Rule2026-00581
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Olympic Peninsula Steelhead Distinct Population Segment 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
January 14, 2026
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review for the Olympic Peninsula (OP) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, in response to a petition to list this species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have determined that OP steelhead is a DPS under the ESA and that listing is not warranted at this time. Accordingly, NMFS will continue to monitor the OP steelhead DPS status, including working closely with Tribal and State co-managers.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1449-1461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-00581]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 260109-0027; RTID 0648-XR124]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Olympic Peninsula Steelhead Distinct
Population Segment Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review for the
Olympic Peninsula (OP) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of steelhead,
Oncorhynchus mykiss, in response to a petition to list this species as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We
have determined that OP steelhead is a DPS under the ESA and that
listing is not warranted at this time. Accordingly, NMFS will continue
to monitor the OP steelhead DPS status, including working closely with
Tribal and State co-managers.
DATES: This finding was made available on January 14, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The petition, status review, Federal Register notices, and
the list of references can be accessed electronically online at:
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/steelhead-trout">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/steelhead-trout</a>. The peer review
plan and charge to peer reviewers are available at <a href="https://www.noaa.gov/information-technology/biological-status-of-olympic-peninsula-steelhead-distinct-population-segment-dps-id478">https://www.noaa.gov/information-technology/biological-status-of-olympic-peninsula-steelhead-distinct-population-segment-dps-id478</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Markle, NMFS West Coast Region,
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92e0fdf0f7e0e6bcfff3e0f9fef7d2fcfdf3f3bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2d0cdc0c7d0d68ccfc3d0c9cec7e2cccdc3c38cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>, (971) 710-8155.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 1, 2022, we received a petition from The Conservation
Angler and Wild Fish Conservancy (hereafter, the Petitioners) to list
the OP steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) DPS as a threatened or
endangered species under the ESA. On February 10, 2023, we published a
positive 90-day finding (88 FR 8774) announcing that the petition
presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted. We also announced the
initiation of a status review of the species, as required by section
4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, and requested information to inform the agency's
decision on whether this species warrants listing as threatened or
endangered.
[[Page 1450]]
Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act
To make a determination whether a species is threatened or
endangered under the ESA, we first consider whether it constitutes a
``species'' as defined under section 3 of the ESA, then whether the
status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or
endangered. Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a
species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any
vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). 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 evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) policy (ESU
Policy; 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991) 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 (species or
subspecies). A group of organisms is discrete if it is ``markedly
separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors.''
Significance is measured with respect to the taxon. Considerations for
significance include but do not necessarily require the following:
1. Persistence of the DPS in an ecological setting unusual or
unique for the taxon,
2. Evidence that loss of the DPS would result in a significant gap
in the range of a taxon,
3. Evidence that the DPS represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historic range, or
4. Evidence that the DPS differs markedly from other populations of
the species in its genetic characteristics.
In 2006, NMFS changed its previous practice of applying the ESU
Policy to delineate species of O. mykiss 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 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. 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 (the petitioned entity) were not
addressed in the 2005 status review (Good et al., 2005) nor in
subsequent listings (71 FR 833, January 5, 2006).
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as one ``which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Thus, in the
context of the ESA, we interpret an endangered species to be one that
is presently in danger of extinction, while a threatened species is not
currently in danger of extinction but is likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. The primary statutory difference between a
threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species is in
danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or not presently
but within the foreseeable future (threatened).
When we consider whether a species qualifies as threatened under
the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term ``foreseeable
future.'' This is described in 50 CFR 42.11(d) as follows: ``In
determining whether a species is a threatened species, the Services
must analyze whether the species is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future. The foreseeable future extends
as far into the future as the Services can make reasonably reliable
predictions about the threats to the species and the species' responses
to those threats. The Services will describe the foreseeable future on
a case-by-case basis, using the best available data and taking into
account considerations such as the species' life-history
characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental
variability. The Services need not identify the foreseeable future in
terms of a specific period of time.''
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether a
species is endangered or threatened as a result of any one, or a
combination of, the following factors: (A) the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). We are also
required to make listing determinations based solely on the best
scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of
the species' status and after taking into account efforts, if any,
being made by any state or foreign nation (or subdivision thereof) to
protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)).
Life History of West Coast Steelhead
Steelhead is the name commonly applied to the anadromous form of
the biological species O. mykiss. The present distribution of steelhead
extends from Kamchatka in Asia, east to Alaska, and 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 alternative 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 (steelhead that survive spawning
and return to the ocean are known as kelts), whereas other Pacific
salmonid species are principally semelparous (meaning individuals
predominately 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 known as
``runs,'' which are usually named for the season in which the peak
occurs. Rivers can contain one or more runs of winter-, spring-,
summer-, or fall-run steelhead. In basins with both summer-run and
winter-run steelhead, the summer run generally occurs where habitat is
not fully utilized by the winter run or where a temporal hydrologic
barrier, such as a waterfall, separates them. Summer-run steelhead
usually spawn farther upstream than winter-run steelhead (Withler 1966;
Roelofs 1983; Behnke 1992; Myers et al., 2015).
[[Page 1451]]
Previous 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, which was
prior to the practice of using the DPS Policy to delineate steelhead
populations, NMFS identified an OP steelhead ESU comprised of
populations that occupy ``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 was primarily made up of winter-run steelhead but also
included several summer-run steelhead populations (Busby et al., 1996).
At the time, NMFS included the resident O. mykiss below long-standing
natural barriers in the ESU because of the opportunity for residents to
interbreed with anadromous life history forms. In determining OP
steelhead as an ESU, Busby et al. (1996) stated:
Genetic data collected by Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife support the hypothesis that, as a group, steelhead populations
from the Olympic Peninsula are substantially isolated from those in
other regions of western Washington. The Olympic Peninsula ESU is
further characterized by habitat, climatic, and zoogeographical
differences between it and adjacent ESUs. The Olympic Peninsula
includes coastal basins that receive more precipitation than any other
area in the range of west coast steelhead. Topography on the Olympic
Peninsula is characterized by much greater relief than that to the
south (Willapa Hills); the Olympic Mountains range from 1,200 to 2,400
meters above sea level. This affects precipitation quantity and river-
basin hydrography. The result is ``copious amounts of rain and over 100
inches of snow during the winter months'' as well as substantial summer
precipitation (Jackson 1993, p. 50-51) [Figure 3, Figure 4]. One
manifestation of the ecological difference between Puget Sound and the
Olympic Peninsula is the shift in vegetation zone, respectively, from
western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) to Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)
(Frenkel 1993).
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 positive at the time
of the 1996 review, including for three of the four largest
populations, several other populations had downward trends, and for
three populations this decline was statistically significant. NMFS
noted concerns that hatchery fish were widespread, and interbreeding
between natural and hatchery fish could reduce the genetic diversity of
natural-origin OP steelhead. NMFS also stated that there was a great
deal of uncertainty about the overall health of the ESU because little
information exists about the summer-run steelhead stocks, including run
size trends 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).
Updated Status Review
To ensure that our review was based on the best available and most
recent scientific information, we solicited information during a 60-day
public comment period regarding the DPS structure and extinction risk
of, and efforts being made to protect, OP steelhead (88 FR 8774,
February 10, 2023). We also convened a status review team (SRT) to
review the best available scientific and commercial information
regarding the DPS structure and extinction risk of steelhead in the
areas previously identified as the range of OP steelhead and consistent
with the scope of the listing petition. Specifically, the SRT addressed
(1) if the population fits the definition of a DPS and whether the
geographic boundaries previously identified in the past NMFS review
(Busby et al., 1996) warrant re-delineation or refinement, (2) the
relation of hatchery programs propagating steelhead to the defined DPS,
(3) current threats faced by the DPS, and (4) the level of extinction
risk of the DPS throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
The status review presents the SRT's professional judgment of the
extinction risk facing OP steelhead but makes no recommendation as to
the listing status of the species. The status review (OP Steelhead SRT
2024) is available electronically (see ADDRESSES).
The status review was subject to independent peer review pursuant
to the Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The status
review was peer-reviewed by two independent scientists selected from
the academic and scientific community with expertise in salmonid
biology, conservation, and management, and specific knowledge of
steelhead. Guidance suggests three reviewers (59 FR 34270; July 1,
1994), and we contacted multiple other experts in the field, but all
were not available. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the
adequacy, appropriateness, and application of data used in the status
review, as well as the findings made in the ``Risk Assessment'' section
of the report. Peer reviewer comments were addressed prior to
finalizing the status review.
We subsequently reviewed the status review, its cited references,
and peer review comments, and concluded that the status review upon
which this determination is based, with additions from more recent
publications and updated data (including a recent report completed by
Tribal and State co-managers), provides the best available scientific
and commercial information on OP steelhead. Much of the information
discussed below on the DPS configuration, demographics, threats, and
extinction risk is attributable to the status review (OP Steelhead SRT
2024). We have applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, including
evaluation of the factors set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E), our
regulations regarding listing determinations, and relevant policies
identified herein in making the listing determination. In the sections
below, we provide information from the report (supplemented with
updates since the publication of the status review) regarding threats
to and the status of OP steelhead.
Review of `Species' Delineation
Steelhead in the Olympic Peninsula exhibit two distinct anadromous
life history strategies: summer-run (stream maturing) and winter-run
migrations, in addition to estuarine and freshwater resident life
histories (Kendall et al., 2015). We relied upon the Salmon and
Steelhead Stock Inventory (Washington Department of Fisheries et al.,
1993), Busby et al. (1996), and information from State and Tribal co-
managers (COPSWG 2023) to provide a provisional list of winter-run and
summer-run populations for analysis. The SRT identified 11 summer-run
populations and 30 winter-run steelhead populations in the previously
defined range of OP steelhead (see table 2 in OP Steelhead SRT 2024).
Winter-run steelhead are found throughout the OP in smaller independent
streams that drain directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in
larger rivers and their tributaries that drain into the Pacific Ocean
(including Queets, Hoh, Quinault, and Quillayute). In the
[[Page 1452]]
Olympic Peninsula, winter-run steelhead predominate. Summer-run
steelhead are currently reported for portions of the largest four river
systems draining into the Pacific Ocean: Quinault (East Fork, North
Fork, and main stem), Queets (mainstem, Clearwater), Hoh (South Fork
Hoh), and Quillayute (Bogachiel, Sol Duc, Sitkum, and Calawah) (Cram et
al., 2018). Summer-run steelhead are not currently reported for rivers
along the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Historically there was a population
reported in the Lyre River (McHenry et al., 1996; Goin 2009).
The SRT concluded that the best available scientific information
did not warrant a reconsideration of the previously described
geographic boundaries for OP steelhead. Busby et al. (1996) defined OP
steelhead to include watersheds to the west of the Elwha River and
north of Grays Harbor. The data contributing to the findings evaluating
the genetic diversity in O. mykiss in Busby et al. (1996) were from a
combination of studies that used genetic variation to delineate
patterns of diversity and differentiation among O. mykiss from
California to British Columbia, including both inland and coastal
collections. A number of studies have been published since that time
(Phelps et al., 1997; Kassler et al., 2010, 2011), and by request from
the SRT, WDFW and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC)
embarked on an updated analysis of all genetic data that have been
collected to date on O. mykiss in the range of OP steelhead (Seamons
and Spidle 2023). Samples analyzed by Seamons and Spidle (2023) ranged
from collections taken from 1994 through 2021 and included both
hatchery and natural-origin steelhead, and many collections that had
been previously analyzed (Kassler et al., 2010, 2011; Phelps et al.,
1997). Though the major coastal streams in the range of OP steelhead
are represented in the data, many of the collections used for analyses
are decades old, and some of the smaller streams located on the coast
and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, as well as most of the summer-run
steelhead-occupied streams, are not represented.
Seamons and Spidle (2023) evaluated the genetic relationships
between O. mykiss populations on the Olympic Peninsula and surrounding
regions. Generally, the natural-origin OP steelhead genetic collections
from streams sampled show very little genetic differentiation from one
another. The major coastal streams along the Pacific coast, which have
the best coverage of samples, particularly show little to no
significant genetic differentiation. This finding supports the idea
that there is a genetic exchange between populations on the coast and
is consistent with results from other studies (Kassler et al., 2010 and
2011; Phelps et al., 1997; Reisenbechler and Phelps 1985). Based on
genetic data, the southern boundary of OP steelhead, north of Grays
Harbor (previously defined by Busby et al., 1996), is supported by
genetic differentiation from populations in southwest Washington. Very
few samples from within the range of OP steelhead have been collected
from the small streams draining into the Strait of Juan de Fuca; only
the Pysht and Lyre River collections from the 1990s have been used for
genetic analyses. Though there is clear genetic differentiation between
OP steelhead and the Puget Sound steelhead DPS overall, more recent
collections would be needed to get a definitive understanding of the
genetic differentiation among steelhead populations on the Olympic
Peninsula and, in particular, the genetic differentiation in the Strait
of Juan de Fuca between the streams to the west of the Elwha River and
the Elwha River and east (in the Puget Sound DPS). Therefore, we have
no new genetic information that would indicate that the current
boundaries for OP steelhead should be modified from those determined by
Busby et al. (1996). A resident population of O. mykiss exists in Lake
Crescent, isolated by a series of impassable cascades, and is notably
genetically different from all other O. mykiss sampled. This endemic
local form of resident rainbow trout, known as the Beardslee trout (see
Brenkman et al., 2014 for a review), was not considered by the SRT as
part of the OP steelhead populations.
Findings from the SRT (OP Steelhead SRT 2024) and from Busby et al.
(1996) directly inform our species delineation under the joint DPS
Policy. First, Busby et al. (1996) found that the OP is characterized
by habitat, climatic, and zoogeographical differences between it and
the adjacent regions of western Washington and that genetic data
collected supported the hypothesis that, as a group, steelhead
populations from the OP are substantially isolated from populations in
other regions. More recent genetic information reviewed by the SRT (OP
Steelhead SRT 2024) continues to indicate that OP steelhead are
isolated from other regions (as discussed above). These observations
regarding separation/isolation similarly satisfy the discreteness
criterion under the joint DPS Policy, as OP steelhead are markedly
separated from other such populations of O. mykiss due to physical and
ecological factors.
Similar factors also satisfy the significance criterion of the DPS
Policy. As stated above, Busby et al. (1996) described the unique
ecological region occupied by OP steelhead, including that the Olympic
Peninsula receives more precipitation than any other area in the range
of west coast steelhead. Occupation of a unique ecological region
satisfies a DPS criterion for significance. Loss of steelhead from the
OP region would also represent a significant gap in the range of the
species. Finally, as discussed above, OP steelhead are genetically
distinct from the steelhead found in neighboring regions in Southwest
Washington and the Puget Sound. Therefore, the loss of OP steelhead
would be a significant loss to the genetic diversity of the taxon.
Based on the SRT's findings on new genetic information summarized
above, the previous considerations of OP steelhead as an ESU, and our
considerations under the joint DPS Policy, we conclude that OP
steelhead meet the significance and discreteness criteria and warrant
delineation as a DPS. Consistent with previous findings under the ESU
policy, the geographic boundaries of the OP steelhead DPS continue to
include winter- and summer-run steelhead runs occupying river basins of
the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, west of the Elwha River (excluded)
and south to Grays Harbor (excluded) on the Washington coast.
DPS Membership of Resident O. mykiss
The SRT concluded that the contribution of resident (non-migratory)
O. mykiss to the productivity and genetic diversity in anadromous O.
mykiss is currently unknown for OP steelhead, and there is no existing
information on the genetic diversity and differentiation of resident
versus migratory O. mykiss in OP steelhead range. Studies of O. mykiss
in the southern portion of the species' range have identified a major
genome region associated with migration and residency in O. mykiss
(Nichols et al., 2008; Hale et al., 2014; Pearse et al., 2019), but
later research on O. mykiss in the Elwha River contradicted these
earlier studies, finding no association between genetic variation at
this region and migration or residency (Fraik et al., 2021). Diversity
in this region of the genome has not been examined in OP steelhead. The
association of this part of the genome with migration and residency is
not consistent across the range northward and inland, where the
resident DNA variant for this genome region increases in frequency in
both anadromous
[[Page 1453]]
(migratory) and resident O. mykiss (Pearse et al., 2019; Weinstein et
al., 2019). However, there is additional evidence for genetic
differences between resident and anadromous O. mykiss related to smolt
transformation (Nichols et al., 2008), metabolism (Sloat and Reeves
2014), and growth (Kelson et al., 2020), and further evidence for
genetic divergence between the two life history forms (Narum et al.,
2004).
Resident and anadromous forms can interbreed, but the extent to
which this occurs in the Olympic Peninsula is unknown. It has been
demonstrated that below long-standing barriers, resident fish can
contribute to the anadromous population, and the resident form can be
derived from the anadromous form (Zimmerman and Reeves 2000; Pascual et
al., 2011; Thrower et al., 2004, Kendall et al., 2015). Resident fish
are known to be present in the watersheds of the Olympic Peninsula, but
there have been limited efforts to quantify their abundance and
demographic relationship with the anadromous form across the OP region.
Notably, the DPS Policy says, ``the standard adopted [for discreteness]
does not require absolute separation of a DPS from other members of its
species, because this can rarely be demonstrated in nature for any
population of organisms. . . . [T]he standard adopted allows for some
limited interchange among population segments considered to be
discrete, so that loss of an interstitial population could well have
consequences for gene flow and demographic stability of a species as a
whole'' (61 FR 4722, 4724; February 7, 1996).
Physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral differences
between resident and anadromous life forms continue to be apparent, as
similarly detailed in previous steelhead listings. The 2006 listing of
multiple steelhead DPSs (71 FR 834; January 5, 2006) detailed
fundamental biological differences between resident and anadromous
forms of steelhead, including differences in prey, predators, size
(anadromous are larger), fecundity (anadromous produce more eggs),
smoltification process, and migratory strategy. A primary difference
between the two life forms is that the resident fish complete their
life cycle solely in freshwater while the anadromous fish migrate to
the ocean. Additionally, work in a limited number of rivers in the
Olympic Peninsula found that the two life history forms varied in their
arrival timing in spawning reaches, with anadromous males primarily
entering in late winter/early spring and resident males in late spring/
early summer (McMillan et al., 2007). Resident males were more common
than anadromous males in upper reaches (though both overlapped in time
and space with anadromous females), and the two life forms showed
differences in mating behavior tactics. Also, the genetic differences
related to growth and metabolism result in physical and physiological
differences (larger size at a younger age in resident fish, higher
metabolic costs in anadromous fish; see review by Kendall et al.,
2015).
Based on the best available information, the SRT found, and we
agree, that the resident and anadromous forms are markedly separate in
physical, physiological, and ecological factors. There is some evidence
of genetic differences between anadromous and resident populations,
though this has not been studied specifically in the range of OP
steelhead. Additionally, though there can be physical overlap between
the two forms, and interbreeding and gene flow can occur, discreteness
under the DPS Policy does not require no overlap whatsoever. Therefore,
under the DPS Policy, the resident form is discrete from the anadromous
form and is not part of the OP steelhead DPS.
DPS Membership of Hatchery-Origin Steelhead
On July 28, 2005, NMFS released a policy on the inclusion of
hatchery-origin fish in the ESA listing determinations for Pacific
salmon and steelhead ESUs [or DPS in the case of steelhead but not
specified] (70 FR 37204). This policy states that ``[i]n delineating an
ESU [or DPS] to be considered for listing, NMFS will identify all
components of the ESU, including populations of natural fish (natural
populations) and hatchery stocks that are part of the ESU. Hatchery
stocks with a level of genetic divergence relative to the local natural
population(s) that is no more than what occurs within the ESU: (a) are
considered part of the ESU; (b) will be considered in determining
whether an ESU should be listed under the ESA; and (c) will be included
in any listing of the ESU.''
The SRT summarized what is currently known about the genetic
distinction between natural-origin and hatchery-origin steelhead in the
Olympic Peninsula. Few studies have been undertaken to specifically
evaluate the influence of hatchery stocks on natural-origin steelhead
in the Olympic Peninsula. Kassler et al. (2010, 2011) used DNA
sequences in an evaluation of the genetic diversity among natural- and
hatchery-origin steelhead from coastal collections of OP steelhead,
including the Hoh, South Fork Hoh, Sol Duc, Calawah, and Bogachiel
Rivers, as well as hatchery-origin steelhead from four Olympic
Peninsula hatcheries. For the most part, Kassler et al. (2010, 2011)
failed to find significant introgression (transfer of genetic material
from one population to another) of hatchery steelhead with natural-
origin OP steelhead, except in the 2008 South Fork Hoh River winter
collection, which shows evidence of interbreeding with the Cook Creek
hatchery collection. This same finding was reported by Seamons and
Spidle (2023) in a reanalysis of the samples with newer data (but note
some of these data are outdated and not comprehensive for the entire
DPS). Furthermore, samples were taken from sites with minimal hatchery
influence to be more representative of natural populations. In the 2009
and 2010 Hoh River winter collections, these steelhead were more
similar to other OP natural-origin steelhead collections (see Seamons
and Spidle 2023). Also, DNA analyses (Kassler et al., 2010, 2011;
Seamons et al., 2017) showed presumed natural-origin population samples
with mixed ancestry (that includes genetic information from non-native
early-winter and early-summer run steelhead) however, natural-origin
fish were still overall genetically distinct from hatchery broodstock.
Seamons and Spidle (2023), in their more recent genetic analysis,
included three hatchery stocks that currently propagate and release
juvenile steelhead in Olympic Peninsula streams: Chambers Creek early
winter steelhead (Puget Sound origin), Skamania early hatchery summer
steelhead (Lower Columbia River origin), and Cook Creek early winter
steelhead (putatively Olympic Peninsula origin). The majority (9 of 11)
of hatcheries are operated as segregated programs, so they should
retain their own genetic identity. While the early winter Chamber Creek
Hatchery and early summer Skamania Hatchery stocks are derived from
out-of-DPS sources and are therefore genetically distinct and not
considered part of the DPS, the origin of the Cook Creek/Quinault
National Fish Hatchery stock is unclear. There are limited data on if
Cook Creek stock is similar to natural stocks. Furthermore, although
current sampling for genetic analysis provides limited coverage of the
DPS, there is some indication that hatchery stocks in the Queets and
Quinault Rivers are not representative of the natural populations in
those watersheds (HSRG 2004; Kassler et al., 2012; Seamons et al.,
2017). For the two integrated programs (Quinault Lake and
[[Page 1454]]
Salmon River), the broodstocks were founded by Quinault Lake winter-run
steelhead, but with uncertainty about origin (see OP Steelhead SRT
2024; Marston and Huff 2022). In Seamons and Spidle (2023), none of the
hatchery stock samples grouped with samples taken from presumptive
natural-origin OP steelhead in a cluster analysis (statistical analysis
where samples are grouped based on genetic similarity). This analysis
also showed some evidence of hatchery influence on the natural-origin
steelhead in OP streams in historical collections. Individuals
collected from the Lyre and Pysht Rivers (in 1995 and 1994,
respectively) in the Strait of Juan de Fuca are similar to Chambers
Creek hatchery winter steelhead, and individuals collected from the Hoh
River in 2008 appear to have been influenced by Skamania summer
steelhead hatchery individuals (Seamons and Spidle 2023). Newer
collections would be needed to assess the influence of past and extant
hatchery releases on the genetic diversity and provenance of natural-
origin O. mykiss, particularly since the termination of or modification
of hatchery programs and releases that occurred relatively recently.
Finally, out-of-DPS hatchery stocks were possibly selected by local
resource managers because of differences in the run and spawn timing
between the hatchery broodstocks and the native populations; therefore,
the hatchery-origin steelhead exhibit a unique life history compared to
the natural-origin steelhead.
Based on the SRT's conclusions, we conclude that where genetic
information is available, hatchery steelhead stocks are genetically
distinct from co-occurring natural-origin steelhead populations,
indicating a level of genetic divergence relative to local natural
populations greater than what occurs within the OP steelhead DPS. The
SRT also found that the best available information suggests the
hatchery stocks were founded with out-of-DPS stocks and/or out-of-DPS
stocks were incorporated later, and, therefore, we conclude that the
hatchery stocks are not included as part of the DPS.
Determination of ``Species''
Based on the best available information, we find that natural-
origin steelhead (anadromous life history) occupying river basins of
the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, west of the Elwha River (excluded)
and south to Grays Harbor (excluded) on the Washington coast, are a DPS
and constitute a species under the ESA. Furthermore, we find that none
of the steelhead hatchery stocks within the geographic range of OP
steelhead meets the criteria to be considered part of the OP steelhead
DPS.
Assessment of Extinction Risk
The SRT synthesized the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the DPS's status, which includes its life history,
demographic trends, and susceptibility to threats, and evaluated the
extinction risk of the DPS. The SRT included in its assessment an
evaluation of the likely effects of hatchery-origin fish on the
viability of the DPS. Additionally, the SRT assessed demographic
components and threats that contribute to the uncertainty of the status
of OP steelhead. Here we summarize information of status and threats,
identifying uncertainties throughout. Following publication of the
Status Review report (OP Steelhead SRT 2024), the Tribal and State co-
managers provided a review of the SRT report, highlighting additional
uncertainties in the status and threats related to OP steelhead.
Demographic Risk Analysis
The SRT identified 11 summer-run populations and 30 winter-run
populations in the DPS (see table 2 in OP Steelhead SRT 2024).
Steelhead on the Olympic Peninsula are most abundant in the major
Pacific coastal basins of the Quinault, Quillayute, Queets, and Hoh
Rivers (collectively, the ``four major basins''), and less abundant in
rivers along the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Winter-run steelhead,
presently and historically, are more abundant in the smaller drainages
and are distributed more ubiquitously throughout the Olympic Peninsula
than summer-run steelhead (Houston and Contour 1983; Scott and Gill
2008; Cram et al., 2018).
The SRT, utilizing data previously provided by Washington State and
Tribal co-managers (collectively, ``co-managers''), estimated that
total run size (abundance) for winter-run in the four major basins has
decreased by 42 percent, from 32,556 (1991-1995) to 18,821 (2018-2022).
Using combined escapement estimates as additional information on
abundance, escapement in the four major basins has decreased by 16
percent from 18,597 (1991-1995) (Busby et al., 1996) to a current level
of 15,653 (2018-2022). Adequate escapement data (i.e., more than a few
years of dispersed data) were not available to complete trend analysis
for all winter-run populations. Of the 14 populations for which
adequate escapement data were available for trend analysis (of 30 total
winter-run populations), 1 had a stable trend and 13 were negative (10
significantly negatively different from 0). Analysis of the four major
basins by WDFW indicated that total run size had nearly halved in size
from the late 1970s and 1980s to 2022, while the trend in escapements
was slightly declining or stable (Harbison et al., 2022). Notably,
adequate information was not available for 16 of 30 winter-run
populations.
The most recent 15-year spawner abundance trend estimates (2008-
2022) indicate that 5 of the 15 populations that we have 15-year trend
estimates for across the entire range had negative trends, mainly for
the larger rivers that account for the largest proportion of the DPS.
Of those negative trends, 4 were significantly different from 0,
including the larger Queets River and Bogachiel River (part of the
Quillayute River system) winter-run populations. Positive recent 15-
year trends were observed in 8 of the 15 populations. The positive
trends in two of the populations were significant, specifically the
trends for the smaller Pysht River and East Twin River winter-run
populations along the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Under dramatically
reduced harvest conditions experienced in the last 3 years for winter-
run populations in the four major basins, total run size appears to
have stabilized or increased slightly. Though recent years may exhibit
some stabilization in the 15-year spawner abundance estimates, the
long-term trends still suggest long-term decline.
Factors related to how these abundances are estimated lead to
biases and uncertainty in the estimates. Escapement abundance was
estimated using redd (salmon nests) counts from after March 15 only,
assuming that redds after March 15 are produced by natural-origin, not
hatchery-origin, fish. However, steelhead spawn prior to March 15, and
evidence suggests that both natural-origin (unmarked) and hatchery-
origin steelhead contribute to this pre-cutoff date production (Marston
and Huff 2022). Overall, from an abundance perspective, current
estimates of escapement may underestimate natural production, and early
natural-origin spawners may represent an additional 10 percent increase
in overall abundance (Marston and Huff 2022). The relative contribution
of hatchery-origin versus natural-origin spawners prior to March 15
varies with changes in harvest effort and timing and the intensity,
location, and timing of hatchery releases, creating variable bias in
abundance estimates depending on the year and/or river basin. Further,
there is uncertainty in
[[Page 1455]]
the use of redd counts to derive spawner abundances, specifically
regarding assumptions of redd-to-adult ratios and the accuracy of redd
observations, which can bias estimates either high or low (see
Gallagher et al., 2007, 2010; Dauphin et al., 2010; Murdoch et al.,
2018). The WDFW coastal steelhead proviso plan (Harbison et al., 2022)
also points out other information about redd spawning surveys that
could over- or under-estimate spawner abundances.
There was less data available for summer-run steelhead in the OP
steelhead DPS. Information was limited to past and present harvests
(based on run timing, we assumed that steelhead caught between April
and October were summer-run steelhead) and intermittent snorkel surveys
carried out in the last two decades. It is possible that some of the
fish caught in the spring are winter-run kelts (repeat spawners).
Likewise, fish caught in October could be very early returning winter-
run fish. Summer-run steelhead are currently present in the Quillayute
(Sol Duc, Calawah, and Bogachiel Rivers), Hoh, Queets, and Quinault
Rivers. Based on historical summer-run harvest data, it appears that,
prior to the releases of hatchery-origin summer-run fish, many of the
rivers supported runs of several hundred natural-origin summer-run
fish. Further, it is unclear if a remnant summer-run population still
exists in the Lyre River (McHenry et al., 1996; Goin 2009).
Based on snorkel surveys, recent summer-run steelhead abundances in
individual rivers likely range from less than a hundred to a few
hundred adults, though potentially into the thousands for Sol Duc River
and Quinault River, with considerable uncertainty in these estimates.
Based on riverscape surveys, the average estimated abundance across
rivers was 66 breeding fish per year, or roughly a breeding population
size of approximately 260 per river, assuming a 4-year generation time.
The co-managers also developed abundance estimates for summer steelhead
populations in the Hoh, Quillayute, and Quinault River systems and
estimated summer-run median abundance at 90 to over 550 individuals per
river but with ranges extending from low hundreds to approximately
1,350 depending on the river (Co-Manager OP Steelhead Working Group
[COPSWG] 2023; and see table 8 in the status review). Therefore, there
is substantial uncertainty in the current abundances of summer-run
populations, but they are likely at low abundance.
Few measures of productivity are available for natural populations.
Modeling conducted by the SRT indicates that in most years fishing
mortality in the four major basins was greater than the intrinsic
growth rate (natural population growth based on births minus natural
deaths), which will result in declining populations. Only a small
minority of years in each population were judged to have population
growth greater than zero. Estimates of population growth rate for the
smaller populations along the Strait also indicate that, on average,
past harvest was depressing growth rates. However, the effect of past
harvest was more subtle than in the four major basins on the coast;
these Strait populations have not rebounded in the 10 or so years since
harvest was terminated. The four major basins (Queets, Hoh, Quinault,
and Quillayute), which contain the majority of the DPS abundance,
exhibited diminished productivity as indicated by below-replacement
population growth rates in most years and declining short- and long-
term trends in natural-origin escapement and total run size.
Smolt survival (both natural and hatchery) has decreased since the
1980s (Harbison et al., 2022). Certain analyses point to correlations
with oceanographic processes and other environmental factors (COPSWG
2023; Ohlberger et al., 2025), but those correlations were studied only
in the four major basins within the DPS range. Similarly, the survival
of kelts in the four major basins has declined by nearly half since the
1980s, with some evidence pointing to similar factors as with the smolt
declines (COPSWG 2023).
OP steelhead currently occupy nearly their entire historical range
because they lie in a region of the west coast that is not impacted by
dams or other major artificial passage blockages, though there are
multiple smaller culverts and barriers. State, county, and forest road
stream crossings may block or impair passage at culverts, which may
reduce spatial structure. However, in general, road culverts block
tributary access to relatively small areas of spawning and rearing
habitats, and collectively they do not appear to be a major limitation
on habitat. Impassable culverts on state roads are required to be
upgraded under the 2013 U.S. District Court Injunction (U.S. v. WA
Culvert Case), whereas forestry road culverts are covered under the
Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan (RMAP). Considerable progress has
been made in replacing culverts in the past decade, especially under
the RMAP process where over 80 percent of culverts are now fish-
passable. Still, some additional culverts exist that are not included
within the RMAP (NWIFC 2020). Consequently, the SRT generally viewed
current population connectivity as good; i.e., no barriers that prevent
access to significant juvenile rearing or adult spawning habitat.
The potential exists for future restrictions in spatial structure
with present and future environmental variability due to low summer
flows that may limit passage to headwater areas. Future projections for
flow and temperature into the foreseeable future suggest that low-flow
or high water-temperature barriers may develop and create temporal
passage blockages, which would disproportionately affect spatial extent
for summer-run steelhead. Changes in summer flows, with some reaches
going dry, directly affect summer-run steelhead in their ability to
reach their headwater spawning reaches. The upstream spatial extent of
the DPS is influenced by the presence of summer-run populations in the
larger river systems. Generally, but not necessarily, summer-run
steelhead return-timing is coordinated with river flow patterns and
temporal flow windows that allow access to headwater spawning areas;
thus, summer-run steelhead access some spawning and rearing habitat
that is unavailable to winter-run steelhead. However, over 99.3 percent
of summer-run habitat is also winter-run habitat. In other words, of
the habitat utilized by summer-run, only about 0.7 percent is summer-
run only. Given the generally good connectivity and lack of
anthropogenic barriers overall, as well as that summer-run spatial
extent largely overlaps with winter-run, the SRT concluded the risk to
the viability of OP steelhead from reduced spatial structure ranges
from very low to low.
Available historical harvest information reviewed by the SRT
indicated that the winter-run steelhead return timing was historically
earlier than is currently expressed. McLachlan (1994) found a
contraction in run timing in the Quillayute River, with a decrease in
the proportion of the run return before January 1 from 35 percent of
the run to 20 percent of the run. McMillan et al. (2022) estimated that
peak run-timing has shifted 1 to 2 months later for winter-run
steelhead in the Hoh and Quillayute, and run timing is up to 26 days
shorter for some populations. Large numbers of winter-run steelhead
were harvested from November to January (in some years fish were
harvested in October, although these numbers may include summer-run
steelhead) prior to and following the initiation of hatchery programs
in the range of the OP steelhead DPS. With the beginning of hatchery
programs in the DPS utilizing
[[Page 1456]]
early-returning winter-run steelhead (i.e., Chambers Creek Hatchery
Stock from south Puget Sound), there was a directed harvest of the
early-returning portion of the run targeting hatchery fish. As a
consequence of this continued harvest, it is likely that a proportion
of the early-returning (November-January) natural-origin winter-run
steelhead were and continue to be harvested, even if incidentally (OP
Steelhead SRT 2024).
Hatcheries in the region utilize out-of-DPS stocks, and there is
concern about the potential impacts on natural-origin steelhead genetic
diversity from the use of out-of-DPS broodstock in most hatcheries
(namely, Chambers Creek and Skamania origin). Though the use of out-of-
DPS stocks prevents natural-origin runs from being taken for
broodstock, there can be negative impacts if non-native hatchery
steelhead interbreed with natural-origin steelhead. Non-native
broodstocks are presumed to be more adapted to the ecology of their
watershed of origin and, therefore, express life history traits that
are not necessarily adapted to the watershed to which they are
transferred. If non-native hatchery-origin steelhead are present on
native spawning grounds, maladaptive genotypes (because the out-of-DPS
stocks are not adapted to this environment) may be integrated into the
naturally spawning native population through interbreeding with
hatchery fish (known as introgression).
Information on the amount of interbreeding between hatchery-origin
and natural-origin steelhead is limited. Some genetic data show the
likely influence of non-native stocks on natural-origin OP steelhead,
but in the absence of systematic genetic sampling and spawner surveys,
it was not possible for the SRT to quantitatively assess this risk. DNA
analyses (Kassler et al., 2010, 2011; Seamons et al., 2017) show
presumed Olympic Peninsula natural-origin population samples with mixed
ancestry that includes genetics from non-native early-winter steelhead
and early-summer steelhead, though natural-origin fish were still
overall distinct from hatchery broodstock. Also, while early-winter run
hatchery steelhead females may generally spawn earlier than the
natural-origin females, there is a tendency for hatchery-origin males
to remain on the spawning grounds for extended periods, increasing the
likelihood of hybridizing with natural-origin female steelhead (though
hatcheries select for different spawn timing compared to natural-origin
to help reduce spawning overlap).
There are limited releases of summer-run hatchery steelhead in the
range of OP steelhead DPS and releases have been eliminated in many
tributaries on the Strait. Even with limited releases, snorkel surveys
for summer-run steelhead observed that natural-origin and hatchery-
origin fish often co-occurred within the same kilometer of river
channel in the Hoh, Bogachiel, and Sol Duc Rivers. Natural populations
along the Strait and Cape Flattery are at relatively low abundances
and, although hatchery releases in many tributaries draining to the
Strait were eliminated almost a decade ago, past and continuing
releases are more likely to have a significant effect on abundance and
genetic composition because of their small population size.
There are circumstances that also help limit interactions and limit
genetic impacts from hatchery-origin steelhead. There have been changes
in hatchery operations to reduce off-station releases in order to
increase the proportion of fish returning to the hatchery and decrease
the number of hatchery-origin fish straying and spawning naturally
(including eliminated off-station release in the Hoh River). Co-
managers have made changes to reduce negative effects; for example,
releases of winter-run and summer-run fish have been eliminated from
the Clallam River, Goodman Creek, Lyre River, Pysht River, and Sol Duc
River (COPSWG 2023). Also, larger rivers draining to the Pacific Ocean
have larger natural populations and greater spatial structure; thus,
despite the large size of many of the corresponding hatchery programs,
it is possible that there is somewhat limited interaction and
introgression between the hatchery- and natural-origin populations.
Resident O. mykiss, multiple spawner ages, and repeat spawners all
contribute to bolstering the number of effective spawners and provide
some buffering against inbreeding. Additionally, the relative nearness
of the populations within the DPS to each other allows for the
continued exchange of individuals between populations, and helps
maintain genetic diversity.
Threats Assessment
As described above, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS'
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11(c)) state that we must
determine whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any
one or a combination of the 4(a)(1) factors: (A) the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). We evaluated
whether and the extent to which each of the foregoing factors
contributes to the overall extinction risk of the DPS, identifying
uncertainties throughout.
Related to listing factor (A), while cumulative impacts of land-use
practices have been large over space and time, the four major basins
still exhibit fundamental natural watershed processes and associated
habitat characteristics. These include a large, forested floodplain,
relative to other watersheds, which is still intact and functioning.
The SRT noted moderate-to-good conditions in river and riparian
habitat, large percentages of forest cover, and declines in timber
harvest activity (see NWIFC 2020), especially those rivers with
substantial portions being located within Olympic National Park (ONP)
or headwaters in the ONP (mainly the four major basins). OP steelhead
currently occupy nearly all of their historical range because they lie
in a region of the West Coast that is not impacted by dams or other
major in-stream artificial passage blockages. For steelhead watersheds
outside the ONP the majority of land use is for timber harvest and
despite recent habitat improvement efforts, the legacy of past
industrial logging practices will continue to negatively affect
steelhead productivity in a number of rivers for the foreseeable
future. Still, several restoration programs to retire forest roads,
repair culverts, and supplement woody debris, amongst other things,
were also seen as having improved habitat. Generally, habitat in many
of the rivers has improved since the review by Busby et al. (1996),
although it was recognized that the natural recovery from past timber
harvest events and stream ``clearing'' practices takes decades. Despite
some legacy effects of forestry and land use practices, habitat quality
and connectivity are generally good within the DPS due to declining
timber harvest activity, especially within the ONP, and the absence of
dams or other major artificial passage blockages in the region.
For listing factor (B), utilization in the form of harvest of OP
steelhead has declined within the last decade (particularly the last
few years) and varies greatly by region (Strait vs. the four major
basins). Annual harvest rates of OP steelhead in the four major basins
have declined in most recent years (2021-2024). Estimates of harvest
rate for the DPS and the four major basins average across population
prior to 2014 were 25.6 percent and 36.5 percent, respectively (Cram et
al., 2018). Based on data from the co-managers, between
[[Page 1457]]
2014 and 2020, rates averaged across years for each of the four major
basins ranged from 21 percent to 41 percent. Most recently (2021-2024),
based on data including co-manager provided data since publication of
the status review, harvest rate estimates for the four major basins
have ranged from 7 percent to 25 percent. While harvest rates have
declined recently, as stated above, modeling by the SRT with data
through 2022 indicates that in most past years fishing mortality in the
four major basins was greater than intrinsic natural growth, resulting
in continued declines in populations (a small minority of years had
growth above zero) (OP Steelhead SRT 2024). Population estimates
associated with the most recent harvest rates have yet to be determined
since the progeny of those brood years have not yet fully returned to
spawn. Increases in abundance in the last couple of years in certain
basins are promising, and it will take several years to detect a
response signal from such recent actions.
For most rivers along the Strait, harvest was terminated in various
years between 2005 and 2020 (see OP Steelhead SRT 2024). Population
growth rate patterns considered by the SRT appear very similar among
streams, including in streams where fishing continues. Therefore, it
appears that other non-harvest factors (such as freshwater and/or ocean
conditions) may also be influencing trends in Strait populations.
Multiple factors lead to uncertainty in harvest rates, which leads
to difficulty in determining the level of threat under factor (B).
Rivers within the OP steelhead range with recreational fishing have
been catch and release since 2016, and the state assumes a 10 percent
hooking mortality for all state-wide steelhead sport fisheries. Certain
commenters on the 90-day Petition finding questioned this estimate and
believe the hooking mortality rate to be lower, citing research from
river systems not in the Olympic Peninsula, and there are no known data
to precisely calculate hooking mortality rates for rivers within the OP
DPS range. For the harvest estimates presented above, a hooking
mortality estimate is included for only the Hoh River sport fishery
harvest rate; therefore, rates for other basins are likely higher if
incorporating catch and release mortality. Additionally, evidence
suggests a sport angler encounter rate of 1.14 for natural-origin
steelhead, implying some steelhead are caught and released more than
once (Bently 2017; Harbison et al., 2022). Estimates of the effect of
multiple captures on hooking mortality are not available, but,
presumably, multiple captures would increase hooking mortality. Winter-
run harvest rates include all steelhead caught between management week
45 (approximately November 1) and week 18 (April) no matter the target
fishery, but not any steelhead caught outside that time period (pers.
comm. Jim Scott on behalf of co-managers, July 17, 2024), leading to
additional uncertainty in harvest rates if any late returning fish are
caught after week 18. Finally, harvest typically occurs from November
to May, while escapement is calculated from counts of redds created
after March 15 when it is assumed that all the fish present are
natural-origin steelhead, resulting in a potential underestimate of run
sizes and an overestimate of harvest rate. All in all, there are
factors that both underestimate and overestimate harvest rates/
mortality.
For summer-run steelhead, since 1992, catch-and-release regulations
have been in place in state waters and the ONP. Fisheries data show
low, limited harvest (and/or catch and release mortality) of summer-run
steelhead in recent years (see OP Steelhead SRT 2024, including
appendix B). It is difficult to interpret an impact of catch given the
level of uncertainty associated with summer-run abundance, but
available information suggests that the directed harvest of natural-
origin summer-run steelhead has declined since the 1996 status review.
Contributing further to the uncertainty, data on indirect harvest of
summer-run steelhead in fisheries targeting other Pacific salmon were
not available for review.
For listing factor (C), as detailed in the status review, most of
all known disease cases are in hatchery fish populations, and little
information exists on the impacts to natural-origin steelhead in the
Olympic Peninsula as natural-origin steelhead are less commonly sampled
(Breyta et al., 2013; data from Tony Capps, WDFW). To accurately assess
the potential threat of disease in this population, we would need
annual pathology reports from each hatchery to effectively assess the
presence/prevalence of pathogens, viruses, and bacteria. Because most
known disease outbreaks have been in hatchery-origin steelhead, most
hatcheries are segregated from natural-origin, and hatchery fish are
not part of the DPS, the status review team considered disease to be a
very low-risk threat for natural-origin OP steelhead.
Though the consumption of salmonids by predators, especially marine
mammals, has increased, we have little information on the consumption
of OP steelhead. Recent research suggests that predation pressure on
salmon and steelhead from marine mammals has been increasing in the
northeastern Pacific over the past few decades (Chasco et al., 2017 a,
b; Couture et al., 2024; Rub et al., 2018), but this work mainly
focused on predation on Chinook salmon (Couture et al. (2024) also
discuss other salmonids but there is limited mention of steelhead).
Also, predation from marine mammals likely is not a primary cause of
the lack of salmonid population recovery in Washington state (WSAS
2022). Studies have found that pinnipeds can have a significant
predation impact on outmigrating juvenile steelhead in Puget Sound
(Moore et al., 2021, 2024; Moore and Berejikian 2022), winter adult
steelhead at the Ballard Locks in Lake Washington (NMFS 1995), and
other adult salmonids (see Rub et al., 2018). Scordino et al. (2022)
found consumption of multiple sizes of steelhead in coastal Washington
by Steller and California sea lions based on scat samples (though most
consumption was on Coho salmon [O. kisutch]). Seabirds are present in
the Olympic Peninsula watersheds and consume juvenile salmonids, but we
are unaware of any unusual or excessive predation events by seabirds or
hotspots of seabird predation (based on pers. Comm. with Thomas Good,
15 October 2023, NMFS NWFSC). Invasions of non-native fish species pose
threats to native fish fauna, but little is known about the extent or
effects on OP steelhead.
Anthropogenic habitat alterations, including dams, irrigation
diversions, fish ladders, and human-created islands, have the potential
to create sites that may increase predation opportunities on adult and
juvenile salmonids (Antolos et al., 2005; Evans et al., 2012; Hostetter
et al., 2012; Moore & Berejikian 2022; Collins et al., 1976). However,
there are no large dams or barriers in the OP steelhead range. While
increases in predation associated with increases in pinniped
populations along the West Coast are possible, we have no specific
information to indicate that predation has increased for OP steelhead
and no quantitative information on predation over time. Also, less is
known about predation of steelhead in the marine environment. Tribal
managers in the area have voiced concern about pinniped predation on
these populations, but we lack quantitative data about the level of
threat or if predation is a factor limiting the viability of OP
steelhead specifically.
[[Page 1458]]
Therefore, the SRT concluded that predation was a low risk.
Related to listing factor (D), various Federal and State protection
measures exist across the Olympic Peninsula and the state of Washington
to protect forests and salmonid habitat. Many provide protection to the
species and its habitat. These include the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)
and the associated Aquatic Conservation Strategy, the General
Management Plan for the ONP, the Washington Forest Practices Act, the
Washington State Forest Practices Rules, the DNR Habitat Conservation
Plan, and state legislation to remove fish passage barriers.
Additionally, multiple rivers and streams where OP steelhead occur have
been designated as bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) critical habitat
(75 FR 63875-63978, October 18, 2010) and other ESA-listed species like
Lake Ozette sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus), and Northern spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis caurina) occur on the peninsula. NMFS and USFWS have
conducted biological opinions under section 7 of ESA for Federal
actions in this region, including for the forest management activities
in the Olympic National Forest, that lead to the prevention of
activities that may jeopardize listed species and/or adversely modify
their critical habitat. However, it is difficult to assess if these
actions are adequate to conserve OP steelhead. Progress towards habitat
protection is hard to measure since any ongoing efforts related to
habitat restoration may take decades (if not longer) to show an effect.
There is a spectrum of regulatory mechanisms protecting and restoring
habitat, and the degree of protection depends on the entity with
regulatory authority and the specific land activities in each area.
Regulations related to harvest and hatcheries within Washington
State also affect OP steelhead. OP steelhead fisheries are collectively
managed by WDFW (State waters outside of the ONP) and Treaty Tribes (in
their usual and accustomed fishing areas) and also by the ONP (in the
park). The Treaty Tribes regulate commercial and subsistence fisheries
and on-reservation sport and tribal-guided fisheries. Martin (2023)
notes that sustainable harvest management is a core principle of
traditional resource management and is embedded into the tribes'
societal roles. Salmon and steelhead have been managed since time
immemorial during a time when steelhead thrived (including their
habitat), and this management included both traditional hatchery
practices and harvest practices. Strategies have been implemented since
the 1990s to support sustainable fishing including: prohibiting
retention of natural-origin winter-run steelhead for recreational
fisheries in state waters (since 2016, recreational fishing on certain
tribal lands allows for retention of natural-origin), harvest
restrictions (such as bag limits), shorter seasons, and gear
restrictions (limits on hooks, prohibiting bait, prohibiting fishing
from boats in certain rivers) in the face of declining natural-origin
steelhead populations (Harbison et al., 2022). In recent years,
recreational fisheries have been closed inside and outside of the ONP
for certain rivers due to low returns. As noted above, reductions in
harvest rates, with large reductions in tribal harvest rates, have
occurred in recent years (2021, 2022, and 2023-2024 season). For most
rivers along the Strait, steelhead-directed harvest has been prohibited
since between 2005 and 2020 (depending on the river).
The state of Washington has proposed, but not yet implemented, the
2022 WDFW Coastal Steelhead Proviso Implementation Plan (``Proviso'')
(Harbison et al., 2022) and has begun the process for updating state
harvest regulations (<a href="https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/steelhead/coastal">https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/steelhead/coastal</a>). The Proviso outlines management strategies for the future of
OP steelhead and other coastal steelhead populations. The Proviso Plan
is based on existing state policies and does not represent a change in
policy. It was developed as a response to recent declines in coastal
steelhead and the need for adaptive management strategies to address
these declines. There are additional plans by the State to update
coastal steelhead management, though there are limited details on the
plan at this time (<a href="https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/steelhead/coastal">https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/steelhead/coastal</a>). Finally, as noted throughout, the Tribal and State co-
managers actively monitor and have a policy of protectively managing
the species. The co-managers have also committed to changes to hatchery
and harvest regulations (see Co-manager Olympic Steelhead Working Group
2025), most notably efforts to mark all hatchery fish, testing of
natural-derived broodstock in the Quillayute, evaluation of the March
15 management cut-off date, updating catch-and-release mortality, and
expanding methods for abundance estimation. NMFS will continue to work
with the co-managers to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing
regulatory mechanisms and the future impact of these commitments on the
species' status.
WDFW operation of hatcheries is currently subject to the Statewide
Steelhead Management Plan and the Anadromous Salmon and Steelhead
Hatchery Policy C-3624 (2021), superseding the policy from 2009
(Hatchery and Fishery Reform Policy C-3619). This policy provides
general guidelines and notes that Hatchery Monitoring Plans (HMPs) will
be developed for all state hatcheries. We did not find any evidence of
completed HMPs at this point. This policy applies to state hatcheries
and not to Federal or Tribal facilities. The C-3624 policy is not an
enforceable regulation, but a guiding policy. However, the co-managers
are currently working to develop hatchery management plans for hatchery
facilities within the Olympic Peninsula (Harbison et al., 2022).
Extensive hatchery programs have been implemented throughout the
range of west coast steelhead. While some programs may have succeeded
in providing harvest opportunities and increasing the total number of
naturally spawning fish, the programs have also likely increased risks
to natural populations, though this can depend on specific management
and if measures are taken to reduce impacts to native runs. Hatchery
operations, especially those utilizing non-native broodstocks, could
introduce maladapted life history traits through interbreeding between
natural-origin and hatchery-origin fish (introgression). We cannot
currently quantitatively estimate the level of reproductive exchange
between natural-origin and hatchery-origin steelhead in the Olympic
Peninsula. Estimates of the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners
(pHOS) and genetic data give some insight into the level of possible
introgression but were only available for a limited proportion of the
DPS, and many were not from recent years. Available information
suggests some introgression, and the continued use of non-native
broodstocks presents ecological and genetic risks, though this risk
varies with the specifics of the particular hatchery program and
natural population. There have been changes in hatchery operations to
reduce straying. NMFS will continue to work with the co-managers to
evaluate the impacts of hatchery operations and the effectiveness of
efforts to reduce risks to OP steelhead.
Finally, for listing factor (E) scientists predict the rising
temperatures and associated ecosystem changes caused by environmental
variation to impact Pacific salmon by a variety of mechanisms
throughout their life cycle (Crozier et al., 2008, 2019, Isaak et al.,
2022, Crozier and Siegel 2023). These impacts are complex and vary
among species, DPSs, and habitats. For U.S. West Coast salmon and
steelhead,
[[Page 1459]]
expected changes to freshwater habitats include increased air and
stream temperatures and changes in seasonal (but not necessarily annual
mean) rainfall patterns, with larger and more extreme storms and
droughts. These increased temperatures will result in more winter
precipitation falling as rain than snow at intermediate elevations,
which alters both seasonal streamflow and water temperatures.
Many changes in temperature and stream flow have already been
observed in the Olympic Peninsula watersheds (see OP Steelhead SRT
2024). Additionally, multiple papers have already documented extensive
glacier losses in the Olympic Mountains; between 1980 and 2015, 35
glaciers and an additional 16 perennial snowfields disappeared from the
Olympic Mountains (Fountain et al., 2022; Riedel et al., 2015; NWIFC
2020). Increases in summer stream temperatures especially pose risks to
steelhead due to extended freshwater rearing; i.e., juvenile steelhead
that spend up to 2 or 3 years in freshwater (Halofsky et al., 2011;
Climate Impacts Group 2009). Winter-run steelhead predominate in the
Olympic Peninsula and are expected to be somewhat less susceptible to
risks from changing stream temperatures than summer-run steelhead. Low
summer stream flows can affect summer-run steelhead migration by
dewatering stream reaches or limiting the accessibility of waterfalls
or cascades (Halofsky et al., 2011). Future increases in flows at other
times of year can displace juvenile fish and/or reduce the availability
of suitable slow-water habitats for young fish. However, winter-run
steelhead generally spawn after peak flow events and are less
susceptible to redds being scoured (Halofsky et al., 2011). Still,
future increases in streamflow can increase the magnitude and frequency
of streambed mobilization and scour, impacting eggs and embryos, while
warmer temperatures may result in more rapid incubation leading to
earlier timed and smaller individuals at emergence (Dalton et al.,
2016).
Environmental variability now and into the future will also likely
impact steelhead in the marine environment. Modeling analysis predicted
an 8 to 43 percent contraction of steelhead species' marine habitat due
to changing thermal conditions between the 2020s and 2080s, depending
on time period (Abdul-Aziz et al., 2011). The assessment by the co-
managers (COPSWG 2023) and subsequent publication (Ohlberger et al.,
2025) suggested that interannual variation in recruitment and kelt
survival were both partially explained by summer sea surface
temperatures (SST) with lower recruitment and kelt survival with warmer
summer SST. Models showed that pink salmon abundance as well as North
Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NGPO) also influence recruitment (Ohlbergur
et al., 2025). There is uncertainty in how smolt survival and
recruitment and kelt survival will change over time, but kelt survival
has already declined since the 1980s.
There may be positive impacts from environmental variability,
particularly temperature, such as possible longer rearing seasons due
to temperature increases at certain times of the year, increased
productivity within the food web, and more rapid growth at certain
times and life stages (Halofsky et al., 2011; Dalton 2016). Warmer
conditions in summer would likely reduce growth, but warmer
temperatures at other times of the year could increase growth rates
(Dalton et al., 2016) and improve rearing conditions for juveniles,
especially in the lower river reaches. However, warmer temperatures
also potentially increase susceptibility to disease and increase
competition with other species or predation, through the increased
presence of non-native piscivorous species.
At the population level, the ability of organisms to genetically
adapt to environmental variability depends on how selection on multiple
traits interact and whether those traits are linked genetically.
Factors that affect genetic diversity can limit the ability of a
population to adapt to variability in environmental conditions. These
factors include, but are not limited to, small population size,
domestication in hatchery environments, and/or introgression by
introduced non-native stocks. Also, future environmental changes are
likely to happen much faster than normal adaptation processes can
respond.
Rangewide Risk of Extinction
The SRT's determination of rangewide extinction risk to the OP
steelhead DPS used the categories of high, moderate, or low risk of
extinction. The risk levels are defined as:
(1) High risk: A species or ESU with a high risk of extinction is
at or near a level of abundance, productivity, diversity, and/or
spatial structure that places its continued existence in question. The
demographics of a species or ESU at such a high level of risk may be
highly uncertain and strongly influenced by stochastic and/or
depensatory processes. Similarly, a species or ESU may be at high risk
of extinction if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., confinement
to a small geographic area; imminent destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat; disease epidemic) that are likely to create
such imminent demographic risks.
(2) Moderate risk: A species or ESU is at moderate risk of
extinction if it exhibits a trajectory indicating that it is more
likely than not to reach a high level of extinction risk in the
foreseeable future. A species or ESU may be at moderate risk of
extinction due to projected threats and/or declining trends in
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. The
appropriate time horizon for evaluating whether a species or DPS is
more likely than not to become at high risk in the future depends on
various case- and species-specific factors. For example, the time
horizon may reflect certain life-history characteristics (e.g., long
generation time or late age-at-maturity) and may also reflect the
timeframe or rate over which identified threats are likely to impact
the biological status of the species or ESU (e.g., rate of disease
spread). The appropriate time horizon is not limited to the period that
status can be quantitatively modeled or predicted within predetermined
limits of statistical confidence.
(3) Low risk: A species or ESU is at low risk if it is not at
moderate or high risk of extinction.
The SRT considered the ``foreseeable future'' to be a time period
of approximately 40 to 60 years. Following Stout et al. (2012), the
shorter end of this timeframe corresponds to roughly 10 steelhead
generations, which the SRT concluded was a reasonable value over which
to consider current demographic trends. The longer end of this
timeframe corresponds to a timeframe over which scientific studies of
the impacts of environmental variability on salmonid freshwater and
ocean habitat are available. For example, the SRT utilized analyses of
predicted future stream temperatures and stream flow in the years 2040
and 2080 and marine studies for O. mykiss that center on the 2040s and
2080s (Abdul-Aziz et al., 2011).
The SRT used a likelihood point method to account for uncertainty
in the overall extinction risk by allocating ten risk points across the
low, moderate, and high-risk categories. In their overall evaluation of
the DPS status, the majority of the SRT members put the majority of
their 10 allocated risk likelihood points in the moderate extinction
risk category leading to an average of 5.5 in moderate, 4 in low, and
0.5 in high. A minority of members (\2/8\) put either equal points
between low and
[[Page 1460]]
moderate extinction risk or the majority of points in low extinction
risk category (six points in low, four in moderate). SRT members with
the majority of points in low extinction risk concluded that the
overall DPS abundance was still relatively moderate compared to other
steelhead DPSs and that the major threats, other than environmental
variability, could be addressed directly through management actions.
Therefore, there was uncertainty across the members about the level of
risk facing OP steelhead (not unanimous).
In consideration of the factors identified in 4(a)(1) of the ESA
and our analysis of the viability of the DPS, including any
uncertainties, we are unable to find the DPS faces a high or moderate
risk of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. Despite some
legacy effects of forestry and land use practices, habitat quality and
connectivity are generally good within the DPS due to declining timber
harvest activity, especially within the ONP, and the absence of dams or
other major artificial passage blockages in the region. OP steelhead
habitat has also benefitted from several restoration programs including
efforts to repair culverts, retire forest service roads, and supplement
woody debris. Additionally, under existing regulatory mechanisms, the
co-managers have implemented improved harvest management strategies and
harvest of OP steelhead has declined within the last decade,
particularly the last few years. There have also been changes in
hatchery operations to reduce straying. Abundance trends suggest
populations have declined over the long-term; however, increases in
abundance in the last couple of years in certain basins are promising,
and overall DPS abundance is still relatively moderate compared to
other steelhead DPSs. The co-managers and NMFS will continue monitoring
populations for response signals from recent and future conservation
management actions. While information is limited, disease risk to
natural-original OP steelhead is considered very low risk. Some
evidence suggests introgression between hatchery-origin and native
fish, though data regarding the current levels of genetic mixing are
limited. The extent to which predation may be limiting the viability of
OP steelhead is uncertain, although pinniped predation is not
considered a primary threat to steelhead in these ecosystems. Predicted
variation in stream temperatures and flows, changes to the marine
environment, and alterations in seasonal rainfall patterns are likely
to negatively impact the DPS in the foreseeable future; however, some
beneficial impacts are also possible, and there remains considerable
uncertainty about the localized effects of environmental variation to
OP steelhead populations. Based on the foregoing, we have determined
the DPS is not at a high risk of extinction or near a level of
abundance, productivity, diversity, and/or spatial structure that
places its continued existence in question; nor does the DPS exhibit a
trajectory indicating that it is more likely than not to reach a high
level of extinction risk in the foreseeable future.
Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis
As noted in the introduction above, the definitions in section 3 of
the ESA of both ``threatened species'' and ``endangered species''
contain the term ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR), which we
interpret to refer to an area smaller than the entire range of the
species. As indicated by these definitions, we can list a species based
on their status in all of their range or based on their status in a
SPR. The range of a species is considered to be the general
geographical area within which that species can be found at the time
NMFS or USFWS makes any particular status determination. This range
includes those areas used throughout all or part of the species' life
cycle, even if they are not used regularly (e.g., seasonal habitats).
(79 FR 37578, 37583, July 1, 2014).
In construing the statutory definitions of threatened species and
endangered species, we are thus required to give some independent
meaning to the SPR phrase to avoid rendering it superfluous to the
``throughout all'' language (See Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258
F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001)). Under the 2014 policy regarding the
interpretation of the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR
Policy), which was issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS, first we evaluate
the status of the species throughout its range and, unless we find the
species is endangered based on the rangewide analysis, we must go on to
consider whether the species may have a higher risk of extinction in an
SPR (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The assessment consisted of
identifying and evaluating portions of the DPS that are potentially at
high risk of extinction and are important to the overall DPS's long-
term viability, yet not so important as to be determinative of its
current or foreseeable status. In other words, the goal of the SPR
analysis was to determine if there are biologically important portions
of the DPS that are currently at higher risk than the DPS rangewide but
that are not so important that their status would lead to the entire
DPS being currently at higher risk.
Because a species' range can theoretically be divided into an
infinite number of portions, the SRT first discussed and identified
several sub-DPS portions that had a reasonable likelihood of being at
higher risk of extinction than the DPS rangewide and a reasonable
likelihood of being biologically significant to the species. Unless a
portion meets both conditions, they will not be further considered in
the SPR analysis (as they could not form the basis for a proposed
listing). In evaluating whether a portion was biologically significant,
the SRT considered whether the species within that portion was
important to the DPS's long-term viability but not so important that
their status would drive current or foreseeable DPS-wide extinction
risk. After considering multiple possibilities, the SRT settled on a
more detailed evaluation of two types of strata based on geography or
adult run-timing.
In this case, the geographic units considered include steelhead
populations in rivers that drain to the Strait and steelhead
populations in rivers that drain to the Pacific Ocean. These two
regions were identified as potential portions due to the hydrological
and geographic distinctiveness of the rivers supporting Strait
populations and coastal populations. The majority of the SRT members
assigned a majority of their 10 allocated points in the not
biologically significant category for populations in rivers draining to
the Strait. The SRT concluded that populations in the Strait portion
may express distinct life-history strategies, however, there are
coastal populations in streams ecologically similar to those in the
Strait, and over the long term it is likely that the rivers on the
Strait could be recolonized by coastal OP steelhead runs. So, though
these runs are important to diversity and spatial structure, they are
not so important as to be biologically significant relative to the
overall long-term viability of the species. Because the SRT determined
that the Strait populations did not meet the agency's criteria for
significance, the Strait portion of the range is not considered to be
an SPR. Coastal populations are the most numerous and widespread
portion of the DPS. The status of the coastal component is
determinative of the rangewide status of the DPS and is therefore not a
valid SPR.
The team also considered whether the variation in adult run-timing
might form the basis for identifying alternative portions. In general,
summer- and
[[Page 1461]]
winter-run steelhead utilize spatially different freshwater habitats,
particularly during the adult freshwater migration and spawning
portions of the life cycle. Generally, summer-run steelhead tend to
spawn in the upper portions of river systems. Sometimes these areas are
above temporal flow barriers that are only accessible during high
spring flows (Withler 1966; Myers et al., 2015; Waples et al., 2022),
thus not utilized by winter-run and leading to a different geographic
extent for summer-run.
However, we have determined the summer-run stratum does not qualify
as a valid portion of the OP steelhead range because, consistent with
the ESA and the 2014 SPR Policy (79 FR at 37583), the selection of
portions for consideration should be premised at least in part on a
geographically oriented rationale. Here, the summer-run component lacks
sufficient spatial segregation from the winter-run to be considered a
valid portion of the DPS's range for the purposes of SPR analysis under
the ESA. A review of spawning and rearing habitat utilized by summer-
run steelhead, found only 0.7 percent of the habitat was used solely by
summer-run steelhead. In other words, >99.3 percent of summer-run
geography is shared with winter-run fish. Therefore, the summer-run
component does not qualify as a valid portion of the OP steelhead
range.
Additionally, the SRT concluded that the summer-run portion did not
meet the criteria to be considered biologically significant to the
DPS's long-term viability. The SRT concluded that summer-run
populations contribute to genetic diversity and spatial structure
diversity of the DPS. However, the SRT ultimately concluded the summer-
run fish to be not significant because summer-run steelhead currently
are not and historically were not a major contributor to overall DPS
abundance, winter-run and summer-run populations in the same watershed
are not reproductively isolated and have generally been found to be
genetically very similar (thus there is some possibility for
reestablishment if a summer-run population is lost), and summer-run
specific habitat (predominantly just for spawning) represents a minor
fraction of the total accessible spatial structure. Summer-run
steelhead was voted to have a higher risk than the DPS range-wide, but
given that summer-run steelhead did not meet the agency's criteria to
be considered significant and a valid portion, this grouping is not
considered an SPR.
Finally, winter-run populations are the most numerous and
widespread portion of the DPS. The status of the winter-run component
is determinative of the rangewide status of the DPS and is therefore
not a valid SPR. We conclude that there are no portions of the DPS's
range that are both significant and at higher risk of extinction than
the DPS as a whole.
Final Determination
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that we make listing
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or
foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and
conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available
scientific and commercial information, including references cited in
the petition, public comments submitted on the 90-day finding (88 FR
8774; February 10, 2023), the status review report, and information
provided by co-managers, and we have consulted with species experts and
individuals familiar with steelhead.
Based on the foregoing information, we determine OP steelhead do
not warrant listing at this time. Primary factors leading to this
conclusion include: habitat quality and connectivity are generally good
within the DPS and are benefitting from ongoing restoration efforts;
spatial distribution is good; State and Tribal co-managers have
implemented improved harvest and hatchery practices and reduced harvest
significantly in recent years; abundance trends suggest declining
populations, but the response to recent management actions has yet to
be seen; and while environmental variation is expected to have some
negative impacts on the DPS, there could also be positive impacts while
the precise localized effects are unclear. Additionally, we did not
identify any portions of the DPS that were both significant and facing
a higher level of extinction risk than the DPS rangewide. Therefore, we
determine listing is not warranted. NMFS intends to continue to monitor
the status of the OP steelhead DPS and work closely with the State and
Tribal co-managers.
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.).
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2026-00581 Filed 1-13-26; 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 January 14, 2026.
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.