substantially reproductively isolated, and warrant consideration as
part of the same Puget Sound O. mykiss ESU. This conclusion was based
on empirical studies showing that resident and anadromous O. mykiss are
typically very similar genetically when they co-occur with no physical
barriers to migration or interbreeding (Chilcote, 1976; Currens et al.,
1987; Leider et al., 1995; Busby et al., 1996; Pearsons et al., 1998).
It is also well established that resident forms of O. mykiss can
occasionally produce anadromous migrants, and vice versa (Shapovalov
and Taft, 1954; Burgner et al., 1992; Mullan et al., 1992; Zimmerman
and Reeves, 2000; Kostow, 2003; Ardren, 2003; Blouin, 2003; Pearsons et
al., 2003; Marshal and Foley, 2004; Narum et al., 2004; Seamons et al.,
2004). Additionally, there was information specific to the Puget Sound
area describing the interbreeding of the two life-history forms, as
well as the production of outmigrating smolts by resident O. mykiss
(Marshall et al., 2004; McMillan, 2005).
The discreteness criterion of the DPS Policy, however, does not
rely on reproductive isolation but on the marked separation of
population groups as a consequence of biological factors. Despite the
apparent reproductive exchange between resident and anadromous O.
mykiss, the two life forms remain markedly separated physically,
physiologically, ecologically, and behaviorally. Steelhead differ from
resident rainbow trout physically in adult size and fecundity,
physiologically by undergoing smoltification, ecologically in their
preferred prey and principal predators, and behaviorally in their
migratory strategy. We recognize that there may be some overlap between
co-occurring steelhead and rainbow trout in physical, ecological,
behavioral and physiological traits; however, this apparent overlap
does not prevent the two life forms from satisfying the discreteness
criterion under the DPS policy. While O. mykiss display a continuum of
life-history and morphological traits, at the end of that continuum,
steelhead are markedly separate in their extreme marine migration
(leading to, or resulting from, marked separation in physical,
physiological, and ecological factors). As we stated in adopting the
DPS policy, ``the standard adopted [for discreteness] does not require
absolute separation of a DPS from other members of its species, because
this can rarely be demonstrated in nature for any population of
organisms. . . . [T]he standard adopted allows for some limited
interchange among population segments considered to be discrete, so
that loss of an interstitial population could well have consequences
for gene flow and demographic stability of a species as a whole'' (61
FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Given the marked separation between the
anadromous and resident life-history forms in physical, physiological,
ecological, and behavioral factors, we conclude that the anadromous
steelhead populations are discrete from the resident rainbow trout
populations within the DPS under consideration (see previous
determination of West Coast steelhead DPSs for further elaboration of
the discreteness between the anadromous and resident life-history
forms, 71 FR, 834; January 5, 2006).
DPS Membership of Hatchery-origin Steelhead
Prior to the meeting of the BRT, a Steelhead Hatchery Assessment
Group (SHAG) convened to review the relationships of hatchery steelhead
stocks to natural populations of Puget Sound steelhead. The SHAG
reviewed the stock histories for 25 hatchery programs, and identified
those stocks that are no more than moderately diverged from local,
native populations in the watershed(s) in which they are released. The
SHAG based these assessments on the available information describing
the hatchery stock life-history characteristics, genetics, stock
transfers, and hatchery practices. (For a more detailed treatment of
the information reviewed by SHAG, the reader is referred to Appendix C
of the BRT's report, NMFS, 2005).
Informed by the SHAG review, the BRT identified two hatchery stocks
that are part of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS: the Green River natural
and Hamma Hamma winter-run steelhead stocks. Although the SHAG identified
[[Page 15670]]
the Lake Washington winter-run steelhead stock as having been closely
related to the local natural population, the BRT concluded that the
stock no longer exists since the program has not been in operation
since 1993, and therefore the stock is not included as part of the
Puget Sound steelhead DPS.
The remaining 23 hatchery stocks reviewed, the Chambers Creek
winter-run and Skamania summer-run steelhead hatchery stocks and their
derivatives, were determined to be more than moderately diverged from
the local native populations and are not included in the DPS. The
Chambers Creek hatchery stock has been altered from the original donor
natural stock over time through purposeful selection for early run
timing and maturation, resulting in an advancement of the natural spawn
timing from April to December-January. The Chambers Creek hatchery
stock has been transferred from its native watershed and propagated
widely throughout the Puget Sound and the Pacific Northwest. Many of
the 16 hatchery stocks derived from the Chambers Creek stock and
propagated in other Puget Sound watersheds have subsequently
incorporated local native winter-run steelhead into their respective
broodstocks. Genetic analyses by Phelps et al. (1997) indicate that
there is a high degree of similarity among these hatchery populations
and the founding Chambers Creek stock, and little detectible genetic
introgression in the local natural populations from the many years of
Chambers Creek hatchery winter-run steelhead introductions. This result
suggests a large degree of reproductive divergence from the local
natural populations in the DPS from the Chambers Creek stock and its
derivatives. The Skamania Hatchery summer-run steelhead stock was
founded from outside the range of the Puget Sound DPS, with fish
collected in the Washougal and Klickitat Rivers in the Columbia River
Basin. The Skamania Hatchery, and the four other Puget Sound summer-run
hatchery programs derived from it, are genetically distinct from the
Puget Sound steelhead populations, possessing 58 chromosomes in
contrast to the 60 chromosomes commonly found in Puget Sound steelhead
(Busby et al., 1996; Phelps et al., 1997).
Determination of ``Species''
Based on the foregoing information, we conclude that the Puget
Sound steelhead DPS constitutes a ``species'' under the ESA and
includes: all naturally spawned winter-run and summer-run steelhead
populations, below natural and man-made impassable barriers, in streams
in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and
Hood Canal, Washington, bounded to the west by the Elwha River
(inclusive) and to the north by the Nooksack River and Dakota Creek
(inclusive), as well as the Green River natural and Hamma Hamma winter-
run hatchery steelhead stocks.
Assessment of Extinction Risk
The BRT assessed the risk of extinction for Puget Sound steelhead
at two levels first, at the individual population level, then at the
overall ESU level. Individual populations were assessed according to
the four ``Viable Salmonid Populations'' criteria (VSP; McElhany et
al., 2000): abundance, productivity, spatial structure (including
connectivity), and diversity. These four parameters are universal
indicators of species' viability, and individually and collectively
function as reasonable predictors of extinction risk. The collective
viability of individual populations was then evaluated in the context
of the entire ESU by the inclusion of larger-scale considerations such
as the total number of viable populations, the geographic distribution
and connectivity of populations, and the vulnerability of populations
or certain genetic and life-history attributes to regional catastrophic
events. The BRT included in its assessment of population- and ESU-level
viability an evaluation of the likely contributions of resident and
hatchery-origin fish included in the ESU. The BRT's assessment of ESU-
level extinction risk was expressed in terms that correspond to the
statutory definitions of endangered and threatened species in the ESA:
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range; likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range; or neither. The
BRT's ESU-level extinction risk assessment reflects the BRT's
professional scientific judgment, guided by the analysis of the VSP
factors, as well as by expectations about the likely interactions among
the individual VSP factors. The BRT's assessment, however, did not
include an evaluation of efforts being made to protect the species, as
required under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA. Therefore, the BRT's
findings should not be interpreted as recommendations regarding ESA listing.
Consideration of Resident O. mykiss
The BRT fully considered the best available scientific and
commercial information on resident populations in assessing the
extinction risk of the Puget Sound O. mykiss ESU. However, little or no
data are available on the abundance, productivity, spatial structure,
or diversity of the component resident populations, nor on their
contribution to the viability of the entire ESU. As a result, the
majority of the information available with which to assess the level of
extinction risk for this ESU pertained to the anadromous component. In
general, the BRT considered the resident component of O. mykiss
populations in the Puget Sound ESU to be relatively minor based on
field surveys of juvenile fish in freshwater. The majority of the BRT
felt that resident O. mykiss below barriers to migration may reduce
risks to ESU abundance by providing short-term buffers against
demographic stochasticity in many of the ESU's populations, although
there was insufficient information to characterize the effectiveness of
such buffers. The BRT concluded that resident populations in the Puget
Sound ESU are unlikely to significantly reduce the risk of extinction
of anadromous populations over the long term. This conclusion is also
supported by recent reports by the Independent Science Advisory Board
(ISAB) and NMFS' Recovery Science Review Panel (RSRP) which recently
concluded that anadromous O. mykiss contribute ``substantially and
irreplaceably to any measure of O. mykiss productivity and viability''
(RSRP, 2004), and that the ``the presence of both resident and
anadromous life-history forms is critical for conserving the diversity
of steelhead/rainbow trout populations and, therefore, the overall
viability of ESUs'' (ISAB, 2005-2). The RSRP and ISAB underscored that
``resident populations by themselves should not be relied upon to
maintain long-term viability of an [O. mykiss] ESU'' (RSRP, 2004), and
that the ``likelihood of long-term persistence would be substantially
compromised by the loss of anadromy in O. mykiss ESUs'' (ISAB, 2005-2).
Based on the minor contribution of resident O. mykiss to the viability
of the Puget Sound O. mykiss ESU, we conclude that the BRT's extinction
risk assessment directly informs our evaluation of extinction risk for
the Puget Sound steelhead-only DPS under consideration.
Consideration of Hatchery-Origin Steelhead
The BRT explicitly considered both the potential positive and
negative effects of hatchery production on the viability of the Puget
Sound O. mykiss ESU. The BRT felt that the two within-ESU hatchery
programs (the Hamma Hamma River and Green River natural
[[Page 15671]]
winter-run steelhead hatchery programs), have the potential to benefit
natural steelhead populations in their respective rivers, but that both
programs are relatively recent and have not collected sufficient data
to demonstrate any contributions with any certainty. The BRT did note
that the Hamma Hamma program does appear to have successfully increased
the number of natural spawners in the population (although the relative
increase in natural spawners is large, the absolute increase in natural
spawners is modest), but the success of the program cannot be fully
evaluated until the naturally produced offspring of the hatchery-origin
fish return and reproduce.
Given the widespread and high levels of production of hatchery fish
not included in the Puget Sound ESU, the BRT concluded that the overall
negative effect of artificial propagation in the Puget Sound area
likely outweighs any potential positive effects. Informed by the above
considerations regarding hatchery-origin steelhead, the BRT's analysis
of ESU viability (summarized below) focused on the available
information concerning the status of naturally spawning steelhead
populations in the ESU. As previously noted, we conclude that the BRT's
extinction risk assessment directly informs our evaluation of extinction
risk for the Puget Sound steelhead-only DPS under consideration.
Summary of Puget Sound Steelhead Viability Analysis
Abundance - Steelhead in the Puget Sound DPS are most abundant in
northern Puget Sound, with winter-run steelhead in the Skagit and
Snohomish rivers supporting the two largest populations. The Skagit and
Snohomish river winter-run populations have been approximately three to
five times larger than the other populations in the DPS, with average
annual spawning of approximately 5,000 and 3,000 total adult spawners,
respectively. Populations in Hood Canal and along the Strait of Juan de
Fuca are generally small, averaging fewer than 100 spawners annually.
The geometric means of most populations have declined in the last 5
years, and are below the long-term means. However, winter-run
populations in the Samish River (northern Puget Sound) and the Hamma
Hamma River (Hood Canal) appear to be growing rapidly with recent
increases in the abundance of natural spawners. The recent abundance in
the Hamma Hamma River likely reflects supplementation from the (within-
DPS) Hamma Hamma hatchery program. The recent abundance estimates in
the Samish River may include an uncertain number of hatchery fish
originating from the (out-of-DPS) Whatcom Creek hatchery, and their
naturally spawned progeny. WDFW reports that from 1992 to 2002 there
has been a general downgrade in the abundance of Puget Sound steelhead
populations, with declines in the proportion of ``healthy''
populations, and an increase in the proportion of ``depressed'' and
``unknown status'' populations (SaSI, 1992, 2002). No abundance data
series exists for most of the 16 summer-run steelhead populations in
the DPS, although all appear to be small, averaging fewer than 200
spawners annually. The BRT expressed concern that populations at such
low levels of abundance may be near or below a ``quasi-extinction''
threshold, below which population dynamics become inherently
unpredictable. The BRT concluded that the risk to the viability of
Puget Sound steelhead due to declining abundance is high.
ESU Productivity - Nearly all steelhead populations in the DPS
exhibited diminished productivity as indicated by below-replacement
population growth rates, and declining short- and long-term trends in
natural escapement and total run size. Declining productivity was
particularly evident in southern Puget Sound steelhead populations, but
was also exhibited by some populations in northern Puget Sound, Hood
Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. At the time of the 1996 status
review (Busby et al., 1996), the Skagit and Snohomish river populations
appeared to be relative strongholds of productivity, demonstrating
strongly positive and statistically significant population trends and
growth rates. The recent trends, however, in escapement, total run
size, recruitment, and population growth rate for these two populations
are downward or below replacement, although not all analyses were
statistically significant. Positive population trends were observed in
the Samish and Hamma Hamma river winter-run populations (as noted
above, the increasing trend for the Hamma Hamma River population likely
reflects a recently established supplementation hatchery program,
rather than an increase in naturally produced steelhead). Relevant
productivity data are unavailable for all but one of the summer-run
populations in the DPS. The Tolt River summer-run population, for which
data are available, is showing evidence for increasing productivity.
The BRT expressed concern that the observed population declines in the
DPS have occurred despite widespread reductions by WDFW in the direct
harvest of natural steelhead since the 1990s. The BRT also expressed
concern that WDFW uses a March 15 date to delineate between naturally
spawning hatchery-origin fish and native winter-run fish. The BRT felt
that such an approach could bias productivity estimates as it does not
provide a consistently accurate estimate of the proportion of hatchery-
origin fish or their contribution to natural production. Information
was not available to evaluate trends in marine survival for any of the
populations in the DPS. The BRT concluded that the risk to the
viability of Puget Sound steelhead due to declining productivity is high.
Spatial Structure/Connectivity - The BRT noted that the
distribution of steelhead has been affected by a number of dams in
several Puget Sound river basins that block accessibility to habitat
and connectivity among populations. Additionally, the BRT noted that
urban development has degraded or eliminated wetland and riparian
habitats, resulting in changes to river hydrology and the loss of side-
channel areas, thereby reducing the spawning and rearing distribution
of Puget Sound steelhead populations. Declines in natural abundance
observed in nearly all of the DPS's populations, coupled with large
numbers of man-made impassable barriers, have sharply reduced
opportunities for migration and connectivity among steelhead
populations in different watersheds. The BRT expressed concern
regarding the sharp reduction in natural escapement for the centrally
located Lake Washington watershed, and noted that the observation of
weakening abundance trends for populations in neighboring river basins
may reflect degraded connectivity among populations. The BRT concluded
that the viability of Puget Sound steelhead is at moderate risk due to
the reduced spatial complexity of, and connectivity among, populations.
Diversity - The BRT noted concern regarding the apparent reduction
of the summer-run steelhead populations in Puget Sound. Summer-run
populations are concentrated in northern Puget Sound, with only two
other populations distributed throughout the rest of the DPS. One of
these latter summer-run populations (the Elwha River summer-run
population) is thought to have been extirpated in the early1900s and
replaced by out-of-DPS Skamania stock summer-run hatchery steelhead.
Several BRT members noted that anecdotal historical accounts discuss
significant early runs of wild steelhead, but
[[Page 15672]]
expressed concern that these early wild spawners have apparently
disappeared from several river systems. Despite evidence of increasing
productivity in the largest summer-run population in the ESU (the Tolt
River population), it exhibits a negative trend in total run size and a
flat trend in escapement. The other summer-run populations appear to be
at very low levels of abundance. Additionally, the substantial
production of out-of-DPS Skamania stock summer-run hatchery fish in
watersheds with native summer-run populations (e.g., in the
Stillaguamish River and South Fork Skykomish populations) poses genetic
risks to the summer-run component of the DPS. The BRT expressed concern
that the Chambers Creek and Skamania stock hatchery programs and their
derivatives may have adverse effects on the DPS's diversity through
genetic introgression and outbreeding depression. Some members of the
BRT felt that adverse impacts from these out-of-DPS hatchery programs
may be contributing to the declines in natural steelhead productivity,
but acknowledged that the magnitude of any such impact could not be
ascertained. Although these hatchery programs have selected for
differences in average spawning time, any interbreeding between native
and hatchery fish that may occur will likely have adverse consequences
for the reproductive fitness of the local natural populations. The BRT
noted that even very low levels of hatchery introgression can have a
significant impact on genetic diversity after several generations. The
BRT recognized the substantial reductions in the harvest of wild
steelhead that were implemented in the mid 1990s, but noted that the
previous harvest management may have removed a substantial proportion
of the native summer-run and early winter-run steelhead spawn timing
from many of the populations in the DPS. Present-day high harvest rates
for marked hatchery-origin fish, although preventing out-of-DPS
hatchery fish from spawning naturally, may continue to reduce the
diversity of natural spawn timing through the incidental mortality of
early-returning natural steelhead. The BRT concluded that the viability
of Puget Sound steelhead is at moderate risk due to the reduced life-
history diversity of populations and the potential threats posed by
artificial propagation and harvest in the Puget Sound.
Overall DPS Viability - Informed by the assessment of demographic
risks for each of the four VSP criteria (summarized above), an
overwhelming majority of the BRT concluded that Puget Sound steelhead
are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of their range. The BRT's
conclusion fully considered the best available information concerning
the contribution of resident and hatchery-origin O. mykiss to the
overall viability of the steelhead in the Puget Sound DPS. As noted
above, the BRT's assessment did not include an evaluation of efforts
being made to protect the species and therefore does not represent a
recommendation for ESA listing status. The following sections summarize
the likely factors for the decline of Puget Sound steelhead, as well as
the protective efforts being made to protect steelhead and other
salmonids in the Puget Sound area.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) state that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) must
determine, through the regulatory process, if 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 human-made factors affecting its continued
existence. We have previously detailed the impacts of various factors
contributing to the decline of West Coast steelhead in our previous
listing determinations (e.g., 62 FR 43937, August 18, 1997; 57 FR
14517, March 25, 1999) and supporting documentation (e.g.; NMFS, 1997,
``Factors Contributing to the Decline of Chinook Salmon An Addendum to
the 1996 West Coast Steelhead Factors for Decline Report;'' NMFS, 1996,
``Factors for Decline A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for
West Coast Steelhead Under the Endangered Species Act''). These Federal
Register notices and technical reports conclude that all of the factors
identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA have played a role in the
decline of West Coast steelhead stocks. The following discussion
briefly summarizes findings regarding the principal factors for decline
in general terms, and notes factors of specific relevance to the Puget
Sound DPS. The reader is referred to the above Federal Register
notices, technical reports, and the BRT's findings (NMFS, 2005) for a
more detailed treatment of the relevant factors for decline for this ESU.
1. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
West Coast steelhead have experienced declines in abundance over
the past several decades as a result of loss, damage, or change to
their natural environment. Water diversions for agriculture, flood
control, domestic, and hydropower purposes have greatly reduced or
eliminated historically accessible habitat and degraded remaining
habitat. Forestry, agriculture, mining, and urbanization have degraded,
simplified, and fragmented habitat. The destruction or modification of
estuarine areas has resulted in the loss of important rearing and
migration habitats. Losses of habitat complexity and habitat
fragmentation have also contributed to observed declines. Sedimentation
and degraded water quality from extensive and intensive land use
activities (e.g., timber harvests, road building, livestock grazing,
and urbanization) are recognized as primary causes of habitat
degradation throughout the range of West Coast steelhead.
Habitat utilization by steelhead in the Puget Sound area has been
dramatically affected by large dams and other man-made barriers in a
number of river basins: the Nooksack, Skagit, White, Nisqually,
Skokomish, and Elwha river basins. Several of these dams have
eliminated access to historical habitats, while others are located
above historically impassable natural barriers. In addition to limiting
habitat accessibility, dams (whether located above or below
historically impassable barriers) affect habitat quality through
changes in river hydrology, altered temperature profile, reduced
downstream gravel recruitment, and the reduced recruitment of large
woody debris. In some rivers, such as the Elwha River, increased water
temperatures have decreased disease resistance in salmonids.
Many upper tributaries in the Puget Sound region have been affected
by poor forestry practices, while many of the lower reaches of rivers
and their tributaries have been altered by agriculture and urban
development. Urbanization has caused direct loss of riparian vegetation
and soils, significantly altered hydrologic and erosional rates and
processes (e.g., by creating impermeable surfaces such as roads,
buildings, parking lots, sidewalks etc.), and polluted waterways with
stormwater and point-source discharges. The loss of wetland and
riparian habitat
[[Page 15673]]
has dramatically changed the hydrology of many streams, with increases
in flood frequency and peak flow during storm events and decreases in
groundwater driven summer flows (Moscrip and Montgomery, 1997; Booth et
al., 2002; May et al., 2003). Flood events result in gravel scour, bank
erosion, and sediment deposition. Land development for agricultural
purposes has also altered the historical land cover, and as much of
this development has occurred in river floodplains, there has been a
direct impact on river flow levels and morphology. River braiding and
sinuosity have been reduced through the construction of dikes,
hardening of banks with riprap, and channelization of the mainstem.
Constriction of river flows, particularly during high flow events,
increases the likelihood of gravel scour and the dislocation of rearing
juveniles. The loss of side-channel habitats has also reduced important
areas for spawning, juvenile rearing, and overwintering habitats.
Estuarine areas have been dredged and filled, resulting in the loss of
important juvenile rearing areas. In addition to being a factor that
contributed to the present decline of Puget Sound steelhead
populations, the continued destruction and modification of steelhead
habitat is the principal factor limiting the viability of the Puget
Sound steelhead DPS into the foreseeable future.
2. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or
Educational Purposes
Steelhead runs have supported, and continue to support, important
tribal and recreational fisheries throughout their range, contributing
millions of dollars to numerous local economies, as well as providing
important cultural and subsistence needs for Native Americans.
Overfishing in the early days of European settlement led to the
depletion of many stocks of salmonids, prior to extensive modifications
and degradation of natural habitats. However, following the degradation
of many west coast aquatic and riparian ecosystems, exploitation rates
were higher than many populations could sustain. Therefore, harvest may
have contributed to the further decline of some populations.
Extensive artificial propagation has historically supported high
levels of steelhead harvest in the Puget Sound area. The majority of
harvest occurred in recreational fisheries, but tribal fisheries
directed at steelhead are also important. Prior to the promulgation of
regulations by WDFW in the mid 1990s protecting all wild steelhead from
recreational fishery harvest, Puget Sound steelhead fisheries likely
contributed to the present decline in abundance of natural steelhead
populations. It is also likely that harvest directed at early returning
hatchery-origin fish adversely affected natural population life-history
diversity through the selective removal of commingled native summer-run
and early-winter run steelhead adults. Present-day fisheries are
implemented to harvest marked hatchery-origin fish only, and are
managed in time to target early run hatchery-origin fish and minimize
the incidental harvest of early-returning natural steelhead. Existing
steelhead recreational fisheries in Puget Sound, while appropriately
minimizing potential adverse impacts on natural steelhead populations,
may still result in a continued mortality of early-returning natural
steelhead through poaching and hook-and-release mortalities. Although
overutilization for recreational purposes was a factor that contributed
to the present decline of Puget Sound steelhead populations, we do not
believe that overutilization is a factor limiting the viability of the
Puget Sound steelhead DPS into the foreseeable future.
3. Disease or Predation
Introductions of non-native species (e.g., largemouth bass) and
habitat modifications that benefit the survival or feeding
effectiveness of native or introduced predators have resulted in
increased predation risks to natural steelhead populations in many
Pacific Northwest rivers and lakes. Predation by marine mammals
(principally harbor seals and sea lions) is also of concern in areas
where steelhead populations are already diminished due to other
factors, or where man-made structures concentrate fish and make them
susceptible to predation by marine mammals (e.g., the Ballard Locks at
Lake Washington). Although fishes form the principal food sources of
many marine mammals, salmonids appear to be a minor component of their
overall diet, given the seasonal availability of anadromous fishes
(Scheffer and Sperry, 1931; Jameson and Kenyon, 1977; Graybill, 1981;
Brown and Mate, 1983; Roffe and Mate, 1984; Hanson, 1993). However,
predation by marine mammals may significantly decrease salmonid
abundance in some local populations when other prey species are absent
and where physical and behavioral conditions lead to the concentration
of salmonid adults and juveniles (Cooper and Johnson, 1992). Predation
by seabirds can also substantially reduce the abundance of juvenile
salmon and steelhead populations in some locations. Although predation
may be a concern for some local populations at low abundance, we do not
believe that it is a factor limiting the viability of the Puget Sound
steelhead DPS into the foreseeable future.
Fish disease and epizootics can also be a limiting factor to adult
and juvenile steelhead survival. Salmonids are exposed to numerous
naturally occurring bacterial, protozoan, viral, and parasitic
organisms in spawning and rearing areas, hatcheries, migratory routes,
and the marine environment. Included are fish pathogens causing
diseases such as bacterial kidney disease, ceratomyxosis, columnaris,
furunculosis, infectious hematopoietic necrosis, enteric redmouth
disease, black spot disease, erythrocytic inclusion body syndrome, and
whirling disease, among others, that are known to affect West Coast
salmonids (Rucker et al., 1953; Wood, 1979; Leek, 1987; Foott et al.,
1994; Gould and Wedemeyer, undated). In general, very little current or
historical information exists to quantify changes in infection levels
and mortality rates attributable to these diseases. However, studies
have shown that naturally spawned fish tend to be less susceptible to
pathogens than hatchery-reared fish (Buchanon et al., 1983; Sanders et
al., 1992). Hatchery-origin fish may have an increased risk of carrying
fish disease pathogens because of relatively high rearing densities
that increase stress levels and can lead to a greater manifestation and
transmission of diseases within the hatchery population. Under natural,
low density conditions, most pathogens do not lead to a disease
outbreak in wild populations. When disease outbreaks do occur, they are
often triggered by stressful hatchery rearing conditions, or by an
adverse change in the natural environment. Consequently, it is possible
that the release of hatchery fish may lead to the infection and
increased mortality of natural-origin populations, particularly if
habitat conditions such as low water flows and high temperatures
exacerbate the susceptibility of natural- and hatchery-origin
populations to infectious diseases. Although hatchery populations may
be considered to be reservoirs for disease pathogens because of their
elevated rearing densities and increased stress levels, there is little
evidence to suggest that diseases are routinely transmitted from
hatchery-orign to natural-origin fish (Steward and Bjornn, 1990). We do
not believe that disease is a factor limiting the viability of the
Puget Sound steelhead DPS into the foreseeable future.
[[Page 15674]]
4. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
A variety of Federal, state, tribal, and local laws, regulations,
treaties and measures affect the abundance and survival of West Coast
steelhead, and the quality of their habitat. We reviewed existing
regulatory mechanisms as part of our recent updated listing
determinations for West Coast salmon and steelhead (69 FR 33102, June
14, 2004; 70 FR 834, January 5, 2006). We noted several Federal, state,
and local regulatory programs that have been successfully implemented
to substantially reduce historical risks to West Coast steelhead DPSs
(for example, the elimination of hatchery rainbow trout stocking in
anadromous waters, and the conversion of many in-river recreational
fisheries to mark-selective fisheries or catch-and-release only). The
reader is referred to the previous proposed rule (69 FR 33102; June 14,
2004) for a regional and state-by-state summary of these regulatory
mechanisms, including those in the Puget Sound area. In particular,
changes in regulations governing steelhead fisheries have significantly
reduced the risks for many West Coast steelhead DPSs, including the
Puget Sound DPS under consideration. Hatchery managers have implemented
measures to reduce the potential negative interactions between
hatchery-origin and natural-origin steelhead in the Puget Sound area.
However, it is unclear whether some of these measures have been
effective in minimizing the adverse consequences of artificial
propagation on natural populations (e.g., the selection for early run
timing in the Chambers Creek steelhead hatchery stock has reduced the
frequency of interactions between hatchery-origin and natural fish, but
it may have increased the severity of any interactions that do occur).
The Hatchery Science Review Group (HSRG) recently detailed
recommendations intended to further minimize the potentially harmful
effects of artificial propagation on natural populations of Puget Sound
salmonids (HSRG, 2004). At present, however, the regulatory and funding
mechanisms are not in place to fully implement the HSRG's
recommendations (HSRG, 2005; also see further discussion in the
``Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Salmon and Steelhead ``
section, below). In addition, although there have been efforts to
improve habitat conditions across the range of the Puget Sound
steelhead DPS, land-use regulations across its range do not adequately
address continued threats from habitat degradation and modification. We
conclude that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (e.g.,
governing potentially harmful hatchery practices and certain land-use
activities) is a factor limiting the viability of the Puget Sound
steelhead DPS into the foreseeable future.
5. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Variability in ocean and freshwater conditions can have profound
impacts on the productivity of salmon and steelhead populations.
Natural climatic conditions have at different times exacerbated or
mitigated the problems associated with degraded and altered riverine
and estuarine habitats. In the last decade, evidence has shown: (1)
recurring, decadal-scale patterns of ocean-atmosphere climate
variability in the North Pacific Ocean (Zang et al., 1997; Mantua et
al., 1997); and (2) correlations between these oceanic productivity
``regimes'' and salmon population abundance in the Pacific Northwest
and Alaska (Hare et al., 1999; Mueter et al., 2002). One indicator of
the ocean-atmosphere variation for the North Pacific is the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation index (PDO). Negative PDO values are associated
with relatively cool ocean temperatures (and generally high salmon
productivity) off the Pacific Northwest, and positive values are
associated with warmer, less productive conditions. These favorable
ocean conditions may also be correlated with favorable conditions for
salmonid survival in the freshwater environment (e.g., above-average
rainfalls resulting in improved flow regimes for smolt outmigration).
Increases in many salmon populations in recent years may be largely a
result of more favorable ocean conditions. PDO values were mostly
positive during the two decades preceding 1998, and this regime was
generally characterized by less productive ocean conditions and
declining salmonid abundances. Between July 1998 and July 2002, the PDO
exhibited mostly negative values, associated with higher ocean
productivity and increasing returns for many West Coast salmonid
populations. From August 2002 to present, the PDO has exhibited mostly
positive values. It is not clear what impact, if any, these most recent
conditions will have on West Coast salmonid populations in general, and
the Puget Sound steelhead DPS in particular. Ocean-climate change and
variability is a factor contributing considerable uncertainty to the
viability of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS into the foreseeable future.
Extensive hatchery programs have been implemented throughout the
range of West Coast steelhead. While these programs may have succeeded
in providing fishing opportunities and increasing the total number of
naturally spawning fish, the programs have also likely increased risks
to natural populations as a result of food resource competition,
increased predation, reduced genetic diversity and reproductive fitness
through interbreeding, and masking of trends in natural populations
through the straying of hatchery-origin fish onto spawning grounds.
More recently, hatchery programs using local native salmon populations
as broodstock have been initiated that are specifically designed to
conserve depressed Pacific salmonid populations. State natural resource
agencies have adopted or are developing policies designed to ensure
that the use of artificial propagation is conducted in a manner
consistent with the conservation and recovery of natural, indigenous
populations. The role of artificial propagation in the conservation and
recovery of salmonid populations continues to be the subject of
vigorous and well funded scientific research.
State and Federal hatcheries have attempted to propagate steelhead
in Puget Sound since 1900. Early hatchery techniques reared steelhead
for only a few days or weeks prior to release, experienced limited
success, and likely reduced natural steelhead runs through the
collection of fish for broodstock (Crawford, 1979). With the
development of extended rearing programs for hatchery steelhead (Putzke
and Meigs, 1940), and the resultant increase in adult steelhead
returns, artificial propagation of steelhead in Puget Sound became more
widespread. Hatchery steelhead in Puget Sound are propagated in nearly
all of the major river systems, spawn naturally throughout the Puget
Sound region, and are derived largely from a single highly domesticated
winter-run stock (the Chambers Creek stock) or from a summer-run stock
originally developed in the Columbia River basin (the Skamania Hatchery
stock). Genetic analyses indicate that in some naturally spawning
populations in larger river basins there is little if any detectable
influence from years of Chambers Creek hatchery winter-run steelhead
introductions, a result that suggests reproductive isolation of, and
poor spawning success by hatchery-origin fish (Phelps et al., 1997). There
is, however, some evidence for introgression by hatchery releases into
[[Page 15675]]
native winter-run steelhead populations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca
(NMFS, 2005). Efforts to limit spawning interactions between hatchery
and wild fish through the use of early returning hatchery stocks may
have reduced the probability of interbreeding through the temporal
separation of average run timing and the spatial separation of spawning
areas. However, because of substantial genetic differences between the
non-indigenous hatchery stocks and the native natural steelhead
populations, the fitness consequences to the native natural population
of any hatchery-wild crosses that may occur would be highly
detrimental. The HSRG, in its recent recommendations for the form of
Puget Sound steelhead hatchery programs, concluded that ``the
widespread stocking and outplanting of steelhead smolts poses
unacceptable ecological and genetic risks to naturally spawning
populations, particularly in small streams that receive such outplants
or to which hatchery-origin fish stray'' (HSRG, 2004). Several BRT
members similarly expressed concern that the extensive propagation of
the Chambers Creek and Skamania hatchery steelhead stocks may be
contributing to the observed declines in Puget Sound steelhead
populations, although the BRT acknowledged that there is insufficient
information to quantify the level of reproductive exchange between
hatchery- and natural-origin steelhead. Potentially harmful hatchery
practices may pose ecological and genetic risks to natural populations
and may represent a factor limiting the viability of the Puget Sound
steelhead DPS into the foreseeable future.
Efforts Being Made to Protect West Coast Salmon and O. mykiss
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make
listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available after taking into account efforts being made
to protect a species. Therefore, in making listing determinations, we
first assess species extinction risk and identify factors that have led
to the species' decline. The we assess existing efforts being made to
protect the species to determine if those measures ameliorate the risks
faced by the species.
In judging the efficacy of existing protective efforts, we rely on
the joint NMFS-FWS ``Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When
Making Listing Decisions'' (``PECE;'' 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003).
PECE provides direction for the consideration of protective efforts
identified in conservation agreements, conservation plans, management
plans, or similar documents (developed by Federal agencies, state and
local governments, tribal governments, businesses, organizations, and
individuals) that have not yet been implemented, or have been
implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The policy
articulates several criteria for evaluating the certainty of
implementation and effectiveness of protective efforts to aid in
determining whether a species warrants listing as threatened or
endangered. Evaluations of the certainty an effort will be implemented
include whether: the necessary resources (e.g., funding and staffing)
are available; the requisite agreements have been formalized such that
the necessary authority and regulatory mechanisms are in place; there
is a schedule for completion and evaluation of the stated objectives;
and (for voluntary efforts) the necessary incentives are in place to
ensure adequate participation. The evaluation of the certainty of an
effort's effectiveness is made on the basis of whether the effort or
plan: establishes specific conservation objectives; identifies the
necessary steps to reduce threats or factors for decline; includes
quantifiable performance measures for the monitoring of compliance and
effectiveness; incorporates the principles of adaptive management; and
is likely to improve the species' viability at the time of the listing
determination.
The PECE also notes several important caveats. Satisfaction of the
above mentioned criteria for implementation and effectiveness
establishes a given protective effort as a candidate for consideration,
but does not mean that an effort will ultimately affect the risk
assessment. The policy stresses that just as listing determinations
must be based on the viability of the species at the time of review, so
they must be based on the state of protective efforts at the time of
the listing determination. The PECE does not provide explicit guidance
on how protective efforts affecting only a portion of a species' range
may affect a listing determination, other than to say that such efforts
will be evaluated in the context of other efforts being made and the
species' overall viability. There are circumstances where threats are
so imminent, widespread, and/or complex that it may be impossible for
any agreement or plan to include sufficient efforts to result in a
determination that listing is not warranted.
Summary of Protective Efforts
As noted above, the consideration of protective efforts under PECE
is concerned with evaluating formalized conservation efforts that have
yet to be fully implemented or show effectiveness. We recognize that
there are many long established efforts that are providing vital
contributions to conserving and recovering Puget Sound salmonid stocks.
Such efforts include: Federal actions approved by NMFS and FWS under
section 7(a)(2) of the ESA affecting currently listed species; actions
approved by NMFS under the section 4(d) protective regulations for
salmonid ESUs currently listed as threatened; Federal forest management
under the Northwest Forest Plan in the Olympic, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie,
and Gifford Pinchot National Forests; and improved harvest management
by WDFW and the Puget Sound area tribes to conserve wild populations of
Puget Sound steelhead. Although not directly quantifiable, the
protective benefits of these well established measures are manifested
in the present demographic performance of Puget Sound steelhead
populations. Although not explicitly considered by the BRT, we believe
that such efforts are reflected in the BRT's assessment of limiting
factors and extinction risk for the DPS. Additionally, in the Puget
Sound area there are numerous small-scale protective efforts aimed at
conserving salmonid species that are currently listed under the ESA. It
is unlikely that such efforts individually or collectively
comprehensively address the complex suite of limiting factors and broad
spatial scales necessary to substantially mitigate the BRT's assessment
of extinction risk for the Puget Sound steelhead DPS. Below we confine
our summary of protective efforts to recent developments in
conservation and recovery efforts for the Puget Sound area, and
significant large-scale or comprehensive efforts with the potential to
address the complex and widespread factors likely limiting the Puget
Sound steelhead DPS.
The Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (Shared Strategy) is a
collaborative effort among local citizens, local governments, non-
governmental organizations, tribal governments, Washington State,
technical experts, NMFS, and FWS to protect and restore Puget Sound
Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer chum salmon, and bull trout
populations in the Puget Sound region. Shared Strategy, in
collaboration with NMFS' Technical Recovery Team, has made significant
progress in: identifying demographically independent Chinook salmon
populations; identifying recovery targets and ranges for Chinook salmon
populations in each watershed; identifying the actions needed at the
[[Page 15676]]
watershed level to achieve these targets; and developing recovery
plans, specific actions, and resource commitments for the successful
implementation of Puget Sound recovery efforts. Recently, the Shared
Strategy released a draft recovery plan addressing the threatened Puget
Sound Chinook ESU and threatened bull trout (available on the Internet
at: http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/plan/index.htm). The
draft Shared Strategy plan represents a synoptic and comprehensive effort
to identify watershed-specific limiting factors, conservation objectives,
necessary restoration and conservation measures, required resources,
and adaptive management protocols. We have reviewed the draft plan in
the context of recovery planning for the threatened Puget Sound Chinook
ESU, and we believe that the watershed-scale plans, if implemented,
including certain measures identified by NMFS, collectively represent a
robust program for achieving the recovery of Puget Sound chinook. At
present, however, the necessary funding to implement the draft Shared
Strategy plan has not been secured. Without assurances that the
necessary funding resources are and will be available, the draft Shared
Strategy plan does not satisfy the ``certainty of implementation''
criterion under PECE. Although we believe that, if implemented, the
draft Shared Strategy plan will be effective in conserving the Puget
Sound Chinook ESU, there is considerable uncertainty whether the
identified conservation measures will be effective in substantially
addressing the factors limiting Puget Sound steelhead populations. The
draft Shared Strategy plan focuses on the recovery needs of Chinook
populations, and does not necessarily contemplate the limiting factors
and needed conservation measures specific to the O. mykiss species. At
present there is insufficient information to evaluate whether the draft
Shared Strategy plan adequately accounts for differences in life-
history and habitat-use characteristics among populations of Puget
Sound Chinook and steelhead.
The HSRG is an independent scientific panel established and funded
by Congress to evaluate artificial propagation practices in Puget Sound
and coastal Washington, and to provide guidance to regional
policymakers and technical staff in implementing hatchery reforms. In
2004 the HSRG released its recommendations for the reform of Puget
Sound and coastal Washington salmonid hatcheries, including Puget Sound
steelhead hatchery programs. The HSRG's recommendations for Puget Sound
steelhead hatcheries include: (1) establishing ``wild steelhead
management zones'' in each of the recognized ecoregions of Puget Sound,
in which streams would not be not planted with hatchery fish and
instead would be managed for native stocks; (2) discontinuing some
current programs as necessary to implement such wild steelhead
management zones; (3) convening of a workshop by WDFW to further
develop methods of implementing segregated steelhead hatchery programs
(such as the programs derived from the Chambers Creek and Skamania
Hatchery stocks) while minimizing interactions with native naturally
spawning steelhead populations; (4) instituting monitoring and
evaluation by WDFW as a basic component of conducting segregated
hatchery programs; (5) developing locally adapted broodstock in areas
where hatchery steelhead programs may be developed or reformed; (6)
sizing hatchery programs intended to provide harvest opportunities in a
manner that minimizes impacts on wild populations; (7) developing the
capability of collecting unharvested returning hatchery-origin adult
steelhead to minimize spawning interactions with natural populations;
and (8) discontinuing hatchery programs where unharvested hatchery-
origin adults cannot be collected at their return (HSRG, 2004). WDFW is
in the process of developing a new statewide steelhead management plan
that will consider the HSRG's recommendations. At present, however, the
regulatory and funding mechanisms are not in place to implement the
HSRG's recommendations (HSRG, 2005a), and the specific reforms that
WDFW intends to implement are unknown. Additionally, further research
and data collection will be necessary prior to the implementation of
certain HSRG recommendations. For example, the HSRG cautions that,
because of the low abundance and productivity of wild steelhead
populations in Puget Sound, developing locally adapted broodstock is
not currently a viable alternative for most populations (HSRG, 2005b).
If WDFW completes its new steelhead management plan prior to the
publication of the final rule (i.e, within 1 year from the date of
publication of this notice), we anticipate considering it in developing
our final listing determination.
The conservation of approximately 1.1 million acres of forest lands
in the Puget Sound region is covered by five Habitat Conservation Plans
(HCPs), which we have determined are compliant with section 10(a)(2)(B)
of the ESA and that include steelhead as HCP-covered species. The HCPs
are West Fork Timber, Plum Creek Timber (Central Cascades), Port
Blakely Tree Farms, WA Department of Natural Resources, and Green
Diamond (formerly called Simpson Timber - Shelton Timberlands). All of
these forestry HCPs address long-term salmonid survival on industrial
forest lands and are designed to provide healthy watersheds and
riparian areas, and properly functioning salmonid habitats. These HCPs
also give landowners long-term management clarity and certainty.
Specific HCP conservation measures focus on attaining mature forest
conditions in riparian areas, minimizing sediment input to streams,
protecting and recovering floodplain functions, and protecting water
quality during timber management and associated road operations. Each
HCP has a different blend of conservation measures that reflect
landowner operations, geographic limitations, and baseline
environmental conditions. Although forest practices on all private
lands are not yet procedurally compliant with ESA regulations under
Section 10 or Section 4(d), the Washington State Forest Practice Rules
were changed in 2000 to reflect the substance of NMFS' Section 4(d)
protective regulations for threatened salmonids (65 FR 42422; July 10,
2000). Effective July 2001, these new rules cover a wide variety of
forest practices and include: a new, more functional classification of
rivers and streams on non-Federal forest land; improved plans for
properly designing, maintaining, and upgrading existing and new forest
roads; additional protections for unstable slopes; greater protections
for riparian areas intended to maintain properly functioning
conditions; a process for adaptive management; and other features. The
above described protective efforts addressing forest land management
are being implemented. Although these protective efforts are important
contributions to addressing habitat degradation in upper tributaries
and attendant adverse effects on habitat quality and structure
downstream, there is insufficient information to assess the
effectiveness and relative importance of these efforts in mitigating
the extinction risk of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS. It is unlikely
that these forestry measures substantially alter the BRT's assessment
of extinction risk given that the loss and degradation of nearshore,
estuarine, and lowland habitats due to
[[Page 15677]]
agricultural activities and urbanization remain significant limiting
factors for the DPS.
Two municipal watersheds are also covered under HCPs that include
protection of instream flows for anadromous salmonids: the City of
Seattle Cedar River Watershed and the City of Tacoma Green River Water
Supply. Instream flows are also provided through agreements negotiated
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the Skagit, Sultan,
Snoqualmie and Nisqually rivers. As noted above, there is insufficient
information to assess the effectiveness of these efforts in mitigating
the extinction risk of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS. Despite likely
benefits at the watershed scale, it is unlikely that these efforts
address instream flow issues on a spatial scale sufficiently broad to
alter the extinction risk assessment for the DPS as a whole.
Two long-standing hydroelectric dams on the Elwha River are slated
for removal starting in 2008. Congress has authorized funds for current
phases of the complex effort that requires construction of several new
water supplies. These dam removals will restore anadromous salmonid
access to over 100 km of mainstem and tributary habitat. The
construction of a fish ladder in 2000 at Electron Dam in the Puyallup
River Basin has provided access to over 16 km of mainstem habitat.
Studies are underway to evaluate its effectiveness in providing passage
for adult and juvenile fish. Passage is now provided for steelhead and
other salmonids (except sockeye) above Landsburg Dam on the Cedar
River, which formerly blocked access to approximately 27.4 km of
mainstem habitat since 1900. Although these efforts are important
developments in providing for fish passage and addressing adverse
impacts of dams on downstream habitats, in total they currently lack
sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to alter our
risk assessment.
We support the many valuable conservation and recovery planning
efforts in Puget Sound. While we are optimistic that these promising
efforts will contribute to recovering listed Puget Sound salmonids,
PECE establishes strict criteria for the consideration of such
protective efforts in ESA listing determinations. At present, the
efforts being made to protect Puget Sound salmonid species lack the
certainty of implementation and effectiveness, or lack sufficient
scope, to substantially mitigate the BRT's assessment of extinction
risk for the Puget Sound steelhead DPS. In developing our final listing
determination, we will consider the best available information
concerning the protective efforts described above, any changes or
amendments to those efforts, as well as any other protective efforts
that may come to our attention. Our evaluation of protective efforts
will be conducted consistent with the PECE criteria for evaluating the
likelihoods of implementation and effectiveness.
Proposed Listing Determination
The overwhelming majority of the BRT concluded that Puget Sound
steelhead is ``likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' The BRT
fully considered the best available scientific and commercial
information concerning the contributions of resident and hatchery-
origin O. mykiss to the viability of the Puget Sound steelhead
populations in total. The BRT noted that the resident O. mykiss below
impassable barriers may reduce risks to the steelhead population
abundance in the short term, but concluded that these resident
populations are unlikely to significantly reduce the risk of extinction
of steelhead populations over the long term. The BRT also noted that
the two within-ESU hatchery programs (the Hamma Hamma River and Green
River natural winter-run steelhead hatchery programs) have the
potential to benefit natural populations in their respective rivers,
but both programs are relatively recent and have not collected
sufficient data to demonstrate positive contributions with any
certainty. The BRT concluded that these two within-ESU hatchery
programs do not significantly reduce the risk of extinction for Puget
Sound steelhead.
We have reviewed the BRT's findings, considered the factors
threatening the future viability of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS, and
taken into account those efforts being made to protect the species. We
conclude that the DPS is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range because of: the threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and other natural and manmade factors affecting
its continued existence (see the ``Factors Affecting the Species''
section above for a description of the specific risks associated with
these statutory listing factors). We also conclude that, at present,
protective efforts in Puget Sound do not substantially mitigate the
factors threatening the DPS's future viability, nor do they ameliorate
the BRT's assessment of extinction risk for the Puget Sound steelhead
DPS. Based on the foregoing information, we propose that the Puget
Sound steelhead DPS be listed under the ESA as a threatened species.
Protective Regulations for Threatened West Coast Salmonids
ESA section 9(a) take prohibitions (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B)) apply
to all species listed as endangered. In the case of threatened species,
ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary's discretion whether and to
what extent to extend the statutory 9(a) ``take'' prohibitions, and
directs the agency to issue regulations it considers necessary and
advisable for the conservation of the species. We have flexibility
under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations based on the
contributions of available conservation measures. 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. These 9(a) prohibitions and 4(d) regulations apply
to all individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S.
jurisdiction.
We have already adopted ESA 4(d) rules that exempt from the take
prohibitions a range of activities that provide for the conservation of
threatened salmonid ESUs (50 C.F.R. 223.203). These 4(d) regulations
for threatened salmonids provide the necessary flexibility to ensure
that fisheries and artificial propagation programs are managed
consistently with the conservation needs of ESA-listed ESUs. (For a
more detailed description of the latest amendments to the 4(d)
protective regulations, the reader is referred to 70 FR 37160, June 28,
2005). The 4(d) protective regulations apply the take prohibitions to
unmarked anadromous fish with an intact adipose fin. In other words,
the take prohibitions do not apply to listed hatchery fish with a
clipped adipose fin (``ad-clipped''). In a subsequent Federal Register
notice we will propose protective regulations for the Puget Sound
steelhead DPS.
Peer Review
In December of 2004 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (Peer
Review Bulletin) establishing minimum peer review standards, a
transparent process for public disclosure, and opportunities for public
input. The OMB Peer Review Bulletin, implemented under the Information
Quality Act (Public Law 106-554), is intended to provide public
oversight on the quality of agency
[[Page 15678]]
information, analyses, and regulatory activities. The text of the Final
Peer Review Bulletin was published in the Federal Register on January
14, 2005 (70 FR 2664). The Peer Review Bulletin requires Federal
agencies to subject ``influential'' scientific information to peer
review prior to public dissemination. Influential scientific
information is defined as ``information the agency reasonably can
determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private sector decisions,'' and the Peer
Review Bulletin provides agencies broad discretion in determining the
appropriate process and level of peer review. The Peer Review Bulletin
establishes stricter standards for the peer review of ``highly
influential'' scientific assessments, defined as information whose
``dissemination could have a potential impact of more than $500 million
in any one year on either the public or private sector or that the
dissemination is novel, controversial, or precedent-setting, or has
significant interagency interest.''
We consider the BRT's status review memorandum (``Status Review
Update for Puget Sound Steelhead;'' NMFS, 2005) to be ``influential
scientific information,'' and, as such, it is subject to the pre-
dissemination peer review requirements of the Peer Review Bulletin. In
November 2005 we solicited scientific peer review of the BRT's status
review memorandum from three independent experts who have not been
involved in the drafting of the report or in collecting the data
considered therein, nor are the experts affiliated with agencies or
organizations that have an interest in the outcome of the status review
update for Puget Sound steelhead. The purpose of the review is to
assess the scientific validity of the status review, including any
assumptions, methods, results and conclusions. Specific aspects of the
scientific peer review include: the quality of the data collected or
used for the assessment; the appropriateness of the analyses employed;
the validity of the results and conclusions; and the appropriateness of
the scope of the assessment and information considered. The reviewers'
comments will be summarized and addressed in the BRT's final status
review update report, as well as in our final listing determination for
Puget Sound steelhead. A description of our peer review plan for the
BRT's status review memorandum was posted on the Internet in December
2005 by the U.S. Department of Commerce and is available at:
http://www.osec.doc.gov/cio/oipr/ID47.htm.
Identification of Those Activities That Would Constitute a Violation of
Section 9 of the ESA
We and the FWS published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34272), a policy that the agencies shall identify, to the
maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9
of the ESA. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness
of the effect of this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within
the species' range. At the time of the final rule, we will identify to
the extent known specific activities that will not be considered likely
to result in violation of section 9, as well as activities that will be
considered likely to result in violation. We believe that, based on the
best available information, the following actions will not result in a
violation of section 9:
1. Possession of Puget Sound steelhead which are acquired lawfully
by permit issued by NMFS pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or by the
terms of an incidental take statement pursuant to section 7 of the ESA;
or
2. Federally funded or approved projects that involve activities
such as silviculture, grazing, mining, road construction, dam
construction and operation, discharge of fill material, stream
channelization or diversion for which ESA section 7 consultation has
been completed, and when activities are conducted in accordance with
any terms and conditions provided by NMFS in an incidental take
statement accompanying a biological opinion.
Activities that we believe could potentially ``harm'' steelhead
populations (see ESA 3(19) and 50 CFR 222.102 [harm]) in the proposed
Puget Sound DPS, and result in a violation of the section 9 take
prohibition include, but are not limited to:
1. Land-use activities that adversely affect steelhead habitats in
the Puget Sound area (e.g., logging, grazing, farming, urban
development, road construction in riparian areas and areas susceptible
to mass wasting and surface erosion);
2. Destruction/alteration of the steelhead habitats in the proposed
DPS, such as removal of large woody debris and ''sinker logs'' or
riparian shade canopy, dredging, discharge of fill material, draining,
ditching, diverting, blocking, or altering stream channels or surface
or ground water flow;
3. Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other pollutants
(e.g., sewage, oil, gasoline) into waters or riparian areas supporting
Puget Sound steelhead populations;
4. Violation of discharge permits;
5. Pesticide applications;
6. Interstate and foreign commerce of steelhead from the proposed
DPS and import/export of steelhead from the DPS without a threatened or
endangered species permit;
7. Collecting or handling of steelhead from the proposed DPS.
Permits to conduct these activities are available for purposes of
scientific research or to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species; or
8. Introduction of non-native species likely to prey on steelhead
in the Puget Sound area or displace steelhead from their habitats.
These lists are not exhaustive. They are intended to provide some
examples of the types of activities that might or might not be
considered by NMFS as constituting a take of the proposed Puget Sound
steelhead DPS under the ESA and its regulations. Questions regarding
whether specific activities will constitute a violation of the section
9 take prohibition, and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and
permits, should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Critical Habitat
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. In keeping with agency regulations at 50
CFR 424.12, we conclude that critical habitat is not presently
determinable for the Puget Sound steelhead DPS. Specifically, we lack
biological, economic, and related mapping information sufficient to
perform required analyses of the impacts of critical habitat
designation to determine which areas may qualify as critical habitat
for this DPS. We intend to propose critical habitat in separate
rulemaking as soon as possible after completing the required analyses.
In this notice we are soliciting information necessary to inform these
analyses (see Information Solicited and ADDRESSES) and will consider
such information in developing a future proposed designation for the
Puget Sound steelhead DPS.
Information Solicited
Proposed Rule
To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be as accurate and effective as possible, and informed by the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting
information,
[[Page 15679]]
comments, and suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies,
the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.
We recognize that in several instances there are serious limits to the
quantity and quality of available information, and accordingly we have
exercised our best professional judgment in developing this proposed
rule. We will appreciate any additional information or comment
regarding: (1) the relatedness of specific hatchery stocks to the Puget
Sound steelhead DPS; (2) biological or other relevant data concerning
the viability and/or threats to the Puget Sound steelhead DPS,
including the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity
of the subject DPS; (3) current or planned activities in the subject
area and their possible impact on the species; (4) the relationship,
range, distribution, and habitat-use patterns of steelhead populations
in the Puget Sound area; and (5) the consideration of efforts being
made to protect salmonid populations in the Puget Sound area. We invite
and will consider all pertinent information and comment. We further
request that data, information, and comments be accompanied by:
supporting documentation such as maps, logbooks, bibliographic
references, personal notes, and/or reprints of pertinent publications;
and the name of the person submitting the data, the address, and any
association, institution, or business that the person represents.
Public Hearings
Joint Commerce-Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the
Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person
so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to
list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3)). In a forthcoming Federal Register document, we will
announce the date and location of any public meeting (or meetings) to
provide the opportunity for the interested individuals and parties to
fully understand issues relating to this proposed rule, give comments,
exchange information and opinions, and engage in a constructive
dialogue concerning this proposed rule. We encourage the public's
involvement in such ESA matters.
Critical Habitat
As noted above, we are soliciting biological and economic
information relevant to making a critical habitat designation for the
Puget Sound steelhead DPS. Data reviewed may include, but are not
limited to: scientific or commercial publications, administrative
reports, maps or other graphic materials, information received from
experts, and 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
steelhead habitat in the Puget Sound area (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 excluding lands covered
by Habitat Conservation Plans (ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permits),
including the regulatory burden designation may impose on landowners
and the likelihood that exclusion of areas covered by existing plans
will serve as an incentive for other landowners to develop plans
covering their lands;
(4) Information regarding the benefits of excluding Federal and
other lands covered by habitat conservation strategies and plans (e.g.
Northwest Forest Plan, Washington's Forest and Fish Plan), including
the regulatory burden designation may impose on land managers and the
likelihood that exclusion of areas covered by existing plans will serve
as an incentive for land users to implement the conservation measures
covering the lands subject to these plans;
(5) Information regarding the benefits of designating particular
areas as critical habitat;
(6) Current or planned activities in the areas that might be
proposed for designation and their possible impacts;
(7) Any foreseeable economic or other potential impacts resulting
from designation, in particular, any impacts on small entities;
(8) Whether specific unoccupied areas (e.g., areas behind dikes or
dams) may be essential to provide additional habitat areas for the
conservation of this DPS; and
(9) 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 Puget Sound
steelhead DPS as soon as possible, but by no later than June 27, 2006
(see ADDRESSES, above).
References
A comprehensive list of the referenced materials is available on
the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov , or upon request (see
ADDRESSES section above).
National Environmental Policy Act
ESA listing decisions are exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the
NEPA. See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.03(e)(1) and Pacific Legal
Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981). Thus, we have
determined that the proposed listing determination described in this
notice is exempt from the requirements of the NEPA. We are preparing a
draft Environmental Assessment (EA) under the NEPA analyzing
alternative 4(d) protective regulations for the Puget Sound steelhead
DPS. We will solicit review and comment on the draft EA in a
forthcoming notice of availability to be published in the Federal Register.
Executive Order (E.O.) 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 rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866. This
proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement
for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
E.O. 13084 - Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
E.O. 13084 requires that if we issue a regulation that
significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal
governments and imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those
communities, we must consult with those governments or the Federal
government must provide the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. This proposed rule
does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on the communities
of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule. Nonetheless, we
intend to inform potentially affected tribal governments and to solicit
their input and coordinate on future management actions.
[[Page 15680]]
E.O. 13132 - 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 the State of Washington (the state in which the
subject DPS occurs), who will be invited to comment. We have conferred
with the State of Washington and Puget Sound area tribal governments in
the course of assessing the status of Puget Sound steelhead, and
considered, among other things, state and local conservation measures.
As the ESA listing process continues, we intend to continue engaging in
informal and formal contacts with Washington, Puget Sound tribes, and
other affected local or regional entities, giving careful consideration
to all written and oral comments received. We also intend to consult
with appropriate elected officials in the establishment of a final rule.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Transportation.
Dated: March 21, 2006.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 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, Sec. 223.12 also
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. In Sec. 223.102, paragraph (a)(23) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species\1\ Citation(s)
------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for Listing for
Scientific Where Listed Determinations) Critical
Common name name Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(23) Puget Sound Steelhead Oncorhynchus U.S.A., WA, Distinct Population Segment including [INSERT DATE OF NA
mykiss all naturally spawned anadromous winter-run and PUBLICATION WHEN
summer-run O. mykiss (steelhead) populations, in PUBLISHED AS A FINAL
streams in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de RULE]
Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, Washington,
bounded to the west by the Elwha River (inclusive)
and to the north by the Nooksack River and Dakota
Creek (inclusive), as well as the Green River
natural and Hamma Hamma winter-run steelhead
hatchery stocks.
* * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991)
[FR Doc. 06-2972 Filed 3-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S