[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26722-26735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9089]
[[Page 26722]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 070123015-7086-02; I.D. 031006D]
RIN 0648-AU43
Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determination
for Puget Sound Steelhead
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, are issuing a final determination to list the
distinct population segment (DPS) of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in
Puget Sound, Washington, as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). We intend to issue final protective regulations and
propose critical habitat for this DPS in separate rulemakings.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is June 11, 2007.
ADDRESSES: NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard,
Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Stone, NMFS, Northwest Region,
at (503) 231-2317; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, at (301) 713 1401. Reference materials regarding these
determinations are available upon request or on the Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Steelhead Life History
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 south along the
Pacific coast to the U.S.-Mexico border (Busby et al., 1996; 67 FR
21586; May 1, 2002). O. mykiss exhibit the most complex life-history of
any species of Pacific salmonid. O. mykiss can be anadromous
(``steelhead'') or freshwater residents (``rainbow'' or ``redband''
trout), and under some circumstances, they can yield offspring of the
alternate life-history form. Anadromous O. mykiss can spend up to 7
years in fresh water 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 migrating back to their
natal streams to spawn. O. mykiss may spawn more than once during their
life span (iteroparous), whereas the Pacific salmon species generally
spawn once and die (semelparous).
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, and these
``runs'' are usually named for the season in which the peak occurs
(e.g., 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).
The Puget Sound steelhead DPS includes more than 50 stocks of
summer- and winter-run fish, the latter being the most widespread and
numerous of the two run types (Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW), 2002). Hatchery steelhead production in Puget Sound is
widespread and focused primarily on the propagation of winter-run fish
derived from a stock of domesticated, mixed-origin steelhead (the
Chambers Creek Hatchery stock) originally native to a small Puget Sound
stream that is now extirpated from the wild. Hatchery summer-run
steelhead are also produced in Puget Sound; these fish are derived from
the Skamania River in the Columbia River Basin. The majority of
hatchery stocks are not considered part of this DPS because they are
more than moderately diverged from the local native populations (NMFS,
2005). Resident O. mykiss occur within the range of Puget Sound
steelhead but are not part of the DPS due to marked differences in
physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral characteristics (71
FR 15666; March 29, 2006).
Listing Determinations Under the ESA
We exercise ESA jurisdiction over most marine and anadromous
fishes, and are responsible for determining whether West Coast salmon
and steelhead warrant listing as threatened or endangered species under
the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 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. On February 7, 1996, we and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS
Policy; 61 FR 4722). As described in our proposed rule (71 FR 15666;
March 29, 2006), we apply the DPS policy in delineating species of West
Coast O. mykiss for consideration under the ESA. The policy adopts
criteria 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 evaluated with respect to the taxon (species
or subspecies). See 70 FR 67132 (November 4, 2005; ``Proposed
Evaluation of Significance under the DPS Policy''), and 71 FR 836
(January 5, 2006; ``General Comments on the Consideration of Resident
O. Mykiss: Determination of Species'')
On June 28, 2005, we published 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 a DPS if they exhibit a level of
genetic divergence relative to the local natural population(s) that is
no more than what occurs within the DPS (70 FR at 37215; June 28,
2005). If a DPS as a whole warrants listing as threatened or
endangered, the hatchery stocks considered part of the DPS will be
included in the listing determination.
The ESA 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)
[[Page 26723]]
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)). 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. We are to
make ESA listing determinations 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.
When evaluating the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors we focus on whether
and to what extent a given factor represents a threat to the future
survival of the species. When we consider protective efforts we assess
whether and to what extent they address the identified threats and so
ameliorate a species' risk of extinction. The overall 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 efforts using the criteria outlined in the Policy for
Evaluating Conservation Efforts (``PECE''; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003)
to determine their certainty of implementation and effectiveness.
Previous ESA Reviews and Findings
In 1996 we reviewed the status of West Coast steelhead. As part of
this review we determined that steelhead in Puget Sound did not warrant
listing under the ESA (61 FR 41541; August 9, 1996). Subsequently we
received and accepted a petition to re-evaluate the status of Puget
Sound steelhead (70 FR 17223; April 5, 2005). We reviewed the new
information and on March 29, 2006, published a proposed rule to list
the Puget Sound steelhead DPS as threatened under the ESA (71 FR
15666). The DPS was proposed to include all naturally spawned
anadromous winter-run and summer-run steelhead populations, 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 steelhead hatchery stocks. This proposal was informed by the
conclusions of scientists on the Biological Review Team (BRT) who
assessed the overall viability of this DPS. Based on this assessment,
the BRT concluded that Puget Sound steelhead are likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of their range.
We also concluded 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. Additional details pertaining to these findings and the
information reviewed for this DPS can be found in the documents cited
above as well as agency status reviews (Busby et al., 1996; NMFS,
2005).
On February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5648), we proposed to issue protective
regulations for Puget Sound steelhead under section 4(d) of the ESA.
For species listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the ESA requires the
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to issue such regulations as are
deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the
species. Such 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to
threatened species, some or all of the acts that section 9(a) of the
ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. Both the section 9(a)
prohibitions and section 4(d) regulations apply to all individuals,
organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The 4(d)
regulations we proposed are contingent on a final listing decision, and
any finalized 4(d) rule may prohibit the take of Puget Sound steelhead
except for specified categories of activities determined to be
adequately protective of these fish.
Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule
We solicited public comment on the proposed listing of Puget Sound
steelhead for a total of 238 days and held one public hearing in
Seattle, Washington (71 FR 15666, March 29, 2006; 71 FR 28294, May 16,
2006). We also sought technical review of the scientific information
underlying the proposed listing determination from seven independent
experts. In response to the proposed listing we received over 30
comments by fax, standard mail, and e-mail. The majority of comments
received were from interested individuals who submitted e-mails or
letters. Comments were also submitted by federal, state and tribal
natural resource agencies, fishing groups, environmental organizations,
conservation organizations, and individuals with expertise in Pacific
salmonids. The vast majority of respondents supported listing Puget
Sound steelhead under the ESA. We also received comments from four of
the independent experts from whom we had requested technical review of
the scientific information underlying the March 2006 proposed listing
determination. Copies of the full text of comments received are
available upon request (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Below we address the comments received that pertain to the listing
determination for Puget Sound steelhead. The issues raised and our
responses are organized into six general categories: (1) General
Comments; (2) Comments on the Consideration of Hatchery Steelhead; (3)
Comments on the Consideration of Resident O. mykiss; (4) Comments on
the Assessment of Extinction Risk; (5) Comments on the Factors
Affecting the Species; and (6) Comments on the Consideration of
Protective Efforts/Mitigating Factors.
General Comments and Comments on Process
Comment 1: Most commenters supported listing Puget Sound steelhead
under the ESA, and many expressed concern over the species' decline and
the potential impacts of that decline on business and recreation. Some
comments expressed concern over the fact that the current status review
for Puget Sound steelhead was completed only 10 years after the
previous review which found that a listing determination was not
warranted.
Response: The BRT status review describes the various types of new
information that are available since the review by Busby et al. (1996).
In addition, there have been considerable scientific findings and
policy development regarding the role of resident and hatchery O.
mykiss in steelhead DPSs (see 70 FR 37204, June 28, 2005; 70 FR 67131,
November 4, 2005; 71 FR 834, January 5, 2006). All of these
considerations have been factored into this updated status review and
support our determination that
[[Page 26724]]
Puget Sound steelhead now warrant listing as a threatened species under
the ESA.
We recognize that steelhead are a prized gamefish in Puget Sound
and that their decline has affected businesses and recreational
pursuits. We will work with all stakeholders to help ensure that
recovery planning proceeds apace so that Puget Sound steelhead continue
to provide the spectrum of ecological, cultural, and economic benefits
that underscore their status as the state fish of Washington.
Comment 2: Two commenters argued against listing steelhead at this
time and instead recommended that we make a finding that listing is
warranted but precluded or classify this DPS as a species of concern.
One contended that because other ESA-listed species in Puget Sound
(e.g., Chinook salmon) share habitat with this DPS, an additional
listing in the region would add another layer of regulation with little
resultant benefit to the species. Additionally, this commenter believed
that listing steelhead would divert resources away from implementing a
recovery plan for Chinook salmon.
Response: Our decision to list Puget Sound steelhead is based on
the required assessments identified in section 4 of the ESA and guided
by agency policies such as the PECE (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). Once
a species has been proposed for listing, section 4(b)(6)(A) of the ESA
does not allow us to issue a warranted but precluded finding. Such a
finding is only permissible at the time of a proposed rule (see section
4(b)(3)(B)), not a final rule. Species of concern are those about which
we have concerns regarding status and threats, but for which
insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the
species under the ESA. This is not the case for Puget Sound steelhead,
as evidenced by the findings of the BRT, and our assessment of the
factors contributing to the decline of steelhead and efforts being made
to protect the species.
We recognize that steelhead and threatened Puget Sound Chinook
salmon share many streams and that actions benefitting one species
would in many cases benefit the other. However, this fact did not alter
our conclusions based upon our analysis of the threats facing West
Coast steelhead under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Also, the species'
overlap is not complete and there are a substantial number of
independent streams, and upstream and tributary habitats in major river
systems where only steelhead reside. In addition, steelhead use
habitats differently and at different times than other salmonids. As
noted elsewhere in this final rule, we expect that the recently adopted
recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook (Shared Strategy Development
Committee, 2007) will accrue benefits to steelhead as well as expedite
recovery planning for this DPS. Listing steelhead could divert some
resources in the short term; however, comments and information received
from WDFW, Indian tribes, and other co-managers and stakeholders have
made it clear that there is a strong commitment to improving steelhead
populations and their management in Puget Sound and statewide. We too
are committed to helping find and provide the resources needed to help
foster active recovery planning for all Puget Sound salmonids.
Comment 3: One commenter suggested that the final rule would be
more useful if it used a different format addressing the DPS's historic
condition, current status with respect to viable salmonid population
(VSP) parameters (McElhany et al., 2000), management action impacts
(past and projected), and which management actions are needed to
improve DPS viability. This commenter believed that this would provide
a more accurate and informative discussion of issues that are
fundamental to developing any eventual recovery plan.
Response: Because this final rule is a listing determination and
not a recovery plan, we have chosen instead to structure this rule in a
manner that is consistent with the statutory framework and previous ESA
listing decisions for West Coast salmonids. However, in our listing
analysis we have identified current threats to the species' viability
and considered the efficacy of efforts being made to protect the
species. This has given us and Puget Sound stakeholders, many of whom
actively participated in developing the recovery plan for Puget Sound
Chinook (Shared Strategy Development Committee, 2007), a head start on
recovery planning for Puget Sound steelhead. We also understand that
the watershed-based resource management plans for steelhead currently
under development in Puget Sound (WDFW, 2007) will incorporate VSP
parameters and provide the detail required to identify management
actions needed to promote recovery of steelhead.
Comment 4: One commenter recommended that we solicit the views of
the British Columbia Ministry of Environment.
Response: We notified the British Columbia Ministry of Environment
of the proposed ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead but did not
receive comments or information from them. However, one of the peer
reviewers of the BRT's status review is a fisheries scientist with
British Columbia's Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and an
expert on steelhead biology.
Comment 5: One commenter felt that the proposed listing fails to
fully consider the tribes' role as managers and overlooks the
significant costs on tribal resource management agencies and harvest
opportunities associated with listing Puget Sound steelhead under the
ESA.
Response: We recognize that the tribes have longstanding cultural
ties to steelhead and steelhead fisheries, and that a number of tribes
have treaty-based co-management rights and responsibilities. And we
acknowledge that steelhead are of economic importance to Indian people
and embody cultural, ceremonial, and social dimensions of tribal life
to the degree that the species is a significant symbol of tribal
identity (NMFS, 2004). We also understand that an ESA listing of Puget
Sound steelhead may impact some tribal fisheries and resource
management agencies, at least in the short term. Steelhead recovery
will only succeed with the active involvement of affected tribes. We
will continue to recognize the tribes as vital co-managers of this
important resource in the hope that steelhead runs can be restored as
quickly as possible to meet treaty obligations and the needs of present
and future generations.
Comment 6: A peer reviewer and several commenters expressed concern
about the lack of reliable data for this DPS. Another commenter
expressed concerns about the adequacy of the peer review process as
well as the lack of a co-manager review of the BRT's report.
Response: While more data would help resolve some areas of
uncertainty, we have sufficient data to assess the ESA status of Puget
Sound steelhead. Moreover, as required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the
ESA, we have relied on the best scientific and commercial data
available to make this listing determination. We requested and received
such data from a variety of interested parties, including state and
tribal co-managers. These data and other information are cited in this
final rule, agency status reviews (Busby et al., 1996; NMFS, 2005), our
proposed rule (71 FR 15666; March 29, 2006), and in the comments
received on the latter and contained in our agency files (available for
public inspection; see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Several of the 13 BRT members are acknowledged experts on steelhead
[[Page 26725]]
biology in the Pacific Northwest, some with direct experience with the
species in Puget Sound. As noted elsewhere in this final rule, we
sought technical review of the scientific information underlying the
March 2006 proposed listing determination from seven independent
experts. All of the experts were selected based on their knowledge of
steelhead biology. Four of them provided us with comments that were
subsequently considered by the BRT and reflected in the agency's status
review (NMFS, 2005). We also received and evaluated information from
state and tribal co-managers on the proposed rule and the BRT's report.
Comment 7: Several commenters requested that NMFS re-open the
public comment period after WDFW publishes an anticipated white paper
pertaining to steelhead management. These commenters felt that the
public should have the opportunity to review WDFW's management plan to
determine what effect, if any, it may have on the extinction risks to
Puget Sound steelhead and the NMFS listing of the DPS.
Response: On August 25, 2006, we received a letter from WDFW
requesting our review of a July 21, 2006, draft report titled
``Oncorhynchus mykiss: Assessment of Washington State's Anadromous
Populations and Programs'' (WDFW, 2006a). This report--commonly
referred to as the steelhead ``white paper--was also made
available to the general public for comment. We provided comments to
WDFW on this report, noting that overall we found it to be a very
comprehensive and useful compilation of what is known about the biology
and management histories of Washington's steelhead populations.
However, we did not believe that the availability of this report
warranted re-opening the comment period on our proposed listing because
the report was essentially a synthesis of what is known (much of which
we had already reviewed) about Washington steelhead. In addition, the
report was primarily designed to lay the foundation for the development
of improved management plans.
In our proposed rule we stated that ``[i]f WDFW completes its new
steelhead management plan prior to the publication of the final rule we
anticipate considering it in developing our final listing
determination.'' However, a final Puget Sound steelhead management plan
has not yet been developed.
Comment 8: One letter requested clarification of named populations
in the 2005 status review ( i.e., if references to the Lake Washington
winter run include steelhead in the Cedar River).
Response: Population information on Lake Washington winter run
steelhead was provided by WDFW. Lake Washington steelhead data included
information on fish spawning in the Cedar River, Issaquah Creek, and
Bear Creek, with the Cedar River contribution providing the majority of
the escapement (number of adults that return to the spawning grounds).
The BRT also reviewed fish passage information from the Lake Washington
Ship Canal fish ladder, which would include fish spawning throughout
the basin. The WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory database identifies a
number of tributaries, including the Cedar River, in the Lake
Washington Basin where spawning steelhead have been observed.
Comment 9: One letter requested clarification of the location of
``impassible barriers'' and suggested the definition include an
approximate location.
Response: In our status review (NMFS, 2005) we identified some of
the major natural and manmade barriers to steelhead (e.g., Snoqualmie
Falls and Elwha Dam), emphasizing the general role that longstanding
barriers play in isolating the anadromous and resident life forms.
During our review it was not possible to identify the specific
locations of all impassable barriers, in particular natural waterfalls
and velocity/stream gradient barriers. Our biologists (see ADDRESSES)
or those from the tribes or state and Federal agencies can assist in
determining whether a specific barrier is passable or not.
Comment 10: One commenter noted that fish passage above Landsburg
dam became possible in September 2003, not 2002 as stated in the BRT's
report (NMFS, 2005).
Response: The statement in the BRT report should have stated that
``Most of the information relevant to this question is from the Cedar
River, where research is ongoing on resident and anadromous fish below
and above Landsburg Dam, opened to steelhead migrating upstream in
2003, after decades of isolation.''
Comment 11: We received one correction comment, to add the South
Fork Tolt River to the list of rivers under the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission agreement for instream flow management.
Response: The statement in the proposed rule (at 71 FR 15677; March
29, 2006) should have read, ``Instream flows are also provided through
agreements negotiated with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on
the Skagit, Sultan, Snoqualmie, South Fork Tolt, and Nisqually
rivers.''
Comment 12: A few commenters provided comments and information
relevant to making a critical habitat designation for Puget Sound
steelhead.
Response: We will consider this information as we prepare a
proposal to designate critical habitat for this DPS.
Comments on the Consideration of Hatchery Steelhead
Comment 13: Several commenters expressed strong concerns about the
negative impacts of hatchery steelhead in this DPS, urging that much
more aggressive steps be taken to reduce these impacts. Some commenters
disagreed with the decision to include Green River natural and Hamma
Hamma winter-run hatchery steelhead in the DPS. They argued that
protecting hatchery steelhead under the ESA by listing them alongside
wild steelhead was inappropriate, particularly because research
suggests that hatchery fish have a negative impact on the productivity
of wild steelhead. In contrast, one commenter recommended hatchery
steelhead be included in the DPS if they are derived from a local wild
stock.
Response: On June 28, 2005, we 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 evolutionarily
significant unit (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 37204; June 28, 2005, at 37215). The
considerations that informed the Hatchery Listing Policy for ESUs are
equally valid for steelhead DPSs. We acknowledge that hatchery fish can
have a negative impact on naturally-produced fish, and in our proposed
rule we noted that adverse impacts from hatchery programs may be
contributing to the declines in natural steelhead productivity.
However, the Hatchery Listing Policy is based in part on the
recognition that important components of the evolutionary legacy of
West Coast salmon and steelhead can be found in hatchery stocks, and
that many hatchery stocks are derived from, and not significantly
diverged from, the naturally spawning stocks. We developed a test for
including hatchery stocks in an ESU based upon a consideration of
``whether a particular hatchery stock reflects an ESU's 'reproductive
isolation' and 'evolutionary legacy''' (70 FR 37204; June 28, 2005, at
37208). Those tests are equally applicable to determining
[[Page 26726]]
whether hatchery stocks reflect the discreteness and significance of
steelhead DPSs.
As described in our proposed rule and consistent with recent final
listing determinations for 16 West Coast salmon ESUs (70 FR 37160; June
28, 2005) and for 10 West Coast steelhead DPSs (71 FR 834; January 5,
2006), we believe it is appropriate to list two locally-derived
hatchery steelhead populations (Green River natural and Hamma Hamma
winter-run) along with naturally-produced steelhead in the Puget Sound
DPS. This decision is informed by our Hatchery Listing Policy, the
conclusions of the Salmon/Steelhead Hatchery Assessment Group (SSHAG;
NMFS, 2005), and the deliberations of the BRT. The BRT concluded that
these hatchery stocks meet the Hatchery Listing Policy's test for
inclusion in the DPS.
As a separate matter, the BRT also explicitly considered both the
potential positive and negative effects of hatchery production on the
viability of Puget Sound steelhead. The BRT felt that the Green River
natural and Hamma Hamma winter-run hatchery programs have the potential
to benefit natural steelhead populations in their respective rivers,
but acknowledged 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.
Comment 14: Several commenters contended that past and present
harvest and hatchery management have essentially eliminated the
important early returning life-history component of wild steelhead
populations in this DPS. They argue that, despite WDFW's intent to
temporally separate the hatchery run from the wild run, data
demonstrate that hatchery males overwinter, residualize (remain in
fresh water), and ultimately breed with wild females. This commenter
contended that we failed to adequately evaluate the association of
steelhead hatchery programs with overutilization of Puget Sound
steelhead. This commenter believed that any evaluation of the risks of
adverse genetic and ecological impacts from hatchery programs on the
distribution, productivity, and diversity of Puget Sound steelhead
should be made in the context of that fundamental relationship between
hatchery management and overutilization.
Response: There is some information available on the historical
return and spawn timing of Puget Sound steelhead, but it is limited to
catch records and anecdotal information. The BRT was unaware of any
documentation suggesting a spawning habitat preference exhibited by the
early component of the winter run. The BRT was concerned about the
decline (or elimination) of this early component to life history
diversity, but was unable to establish the magnitude of this loss.
The existence of an early run component of naturally-produced
steelhead was discussed by the BRT in relation to the effects of a
directed harvest of early run, mass-marked (adipose-clipped) hatchery
steelhead (i.e., Chamber's Creek winter run). The BRT reviewed
information on hatchery-wild interactions, specifically the potential
for interbreeding between hatchery and naturally-produced fish in
Washington coastal streams. This information was important in the BRT's
increased concern about hatchery effects relative to the 1996 BRT
Status Review (Busby et al., 1996).
Comment 15: One commenter questioned the assertion that the
Chambers Creek hatchery stock is out-of-basin for all waterways in the
DPS. This commenter pointed out that originally, the Chambers Creek
stock was a composite of wild fish trapped from a variety of Puget
Sound rivers, including the Green River. Therefore, Chambers Creek
hatchery fish may not be out-of-basin for all waterways, such as the
south sound rivers. The commenter requested that NMFS clarify how much
composite stock or hatchery selection is necessary for a stock to
change to the point of being considered out-of-basin.
Response: The commenter is correct that the Chambers Creek hatchery
stock (actually several broodstocks derived from the original Chambers
Creek broodstock) is technically not an ``out-of-basin'' stock.
Crawford (1979) reviews the history of this stock, including the
evolution of the Chambers Creek and ``egg bank'' steelhead program. But
this does not change our conclusion that it has sufficiently diverged
from the remainder of the DPS such that it should no longer be
considered part of this DPS. The BRT reviewed the findings of the SSHAG
(NMFS, 2005) for this broodstock and noted that the intentional and
unintentional selection of life history traits was a major factor in
the SSHAG evaluation. The advancement in run- and spawn-timing of the
Chambers Creek winter-run steelhead (almost 2 months) and acceleration
of the onset of smoltification (1 year instead of 2 years) have
dramatically altered the reproductive connectivity between the
hatchery-origin and naturally-spawning adults. Additionally, the sole
use of hatchery-origin fish for hatchery broodstocks greatly increases
the potential for hatchery domestication, and there is evidence that
Chambers Creek winter-run steelhead have a poor rate of natural
spawning success (NMFS, 2005).
Given the paucity of information on hatchery steelhead life-history
traits in the natural environment and their fitness effects on
naturally-spawning populations, it is not possible to ``quantify'' a
threshold for exclusion. This is why we convened a SSHAG to review the
best available information and provide us with conclusions regarding
the relationship of hatchery fish to DPS composition and viability.
Comment 16: Several commenters raised questions about the origin of
steelhead currently spawning naturally in the Lake Washington system,
particularly the Cedar River and Sammamish watershed. Some of these
commenters believe that steelhead currently spawning naturally in this
system are derived from Chambers Creek hatchery plants and not
naturally spawning fish native to this system.
Response: Genetic analysis by Marshall et al. (2006) on resident
and anadromous O. mykiss in Lake Washington indicates that there are
significant genetic differences between native Cedar River fish and
Chambers Creek-derived hatchery winter steelhead. We therefore consider
the naturally spawning populations in this system to be part of the
Puget Sound DPS.
In their review, the BRT cautioned that although WDFW's conclusion
that there is little overlap in spawning between natural and hatchery
stocks of winter steelhead throughout the ESU is generally supported by
available evidence, for many basins it is based largely on models and
assumptions regarding run timing rather than on empirical data.
Comment 17: One commenter provided information correlating
increasing hatchery smolt releases with declining adult returns,
suggesting a ``density barrier'' to population expansion. This
commenter also expressed concerns about hatchery smolts remaining in
fresh water rather than migrating to the ocean (residualizing), and
preying upon or spawning with natural steelhead
[[Page 26727]]
(particularly by residual precocious males). Another commenter echoed
many of these concerns related to the release of millions of hatchery
fish into this DPS, and one believed that we should have given greater
attention to this issue in the status review and requested that at a
minimum we do so in the final listing determination.
Response: The BRT expressed concerned about the increasing numbers
and overall proportion of hatchery-origin smolts released into rivers
in this DPS; however, there is not sufficient information on behavioral
and resource competition, predation, or other ecological interactions
to assess the ``density barrier'' assertion. Factors such as declining
freshwater, estuarine, and marine productivity would independently or
in combination with hatchery effects produce the same effect. The
myriad of factors that could produce the trends observed make it very
difficult to associate correlated responses with causal factors. We
will continue to address issues related to artificial propagation as we
proceed with ESA consultations, permitting, and recovery planning in
Puget Sound.
Comments on the Consideration of Resident O. mykiss
Comment 18: Several commenters disagreed with our application of
the DPS Policy criteria in separating the resident and anadromous forms
of O. mykiss in this DPS. One commenter cited the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's (FWS) listing of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus;
64 FR 58910, November 1, 1999) as precedent for listing together the
different life history forms because all are essential to the survival
of the DPS. Another commenter felt resident fish should be considered
in the context of protective measures for steelhead. Other commenters
supported the listing of the two life forms separately, but encouraged
further research to increase our understanding of the interactions
between the two. These latter commenters encouraged NMFS to consider
the relationship between resident and anadromous O. mykiss in the
course of other ESA activities (e.g., recovery planning).
Response: In our recently updated listing determinations for West
Coast steelhead (71 FR 834; January 5, 2006), we responded to similar
comments regarding our application of the DPS policy in delineating
``species'' of O. mykiss under the ESA. The reader is referred to these
determinations (see 71 FR 834; January 5, 2006, at 836 through 841) for
more detailed information and discussion of the above and other issues
relating to our delineation of steelhead DPSs.
NMFS did not include resident and anadromous O. mykiss in the same
DPS because under the DPS policy, a population or group of populations
is considered a DPS if it is first ``discrete'' from other such
population units, and then only if it is ``significant'' to the taxon
as a whole. Whether a given life form contributes to the viability of
the species does not necessarily determine whether that life form is
``markedly separated'' from other components of the species. For
example, a subspecies will often contribute significantly to the
overall viability of a species but still be markedly separated from
other subspecies.
In its 1999 listing determination for the Coastal-Puget Sound bull
trout DPS (64 FR 58910; November 1, 1999) the U.S. Department of the
Interior found that the resident, migratory, anadromous, amphidromous,
fluvial, and adfluvial life-history forms were not discrete because
they interbreed. DOI concluded, as the commenter asserts, that
reproductive exchange and genetic similarity between different life-
history forms requires that they be included as parts of the same DPS,
regardless of any ``marked separation'' in phenotypic traits. While we
acknowledge that the expression of a range of life histories in bull
trout and other fish species (e.g., coastal cutthroat trout) may raise
similar issues to those we confronted in delineating DPSs of O. mykiss,
there are important differences between O. mykiss and these other
species. In addition to expressing anadromy (the life-history pattern
in which fish spend a large portion of their life cycle in the ocean
and return to fresh water to breed), bull trout and coastal cutthroat
trout express amphidromy (migration between fresh and salt water that
is for feeding and overwintering, as well as breeding). While the
anadromous and resident forms of O. mykiss differ clearly in ocean-
migratory behavior and associated biological factors, the migratory
behavior and associated physical, physiological, and ecological factors
are comparatively blurred among the life-history forms and stages of
bull trout and coastal cutthroat trout. Accordingly, application of the
DPS policy to these various species may very well produce different
results due to the varying level of separation among their life-history
forms.
Efforts to protect resident O. mykiss could be considered in the
context of efforts being made to protect the species, because the
health of related resident O. mykiss populations may have a bearing on
the viability of the anadromous populations. No information was
presented, however, that would lead us to conclude that any protective
efforts for rainbow trout are likely to change the steelhead DPS's risk
of extinction.
It is essential to improve our understanding of the interactions
between the anadromous and resident life-history forms of O. mykiss.
Additional scientific research could elucidate the factors affecting
reproductive exchange between the two life forms, as well as their
respective contributions to the viability of O. mykiss as a whole.
These considerations may prove to be important in the context of
recovery planning and assessing risks faced by the O. mykiss species as
a whole. At present, there is insufficient information to evaluate
whether, under what circumstances, and to what extent the resident form
may contribute to the viability of steelhead over the long term (NMFS,
2005; Recovery Science Review Panel, 2004; Good et al., 2005;
Independent Scientific Advisory Board, 2005).
Comment 19: One letter commented on the BRT's statement that rivers
west of the Cascades rarely support resident rainbow trout populations
unless the watersheds have been significantly modified, and resident
native populations appear to be relatively rare above natural barriers.
This commenter argued that rainbow trout are present in many rivers
west of the Cascade Mountains in those areas where the anadromous life
history form is not dominant, including the upper Skagit River
tributaries and the upper Snoqualmie River. One commenter felt it might
be appropriate to add a discussion of the unique adfluvial (migrating
between lakes and streams) life history pattern of a portion of the
Cedar River O. mykiss.
Response: Rainbow trout are present in some of these western
Washington systems, but they are rare above natural barriers to
anadromous migration. Although there is potential for resident trout to
function in a temporary manner to help maintain O. mykiss populations
through extreme periods of low marine survival, this life history form
is unlikely to maintain connections to other populations a critical
role for the anadromous life history in contributing to the ESU's
diversity and viability. Evidence for the level of interbreeding
between resident and anadromous forms is limited and appears to vary
considerably between coastal and inland O. mykiss populations, as well
as on a basin by basin basis.
It is possible that this interaction may provide a short-term
demographic
[[Page 26728]]
resiliency, although loss of the anadromous form would result in a
catastrophic decline in diversity, and probably also spatial structure.
Ultimately, the BRT's task was assessing the longer term risk of
extinction facing Puget Sound steelhead, and to accomplish this task it
focused on the primary data available: trends in abundance and
productivity of anadromous fish. Although the O. mykiss life history
appears to be extraordinarily plastic, and resident and anadromous fish
both may produce the alternate life history form, the extent to which
resident fish produce anadromous adults is largely unknown. In
addition, the freshwater ``trout niche'' in Puget Sound is already
occupied primarily by native coastal cutthroat trout, and the extent
that resident O. mykiss alone can maintain self-sustaining natural
populations in direct competition with cutthroat trout is unknown.
The adfluvial life form in the Cedar River appears to be somewhat
unique to Puget Sound, and may be related to the highly modified nature
of the river basin, especially its redirection into Lake Washington
from the Green River Basin and the longstanding effects of Landsburg
Dam in dividing the watershed.
Comments on the Assessment of Extinction Risk
Comment 20: Most commenters supported a listing of Puget Sound
steelhead as a threatened species, although one recommended endangered
status due to concerns about efforts being made to protect the species.
One commenter provided data for five steelhead populations that
indicate the largest populations of winter-run steelhead have
experienced a period of pronounced decline in abundance, recruitment,
and productivity beginning around 1989 and continuing to the present.
One commenter suspected that the declines are likely to be DPS-wide.
This commenter expressed concern that there is no information on the
productivity of summer populations within the DPS and that this lack of
information supports an endangered listing.
Response: We have reviewed the comments and new information
provided by commenters and believe that Puget Sound steelhead do
warrant listing as a threatened species. The BRT was presented with
information received during the comment period and concluded that there
was no basis for changing their conclusion that Puget Sound steelhead
are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all of their range. Nor was the BRT aware of any new or
forthcoming information that would warrant a reassessment of this
conclusion. Consistent with the commenter's concern about DPS-wide
declines, we note that the BRT stated that ``marked declines in natural
run size are evident in all areas a pattern that reflects widespread
reduced productivity of natural steelhead'' (NMFS, 2005).
Comment 21: A peer reviewer noted that the BRT's risk assessment
was based on expert opinion due to the lack of sufficient empirical
data. This reviewer noted that such data constraints limit the review
and its veracity but acknowledged that the BRT's methods cannot be
faulted. He noted that several times ``there was the mention of
negative impact of hatchery fish on wild, and that hatchery fish have
apparently made no contribution to wild adult returns. I suspect this
is largely speculation, albeit accurate in my view.'' He also made
several specific recommendations: (1) Explaining how data were obtained
and any uncertainties with the data; (2) including an analysis from
WDFW's Snow Creek studies (especially with respect to post-smolt
migration pathways); (3) including the cited report by Light (1987) in
the references; (4) evaluating cutthroat hybridization with steelhead;
and (5) including an assessment of how climate change may affect Puget
Sound steelhead. The latter recommendation was also made by another
commenter, noting that the decline in steelhead abundance has coincided
with a period of high hydrological variability during which fish are
vulnerable to closely timed high and low flow events.
Response: The BRT relied heavily on catch and escapement data
provided by WDFW for its risk analyses; this information constitutes
the best available data, but there is still considerable uncertainty in
the data, particularly for some populations.
The commenter is correct that our knowledge regarding the
contribution of hatchery fish to natural steelhead reproduction in
Puget Sound is limited. The conclusion that hatchery programs threaten
the viability of Puget Sound steelhead is based on several steelhead
studies in the Pacific Northwest published between 1977 and 2007, all
of which show a depression in the reproductive performance of
domesticated or out-of-basin hatchery steelhead spawning in the wild.
The BRT concluded that efforts by hatchery managers to prevent natural
spawning by Chambers Creek winter-run and Skamania summer-run hatchery
fish were unlikely to be completely effective, with potentially adverse
consequences. The BRT concluded that opportunities for genetic and
ecological interactions between hatchery and wild steelhead in Puget
Sound were substantial, with significant potential to reduce natural
productivity. Moreover, the fixed March 15 threshold used by WDFW to
separate spawning censuses of hatchery and wild fish confounds
evaluations of those potential hatchery fish effects (i.e., spawning
hatchery and wild fish may overlap later than that date), thus
increasing scientific uncertainties. Until studies more clearly
identify the effects of interbreeding between hatchery and wild
steelhead, prudent management would reduce the opportunity for
interaction between hatchery and wild fish (e.g., by eliminating
``outplanting'' and by using hatchery broodstocks genetically and
phenotypically similar to local wild fish).
Available research on Snow Creek winter-run steelhead represents
one of Puget Sound's longest term, watershed-scale studies on this
species. However, the BRT did not formally include Snow Creek winter-
run steelhead in its analysis of DPS risk because this population
exhibits some sharp differences from other steelhead on the Olympic
Peninsula and Puget Sound. The BRT concluded that the Snow Creek system
is not representative of the level of human development seen in many
other Puget Sound streams. The watershed enters Discovery Bay, an
eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca tributary, so steelhead do not have to
pass through a long fjord on their way to and from their freshwater
home as do other Puget Sound stocks. There is some development along
Snow Creek (including one of the most extensive clear-cuts in
Washington state), but the stream lacks the urban and industrial
changes seen in many other areas. Additionally, Snow Creek is a
relatively small lowland watershed, lacking many of the features and
species interactions found in larger river basins. Based on these
differences, the BRT members were reluctant to extrapolate trends in
the Snow Creek steelhead population to those of southern Puget Sound,
for example. The BRT examined Snow Creek steelhead abundance data to
evaluate their patterns relative to other Puget Sound steelhead trends,
and it appears that the recent trend in abundance of Snow Creek
steelhead is similar to that observed for several Puget Sound steelhead
populations, including some surrounding populations from the Strait of
Juan de
[[Page 26729]]
Fuca; Snow Creek steelhead show a recent sharp decline in adult
abundance with a very recent modest upswing.
The BRT discussed rainbow/steelhead and cutthroat hybridization in
its review. Although specific areas with relatively high incidences of
hybrid fish have been identified, it is unclear how extensive this
occurrence is. Additionally, in the absence of a historical baseline,
it is unclear if the hybridization observed represents a natural
process or one that is influenced by anthropogenic activities such as
fish introductions or habitat disturbances. This topic is in need of
concerted research before an evaluation in the listing context would be
meaningful.
The BRT did not specifically evaluate how climate change might
affect Puget Sound steelhead because such an evaluation would be highly
speculative given the state of available evidence. In the proposed
rule, we acknowledged that 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. We conclude that ocean-
climate change and variability is a factor contributing considerable
uncertainty to the viability of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS into the
foreseeable future.
Comment 22: One commenter presented findings indicating that
populations in the Skagit and Snohomish have a low risk of extinction.
This commenter contended that winter-run steelhead in the Skagit,
Snohomish-Skykomish, Pilchuck, Snoqualmie, and Green rivers and Morse
Creek and other Strait of Juan de Fuca streams had a relatively low
risk of extinction (WDFW, 2006b).
Response: The BRT did not find that extinction risk was high in the
Skagit and Snohomish River winter-run populations; what the BRT found
was that abundance had declined significantly in both since the 1996
review and that declining trends were evident in recent years. This
pattern contrasted with that evidence in the previous review of
steelhead in Puget Sound (Busby et al., 1996), and was cause for
concern among all BRT members. The other populations mentioned are
small and therefore vulnerable to unpredictable events, even though
their risk of imminent extinction is also probably low. The BRT based
its conclusion about extinction risk for Puget Sound steelhead
primarily on: (1) The widespread declines in adult abundance (total run
size), despite significant reductions in harvest in recent years
(strongly implying declining productivity of naturally spawning
steelhead); (2) the threats to diversity posed by use of two hatchery
stocks of steelhead inconsistent with wild stock diversity throughout
the DPS; (3) the declining diversity in the DPS, including the
uncertain but weak status of summer-run fish in the DPS; and (4) a
reduction in spatial structure for steelhead in the DPS. The most
striking difference in the BRT and WDFW reviews was the use of total
run size by the BRT and escapement by WDFW. NMFS believes that by not
including harvest, the WDFW analysis masks declines in overall
productivity. The lack of a recent resurgence in abundance of Puget
Sound steelhead since ocean conditions in the region have generally
improved and since harvest rates have declined are key to understanding
the factors that limit steelhead productivity in this DPS.
Comment 23: One commenter questioned our analysis of abundance
trends for Puget Sound steelhead, noting that it differed from recent
analyses by WDFW (in particular for the Skagit River) (WDFW, 2006a;
WDFW, 2006b). Several other commenters expressed concern that WDFW's
computed escapement goals were too low and ignored historical records
indicating that some streams supported considerably larger runs of
steelhead. Two commenters believed that the historical run size of
Puget Sound steelhead may have been twice that estimated by the BRT.
Response: The BRT's risk assessment was based primarily on total
run size, not escapement. The BRT believes that trends in run size are
a better indicator of productivity and abundance of naturally
reproducing fish; in addition, run size trends are independent of any
changes in WDFW's escapement goals for Puget Sound steelhead
populations.
With a few exceptions, there was little information that the BRT
could use to develop statistical trends in abundance. A form of
population viability analysis was provided by one commenter to the BRT
for five of the largest steelhead populations in Puget Sound. This was
possible because relatively complete adult abundance data (in the form
of expanded redd counts) and age structure were known for these
populations. The BRT reviewed these analyses and concluded that they
were useful in corroborating additional analyses of trends in
productivity and abundance. The BRT also concluded that the utility of
this approach was limited by the use of an average age structure taken
from historical data to estimate recruits and by failing to account for
errors in estimates of spawner abundance. Concerns regarding the use of
an average age structure in evaluating recruitment relationships may be
relatively minimal compared to other factors, but the BRT felt that the
fact that this age structure is based on much older data than the
spawner-recruit time series may impose undue bias on the analyses.
Although the run size and escapement data used in the commenter's
analysis for the five populations were recent (through 2001-2003,
depending on the population), the age structures were not. The age
structure data were obtained from scales and tags recovered in the late
1980s and early 1990s, a period not coincident with the abundance data.
Failing to account for temporal variability in age structure can bias
estimates of productivity by overestimating recruitment in small
cohorts and underestimating recruitment in large cohorts. Furthermore,
and more importantly, the errors surrounding the estimates of spawner
abundance remain unknown (but are probably quite high, e.g., the
proportion of redds dug by hatchery-origin steelhead). Thus, the BRT
concluded that the commenter's analysis had significant limitations. In
its own analysis, the BRT could not avoid all these sources of bias but
tried to minimize them by basing calculations on empirical age
structure distributions that varied over time, where they were
available, and identifying where this was not possible.
The BRT also noted that the fit of the stock-recruit data in the
commenter's analysis was not evaluated quantitatively, and the BRT
therefore attempted to fit these data to alternative models. In
general, the fit of the data to either Ricker or Beverton-Holt stock-
recruit models was very poor; for each of the five populations, a
simple density-independent model such as the random-walk model with
trend provided fits equally as good. Nevertheless, the fits to the
random-walk model with trend were also poor.
The BRT therefore used several analyses to look for emergent
patterns in the abundance and productivity trends, including estimates
of trend, population growth rates, and estimates of recruits per
spawner. Analysis of population growth rates does not account for
density dependent productivity; however, the BRT's ability to detect
such factors with the available data was limited because of the
scientific uncertainties and assumptions associated with the spawner-
recruit relationships. Nevertheless, the conclusions drawn from the
BRT's
[[Page 26730]]
analyses were remarkably similar to those drawn from the commenter's
analyses, despite limitations in the methods of both of them. Both the
BRT and commenter's analyses express concern over low abundance and
eroding productivity in even the largest and most robust populations in
the DPS.
Any effort to model future population trends should account for
recurring cyclic effects (such as ocean productivity cycles caused by
decadal oscillations and marine upwelling) and long-term trends (such
as freshwater habitat changes). The available data do not allow us to
identify and partition these types of effects, which led the BRT to
employ the more conservative approach of not assuming population
improvements as a result of potential future cyclic improvements in
ocean productivity.
Historical estimates of Puget Sound steelhead run size were based
on expansions of commercial harvest (in pounds or fish) in the late
1800s and early 1900s. Given the uncertainties in estimating the catch,
fishing effort, and historical average size, it is not surprising that
there would be substantial differences in estimates. Nevertheless,
estimates derived by the BRT and those submitted by the commenters
indicate that there has been a substantial decline in the abundance of
naturally-produced steelhead in the last 100 years.
Comment 24: One commenter requested that we clarify our use of the
term ``viability'' as it pertains to salmonids.
Response: As described in McElhany et al. (2000), a viable salmonid
population is an independent population of any Pacific salmonid (genus
Oncorhynchus) that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats
from demographic variation (random or directional), local environmental
variation, and genetic diversity changes (random or directional) over a
100-year time frame.
Comment 25: One commenter presented findings indicating that the
number of winter steelhead spawners was above the state's management
goal in 67 percent of the watersheds assessed, the number of winter
steelhead spawners had or were expected to increase relative to the
review by Busby et al. (1996), or a substantial number of resident O.
mykiss were present. In contrast, other commenters believed that state
management goals for steelhead had been set too low and would suggest
that Puget Sound steelhead are healthier than they really are. Two
commenters addressed the spatial distribution of steelhead and one of
these contended that the percentage of the historical habitat occupied
by the Puget Sound steelhead DPS is consistent with other non-listed
DPSs.
Response: We have not reviewed in detail the state's management
goals for winter steelhead and cannot assess whether the levels are
appropriate to ensure the long-term viability of the DPS. Such a review
should also consider summer steelhead and will need to occur in
partnership with our state and tribal co-managers during ESA
consultations and permitting reviews, and with all interested
stakeholders during recovery planning. We do note that more than half
of the watersheds identified as above management goals for winter
steelhead have relatively small runs, each averaging 102 fish or less
from 2002-2005 (WDFW, 2006b). We also note that the BRT did express
concerns over reductions in escapement goals for steelhead runs in
several watersheds, including the relatively large run in the Skagit
River.
The BRT reviewed the most recent abundance data for 2005 and the
projections for 2006 (WDFW, 2006b). These data, which were not
available prior to our proposed rule, indicate that winter steelhead
abundance in 2005 was actually lower than the 2004 estimates in every
watershed reviewed. Moreover, in all but one watershed, the 2006
projections are also lower than the 1991-1994 average abundance
considered in our earlier status review (Busby et al., 1996). These
data do not suggest a lessening of abundance-related risk for this DPS.
The evidence for a substantial number of resident fish appears to
be restricted to a single watershed (Lake Washington). As noted in a
previous response, there is insufficient information to evaluate
whether, under what circumstances, and to what extent the resident form
may contribute to the viability of steelhead over the long term.
Additional scientific research is needed to more fully understand the
roles and interactions of the anadromous and resident life forms.
The percentage of historical habitat still occupied by Puget Sound
steelhead is one of many parameters that we considered in making this
final listing determination. While the data referenced by one commenter
(WDFW, 2006a) suggest that this percentage is high relative to other
ESA-listed DPSs, the data also indicate that watersheds with some of
the highest production potential (e.g., the Skagit River and Green/
Duwamish River) have potentially suffered the greatest loss in habitat.
In addition, these data do not reveal the related and significant
decline in the quality of remaining habitat highlighted by the BRT
(NMFS, 2005) and in our proposed rule (71 FR 15666; March 29, 2006).
Comments on the Factors Affecting the Species
Comment 26: Several commenters agreed with our determination that
habitat loss is a principal factor limiting the viability of the DPS.
One commenter believed that we failed to focus on habitat limiting
factors particular to steelhead (e.g., susceptibilities during extended
freshwater rearing) and believed that degraded habitat exerts the
greatest influence on steelhead survival. Other commenters believed
that we provided a superficial treatment of the biological and
demographic conditions of the DPS and as a result presented a poorly
grounded conclusion that habitat modification and destruction is the
principal limiting factor for Puget Sound steelhead. One commenter
believed that some habitat restoration efforts are misguided (e.g.,
large woody debris placement) and actually damage the river channel.
Response: We believe that we have accurately portrayed the role
that habitat loss and modification have played in the decline of this
DPS. Habitat issues were discussed at length by the BRT, and several of
the 13 BRT members (including scientists from four Federal agencies)
have extensive knowledge working with steelhead habitat issues in Puget
Sound. We also base our assessment on more than 8 years of
consultations for other ESA-listed species, namely Chinook and summer-
run chum salmon, that share many habitat areas with Puget Sound
steelhead. The vast majority of our ESA consultations involve
evaluating actions that affect salmonid habitat. We have also been
actively engaged in the development of numerous ESA habitat
conservation plans affecting dozens of Puget Sound watersheds and have
played a significant role in the development and recent adoption of a
recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook. We will address issues specific
to steelhead as we continue working with these stakeholders and co-
managers to determine what if any changes are needed to actions that
modify salmonid habitat (including restoration efforts).
Comment 27: Two commenters did not agree with our assessment
regarding the overutilization of Puget Sound steelhead for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. They believed that
overutilization likely is a factor limiting the viability of this DPS
and argued that even low mortality
[[Page 26731]]
from harvest could continue to limit the viability of the DPS. One took
exception to the BRT report's characterization that the Skagit River
escapement goal was recently lowered to ``support harvest'' and was
cited as one of the reasons for the proposed listing.
Response: We did not receive new information to support a change in
our conclusion that overutilization for recreational purposes was a
factor that contributed to the past decline of Puget Sound steelhead
populations but is not believed to be a primary factor limiting the
viability of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS into the foreseeable future.
We will, however, actively consult with state and tribal co-managers
under the ESA and review harvest and associated hatchery strategies for
this DPS to ensure that they do not jeopardize its continued existence.
The BRT acknowledged that questions regarding carrying capacity
were a primary impetus for co-managers to reduce the escapement goals
in the Skagit River basin. The BRT's statement reflects a general
concern by the BRT that the Skagit River (one of the largest producers
of steelhead in Puget Sound) may be subjected to reduced escapements at
a time when the basin's abundance is much reduced from the past.
Comment 28: We received a number of comments regarding the role of
tribal netting in the overutilization of steelhead in Puget Sound.
These commenters felt that tribal fishing is an important aspect of
overutilization of the DPS and needs either greater oversight or a
complete moratorium in order to protect steelhead populations. One
commenter argued that tribal fishing is not monitored enough by
authorities and so take numbers are higher than what is allowed.
Response: We have not received information that would lead us to
the conclusion that tribal fisheries overutilize Puget Sound steelhead.
A number of Puget Sound tribes have federally-recognized treaty rights
to fish for steelhead, and in most areas their fisheries target
hatchery fish. The tribes in many cases have curtailed their fisheries
or refrained from fishing to conserve salmon and steelhead. We will
continue working with the tribes to address harvest and other issues
that affect the long-term viability of Puget Sound steelhead and
treaty-based fisheries.
Comment 29: NMFS received several comments disagreeing with the
assertion that disease and predation are not factors limiting the
viability of the DPS. Commenters felt that this issue deserves greater
research and requested that NMFS acknowledge uncertainty about the role
these factors play in the decline of the DPS. One commenter claimed
that low abundances, diversity, and distribution, limited habitat, and
poor productivity make the DPS more vulnerable to the effects of
disease and predation.
Response: Additional research is needed to determine if and how
disease and predation, in combination with other factors, may limit the
viability of Puget Sound steelhead. It is our understanding that little
research on steelhead is currently being undertaken in these important
areas.
Comment 30: There was general agreement by commenters that no
single factor described in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS'
implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) has caused the decline of
Puget Sound steelhead. Many commenters felt that a primary focus for
recovery of the DPS should be an improvement of hatchery practices.
Others believed that habitat restoration and protection are essential
to the recovery of the DPS. In particular, some commenters felt that
hydropower dams, floodplain development, water withdrawals, and logging
are factors in the decline of the DPS that must be addressed in
recovery planning.
Response: These and other factors have contributed to the decline
of Puget Sound steelhead and will need to be addressed in recovery
planning for this DPS. We believe that the recent Shared Strategy for
Puget Sound (Shared Strategy Development Committee, 2007) provides an
excellent foundation upon which to build and address issues and risk
factors unique to Puget Sound steelhead. We are also encouraged by
WDFW's progress in developing statewide and regional plans for
steelhead to promote policies, strategies, and actions that will
improve steelhead management in Puget Sound and elsewhere.
Comments on the Consideration of Protective Efforts/Mitigating Factors
Comment 31: Two commenters agreed with our determination in the
proposed rule that existing protective efforts, including the Shared
Strategy for Puget Sound (Shared Strategy Development Committee, 2007),
hatchery reform efforts, and Habitat Conservation Plans, are not
adequate to remedy the harmful factors that are depressing Puget Sound
steelhead. Others believed that habitat protection and restoration
provisions, including the Washington Forest Practices and Governor's
Puget Sound Initiative, are far more substantial than those in place at
the time of our initial status review (Busby et al., 1996). Many
expressed concern that we would inappropriately apply our PECE policy
and decide that listing is not warranted. Another requested
clarification of which land-use regulations across Puget Sound do not
adequately address the continued threats from habitat degradation and
modification and which presently unregulated activities, require
regulation to protect the habitat of the DPS.
Response: We have not received information to support changing our
conclusion that current protective efforts collectively do not provide
sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness to
substantially ameliorate the level of assessed extinction risk for
Puget Sound steelhead. While we acknowledge that many of the ongoing
protective efforts are more substantial than those in place when we
originally reviewed the status of this DPS, many efforts are relatively
recent or still under development, and as yet have insufficient
regulatory measures and/or resources in place to assure their
implementation and effectiveness in addressing the factors for the
decline of and threats facing Puget Sound steelhead.
In our proposed rule we identified a number of land use activities
that impact Puget Sound steelhead, including forestry, agriculture, and
urban development (71 FR 15672; March 29, 2006). In addition, the local
watershed chapters in the recent recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook
(Shared Strategy Development Committee, 2007) are an excellent resource
for understanding the myriad land use issues (and restoration
opportunities) facing salmon and steelhead in specific watersheds
throughout Puget Sound. Through our ESA consultations and ongoing
recovery planning forums we will continue to collaborate with tribal,
Federal, state, and local entities, and the public to promote and
improve efforts being made to protect Puget Sound steelhead.
Final Species Determination
We did not receive nor review any new information that would
warrant revision of the proposed geographic boundaries delineating the
Puget Sound steelhead DPS. These steelhead are markedly separated from
other such population groups of O. mykiss as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (Busby et al., 1996;
NMFS, 2005). Therefore, we conclude that steelhead in Puget Sound
satisfy the ``discreteness'' criterion under the joint DPS policy. We
also conclude that Puget Sound steelhead
[[Page 26732]]
represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the O.
mykiss species based on their unique life-history, genetic, and
ecological characteristics, as well as the unique glacial and fjord-
like characteristics of the ecoregion occupied (Busby et al., 1996).
These traits satisfy the ``significance'' criterion of the joint DPS
Policy. If Puget Sound steelhead DPS were lost, it would represent: (1)
the loss of unusual or unique habitats and ecosystems occupied by the
species; (2) a significant gap in the species' range; and (3) a
significant loss to the ecological, life-history, and genetic diversity
of the taxon.
Based on the BRT's findings, our review of comments summarized
above, and our considerations under the joint DPS policy, we conclude
that Puget Sound steelhead warrant delineation as a DPS under the ESA.
Consistent with our proposed rule, the geographic boundaries of the
Puget Sound steelhead DPS continue to include winter- and summer-run
steelhead populations 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).
Final Assessment of Extinction Risk
We did not receive any new information that would warrant revision
of the BRT's assessment of extinction risk. As described in more detail
in our proposed rule for this DPS (71 FR 15666;, March 29, 2006), the
BRT assessed the risk of extinction for Puget Sound steelhead at two
levels: first at the individual population level; and then at the
overall DPS level. At both levels the BRT evaluated the likely
contributions of resident and hatchery-origin fish to DPS viability.
The BRT's DPS-level extinction risk assessment reflects professional
scientific judgment guided by an analysis of the factors contributing
to VSP (McElhany et al., 2000), as well as by expectations about the
likely interactions among the individual VSP factors. Specifically, the
BRT concluded that there is: (1) A high risk to the viability of Puget
Sound steelhead due to declining productivity and abundance; (2) a
moderate risk due to reduced spatial complexity of, and connectivity
among, populations; and (3) a moderate risk due to the reduced life-
history diversity of populations and the potential threats posed by
artificial propagation and harvest practices in Puget Sound. As a
result, an overwhelming majority of the BRT concluded that Puget Sound
steelhead are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all of their range.
The BRT's conclusion was expressed in terms that correspond to the
statutory definition of a threatened species in the ESA. 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. The following sections briefly summarize the likely factors
for the decline of Puget Sound steelhead, as well as the efforts being
made to protect steelhead and other salmonids in the Puget Sound
region. The reader is referred to our proposed rule for more detailed
information and discussion concerning threats and protective efforts
affecting Puget Sound steelhead (71 FR 15666; March 29, 2006).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires that we determine whether any
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 Pacific
salmon and O. mykiss in 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''). NMFS' 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 salmon and
O. mykiss DPSs. The reader is referred to the above Federal Register
notices and technical reports for a more detailed treatment of the
relevant factors leading to the decline of specific DPSs.
In the proposed rule, we evaluated those factors of specific
relevance to steelhead in the Puget Sound area. We concluded that the
principal factor for decline for Puget Sound steelhead is the present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range. Barriers to fish passage and adverse effects on water quality
and quantity resulting from dams, the loss of wetland and riparian
habitats, and agricultural and urban development activities have
contributed and continue to contribute to the loss and degradation of
steelhead habitats in Puget Sound. We observed that previous harvest
management practices likely contributed to the historical decline of
Puget Sound steelhead, but concluded that the elimination of the direct
harvest of wild steelhead in the mid 1990s has largely addressed this
threat. We noted that predation by marine mammals (principally seals
and sea lions) and birds may be of concern in some local areas
experiencing dwindling steelhead run sizes. With respect to disease
(e.g., infectious diseases exacerbated by some hatchery practices), we
concluded that we lack specific current or historical information to
determine whether it poses a significant threat to the DPS. We
concluded that existing regulatory mechanisms inadequately protect
steelhead habitats as evidenced by the historical and continued threat
posed by the loss and degradation of nearshore, estuarine, and lowland
habitats due to agricultural activities and urbanization. We concluded
that ocean and climate conditions can have profound impacts on the
continued existence of steelhead populations. Finally, we reiterated
concerns regarding the extensive propagation of the Chambers Creek and
Skamania hatchery steelhead stocks and their possible contribution to
the observed declines in Puget Sound steelhead populations, while
acknowledging that there is insufficient information to quantify the
extent of potential adverse impacts.
Efforts Being Made To Protect West Coast Steelhead
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 ESA listing determinations,
we first assess a DPS's level of extinction risk and identify factors
that have led to its decline. We then assess existing efforts being
made to protect the species to determine if those measures ameliorate
the risks faced by the DPS. In judging the efficacy of existing
protective efforts that have not yet been implemented or demonstrated
effectiveness, we rely on the PECE (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). The
PECE articulates several criteria for evaluating the certainty of
implementation and effectiveness of protective efforts to aid in
determining
[[Page 26733]]
whether a species warrants listing as threatened or endangered.
In the proposed rule, we provided an extensive review of protective
efforts affecting Puget Sound steelhead, ranging in scope from regional
conservation strategies to local watershed initiatives (71 FR 15666;
March 29, 2006). We did not receive new information to support changing
our conclusion that protective efforts collectively do not provide
empirical evidence or sufficient certainty of implementation and
effectiveness to substantially ameliorate the level of assessed
extinction risk for Puget Sound steelhead. While we acknowledge that
many of the ongoing protective efforts for this DPS, especially those
contained in the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (Shared Strategy
Development Committee, 2007) and proposed in the Draft Statewide
Steelhead Plan and regional plans (WDFW, 2007), are likely to promote
steelhead conservation, many efforts are relatively recent or still
under development, and as yet have insufficient regulatory measures
and/or resources in place to assure their implementation and
effectiveness in addressing the factors for the decline of and threats
facing Puget Sound steelhead. We will continue to encourage these and
other future protective efforts, and we will continue to collaborate
with tribal, Federal, state, and local entities to promote and improve
efforts being made to protect the species.
Final Listing Determination
After reviewing the public comments received, independent expert
reviewer comments, and other data available to us, we find that there
is no available information that would cause us to reconsider the
extinction risk assessments by the BRT (NMFS, 2005), nor substantially
alter our assessments of the Section 4(a)(1) listing factors and
efforts being made to protect the species. We conclude that the Puget
Sound steelhead DPS is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range, and warrants listing as
a threatened species under the ESA.
Prohibitions and Protective Regulations
ESA section 9(a)(1) take and other prohibitions (16 U.S.C.
1538(a)(1)) apply to all species of fish or wildlife listed as
endangered. In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) directs
the Secretary to issue such regulations as are determined to be
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 persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction,
including individuals, corporations, and government agencies and their
employees.
On February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5648), we proposed to issue section 4(d)
protective regulations for Puget Sound steelhead. The proposed
regulations would prohibit the take of Puget Sound steelhead unless a
``limit'' applies for specified categories of activities determined to
be adequately protective of these fish. We have received public comment
on that proposal and will address those comments when we finalize the
protective regulations for this DPS in a subsequent Federal Register
notice.
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. As noted above, final 4(d) protective regulations
will be issued in a subsequent Federal Register notice, and until such
regulations are final, Puget Sound steelhead will not be subject to ESA
take protections. If and when we issue any final 4(d) protective
regulations, we will identify to the extent known the 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.
Effective Date of the Final Listing Determination
The final listing for Puget Sound steelhead will take effect on
June 11, 2007.
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. Section 4(b)(6)(C)(ii) provides that,
where critical habitat is not determinable at the time of final
listing, we may extend the period for designating critical habitat by
not more than 1 additional year. 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
determine which areas may qualify as critical habitat for this DPS and
to determine the economic, national security, or other relevant impacts
of designation necessary to perform required analyses of the impacts of
critical habitat designation . Therefore, we are proceeding with the
final listing determination now and will propose critical habitat in a
separate rulemaking.
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
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 final listing determination for the Puget Sound
steelhead DPS described in this notice is exempt from the requirements
of NEPA.
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when deciding on the listing
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
final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for
the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Peer Review
A joint NMFS/FWS policy requires us to solicit independent expert
review from at least three qualified specialists, concurrent with the
public comment period (59 FR 34270; July 1, 1994). In December 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
[[Page 26734]]
Bulletin, implemented under the Information Quality Act (Public Law 106
554), is intended to ensure the quality of agency information,
analyses, and regulatory activities and provide for a more transparent
peer review process.
The BRT's status review for Puget Sound steelhead (NMFS, 2005) is
the key science document underlying the decision to list Puget Sound
steelhead as a threatened species. As described in our proposed rule,
the BRT's status review was considered to be ``influential scientific
information'' in the context of the OMB Peer Review Bulletin and was
subjected to pre-dissemination peer review (60 FR 15666, March 29,
2006). A description of the peer review plan 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. The seven experts chosen
for this review are knowledgeable in steelhead biology, artificial
propagation, fisheries management, and local and regional habitat
conditions and processes. Four of the experts provided peer review and
their comments were thoroughly considered, and, as appropriate,
incorporated into the BRT's assessment and this final listing
determination. We believe that adherence to the OMB Peer Review
Bulletin is consistent with the goals of the 1994 NMFS/FWS policy ``to
ensure the best biological and commercial information is being used in
the decisionmaking process, as well as to ensure that reviews by
recognized experts are incorporated into the review process of
rulemakings'' developed in accordance with the ESA.
E.O. 13175 - Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal
and tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive
orders, judicial decisions, and co-management agreements, which
differentiate tribal governments from the other entities that deal
with, or are affected by, the Federal government. This relationship has
given rise to a special Federal trust responsibility involving the
legal responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward
Indian Tribes and the application of fiduciary standards of due care
with respect to Indian lands, tribal trust resources, and the exercise
of tribal rights. E.O. 13175 outlines the responsibilities of the
Federal Government in matters affecting tribal interests.
During our status review of Puget Sound steelhead we solicited
information from the tribes, met with several tribal governments and
associated tribal fisheries commissions, and provided the opportunity
for all interested tribes to comment on the proposed listing of this
DPS and discuss any concerns they may have. Several tribes submitted
comments during the public comment period and these were thoroughly
considered and incorporated (e.g., see comment 5, 6, 12, 23, and 26),
as appropriate, into our final listing determination. We will continue
to coordinate with the tribes on management and conservation actions
related to this species.
E.O. 13132 - Federalism
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take into account any federalism
impacts of regulations under development. It includes specific
consultation directives for situations where a regulation will preempt
state law, or impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and
local governments (unless required by statute). This rule establishes
the protected status of Puget Sound steelhead under the ESA. It thereby
creates obligations on Federal agencies, e.g., to consult on their
proposed actions that may affect Puget Sound steelhead. It does not
impose requirements for, or restrictions on, state or local
governments. Accordingly, E.O. 13132 does not apply to this final
listing determination. In keeping with the intent of the Administration
and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of
mutual tribal, state and Federal interest, we provided the proposed
rule to the relevant agencies in each state in which the subject
species occurs, and these agencies were invited to comment. As noted in
the previous section and in our response to comments (e.g., see comment
1, 2, 7, and 25), this final rule takes into account the views and
comments received from state agencies. We will continue to consider any
federalism impacts of regulations still under development for this DPS,
such as our ongoing consideration of potential ESA protective
regulations and critical habitat areas for Puget Sound steelhead.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES), or can be obtained from the Internet at:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
Dated: May 7, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is amended as
follows:
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 223.201 also
issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 223.102, paragraph (c)(23) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species\1\ Citation(s) for Citation(s) for
------------------------------------------------- Where Listed Listing Critical
Common name Scientific name Determinations Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***** ............... ......................... .................. ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) *** ............... ......................... .................. ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26735]]
(23) Puget Sound Steelhead Oncorhynchus U.S.A., WA, Distinct [Insert FEDERAL NA
mykiss Population Segment REGISTER page
including all naturally citation]May 11,
spawned anadromous O. 2007
mykiss (steelhead)
populations, from
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 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. E7-9089 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S