Proposed Rule2023-02849
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Olympic Peninsula Steelhead as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 10, 2023
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list Olympic Peninsula (OP) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a threatened or endangered distinct population segment (DPS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information indicating the listing may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of OP steelhead to determine whether listing is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this species from any interested party.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 28 (Friday, February 10, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8774-8785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02849]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 8774]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 230206-0036; RTID 0648-XR124]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List Olympic Peninsula Steelhead as Threatened or Endangered Under
the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: 90-Day petition finding, request for information, and
initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list
Olympic Peninsula (OP) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a threatened
or endangered distinct population segment (DPS) under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrently with
the listing. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific
and commercial information indicating the listing may be warranted. We
will conduct a status review of OP steelhead to determine whether
listing is warranted. To ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information
pertaining to this species from any interested party.
DATES: Scientific and commercial information pertinent to the
petitioned action must be received by April 11, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit data and information relevant to our review
of the status of Olympic Peninsula Steelhead, identified by ``Olympic
Peninsula Steelhead Petition (NOAA-NMFS-2022-0137),'' by either of the
following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and enter NOAA-NMFS-2022-0137 in the Search box.
Click the ``Comment Now'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
<bullet> Mail or Hand-Delivery: Protected Resources Division, West
Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. Attn:
Laura Koehn.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Electronic copies of the petition and other materials are available
from the NMFS website at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/endangered-species-conservation/candidate-species-under-endangered-species-act">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/endangered-species-conservation/candidate-species-under-endangered-species-act</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Koehn, NMFS West Coast Region,
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3dfd2c6c1d29dd8dcd6dbddf3dddcd2d29dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3955584c4b581752565c51577957565858175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>, (206) 300-8127; or John Rippe, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8be1e4e3e5a5f9e2fbfbeecbe5e4eaeaa5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee84818680c09c879e9e8bae80818f8fc0898198">[email protected]</span></a>, (301) 427-8467.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 1, 2022, the Secretary of Commerce received a petition
from The Conservation Angler and Wild Fish Conservancy (hereafter, the
Petitioners) to list the OP Steelhead DPS as threatened or endangered
under the ESA. The Petitioners also request the designation of critical
habitat concurrent with ESA listing. Copies of the petition are
available as described above (see ADDRESSES, above).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions, and Evaluation
Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce shall make a finding on whether
that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).
If NMFS finds that substantial scientific or commercial information in
a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned, during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted,
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the best available
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, a ``positive 90'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of the
status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species,
any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). In 1991, NMFS issued the Policy on Applying the
Definition of Species Under the Endangered Species Act to Pacific
Salmon (ESU Policy; 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). Under this policy,
Pacific salmon populations are considered a DPS, and hence a
``species'' under the ESA, if it represents an ``evolutionarily
significant unit'' (ESU) of the biological species. The two criteria
for delineating an ESU are: (1) It is substantially reproductively
isolated from other conspecific populations, and (2) it represents an
important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. On
February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy;
61 FR 4722). The DPS Policy adopted criteria similar to those in the
ESU Policy for determining when a group of vertebrates constitutes a
DPS: the group must be discrete from other populations; and it must be
significant to its taxon. A group of organisms is discrete if it is
[[Page 8775]]
``markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral
factors.'' Significance is measured with respect to the taxon (species
or subspecies).
NMFS used the ESU Policy to define the OP steelhead ESU in 1996 (61
FR 41541, August 9, 1996). In 2006, NMFS changed its previous practice
of applying the ESU Policy to delineate species of O. mykiss, however,
and instead applied the joint DPS Policy (71 FR 834, January 5, 2006).
NMFS determined that the use of the ESU Policy--originally intended for
Pacific salmon--should not continue to be extended to O. mykiss, a type
of salmonid with characteristics not typically exhibited by Pacific
salmon.
A species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and
``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and
(20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we
determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one
or a combination of the following five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: (1)
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
the species' habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or
predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to
address identified threats; (5) or any other natural or manmade factors
affecting the species' continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50
CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50
CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ``substantial scientific or commercial
information'' in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist,
or reclassify a species as ``credible scientific or commercial
information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that
the action proposed in the petition may be warranted.'' Conclusions
drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific or
commercial information will not be considered ``substantial
information.'' In reaching the initial (90-day) finding on the
petition, we consider the information described in 50 CFR 424.14(c),
(d), and (g) (if applicable).
Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted will depend in part on the degree to which the
petition includes the following types of information: (1) Information
on current population status and trends and estimates of current
population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if
available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting
upon the species; (3) whether and to what extent any or all of the
factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened
species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is
likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how
high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its
habitat are; (4) information on adequacy of regulatory protections and
effectiveness of conservation activities by states as well as other
parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect
the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation
of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims
in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).
If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the
initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the
new information, along with the previously submitted information, is
treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and
the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information
is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g).
We may also consider information readily available at the time the
determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting
materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide
electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright
law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g.,
publications, maps, reports, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR
424.14(c)(6), 424.14(h)(1)(ii).
The substantial scientific or commercial information standard must
be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made on
the listing status of the species that is the subject of the petition.
Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of, the listing
status of that species (whether in response to a petition or on our own
initiative), we will evaluate any petition received thereafter seeking
to list, delist, or reclassify that species to determine whether a
reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would
conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted
despite the previous review or finding. Where the prior review resulted
in a final agency action--such as a final listing determination, 90-day
not-substantial finding, or 12-month not-warranted finding--a petition
will generally not be considered to present substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that the action may be warranted
unless the petition provides new information or analyses not previously
considered. See 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii).
At the 90-day finding stage, we do not conduct additional research,
and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to
help us in evaluating the petition. We accept the petitioners' sources
and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be
based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific
information in our files that indicates the petition's information is
incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the
requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one
interpretation, or that is contradicted by other available information,
will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is
reliable and a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific
review would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other
words, conclusive information indicating that the species may meet the
ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-
day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information
alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a reasonable person
conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the
unknown information itself suggests the species may be at risk of
extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate
whether the information presented in the petition, in light of the
information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the
species faces an extinction risk such that listing, delisting, or
reclassification may be warranted; this may be indicated
[[Page 8776]]
in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or
in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We
evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to
evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance
and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio,
diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or
fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified
demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate
the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative
impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, alone, do not
constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be
warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the
particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be
responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential
significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by such organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone will
not provide sufficient basis for a positive 90-day finding under the
ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (<a href="https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories">https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories</a>). Additionally, species classifications
under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria
used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not
necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications,
we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is
based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or
threats discussed above.
Distribution, Habitat, and Life History of West Coast O. mykiss
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 down to the U.S.
Mexico border (Busby et al., 1996; 67 FR 21586, May 1, 2002). O. mykiss
exhibit perhaps the most complex suite of life history traits of any
species of Pacific salmonid. They can be anadromous (``steelhead''), or
freshwater residents (``rainbow or redband trout''), and under some
circumstances yield offspring of the opposite life-history form. Those
that are anadromous can spend up to 7 years in freshwater prior to
smoltification (the physiological and behavioral changes required for
the transition to salt water), and then spend up to 3 years in salt
water prior to first spawning. O. mykiss is also iteroparous (meaning
individuals may spawn more than once), whereas the Pacific salmon
species are principally semelparous (meaning individuals generally
spawn once and die). Within the range of West Coast steelhead, spawning
migrations occur throughout the year, with seasonal peaks of activity.
In a given river basin there may be one or more peaks in migration
activity; since these ``runs'' are usually named for the season in
which the peak occurs, some rivers may have runs known as winter,
spring, summer, or fall steelhead.
Steelhead can be divided into two basic reproductive ecotypes,
based on the state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry and
duration of spawning migration (Burgner et al., 1992). The summer or
``stream-maturing'' type enters fresh water in a sexually immature
condition between May and October, and requires several months to
mature and spawn. The winter or ``ocean-maturing'' type enters fresh
water between November and April with well-developed gonads and spawns
shortly thereafter. In basins with both summer and winter steelhead
runs, the summer run generally occurs where habitat is not fully
utilized by the winter run, or where a temporal hydrologic barrier
separates them, such as a waterfall. Summer steelhead usually spawn
farther upstream than winter steelhead (Withler, 1966; Roelofs, 1983;
Behnke, 1992; Myers et al., 2015).
Olympic Peninsula Steelhead and Previous ESA Status Review
In 1996, NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of coastal
and inland steelhead populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California (Busby et al., 1996). As part of this review, NMFS
identified an OP steelhead ESU which ``occupies river basins of the
Olympic Peninsula, Washington, west of the Elwha River and south to,
but not including, the rivers that flow into Grays Harbor on the
Washington coast.'' The OP steelhead ESU is primarily made up of
winter-run steelhead but includes several summer-run steelhead
populations as well (Busby et al., 1996). NMFS also generally included
the resident O. mykiss in the ESUs described because of the opportunity
for resident to interbreed with anadromous life history forms.
NMFS concluded that the OP steelhead ESU was not in danger of
extinction or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future
(Busby et al., 1996). However, NMFS was concerned about the overall
health of the ESU and specific populations. Although the majority of
abundance trends for winter-run OP steelhead were upward at the time,
including for three of the four largest populations, several other
populations had downward trends and for three populations this decline
was statistically significant. No data were available for adult summer-
run OP steelhead trends. NMFS also noted concerns that hatchery fish
were widespread, and interbreeding between natural and hatchery fish
could reduce the genetic diversity of natural-origin OP steelhead. The
estimated proportion of hatchery stocks on natural spawning grounds
ranged from 16 to 44 percent, but this proportion was lowest for the
two rivers with the largest production of natural-origin steelhead
(Queets and Quillayute). Finally, NMFS noted that there was a great
deal of uncertainty about the overall health of the ESU because there
was little information known about summer steelhead stocks in the
Olympic Peninsula and the amount of interaction between hatchery and
natural stocks. Informed by the status review (Busby et al., 1996),
NMFS concluded that the OP steelhead ESU did not warrant listing under
the ESA (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996).
A court ruling in 2001 (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F.
Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001)) determined that listing only a subset of a
species or ESU/DPS, such as the anadromous portion of O.
[[Page 8777]]
mykiss, was not allowed under the ESA. Because of this court ruling,
NMFS conducted updated status reviews for ESA-listed West Coast
steelhead ESUs that took into account those non-anadromous populations
below dams and other major migration barriers that were considered to
be part of the steelhead ESUs (Good et al., 2005). Subsequently, NMFS
used the joint USFWS-NMFS DPS Policy to delineate steelhead-only DPSs
rather than ESUs that included both steelhead and the related non-
anadromous forms (71 FR 833, January 5, 2006). OP steelhead were not
addressed in the 2005 status review (Good et al., 2005) or subsequent
listings (71 FR 833, January 5, 2006).
Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files
The Petitioners request that NMFS list OP steelhead as a DPS and
present information about the life history of the anadromous form of O.
mykiss. We interpret the Petitioner's request as asking that NMFS list
the anadromous form of O. mykiss within the Olympic Peninsula region as
a DPS. The petition refers to information from the NMFS 1996 status
review indicating that OP steelhead are substantially isolated from
steelhead in other regions of western Washington, and are characterized
by different habitat, climate, and zoogeography relative to adjacent
steelhead populations. Based on the information provided and referenced
in the petition, we conclude there is substantial scientific
information that OP steelhead may qualify as a DPS pursuant to our DPS
Policy. The reader is also referred to previously published Federal
Register notices for further discussion of the delineation of O. mykiss
DPSs under the joint DPS Policy (70 FR 67131, November 4, 2005; 71 FR
834, January 5, 2006).
In the sections that follow, we provide a synopsis of our analysis
of the information provided in the petition and readily available in
our files regarding OP steelhead status and trends and whether and to
what extent factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA may cause
OP steelhead to be an endangered or threatened species.
Status and Population Trends
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and tribal
co-managers describe the population structure of OP steelhead for their
Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). The Petitioners note that WDFW (in
Cram et al., (2018)) describes OP steelhead as consisting of 7 summer-
run and 24 winter-run steelhead populations and the Petitioners present
information based on this population structure. Most of the information
the Petitioners present focuses on the four largest winter-run OP
steelhead populations: Queets, Hoh, Quillayute, and Quinault Rivers,
but they also present data for summer-run OP steelhead populations in
these systems and some smaller winter-run OP steelhead populations.
In support of their claim that OP steelhead are likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future, the Petitioners provide
information on the four demographic descriptors that NMFS uses to
assess demographic risk in status reviews: abundance, productivity,
diversity, and spatial structure (McElhany et al., 2000).
The Petitioners assert that chronic declining trends in abundance
and recent sharp declines indicate that OP steelhead are at risk of
extinction more so now than at the time of NMFS's 1996 status review
(Busby et al., 1996). To support this, the Petitioners summarize
multiple past stock assessments for various winter-run OP steelhead
populations conducted by WDFW, NMFS, North Olympic Peninsula Lead
Entity for Salmon (NOPLE), and the Hatchery Scientific Review Group
(HSRG). According to Cram et al. (2018), only 20 percent of the
populations of winter-run OP steelhead have an increasing trend for
populations where trends could be assessed. The Petitioners note that
contemporary summer-run OP steelhead abundance information is lacking,
with the exception of snorkel surveys for some summer-run populations.
The Petitioners assert that most winter-run OP steelhead
populations have declined from historical abundance relative to present
day trends, presenting data from multiple sources. McMillan et al.
(2022) applied multiple approaches using tribal and sport catch data,
catch per unit effort, and watershed size (as a proxy for basin
capacity) to generate multiple estimates of historical abundance (for
the period 1948-1960). They calculated the mean among these estimates
to determine historical abundance for Hoh, Quillayute, Queets, and
Quinault Rivers winter-run steelhead. McMillan et al. (2022) estimated
a historical abundance of 13,505 winter-run steelhead for Hoh River,
21,843 for Quillayute River, 16,897 for Quinault River, and 15,191 for
Queets River. McMillan et al. (2022) also examined cannery records from
1923 to estimate the abundance of Queets River winter-run steelhead to
be 32,223 (ranging from 27,829-43,732, assuming a range of exploitation
rates). The Petitioners assert that current mean annual run sizes
(averaged from 1978-2020 or 1980-2020) of winter-run OP steelhead
populations are 4,117 for Hoh, 13,064 for Quillayute, 5,883 for
Quinault, and 7,648 for Queets.
The Petitioners also summarize recently reported trends in
abundance from Cram et al. (2018) and McMillan et al. (2022).
Specifically, Cram et al. (2018) estimated trends in abundance between
1978 to 2013 of negative 6 percent for the Quillayute River, negative
69 percent for the lower Quinault River, positive 24 percent for the
upper Quinault River, negative 29 percent for the Queets River, and
negative 16 percent for the Hoh River winter-run steelhead population.
McMillan et al. (2022) estimated trends for 1980-2017 and found no
trend for the Quillayute, a 44 percent declining trend for the lower
and upper Quinault combined, a 45 percent declining trend for the
Queets, and a 37 percent declining trend for the Hoh River winter-run
steelhead populations (Table 1). By comparison, the Petitioners
summarize that NMFS's earlier review (Busby et al., 1996) reported
percent annual change positive trends of 0.2 percent for the Hoh River,
positive 0.9 percent for Queets River, positive 1.8 percent for the
Upper Quinault River, negative 2.6 percent trend for Quinault River/
Lake Quinault, and a negative 0.2 percent trend for Quillayute/
Bogachiel River.
The Petitioners report larger declines in abundance for winter-run
OP steelhead comparing older historical estimates (1948-1960) to the
more recent time frame (since 1978) versus the more recent time frame
alone. The Petitioners report estimated historical abundance from
McMillan et al. (2022) for years 1948-1960 based on an ensemble of
approaches and associated catch data, and compare this to contemporary
estimates for years 1978-2017 and 2016-2020. The Quillayute River
winter-run steelhead population had a 38 percent decline from
historical (1948-1960) to 1978-2017 and 61 percent decline from
historical to 2016-2020. The Quinault River winter-run steelhead
populations (lower and upper) declines across the two time ranges were
63 percent and 80 percent, respectively. Hoh River winter-run steelhead
declines were 69 and 79 percent, respectively. And the Queets River
winter-run steelhead population declines were 50 and 69 percent,
respectively. Declines were greater if using cannery data to estimate
historical abundance.
[[Page 8778]]
Table 1--Abundance Trend Estimates Across Different Time Periods for the Four Largest Winter-Run OP Steelhead
Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abundance
Abundance trend 1948-
trend 1948- 1960 compared
Abundance trend 1978- Abundance trend 1980- 1960 compared to 2016-2020
Winter-run population 2013 from Cram et al. 2017 from McMillan to 1978-2017 provided by
2018 (percent) et al. 2022 (percent) from McMillan the
et al. 2022 Petitioners
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoh River....................... -16................... -37................... -69 -79
Quillayute River................ -6.................... No trend.............. -38 -61
Queets River.................... -29................... -45................... -50 -69
Quinault River.................. -69 (lower)........... -44................... -63 -80
+24 (upper)...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitioners also report information on how often winter-run OP
steelhead populations have recently met escapement goals to provide
evidence of population decline. The Petitioners state that escapement
goals are 2,400 fish for Hoh River, 5,900 for a system-wide goal for
Quillayute (combining Calawah River, Sol Duc River, Bogachiel and
Quillayute River proper, and Dickey River), 1,200 fish for upper
Quinault River (none for lower), and 4,200 or 2,500 fish for Queets
River (first is set by WDFW, second is used by the tribe). From Cram et
al. (2018), the Hoh and Queets Rivers only met escapement goals in 50
percent of years while the Quinault and Quillayute Rivers met goals 100
percent (for upper, lower Quinault has no escapement goal) and 90
percent, respectively (for 2004-2013). Updating this for the most
recent 10 years (2011-2020), the Petitioners state that two of the four
largest winter-run OP steelhead populations have not met escapement
goals in half or more of the last 10 years with recent years having low
escapement (Queets met the escapement goal 30 percent of 10 years and
Clearwater River met the goal 50 percent). Quillayute River on the
other hand has met escapement goals in 9 out of 10 most recent years
and 18 of the past 20 years. The major Quillayute tributaries of the
Dickey and Calawah Rivers have met escapement goals in each of the past
10 years, while Bogachiel/Quillayute and Sol Duc Rivers have met
escapement goals in 60 percent and 70 percent of the last 10 years,
respectively.
The Petitioners report abundance trends from Cram et al. (2018),
which, together with Petitioners' updates to escapement trends, provide
evidence of declines for smaller winter-run OP steelhead populations
(populations other than Quinault, Queets, Hoh, and Quillayute Rivers),
as well (Table 2). The Petitioners also summarize older abundance
trends for these smaller winter-run OP steelhead populations including
from NMFS in 1996 that reported a negative 5.8 percent trend for Pysht
River, negative 7.6 percent for Hoko River, negative 4.4 percent for
Dickey River, negative 0.1 percent for Sol Duc River, negative 0.5
percent for Clearwater River, and positive trends of 1.1 percent for
Calawah River and 13.6 percent for Moclips River winter-run steelhead.
From Cram et al. (2018), Goodman Creek winter-run had a negative 54
percent long term abundance trend, Salt Creek/independent tributaries
had a negative 43 percent trend, negative 27 percent trend for the
Clallam River, negative 21 percent for Pysht River/Independent
tributaries, negative 40 percent for Hoko River, negative 22 percent
for Dickey River, negative 12 percent for Clearwater River, negative 9
percent for Sol Duc River, and then positive trends of 50 percent and
27 percent for Calawah and Moclips Rivers, respectively (see Table 7 in
Cram et al., 2018). The Petitioners also assert that certain smaller
winter-run OP steelhead populations have rarely met escapement goals in
the past decade (see Table 3). The Petitioners assert that Goodman
Creek has only met its escapement once in past decade (up to 2020),
Salt Creek met its escapement once in last 10 years but the population
may have stabilized recently, Pysht River met escapement in 70 percent
of last 10 years, and Hoko River met escapement in 80 percent of last
10 years (escapement goal of 400 fish). Based on all the above, the
Petitioners assert that winter-run OP steelhead are in chronic decline
and that the OP steelhead population is at greater risk of extinction
now than at the time of NMFS's last review (Busby et al., 1996).
Table 2--Abundance Trend Estimates Across Different Time Periods and for
Smaller Winter-Run OP Steelhead Populations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abundance
trend estimate Abundance
from NMFS trend estimate
Winter-run population (Busby et al., from WDFW
1996-- (Cram et al.,
Appendix E) 2018)
(percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodman Creek........................... (*) -54
Pysht River............................. -5.8 -21
Salt Creek.............................. (*) -43
Hoko River.............................. -7.6 -40
Dickey River............................ -4.4 -22
Sol Duc River........................... -0.1 -9
Clearwater River........................ -0.5 -12
[[Page 8779]]
Calawah River........................... 1.1 50
Moclips River........................... 13.6 27
Clallum River........................... (*) -27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not provided.
The Petitioners assert that almost all summer-run OP steelhead
populations are at critically low levels, while noting that there is no
formal analysis of summer-run OP steelhead historical catch and no
monitoring by the co-managers. The Petitioners provide rough estimates
of peak historical abundance for summer-run OP steelhead based on
harvest data for the larger systems (Quinault, Hoh, Quillayute, and
Queets). Abundance of summer-run OP steelhead in these systems ranged
from 848 to 1,788 adult spawners from the late 1940s/early 1950s to the
late 1970s. Using snorkel surveys, Brenkman et al. (2012) and McMillan
(2022) estimated recent numbers of adult summer-run OP steelhead
returning to spawn each year in several different populations (Calawah
River system, North Fork Calawah River, South Fork Calawah River,
Sitkum River, and South Fork Hoh River for Brenkman et al., 2012;
Bogachiel River, Sol Duc River, South Fork Hoh River, East Fork
Quinault River, and North Fork Quinault for McMillan, 2022). Mean
estimates ranged from 3 to 303 individuals. The Calawah River is at the
upper end of this range, but most of the returning adult summer-run OP
steelhead are hatchery-origin (89 native-origin, 214 hatchery-origin).
For the other rivers, the mean proportion of hatchery-origin spawners
ranged from 3 to 43 percent. McMillan (2006) estimated that the Queets
River and Clearwater River summer-run OP steelhead abundance is no more
than 100 fish based on catch data. Based on the above information,
Petitioners assert that summer-run OP steelhead populations are at
critically low levels, so much so that summer-run ``could be facing
extirpation in the near term if some are not already functionally
extinct.''
The Petitioners also assert that because historical estimates are
from a period after habitat changes had already occurred and after the
onset of fisheries and canneries, declines are likely greater than
those presented above. Any unreported catch would also affect these
estimates.
The review of OP steelhead in Cram et al. (2018) assessed overall
total population viability risk of OP steelhead populations based on
four risk metrics (1) long-term abundance trends, (2) short-term
decline, (3) risk of extinction, (4) failure to meet escapement goals
(using data up to 2013) (see Table 5 in Cram et al. 2018). Out of 15 OP
steelhead populations for which there was sufficient information to
determine risk (out of 31 populations), one population ranked at high
overall risk, seven at moderate overall risk, and seven at low overall
risk. Cram et al. (2018) concluded that overall, low productivity and
declines in abundance, ``did not appear to pose immediate or
substantial threats to this DPS.'' However, Cram et al. (2018) noted
substantial data gaps regarding abundance, diversity, and productivity
for OP steelhead, which limited the risk assessment to 15 of the 31
populations that were considered.
The Petitioners also summarize available data on population
productivity to support claims that productivity is in a long-term
decline and that, in combination with depleted abundance, OP steelhead
populations are at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future. The
Petitioners assert that winter-run OP steelhead populations have
increasingly failed to replace themselves based on spawner-to-spawner
recruitment, and highlight that smolt-to-adult return rates are
negative for at least one population (Cram et al., 2018). The
Petitioners assert that winter-run steelhead populations in the Hoh and
Quillayute Rivers have failed to replace themselves in 4 of the past 10
years, note there is no clear trend in smolt-to-adult winter-run return
for the Queets River populations, and state that for Quinault River,
they could not find estimates of productivity (but assume fisheries co-
managers have estimates). The Petitioners also assert that declines in
productivity could be a result of fishery, hatchery, or habitat effects
or loss of repeat spawners. Finally, the Petitioners note that there is
little known about productivity of the summer-run OP steelhead
populations, as well as the smaller winter-run OP steelhead
populations.
The Petitioners also describe the potential loss of life history
diversity. The Petitioners state that little information is known on
genetic diversity for natural-origin OP steelhead. The Petitioners
assert that declining levels of repeat spawning for winter-run OP
steelhead indicate the potential loss of this life history and that
this may be one of the factors contributing to declining productivity.
The Petitioners also note potential future loss of the summer-run OP
steelhead life form and assert the potential loss of the genetic basis
for premature migration if these populations are lost. The Petitioners
also cite recent work from McMillan et al. (2022) that provides
evidence of compressed run timing in winter-run OP steelhead. McMillan
et al. (2022) estimated that the number of days between when 25 percent
and 75 percent of the runs had passed in each system declined by 16,
26, and 22 days for the Quillayute, Hoh, and Queets Rivers,
respectively, since historical periods (1948-1960 vs. 1980-2017). The
Petitioners assert, therefore, that the population's fate is reliant on
late-returning winter OP steelhead that may not ``keep pace'' with
environmental factors associated with climate change. Finally, the
Petitioners speculate on the impacts of this shift in timing as well as
certain habitat barriers (culverts, roads; no large dams in the system)
on the spatial structure of OP steelhead.
In sum, while data presented in the petition and readily available
in our files on OP steelhead abundance, diversity, and productivity is
[[Page 8780]]
incomplete, a reasonable person would conclude that the information
presented in the petition indicates that many OP steelhead populations
likely have declined.
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors for Olympic Peninsula Steelhead
The Petitioners assert that all five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors
contribute to the need to list OP steelhead as threatened or
endangered, but point to main threats of declining freshwater and
marine habitat and recreational and commercial fishing pressure. The
Petitioners also note that a recent WDFW review (Cram et al., 2018)
listed key threats for OP steelhead as habitat degradation (from
forestry practices) and potential impacts from hatchery and harvest.
Each of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors is discussed in detail
below.
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
For OP steelhead habitat, most of the major river basins occupied
by OP steelhead originate within the Olympic National Park (ONP) where
habitat is protected from most detrimental land-use practices such as
logging, but drainage areas for these river systems extend outside of
the park and were or are subject to logging and other land-use
practices. Though the Petitioners note that forest management outside
of ONP lands has improved, including logging practices on state,
Federal, and private lands, the Petitioners assert that habitat
degradation is a threat to OP steelhead due to historical and ongoing
logging and land-use practices (including road and culvert
construction). For reference, according to the petition, 57 percent of
the Hoh River watershed, nearly one-third of the Quillayute River
basin, 47 percent of the Quinault River basin, and nearly all of the
course of the Queets River (except the lower 8 miles) occur inside the
ONP (see petition for breakdown for other rivers or areas). The
Petitioners summarize that logging has altered stream flows and
hydrology, road construction has led to erosion and increased
sedimentation, and culverts have blocked access to various spawning
grounds and habitat and impacted sedimentation and wood recruitment
processes. Although efforts are underway to address these issues, it
may take decades for habitat to recover (Martens et al., 2019) and
climate change may exacerbate conditions (Wade et al., 2013). The
Petitioners assert that climate change is and will further degrade
habitat both inside and outside of the ONP (see section on Other
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence for
discussion on climate change).
Cram et al. (2018) stated that legacy effects of historical land-
use practices, especially past extensive clear-cut logging, continue to
threaten natural-origin steelhead on the Peninsula. Cram et al. (2018)
note that although many of the large rivers begin within ONP, lower
areas are subject to logging outside of the park boundaries. Cram et
al. (2018) also note that extensive logging coupled with construction
has led to increased sediment loads and a reduction in large woody
debris in the Clearwater River basin (which has headwaters outside of
the ONP). However, improvements have been made in the Hoh River basin,
where recent land acquisitions (approximately 90 percent of the basin
is now owned by state and Federal government or conservation
organizations) and subsequent efforts to restore and protect habitat
has led to various stages of regeneration across the Hoh River valley
rainforest (Cram et al., 2018).
The Petitioners summarize current status of habitat for the Water
Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) that overlap with OP steelhead (areas
19-21), mainly for areas outside of the ONP. Washington State
Department of Ecology (WDOE) developed WRIAs to delineate major
watersheds within Washington and manage activities. The Petitioners
summarize that in a previous review, WRIA 20 had an overall salmonid
habitat rating of ``poor-fair,'' including ``poor'' water temperature,
side channel floodplain, sediment quantity and quality, bank/streambed
stability, instream woody debris, and riparian, ``fair'' road density
and hydro high flows, and only pool habitat rated ``good'' (Smith,
2005). The Petitioners further summarize threats within individual
rivers within this inventory area, which include warm temperatures, low
summer stream flows, landslides, passage blockages, flooding, increased
fine sediment, debris flows resulting in the scouring of spawning
gravels, and poor riparian conditions, amongst other things. For the
portion of WRIA 21 that is outside of ONP, the Petitioners summarize
that this area was subject to timber harvest and that there is
excessive sedimentation, poor conditions for water temperature and
side-channel floodplain, and fair conditions for pool habitat, instream
large woody debris, and riparian habitat (citing multiple references).
For WRIA 19, the Petitioners state that this area has been subject to
logging practices and a large percent of the old growth area has been
converted to tree farms (citing McHenry et al., 1996). Smith (2005)
also rated multiple habitat attributes as being in ``poor'' condition
in this WRIA. The Petitioners also describe past and current forest
practices, including past logging within the Olympic National Forest
(Olympic NF), and assert that though management has improved, the
impacts of past practices are still effecting OP steelhead habitat.
The Petitioners further assert that the impacts of past and current
logging harm OP steelhead through increasing water temperatures and
sedimentation, removing woody debris, altering stream flows, and
impacting habitat connectivity. The Petitioners cite Hicks (1999),
stating that high water temperatures can cause mortality, metabolic
distress, alter disease susceptibility, change migration and breeding
times, and can form temperature barriers to migrating fish. The
Petitioners summarize that logging has resulted in increased
sedimentation and landslides within the region, and that this can
reduce prey availability, block habitat access, suffocate early life
stages like eggs and fry, impact respiratory function, and increase
water temperature (citing McHenry et al., 2016, USFWS, 2020). Also, the
Petitioners state that loss of woody debris from logging can result in
less habitat cover and less rearing and refuge habitat. Finally, the
Petitioners assert that logging roads and culverts have decreased or
blocked access to available habitat.
According to the Petitioners, many rivers and streams in WRIA 19-21
do not meet state temperature standards and certain rivers and streams
also do not meet dissolved oxygen and/or pH standards (WDOE, 2016).
Hundreds of culverts within WRIAs 19-21 also may be creating migration
barriers, though some work is ongoing to repair or replace culverts.
Based on information provided by the Petitioners and readily available
in our files, we find that habitat degradation may be posing a threat
to the continued existence of OP steelhead.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition identifies overutilization for commercial and
recreational purposes as a main threat to OP steelhead. The fisheries
are mainly managed through escapement goals for OP steelhead winter-
runs, which were set based on maximum sustainable harvest. According to
WDFW's review, OP steelhead has sustained the highest harvest rate
among Washington state steelhead populations with an annual harvest
rate of 25.6 percent (Cram et al.,
[[Page 8781]]
2018). WDFW also notes that harvest rate estimates were only available
for one-third of the OP steelhead populations with escapement data and
three additional river systems with combined population escapement
(Cram et al., 2018). The Petitioners assert that using escapement goals
based on maximum sustainable harvest does not provide enough detail to
``responsibly manage harvest or maintain the persistence of the
species'' and question whether or not current management targets are
sustainable based on high harvest rates stated in Cram et al. (2018)
and declining abundance. Cram et al. (2018) also stated concerns about
the high harvest rates given recent declines and limited availability
of monitoring data. In recent years, WDFW has shortened or closed the
recreational fishing season on winter-run OP steelhead at least in part
due to low returns. WDFW also imposed restrictions on recreational
angling by banning the use of boats and bait (see the following:
<a href="https://wdfw.medium.com/changes-to-the-coastal-steelhead-season-67131dd05ba7">https://wdfw.medium.com/changes-to-the-coastal-steelhead-season-67131dd05ba7</a>; <a href="https://wdfw.medium.com/frequently-asked-questions-march-2022-coastal-steelhead-closure-364cfa62826f">https://wdfw.medium.com/frequently-asked-questions-march-2022-coastal-steelhead-closure-364cfa62826f</a>; <a href="https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/sports/fishing-olympic-national-park-to-shut-down-fishing-on-west-end-rivers/">https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/sports/fishing-olympic-national-park-to-shut-down-fishing-on-west-end-rivers/</a>).
The Petitioners also report results from their analysis (provided
in the petition, Appendix A from N. Gayeski, <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/endangered-species-conservation/candidate-species-under-endangered-species-act">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/endangered-species-conservation/candidate-species-under-endangered-species-act</a>) estimating productivity and
abundance capacity/equilibrium abundance over time in order to support
their assertion that managing for maximum sustainable harvest or yield
is not sustainable. Using data on spawner returns and juvenile recruits
from WDFW and a Ricker stock-recruit model, the Petitioners estimate
productivity and unfished equilibrium abundance overtime for Hoh River
and Quillayute River winter-run steelhead. These analyses show fairly
steady declines in both productivity (alpha parameter) and equilibrium
abundance from 1986 to 2014 for both populations.
The Petitioners further summarize current information and data on
harvest impacts for the winter-run OP steelhead that are harvested in
Tribal fisheries and non-Tribal recreational fisheries. The Petitioners
report that mean harvest rates for the four largest winter-run OP
steelhead populations (Quillayute, Hoh, Queets, and Quinault Rivers)
between the late 1970s/early 1980s to 2020 were 28, 35, 35, and 46
percent, respectively; and ratios of hatchery to natural-origin fish
vary from 0.7:1 to 4.7:1 depending on the river system and specific
fishery. Tribal fishers catch natural-origin OP steelhead throughout
their fishing seasons. In 2016, WDFW changed the recreational fishing
regulations to prohibit retention of natural-origin winter-run
steelhead in OP steelhead river basins. The number of natural-origin OP
steelhead that are captured and released is calculated by WDFW via
creel surveys, and it is estimated that catch and release has a 10
percent mortality rate. However, the Petitioners assert that OP
steelhead are potentially being caught and released more than once, for
which mortality rates are unknown.
The Petitioners further support their assertion that the winter-run
OP steelhead populations are over-utilized by summarizing recent
failures to meet harvest management escapement goals. The Petitioners
summarize the proportion of years that harvested natural-origin OP
steelhead met their escapement goals both from Cram et al. (2018) and
updated for more recent years, and assert that many populations are
failing to meet escapement goals (see the Status and Population Trends
section).
In the case of summer-run OP steelhead, the Petitioners note that
current tribal catch is low and that retention of natural-origin
summer-run OP steelhead by recreational anglers has been prohibited for
several decades (since the 1990s). Petitioners provide time-series of
catch data for the late 1970s to 2020 for summer-run OP steelhead but
note that in certain years, hatchery fish were not marked, making it
difficult to distinguish between hatchery-origin and natural-origin
fish. The Petitioners also assert that harvest of natural-origin
summer-run OP steelhead occurred in the Quillayute River through 2006
(based on WDFW records) though catch and release was implemented
beginning in 1993, and the Petitioners assert that the data possibly
represents illegal harvest but they are uncertain. Where they could
distinguish natural-origin from hatchery-origin fish, historical
recreational mean annual harvest of natural-origin summer-run OP
steelhead ranged from 8 to 54 (1985-2006) across Queets, Quillayute,
Hoh, and Quinault Rivers. Harvest of hatchery-origin summer-run OP
steelhead ranged from 15 to 673 fish (years 1986-2016). However, the
Petitioners assert that prior to 1986, hatchery fish were not marked
and harvest of summer-run OP steelhead was higher in the Quillayute (in
the low thousands), Hoh, and Queets (in the hundreds) river basins. The
Petitioners summarize tribal summer-run OP steelhead harvest, but were
unable to distinguish between hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish
for Quillayute, Queets, Hoh, and Quinault Rivers. The mean annual
harvest in those rivers was in the low hundreds, but higher for
Quinault, although the Petitioners question if some of that harvest may
include winter-run kelts (steelhead that survived spawning and return
to the ocean). Though this harvest may be relatively low, the
Petitioners emphasize that summer-run OP steelhead have less
monitoring, low abundance, and lack escapement goals.
Finally, the Petitioners discuss how overutilization may be
reducing OP steelhead life history diversity, putting the population at
further risk. Both the Petitioners and Cram et al. (2018) summarize
that harvest may be effecting the diversity of sizes, ages, and run-
timing. Analysis of scale samples indicated that Tribal fisheries
harvested more of the older fish, whereas the recreational fisheries
harvested more of the younger fish (Cram et al., 2018). The Petitioners
also assert that since the number of treaty fishing days per week
declines throughout the season, this has resulted in greater harvest of
the fish that return in the early part of the run (Cram et al., 2018),
and could result in a shortened breeding season, reduced productivity,
reduced diversity, and a reduction in the adaptive capacity with
changing climate. Finally, the Petitioners express concern about
fishing impacts to rates of iteroparity (rate of fish that spawn more
than once) in OP steelhead and assert that fisheries targeting Chinook
salmon (with incidental harvest of steelhead) and Tribal fisheries for
steelhead in the spring and summer could be impacting kelts that might
otherwise come back to spawn. They speculate that declines in rates of
iteroparity are contributing to OP steelhead population declines.
Based on information provided by the Petitioners, as well as
information readily available in our files, we find past and future
harvest may be posing threats to the continued existence of OP
steelhead.
Disease or Predation
The Petitioners assert that disease and predation pose a risk to
natural-origin steelhead on the Olympic Peninsula. The Petitioners cite
work by Breyta et al. (2013) summarizing detections of the genogroup
(group of related viruses) of infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus
(IHNV) that causes high levels of mortality in steelhead and rainbow
trout, in the Hoh, Queets, Quinault, and
[[Page 8782]]
Quillayute river basins between 2007 to 2011. Though most detections
were in hatchery-origin fish, Breyta et al. (2013) note that although
natural-origin fish are less commonly sampled, there were detections of
this virus in natural-origin fish in the Hoh and Quinault river basins.
No IHNV was detected in 2012, but the future risk of IHNV in OP
steelhead is unknown given known fluctuations of IHNV incidences in
other regions (like Columbia River basin) (Breyta et al., 2013).
Although virus outbreaks are concerning, the extent to which natural-
origin OP steelhead may be threatened by future outbreaks is not clear
based on the information in the petition or otherwise readily
available.
The Petitioners assert that there is increased distribution of
predators in the Dickey River basin likely from increased temperatures,
citing Smith (2000), and that predation risk will likely increase with
decreasing stream flow and increasing water temperature (citing Dalton
et al., 2016). However, information to substantiate the extent that OP
steelhead in particular will be threatened by increased predation is
not provided and is not readily available in our files.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Petitioners also explain that existing regulatory mechanisms
have inadequately protected and restored ecosystems that OP steelhead
depend on, and is therefore a threat to OP steelhead. The Petitioners
assert that the National Forest Management Act, including the
associated Northwest Forest Plan and Aquatic Conservation Strategy
(ACS) and Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Olympic NF
under the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), have not led to anticipated
restored sediment regimes (under which OP steelhead evolved) and they
could not find evidence of increased anadromous fish production, as the
1990 USFS LRMP claimed would occur. Also, they assert that even with
the ACS, Olympic National Forest Strategic Plan, and Road Management
Strategy, there are still hundreds of miles of road that pose a threat
to fish in the Olympic NF, like OP steelhead, and other aquatic
resources (though 435 miles [700.1 km] have been decommissioned).
Furthermore, riparian corridors have not been reestablished with
conifers, which would contribute woody debris to adjacent stream
channels. The Petitioners also question if USFS has included anything
in the ACS in response to climate change, and broadly assert that the
U.S. Government has failed to adequately address climate change.
Finally, the Petitioners discuss how Washington is not meeting EPA
water quality standards for many rivers and streams in OP steelhead
habitat and assert that the Clean Water Act is failing to protect
steelhead because discharge and runoff from logging is not being
adequately regulated.
The Petitioners include information on protections afforded to
other ESA-listed species in the Olympic Peninsula region that could
benefit OP steelhead, and assert that the current status of OP
steelhead indicates these are not sufficient. Multiple rivers and
streams where OP steelhead occur have been designated as bull trout
critical habitat (75 FR 63875-63978, October 18, 2010). Listed species
like bull trout, marbled murrelets, and Northern Spotted Owl occur on
the peninsula, and the USFWS has conducted biological opinions for
Federal actions in this region, including for the Forest Management
Activities in the Olympic NF. However, the Petitioners note that even
with conservation measures in place stemming from the biological
opinions and recommended by USFWS, the USFWS still anticipates adverse
effects to bull trout critical habitat.
The Petitioners also discuss state regulatory mechanisms that can
impact OP steelhead habitat. The Washington Department of National
Resources Trust Lands (DNR) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), including
its Riparian Forest Restoration Strategy, has habitat protections for
riparian buffers and wetland protections, but the Petitioners assert
that loss of woody debris and increased water temperatures is still
occurring. The Washington State Forest Practices (FP) HCP also includes
habitat protections from forestry impacts, but the Petitioners assert
that NMFS and USFWS have voiced concerns that Washington Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) has not adequately followed water typing (not
correctly identifying fish habitat) and monitoring described in the FP
HCP (the Petitioners cite a Letter from Kim Kratz, Assistant Regional
Administrator, NMFS, and Eric V. Rickerson, State Supervisor, USFWS, to
Peter Goldmark, Commissioner of Public Lands, DNR (July 2, 2015)).
The Petitioners also provide information on the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to
assess impacts of major actions and action alternatives on the
environment. According to the Petitioners, because there is no
requirement that Federal agencies pick the alternative with the least
impact, NEPA is inadequate to protect OP steelhead. The State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) has similar requirements at the state
level.
The Petitioners further assert that because OP steelhead are in
decline, that state plans in Washington like the Statewide Steelhead
Management Plan and Hatchery and Fishery Reform Policies, as well as
Harvest Management Plans with the Tribes, are not adequate to protect
OP steelhead. The Petitioners assert that the Steelhead Management Plan
says WDFW should maintain escapement objectives above or at maximum
sustainable harvest for populations with status of ``healthy,'' but
they assert that assessment of status is nearly two decades old for OP
steelhead and recent escapement data shows WDFW is not maintaining this
escapement. They also assert that under the Steelhead Management Plan,
more gene banks should have been established to protect populations of
OP steelhead. In addition, the Petitioners discuss general fishery
management by the state and the impact of fisheries to OP steelhead
(see Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes section).
Petitioners also discuss the inadequacy of hatchery regulatory
mechanisms in Washington State. The Petitioners identify the 2009
Hatchery and Fishery Reform Policy adopted by the Washington Fish and
Wildlife Commission (WFWC), and note that after a SEPA review of this
policy, Hatchery Action Implementation Plans were to be developed for
each hatchery facility. The Petitioners assert that to their knowledge
these plans were never developed or implemented. The 2009 Hatchery and
Fishery Reform Policy outlined multiple guidelines for WDFW hatchery
management including to ``Use the principles, standards, and
recommendations of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) to guide
the management of hatcheries operated by the Department.'' The HSRG was
an independent scientific panel that reviewed Pacific Northwest
hatcheries and developed recommendations for reform. The HSRG completed
its work in 2021. Subsequent review of the 2009 policy (Murdoch and
Marston, 2020), according to the Petitioners, found various issues,
including that there was inadequate information to assess the policy's
effectiveness at protecting wild salmonids, that implementation of
certain guidelines was prevented due to lack of funding, that there is
a lack of state-wide monitoring, and that there is missing data
collection and analysis for adaptive management. The Petitioners state
that the same review (Murdoch and Marston, 2020) found that little
[[Page 8783]]
progress had occurred in implementing HSRG recommendations for
hatcheries on the Bogachiel River on the Olympic Peninsula. WDFW
recently replaced the 2009 hatchery policy with new policy, but the
Petitioners assert that the new plan ``abandons commitments to follow
HSRG guidelines,'' did not undergo SEPA review, is currently under
litigation, and is behind schedule in implementation.
On the other hand, the Petitioners note that within the ONP,
mechanisms like the National Park Service Organic Act, fishing
regulations (catch and release, recent closures), and actions taken by
the National Park Service to reduce impacts of construction and
maintenance, have helped protect OP steelhead and their habitat.
However, based on information provided by the Petitioners and
information readily available in our files, we find that existing
regulatory mechanisms for areas primarily outside of the ONP may not be
adequate to address habitat modification and curtailment,
overutilization, or other anthropogenic factors (hatcheries) that may
be affecting OP steelhead.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The Petitioners provide information on three other natural or
manmade factors that they assert are affecting the continued existence
of OP steelhead: hatcheries, climate change and ocean conditions, and
loss of nutrients.
The Petitioners cite concerns about potential effects of hatchery
production on OP steelhead. In its 1996 review, NMFS noted that past
hatchery practices and practices at the time of the review were a major
threat to the genetic integrity of OP steelhead. The recent review of
OP steelhead from WDFW (Cram et al., 2018) also named hatchery
operations as ``a threat to genetic integrity of wild steelhead
populations'' in the area occupied by OP steelhead. Cram et al. (2018)
stated that, as of 2014, there were 11 hatchery programs on the Olympic
Peninsula with an average annual release of 1,393,022 smolts from 2000
to 2008 and 1,072,781 from 2009 to 2013. Most hatchery programs (10 of
11) are used for harvest augmentation and most of these use stock from
two steelhead populations not native to the Olympic Peninsula--Chambers
Creek early winter and Skamania early summer (the use of which is being
eliminated elsewhere on the West Coast due to impacts on listed
steelhead, see Ford et al., 2022). Of the hatchery programs in the
Olympic Peninsula, five are off-site release programs that transfer
smolts from their natal hatchery to another watershed for release. Cram
et al. (2018) notes that if adults from these programs are not caught
by fisheries, they place natural-origin OP steelhead at risk
genetically and ecologically. As of 2013, an integrated hatchery
program was initiated in the Bogachiel River, while the program on the
Sol Duc River ended and steelhead there are now protected from hatchery
influence by the river's designation as a ``Wild Steelhead Gene Bank''
(Cram et al., 2018).
The Petitioners assert that straying of hatchery-origin steelhead,
and the associated interbreeding and competition between natural-origin
and hatchery-origin steelhead on the Olympic Peninsula, are presenting
genetic risks to natural-origin OP steelhead. The Petitioners also
assert that the harvest of early-running hatchery-origin steelhead on
the Olympic Peninsula is contributing to depletion of early returning
native-origin OP steelhead. The Petitioners cite multiple studies that
report the straying of hatchery steelhead into rivers and streams
occupied by natural-origin OP steelhead. However, the Petitioners note
that little data is available to quantify straying of hatchery winter-
run steelhead and assert that some of the hatcheries in the Queets
River basin and one hatchery in the Quinault River basin do not mark
hatchery fish, which makes it difficult to discern hatchery-origin from
natural-origin fish. Based on snorkel surveys by Brenkman et al. (2012)
and McMillan (2022), the Petitioners assert that there is substantial
straying of summer hatchery-origin steelhead into summer-run OP
steelhead watersheds that do not have hatchery programs, and straying
within the same system of release, but outside of release location (the
proportion of hatchery-origin fish ranged from 0 to 100 percent
depending on the river/stream and year). Weirs and adult traps can be
used to capture hatchery-origin fish, but the Petitioners note a lot of
uncertainty about whether or not these are in use. The Petitioners
conclude that straying of hatchery-origin fish threaten the genetic
integrity of OP steelhead, and pose a great risk to summer-run OP
steelhead given their low abundance.
Where hatchery-origin and natural-origin steelhead co-occur on the
Olympic Peninsula, there is concern about genetic introgression due to
interbreeding, which NMFS stated as a risk to OP steelhead in the 1996
status review (Busby et al., 1996). Estimates of the proportion of
naturally spawning steelhead that were of hatchery-origin ranged from
16 to 44 percent, but with the largest runs (Queets and Quillayute)
having the lowest proportions of hatchery-origin spawners (Busby et
al., 1996). The Petitioners cite the Washington Coast Sustainable
Salmon Plan (2013) for more recent proportions of natural-origin
winter-run OP steelhead spawners. This indicates, assuming that the
rest are hatchery-origin, that the Sooes/Waatch Rivers, Goodman Creek,
Quinault River estimated proportions of hatchery-origin are as much as
50 percent. However, the Dickey River, Klalaloch Creek, Clearwater
River, Moclips River, and Copalis River hatchery-origin steelhead
proportions are only 0-5 percent. Additionally, a 2008 WDFW report
cited by the Petitioners reported gene flow of Chambers Creek hatchery
stock to Hoko, Pysht, and Sol Duc River winter-run steelhead of 5.5 to
14.5 percent, 12 to 75 percent, and 2.5 to 6 percent, respectively. The
Petitioners assert that offspring of hatchery-origin spawners or hybrid
offspring may then compete with natural-origin offspring for food and
habitat.
The Petitioners also assert that hatchery practices have
contributed to a compression of the run timing of winter-run OP
steelhead. Specifically, the Petitioners note that the amount of open
treaty fishery days per week is highest earlier on in the fishing
season to target hatchery returning steelhead, and earlier returning
fish remain in the system for longer periods. Thus, recreational
fisheries (catch and release) may catch early-returners multiple times.
This may contribute to the compressed run-timing of OP steelhead shown
in McMillan et al. (2022). With the potential for greater early-winter
peak flows and more intense summer temperatures in association with
climate change, the Petitioners assert that spawning and rearing
conditions in the future may be more ideal earlier in the season, but
that hatchery and fishery practices with selection of late run timing
are ``blocking the potential for adaptations in migration timing'' for
OP steelhead.
The Petitioners assert that climate change impacts in both the
marine environment and in the terrestrial/freshwater environment will
adversely impact OP steelhead. An assessment by the USFS on climate
change impacts in the Olympic NF and ONP, indicated declines in
freshwater habitat quantity and quality for OP steelhead (Halofsky et
al., 2011).
The Petitioners, citing multiple assessments, summarize the
potential effects of climate change on freshwater habitats and
potential impacts to OP steelhead. Specifically, the Petitioners
summarize that climate change on the
[[Page 8784]]
Olympic Peninsula has or will increase air temperature, melt glaciers,
reduce snowpack, decrease summer precipitation, increase precipitation
at other times of the year, decrease summer stream flow, increase
winter flooding, increase water temperature, and increase sediment
pollution. Halofsky et al. (2011) stated that for steelhead, generally,
because of their long freshwater residency, are likely more sensitive
to climate change effects in freshwater habitats than certain other
salmonids (like ocean-type Chinook, pink, or chum salmon). In a
separate assessment by the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute
(Dalton et al., 2016), the authors note that based on studies in
western Washington, changes in water temperature and stream flow are
the main factors associated with climate change that will impact salmon
and steelhead (Wade et al., 2013). The Petitioners summarize multiple
potential adverse effects to OP steelhead from these two primary
factors due to exposure on the Olympic Peninsula. They assert (citing
various assessments including Dalton et al., 2016 and Halofsky et al.,
2011) that low summer flows will lead to less cold water and holding
pools for migrating adult OP steelhead and thereby potentially lowering
reproductive success; increased winter flow that could reduce survival
of early life stages of steelhead, displace juveniles, and reduce slow-
water habitat for juveniles (which could impact survival); and high
water temperatures that may impact the smoltification process and
growth. Dalton et al. (2016) also summarized work showing that water
temperature may impact the expression of resident vs. anadromous life
history. However, the Petitioners note that OP steelhead may also
realize some benefits from climate change, such as increased food web
productivity and expanded growing seasons (summarized in Halofsky et
al., 2011).
The Petitioners summarize that, in the marine environment, climate
change may impact sea surface temperature, upwelling, ocean
acidification, and dissolved oxygen (resulting in anoxic and hypoxic
events), potentially negatively affecting steelhead survival in the
Pacific Northwest. The Petitioners note that NMFS stated in a recent
review (Ford, 2022) that cyclic ocean conditions will likely be
disrupted by climate change resulting in more low productivity years
for salmonids. In general, salmonid abundance is correlated with
decadal-scale environmental variability. The Petitioners assert that it
is unclear if salmonids will continue to persist with shifts in marine
conditions in combination with other threats. The Petitioners assert
that climate change in the marine environment will likely also reduce
forage fish prey for steelhead generally. Finally, a study by Abdul-
Aziz et al. (2011) predicted an 8 to 43 percent contraction of
steelhead species' marine habitat due to climate change between the
2020s and 2080s.
As an additional threat, the Petitioners assert that the loss of
marine-derived nutrients from declines of other salmonids in Olympic
Peninsula rivers is likely limiting OP steelhead productivity through
impacts to smolt survival. Information on whether, how, and to what
extent nutrient declines are impacting OP steelhead specifically was
limited.
Based on information provided by the Petitioners and information
readily available in our files, we find that hatcheries and climate
change may be posing threats to the continued existence of OP
steelhead.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information in the petition, the literature
cited in the petition, and other information readily available in our
files, we find there is substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action to list OP steelhead
as a threatened or endangered DPS under the ESA may be warranted.
Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS'
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)), we will commence a
status review to determine whether OP steelhead constitute a DPS, and,
if so, whether OP steelhead is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range, or is likely to become so within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, within 12 months
of the receipt of the petition (August 1, 2023), we will make a finding
as to whether listing the OP steelhead DPS as an endangered or
threatened species is warranted. If listing is warranted, we will
publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing
and publishing a final rule.
Information Solicited
To ensure that our status review is informed by the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are opening a 60-day public comment
period to solicit comments and information on OP steelhead. We request
information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Native
American tribes, the scientific community, agricultural and forestry
groups, conservation groups, fishing groups, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning the current and/or historical status of
OP steelhead. Specifically, we request information regarding: (1)
species abundance; (2) species productivity; (3) species distribution
or population spatial structure; (4) patterns of phenotypic, genotypic,
and life history diversity; (5) habitat conditions and associated
limiting factors and threats; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect
and restore the species and their habitats; (7) information on the
adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, whether protections are
being implemented, and whether they are proving effective in conserving
the species; (8) data concerning the status and trends of identified
limiting factors or threats; (9) information on targeted harvest
(tribal, commercial, and recreational) and incidental harvest of the
species; (10) other relevant new information, data, or corrections
including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes; (11)
information concerning the impacts of environmental variability and
climate change on survival, recruitment, distribution, and/or
extinction risk; and (12) information on interactions or relationships
between different steelhead life history forms in the Olympic
Peninsula, such as anadromous and resident steelhead, or between
hatchery-origin and natural-origin steelhead.
We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) supporting
documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of
pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, and any
association, institution, or business that the person represents.
Please send any comments in accordance with the instructions provided
in the ADDRESSES section above. We will base our findings on a review
of the best available scientific and commercial information available,
including all information received during the public comment period.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
[[Page 8785]]
Dated: February 6, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-02849 Filed 2-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 10, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.