Friday, July 5, 2002

Part II

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the Southwestern Washington/ Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of the Coastal Cutthroat Trout as Threatened; Proposed Rule

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44934 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Trotter 1997) and inland from the Coast intermittent, especially during the Range of Alaska to roughly the crest of summer (Johnson et al. 1999). Fish and Wildlife Service the Cascades of Washington and Oregon Coastal cutthroat trout differ in (Trotter 1997). The southwestern appearance from other subspecies by the 50 CFR Part 17 Washington/Columbia River DPS numerous small to medium irregularly- shaped spots evenly covering virtually RIN 1018–AF45 proposed for listing as threatened includes the Columbia River and its the entire sides of the body, often Endangered and Threatened Wildlife tributaries from the mouth to the extending to the ventral surface and and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed Klickitat River on the Washington side anal fin (Behnke 1992). Skin color on Rule To List the Southwestern of the river and Fifteenmile Creek on the sea-run fish is often silvery, and may Washington/Columbia River Distinct Oregon side; the Willamette River and mask body spots, while freshwater Population Segment of the Coastal its tributaries from its confluence with residents are darker with a copper or Cutthroat Trout as Threatened the Columbia upstream to Willamette brassy sheen. Falls; Willapa Bay and its tributaries; Relatively little is known about the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and Grays Harbor and its tributaries. specific life history and habitat requirements of coastal cutthroat trout. Interior. The DPS inhabits portions of five Coastal cutthroat trout spend more time ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. Ecoregions, the Coast Range, Puget in the freshwater environment and make Lowland, Cascades, Willamette Valley, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and more extensive use of this habitat, and Eastern Cascades. Most of the DPS Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the particularly small streams, than do most occurs in the Coast Range, Puget proposed rule, published in the Federal other Pacific salmonids (Johnson et al. Lowland, and Cascades Ecoregions. The Register on April 5, 1999, to list the 1999). The life history of coastal Coast Range Ecoregion has a maritime southwestern Washington/Columbia cutthroat trout may be one of the most climate, characterized by medium to River Distinct Population Segment complex of any Pacific salmonid. high rainfall averaging 200 to 240 (DPS) of coastal cutthroat trout as Coastal cutthroat trout exhibit a variety centimeters (cm) (80 to 90 inches (in) threatened. The DPS includes all coastal of life history strategies across their per year, which peaks in the winter cutthroat trout in waters draining into range (Northcote 1997, Johnson et al. months, with very little precipitation in Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and the 1999) that include three basic July or August. Random events, such as Columbia River upstream to the variations: Resident or primarily non- strong storms with heavy rains can have Klickitat River in Washington and to migratory; freshwater migrants; and damaging effects, especially on a Fifteen Mile Creek in Oregon, excluding marine migrants. Residents may stay disturbed landscape. Floods and the Willamette River above Willamette within the same stream segment their landslides triggered by these events can Falls. The coastal cutthroat trout entire life. Freshwater migrants may significantly affect aquatic resources inhabits streams, lakes, rivers, estuaries, make migrations from small tributaries throughout the stream system. The and near-shore ocean habitats to larger tributaries or rivers, or may Puget Lowland Ecoregion experiences throughout the range of the DPS. migrate from tributary streams to lakes reduced rainfall (50 to 120 cm (20 to 47 The change in forest management or reservoirs. Marine migrations in)), with peak flows from December to regulation, the latest information (anadromy) are generally thought to be June. The area tends to have indicating relatively healthy-sized total limited to near shore marine areas; groundwater resources from bordering populations in a large portion of the individuals may not venture out of the mountain ranges that help sustain river DPS, and our improved understanding estuary in some cases (Trotter 1997). flows during droughts. The Cascades of the ability of freshwater forms to There are numerous exceptions to these Ecoregion includes headwater produce anadromous progeny, lead us generalized behaviors and we lack tributaries of many coastal cutthroat to conclude that this DPS does not meet observations of definitive genetic streams. Precipitation can average 280 the definition of a threatened species (in relationships between individual or cm (110 in) per year, much of it in the danger of becoming endangered in the population migratory strategies (Behnke form of heavy snowfall. There is little foreseeable future) at this time. 1997). In areas above long-standing storage capacity for long-term barriers, coastal cutthroat trout are ADDRESSES: The complete file for this groundwater except where porous rock limited to resident or fresh-water withdrawal is available for inspection, substrate exists. In these porous areas, migratory life history strategies. In areas by appointment, during normal business streams receive 75 to 95 percent of their accessible to the ocean, all three life hours at the Oregon Fish and Wildlife average discharge as groundwater and history strategies (resident, freshwater Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, are able to maintain flows during dry migratory, and anadromous) are likely Portland, OR 97266. periods. Surface water flow originating to be expressed in the same area. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in the Cascade Range influences river Coastal cutthroat trout appear to Kemper McMaster, State Supervisor, flows throughout this region. A smaller exhibit very flexible life history Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see portion of the DPS occurs in the strategies. The extent to which ADDRESSES) (telephone 503/231–6179; Willamette Valley Ecoregion, which lies individuals expressing these various facsimile 503/231–6195). in the rainshadow of the Coast Ranges strategies are isolated from other life SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and typically experiences rainfall of 120 history forms is largely unknown, cm (47 in), with peak flows in December though there is growing evidence that Background and January. A small portion of the DPS individuals may express multiple life Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus occurs in the Eastern Cascades Slopes history behaviors in their life time clarki clarki), one of 10 formally and Foothills Ecoregion, which is (Johnson et al. 1999). For convenience described subspecies of cutthroat trout marked by a transition between the high we refer to individuals that migrate to (Behnke 1992), are distributed along the rainfall areas of the Cascades Ecoregion marine waters as anadromous or Pacific Coast of North America from and the drier regions to the east. This anadromous life form. In doing so, we Prince William Sound in Alaska to the Ecoregion receives 30 to 60 cm (10 to 20 do not intend to imply that they Eel River in California (Behnke 1992, in) of precipitation. Streamflow is often represent a separate population from

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44935

freshwater forms. We are treating all morphological characteristics, including juveniles may enter the estuary and forms as part of a single population in their large heads and narrow caudal remain there over the summer without this analysis. (tail) regions (Bisson et al. 1988, smolting or migrating to the open ocean. As a result of their wide distribution Hawkins and Quinn 1996). In laboratory Seaward migration of Columbia River and variable life history behavior, tests of two different hatchery stocks of smolts may occur to more protected coastal cutthroat trout are exposed to a coastal cutthroat trout, Hawkins and areas at an earlier age and smaller size wide range of water temperatures. Quinn (1996) found critical swimming than migration to more exposed areas Several studies concluded that cutthroat speeds were between 5.58 to 6.69 body such as the outer Washington coast. trout, like other salmonids, were not lengths per second, whereas steelhead Columbia River smolts generally make typically found in water temperatures (Oncorhynchus mykiss) had critical their first migration at age two, at a higher than 22 degrees Celsius (C) (72 velocities of 7.69 body lengths per mean size of about 160 mm (6 in) degrees Fahrenheit (F)) although they second. In field studies, two-to four-year (Johnson et al. 1999). could tolerate temperatures as high as old coastal cutthroat trout were found in Upstream movement of juveniles 26 to 28 degrees C (79 to 82 degrees F) streams with velocities of 0.14 to 0.20 appears to begin with the onset of for short periods. Optimum meters per second (0.46 to 0.66 feet per winter freshets (overflows) during temperatures for coastal cutthroat trout second) (Hanson 1977). Coastal November and continues through the spawning range from 6.1 to 17.2 degrees cutthroat trout juveniles were most spring, frequently peaking during late C (43 to 63 degrees F), and for egg often in streams where water velocities winter and early spring. Many of these incubation from 4.4 to 12.7 degrees C were between 0.25 and 0.50 meters per yearling fish may average less than 200 (40 to 55 degrees F) (Bell 1986). The second (0.82 to 1.6 feet per second) mm (8 in) in length and can be found preferred temperature range of adult (Pauley et al. 1989). in streams that run through ponds or coastal cutthroat is between 9 and 12 The timing of fish returns to estuary sloughs (Hartman and Gill 1968, Garrett degrees C (48 and 54 degrees F) (Bell and freshwater habitat varies 1998). In winter, coastal cutthroat trout 1986). Giger (1972) reported that considerably across the range and move to pool areas with dense cover temperature was believed to be the most within river basins (Trotter 1997, such as near log jams or overhanging influential characteristic in the Behnke 1992). For example, return banks (Bustard and Narver 1975, Waters migration and distribution of coastal migrations of anadromous coastal 1993). cutthroat in estuaries. Giger further cutthroat trout in the Columbia River Coastal cutthroat trout that enter states that high upper estuary system usually begin as early as late nearshore marine waters reportedly temperatures (23.9 to 26.7 degrees C (75 June and continue through October, move moderate distances along the to 80 degrees F)) probably prevent with peaks in late September and shoreline. Individual marked fish have movement to cooler tributaries until October. Anadromous coastal cutthroat been reported to move 72 to 290 later in the fall. trout spawning typically starts in kilometers (km) (45 to 180 miles (mi)) Coastal cutthroat trout spawn in a December and continues through June, off the Oregon Coast (Pearcy 1997). Sea- variety of gravel sizes from 0.6 to 30 cm with peak spawning in February. (0.2 to 12 in) (Hooper 1973, Hanson Coastal cutthroat trout are repeat run cutthroat trout along the Oregon 1977). Gravels free from fine sediment spawners. Some individuals have been coast may swim or be transported with support higher egg to fry survival for documented to spawn each year for at the prevailing currents long distances salmonids (Irving and Bjornn 1984, least five years (Giger 1972), others may during the summer. It is unclear how far Weaver and Fraley 1993). Anadromous not spawn every year, and some do not offshore coastal cutthroat trout migrate. coastal cutthroat trout spawn and return to seawater after spawning, Cutthroat trout have been routinely complete early rearing in headwater remaining in fresh water for at least a caught up to 6 km (4 mi) off the mouth stream sections, often above those used year. Eggs begin to hatch within six to of the Nestucca River (Sumner 1953, by other anadromous salmonids (Glova seven weeks of spawning, depending on 1972). Coastal cutthroat trout have also and Mason 1977, Michael 1983), and temperature; fry emerge between March been captured between 10 and 46 km (6 then migrate downstream eventually and June, with peak emergence in mid- to 28 mi) offshore of the Columbia entering the estuary and near ocean April. At emergence, fry appear to seek River, though it is unclear whether they environment to complete growth and refugia near channel margins and were carried by the freshwater plume of maturation. By spawning higher in the backwater habitats, although they may the Columbia River or moved offshore watersheds than other salmonids, use fast water habitats (riffles and in search of prey. cutthroat trout may avoid competition glides) when exposed to competitive Resident (non-migratory) fish appear for suitable spawning sites, reduce the interactions with other native salmonids to mature earlier (two to three years) likelihood of hybridization, and reduce (Johnson et al. 1999). and are shorter-lived than the migratory competitive interactions between Coastal cutthroat trout juveniles form (Trotter 2000). Smoltification has juvenile coastal cutthroat trout and generally remain in upper tributaries been reported to occur from one to six other salmonids. Salmonids need water until they are one year of age, at which years of age, most commonly at ages two free from high levels of suspended time they may begin moving more through four (Trotter 1997), and at sizes sediment to feed and migrate. When extensively throughout the river system. of from 175 to 225 millimeters (mm) (7 very high sediment loads are present Juvenile salmonids on marine-directed to 9 in) (Behnke 1992). Sexual maturity (greater than 4,000 parts per million migrations undergo physiological rarely occurs before age four in (ppm)) salmonids cease movement or changes to adapt to salt water called anadromous coastal cutthroat trout migration (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). smoltification. These individuals are (Johnson et al. 1999). Growth rates Cutthroat trout are known to stop called smolts. Downstream movement increase during the initial period of feeding and move to cover when may begin with the first spring rains, ocean residence, but decrease following turbidity is above 35 ppm (Pauley et al. usually in mid-April with peak the first spawning due to energy 1989). movement in mid-May. Time of initial expenditures from migration and Coastal cutthroat trout are poorer seawater entry generally begins as early spawning (Giger 1972). Behnke (1992) swimmers than other anadromous as March, peaks in mid-May, and is reports the maximum age of sea-run salmonids, probably due to essentially over by mid-June. Some cutthroat to be approximately 10 years.

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44936 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

The diverse life history strategies cutthroat trout, whether from above cutthroat trout captured at Bingham shown by coastal cutthroat trout are not long-standing natural barriers or human- Creek from 1983 to 2001 ranged from a well understood, but are thought to created barriers, likely varies according low of zero to a high of 35 with a mean represent unique adaptations to local to river basin characteristics, the length of eight. This trap measures all fish environments and the subspecies’ of time barriers have been in place, and returning to an 8,250 hectare (ha) response to environmental variability the genetic composition of coastal (20,386 acre (ac)) watershed and likely and unpredictability. The significance cutthroat trout within each basin catches all coastal cutthroat trout of the various life history strategies, the (Johnson et al. 1999). In addition, the migrating upstream. On the West Fork extent to which each strategy is significance and long-term success of Hoquiam River, the number of migrating controlled by genetic versus freshwater cutthroat trout contributing coastal cutthroat trout (wild and environmental factors, and the extent of to the saltwater migrant cutthroat trout hatchery) captured from 1986 to 2000 isolation among individuals expressing may be largely dependent upon the ranged from 17 to 122 with a mean of these various strategies is largely ability of downstream habitat conditions 51. No hatchery cutthroat trout have unknown, though there is growing and near-shore environments to support been detected at this facility since 1995, evidence that individuals may express the persistence of this life history and the mean number of fish since 1995 multiple life history behaviors over time strategy. is 55. This trap measures almost all (Johnson et al. 1999). The few existing The effects of interspecific adult coastal cutthroat trout returning to studies show that, although both allele competition between coastal cutthroat a 2,166 ha (5,352 ac) watershed. frequencies and morphology may differ trout and other salmonids, particularly Catch data for coastal cutthroat trout between populations above and below coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), were recorded incidental to creel barriers, the portions of the population rainbow trout (O. mykiss), and steelhead surveys for salmon and steelhead in the displaying different life history (the anadromous form of rainbow trout) Columbia River, though no data were strategies are generally more closely are well documented. In general, collected on angler effort for coastal related within a drainage than are steelhead and coho are more commonly cutthroat trout. These data were populations from different drainages found in the larger river reaches and collected from four points in (Behnke 1997, Johnson et al. 1999). coastal cutthroat trout are more Washington. No creel census data were These results indicate that migratory abundant in the headwater tributaries, received from Oregon. The number of and non-migratory portions of the reducing the potential for competition coastal cutthroat trout recorded in the population of cutthroat trout represent a (Hartman and Gill 1968). However, creel surveys for the lower Columbia single evolutionary lineage in which the when they do overlap, steelhead tend to River is likely to be strongly influenced various life history characteristics have dominate coastal cutthroat trout in the by the change in cutthroat trout fishing arisen repeatedly in different geographic riffles and juvenile coho dominate regulations (WDFW 2001c). During the regions (Johnson et al. 1999). cutthroat in pools and glides. As a period when creel census data were Many coastal cutthroat populations result, coastal cutthroat trout are often collected, the general fishing regulation are isolated above natural barriers. displaced to less desirable habitats in limits for coastal cutthroat trout in Recent studies have shown low levels of the presence of other native salmonids Washington decreased from 12 to 8 trout downstream migration over these (Griffith 1988). Coastal cutthroat trout per angler in 1983, to 2 trout in the natural barriers indicating that these evolved with these competitive marine environment and 8 trout in isolated populations likely are interactions and competition with freshwater in 1986, and finally to 2 trout contributing demographically and native salmonids is not anticipated to in 1992. Minimum size limits also genetically to populations below them adversely affect this DPS of coastal became more restrictive during this (Griswold 1996, Johnson et al. 1999). cutthroat trout. period. In addition, catch and release Furthermore, populations above natural angling for wild cutthroat was Population Size barriers may represent genetic resources implemented in some streams within shared by populations below these Little data exist to determine the the DPS’s range starting in 1989 and barriers and therefore may constitute a actual population size of cutthroat trout expanded to all lower Columbia River significant component of diversity for in the DPS. Most counts were conducted streams below Portland and Vancouver the population (Johnson et al. 1999). only in the area accessible to in 1992 (Leider 1997). The lack of There is increasing evidence that anadromous salmonids; include only angling effort data make it impossible to coastal cutthroat trout isolated for long coastal cutthroat trout moving up or determine if the decline in creel census periods of time above impassable dams down stream (mostly migrants); and numbers are the result of low retain the capacity to produce marine were collected incidental to studies for populations or low angling effort for migrants. The Washington Department other salmonid species using traps or coastal cutthroat trout. Creel census of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (2001) collection facilities designed for salmon personnel have noted reduced angler reported that between 476 and 1,756 and steelhead. We lack information on effort in traditional cutthroat trout smolts were produced from the the efficiency of these systems in angling areas and fewer anglers using freshwater form of coastal cutthroat capturing coastal cutthroat trout, traditional sea-run cutthroat trout gear trout above Cowlitz Falls Dam on the therefore, data from most traps cannot (WDFW 2001c). Given the lack of angler Cowlitz River in 1997 and 1998. Tagging be used to determine or estimate actual effort with which to standardize the and otolith microchemistry analysis of population size for coastal cutthroat counts, we can no longer conclude that one returning adult showed the tagged trout. We have updated the population the creel census data indicate an fish, originating from above the dam, analyses using the latest data received extremely low number of anadromous migrated to salt water and returned. The from WDFW, as well as evaluating the cutthroat trout in the DPS as described report suggested that the resident accuracy of data in depicting actual in the proposed rule (64 FR 16397, April portion of the population of cutthroat coastal cutthroat trout population levels. 5, 1999). trout is making contributions to the Two sets of data from the Grays Trap data are similarly difficult to anadromous portion of the population. Harbor tributaries provide some interpret. The Kalama River trap has The significance of marine migrant population information (WDFW 2001c). detected low numbers of coastal production from the freshwater coastal The number of migrating adult coastal cutthroat trout in all but four years since

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44937

1982. This trap is located above the reliable indicators of population size based on coastal cutthroat trout caught natural, historic anadromous cutthroat than adult counts, they do provide some at a single location in Spring Creek. trout zone, in an area blocked to information on the level of production. Densities were calculated for all sites, upstream passage by a falls until a Numbers of total juveniles produced are whether or not cutthroat were located. ladder was built in 1936. In addition, available from 21 traps in the Grays The Oregon Department of Fish and the trap is designed to catch and hold Harbor system, based on either total Wildlife (ODFW) provided information adult salmon, having a 3.8 cm (1.5 in) counts or estimates derived using trap on densities of coastal cutthroat over 85 bar spacing. According to WDFW efficiency data provided by the WDFW mm in size in the Hood River above the (2001), most adult sea-run cutthroat (2001). Total numbers of juveniles area accessible to anadromous trout would pass through this trap produced is likely affected by the salmonids (ODFW 1998). While undetected because of the wide bar amount of habitat available in the cutthroat trout were not detected in all spacing. Therefore, because the trap is system, which varies widely. We streams sampled, cutthroat trout above a previous natural migration attempted to correct for this by densities where present were relatively barrier and has a large bar spacing, the calculating the number of downstream high, ranging from 0.003 to 0.283 fish trap likely significantly underestimates migrants per square kilometer (km\2\) per m\2\ (0.03 to 3.0 per ft\2\). The the actual number of adult cutthroat of watershed above the trap. The watersheds above Bonneville Dam are trout returning to this drainage, number of downstream migrants per ecologically very different from the resulting in data that are unreliable for km\2\ of watershed area in the Grays remainder of the subspecies’ range. determining population level. Harbor tributaries varied widely from These include the only watersheds The number of adult coastal cutthroat 0.04 to 10.4 per km\2\ (0.1 to 26.8 per where this subspecies is found east of trout trapped at the North Fork Toutle square mi (mi\2\)), with some the Cascade Mountain Divide. This area River rose from 1988 until 1995 and has watersheds producing large numbers of experiences a very different hydrologic declined since (WDFW 2001c). The downstream migrants. The total and climatic environment that may maximum number trapped reached 153 estimated number of juveniles produced influence the densities of cutthroat. in 1995. This increase likely tracks the from Columbia River tributaries below The National Marine Fisheries Service recovery of the population following the Bonneville Dam were available from (NMFS) Status Review (Johnson et al. eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 eight traps. The number of downstream 1999) also cited concern over ‘‘*** and the resulting massive mud and migrants per km\2\ of watershed area two near extinctions of anadromous debris flows in the Toutle River. The varied from 0.5 to 38.4 per km\2\ (1.4 runs in the Hood and Sandy Rivers’’ (64 recent decline in numbers of coastal to 99.4 per mi\2\), with most FR 16407). The Sandy River basin cutthroat trout counted is likely a result watersheds producing more than 6 occupies 4 percent of the DPS’s range. of the continued failure of the Fish outmigrants per km\2\ (15 per mi2). Collection Facility to handle the high Mongillo and Hallock (2001) Data on adult cutthroat trout numbers sediment loads still common in this conducted extensive surveys of 156 are derived from a trap that is located system. The trap has been closed during locations within the Washington portion on a tributary approximately 34 km (21 fall freshets in recent years due to high of the DPS’s range for abundance of mi) from the mouth of the Sandy River sediment loads, coinciding with the coastal cutthroat trout. Data were and 3 km (2 mi) up Cedar Creek from upstream migration of anadromous collected by single-pass electrofishing, a its confluence with the Sandy River. cutthroat (WDFW 2001c). A third trap method which likely underestimates the This trap historically captured two to was added at the Grist Mill Fish Ladder actual abundance, and included areas three dozen anadromous coastal on Cedar Creek in 1998. Because adult used by resident and anadromous cutthroat trout, though none have been cutthroat trout may bypass the ladder, coastal cutthroat trout. Additional data captured in recent years (Johnson et al. this count is an underestimate of actual were presented by the WDFW (2001) for 1999). Trap data from this off-channel population size. The numbers of fish surveys conducted by Weyerhaeuser location may not accurately represent captured at the Grist Mill Fish Ladder Company in 1994 and 1995 and from the number of anadromous cutthroat in ranged from 57 to 120. one study in the Humptulips Basin in the Sandy River. As a substantial Of the nine adult traps with the 1970s. The relative density for all portion of the historic anadromous- population data in southwest locations below Bonneville Dam ranged accessible habitat in the Sandy River Washington and the Columbia River from 0.009 to 0.222 fish per square has been isolated by dams and other tributaries below Bonneville Dam, four meter (m2) (0.09 to 2.4 per ft2). These barriers, the number of anadromous have total annual counts below 10 values were compared to population coastal cutthroat trout is likely coastal cutthroat trout in recent years. In densities from the 1970s in the Olympic depressed from historic levels. at least one case (Kalama River trap), Peninsula and Puget Sound (0.009 to However, it is difficult to extrapolate this may well be due to the inefficiency 0.384 fish per m2 (0.09 to 4.1 per ft2)), data from one trap located on a tributary of the trap in collecting adult coastal which were considered healthy (in to the main river to a meaningful cutthroat trout as described above. Five terms of abundance) during that period estimate of the anadromous component of these traps have counts (averaged for (WDFW 2001c) and were not considered of the population for the basin as a the last five years) of 50 to 1,400 adult likely to be in danger of extinction in whole. Resident cutthroat trout are cutthroat trout per year. These data the foreseeable future by the Status considered well-distributed in the indicate higher numbers than Review Team (Johnson et al. 1999). Sandy River basin, occurring above and previously described and we no longer Densities recorded in southwest below Marmot and Little Sandy Dams conclude that the annual number of Washington by Mongillo and Hallock (PGE 2000). Much of the upper Sandy adults returning to these traps in the (2001) were not significantly different River Basin is under Federal land DPS are consistently below 10 fish as from densities recorded in the 1970s management which minimizes future described in the proposed rule (64 FR from the Olympic Peninsula and Puget threats of habitat degradation that 16407). Sound. would cause population declines (see Many juvenile fish traps are Densities measured in Washington Federal Land Management Section monitored in tributaries of Grays above Bonneville Dam were lower below). We conclude that the Harbor. While juvenile counts are less (0.0003 fish per m\2\ (0.003 per ft\2\)), anadromous portion of the population

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44938 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

of coastal cutthroat trout in the Sandy cutthroat trout in lower Columbia River Evaluating the reliability of the trend River has declined from historic levels, streams, indicated by low incidental information is very important in though the limited data do not allow us catch of coastal cutthroat trout in determining the appropriate use of the to determine if they are nearly extinct in salmon and steelhead recreational information. The reliability of analyses this small portion of the DPS, as fisheries, and by low trap counts in a in truly depicting any population trend described in the proposed rule. The number of tributaries throughout the could be affected by the collection resident portion of the population region and that numbers of adults method, length of data set, specific remains well distributed in the Sandy returning to traps in the lower Columbia concerns for individual collection sites, River. River tributaries were consistently and statistical reliability of the test Powerdale Dam, completed in 1922, below 10 fish in most streams over each results. In interpreting the results of the lies 7.2 km (4.5 mi) up the Hood River of the past 6 years (64 FR 16407). Based analyses, less weight was given to from its confluence with the Columbia on the information described in this results with low statistical reliability, River. The area between the dam and section, we conclude that, while the short data sets, and where the agency the powerhouse (river mile (rmi) 1.5) anadromous portion of the population managing the trap/collection indicated was historically dewatered at times, of coastal cutthroat trout is likely at specific problems that could bias or though now has minimum required lower-than-historic levels, there is little affect trend information. flows. The dam likely has affected the information available to determine the Most information was collected in number of anadromous cutthroat trout actual size of runs or to indicate that areas accessible to anadromous using the Hood River, which comprises populations, or even the anadromous salmonids, incidental to studies for two percent of the DPS’s range. Hood portion alone, are at extremely low other salmonid species, using traps or River lies upriver of Bonneville Pool levels in most areas of the DPS. The collection facilities designed for other and Dam, which may further impede anadromous portion of the population species. Information on the efficiency of anadromous cutthroat trout movements. may be at very low numbers in Hood these systems in detecting or collecting Hood River lies near the eastern edge of and Sandy Rivers (6 percent of the cutthroat trout is lacking. Therefore, the range of coastal cutthroat trout. No DPS’s range), though the location of the these values do not represent the trends information is available as to trap on the Sandy River makes it of all portions of the DPS. We carefully anadromous cutthroat trout use and difficult to support the conclusion that explored information on the individual numbers prior to construction of anadromous coastal cutthroat trout are traps or other information to ensure that Powerdale and Bonneville Dams, and near extinction in this river as described potential biases that could affect use of only limited information exists on in the proposed rule (64 FR 16407). these data as indices of population trend numbers in even recent times. Trap data Resident/freshwater forms remain well were minimized. Trends from short- from 1962 to 1971 shows variable, but distributed and at reasonable densities term data sets are particularly suspect. significant numbers of adult cutthroat in these same river systems. Coastal There is naturally high variation in all trout trapped (mean 61, range 8 to 177) cutthroat trout in the southwest adult and juvenile counts, with some followed by a gap in information until Washington portion of the DPS (75 apparent short-term cyclicity. The trend 1992. Very few adult fish have been percent of the land base) remain at in a short data set is therefore more trapped at the facility since 1992, with comparable densities to other areas likely indicative of the particular time no fish captured in 6 of 10 years. considered to have healthy-sized span of the data collection, and position However, in 2001, 11 adult coastal populations. Therefore, we conclude in the ‘‘cycle,’’ than an indication of cutthroat trout returned to Powerdale that the population of coastal cutthroat true long-term trend in the population. Dam (Connolly et al. 2002). From 1994 trout as a whole in the DPS is not Only a few long-term data sets were to 1999, downstream smolt traps in the extremely low in numbers or at levels available. Hood River system continued to trap that would lead to increased risk of Data sets were analyzed for the migrants, though at low numbers (mean extinction due to small population size percent annual decline using a of 24 fish). Given the location and long in the foreseeable future. regression of the natural log of the trap history of Powerdale Dam, it is not counts. Where data sets were longer surprising that the anadromous portion Population Trends Across the DPS than 11 years, analyses were conducted of the population in Hood River is The proposed rule stated that for entire data set (long term) and for the depressed. Resident forms within this ‘‘[t]rends in anadromous adults and last 7 to 11 years (short term). These system are in better condition, with outmigrating smolts in the southwestern same methods were used by NMFS in relatively high densities (0.003 to 0.238 Washington portion of this [DPS] are all the Status Review (Johnson et al. 1999). fish per m\2\ (0.03 to 2.56 fish per declining’’ (64 FR 16407) and that We used statistical analyses to ft\2\) for fish greater than 85 mm ‘‘[r]eturns of both naturally and determine the reliability of the observed (approximately 3 in) in length (ODFW hatchery produced anadromous coastal trend. The accuracy of the observed 1998). We conclude that the cutthroat trout in almost all lower trend is evaluated by the p value. A low anadromous portion the population of Columbia River streams have declined p value indicates that the trend we coastal cutthroat trout in the Hood River markedly over the last 10 to 15 years,’’ calculated is likely to be an accurate has declined severely from historic with the only increase in the Toutle representation of the true trend in the levels in this small portion of the DPS. River (64 FR 16407). population. For example, a p value of The resident portion of the population During the public comment period we 0.10 indicates a 90 percent probability remains well distributed at relatively received new data from several of the that the observed trend is accurate, a p high densities in the Hood River. fish traps operating in the DPS’s range. value of 0.5 indicates only a 50 percent Occasional upstream migrants continue Based on analyses of these new data, probability that the observed trend is to be trapped in some years, and in including further information on accurate. With regression statistics, we 2001, a total of 11 upstream migrants individual traps from WDFW (2001), we also report the r\2\ value which were captured (Connolly et al. 2002). evaluated the trend in the population of describes how well the straight trend The proposed rule stated that NMFS coastal cutthroat trout in the DPS and line fits the observed population data. was concerned about the extremely low the reliability of the trend information Low r\2\ values indicate that the population size of anadromous coastal from each individual data set. straight trend line does not fit the data

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44939

well and lowers our confidence that the within the Grays Harbor portion of the The Kalama River trap has detected observed trend accurately represents the DPS. Most of the trend analyses from low numbers of coastal cutthroat trout true trend. Highly variable data often these data sets are not reliable due to in all but four years since 1982. The result in a low r\2\ value. short time series or poor statistical Kalama River basin occupies 1.5 percent The proposed rule stated that results. Only the Stevens Creek data of the DPS’s range. This trap is located ‘‘[t]rends in anadromous adults and were considered relatively reliable (p above the traditional anadromous outmigrating smolts in the southwestern less than 0.001, r2 = 0.67). This cutthroat trout zone, in an area blocked Washington portion of this [DPS] are all population was declining at a rate of 15 to upstream passage until a ladder was declining’’ (64 FR 16407) and that percent per year as of 1994 (Johnson et built at the falls in 1936. The trap is ‘‘[r]eturns of both naturally and al. 1999) and there were no additional designed for adult salmon with a 3.8 cm hatchery produced anadromous coastal data available for this trap. New data (1.5 in) bar spacing. According to cutthroat trout in almost all lower were available from the Chehalis River WDFW, most adult sea-run cutthroat Columbia River streams have declined trap. Hatchery releases in this area have trout would pass through undetected markedly over the last 10 to 15 years’’ declined significantly and no hatchery (WDFW 2001c). While these factors may (64 FR 16407). The latest trend data, as marked coastal cutthroat trout have affect total counts at this location, it is described below, do not support this been recorded at the trap in recent still potentially usable for trend conclusion. years. The number of total coastal analyses. The data indicate a long-term Population Trends in Grays Harbor cutthroat trout caught at the trap declining trend (10 percent annual appears to have declined in recent years decline, p less than 0.001, r2 = 0.62). Trends in the counts of adult coastal (11 percent annual decline, p = 0.18, r2 WDFW (2000) noted that after a sharp cutthroat trout migrants from the Grays = 0.19). However, when only unmarked decline in the mid-1980s, counts at the Harbor portion of the DPS were (i.e., naturally spawned) coastal Kalama facility have been low and analyzed from three available data sets. cutthroat trout were counted, the stable, though our analysis of data since Data used in the Status Review (Johnson number of fish counted appears to have 1987 indicates that the number of et al. 1999) indicated a declining trend increased over the long term (10 percent cutthroat trapped has continued to for the West Fork Hoquiam River (5 2 annual increase, p = 0.18, r = 0.14). decline at a similar rate. percent annual decline, data through Given the moderate p values and poor Creel census data for coastal cutthroat 1995). In the latest analysis there is no r2 values, these data have relatively poor trout from the lower Columbia River reliable indication of a trend, increasing reliability. Therefore, the Chehalis River 2 were collected incidentally to studies of or decreasing (p = 0.44, r = 0.05) in the trap provides no strong evidence of salmon and steelhead fisheries, and no West Fork Hoquiam River. Adult either a long-term positive or negative data were collected on angler effort for migrant counts from Bingham Creek population trend. were not used in the Status Review’s coastal cutthroat trout. Based on the assessment (Johnson et al. 1999). Population Trends in the Columbia latest creel census data, there is an Analysis of data from 1983 through River and Tributaries indication of an 18 percent annual rate 2001 show an increasing long-term Trends in the numbers of migratory of decline over the long term. The trend (7 percent annual increase) that is adult coastal cutthroat trout returning to number of cutthroat trout recorded in considered relatively reliable, though traps in the lower Columbia River the creel surveys for the lower Columbia the straight trend line does not fit the portion of the DPS were analyzed on River, and thus the calculated trend, is data well (p = 0.05, r2 = 0.2). Additional five available data sets discussed below. likely to be strongly influenced by the hook and line data were available from These analyses provide some indication change in cutthroat trout fishing a single individual who kept very of decline in the numbers of adult regulations during this period (WDFW accurate catch records over 15 years anadromous coastal cutthroat trout, 2001c) with a decrease in limits and an (WDFW 2001c). Such data can be biased though there are concerns about the increase in minimum size (see by changes in the individual’s skill and reliability and confidence in the Population Size section), as well as effort over time, however, these data do magnitude of these trends for most of changes in salmon and steelhead generally support the conclusion of an the data sets. These concerns are poor fisheries. The lack of angler effort data increasing trend (4 percent annual statistical reliability, lack of trap make it impossible to determine if the increase, p less than 0.01, r2 = 0.58). efficiency data, and consistency decline in creel census numbers is the WDFW also concluded, based on angler problems that likely bias the results. No result of declining populations or data, that the percentage of repeat data exist specific to trends in the declining effort. Creel census personnel spawners or larger fish in the resident portion of coastal cutthroat have noted reduced angler effort in population has also recently increased, trout population in the DPS. traditional cutthroat trout areas and indicating an improvement in Two of the five data sets were from a fewer anglers using traditional sea-run population condition (WDFW 2001c). limited time period and not considered cutthroat trout gear (WDFW 2001c). The Based on analysis of data from the West reliable indicators of trend. In addition, change in regulations likely changed Fork Hoquiam River, Bingham Creek, the North Fork Toutle River trap was fishing behavior, reducing the angler and the angler data, there is no evidence considered unreliable for determining effort. With reduced effort, we would that the adult portion of the population trend due to recent continued failure of expect a lower catch and therefore the in the Grays Harbor tributaries, which the Fish Collection Facility leading to appearance of a decline. While it is comprises 18 percent of the DPS, is closures coinciding with the upstream likely that there has been some decline declining over the long term as migration of anadromous cutthroat trout in the number of adult anadromous described in the proposed rule (64 FR (WDFW 2001c). Trends for wild fish cutthroat trout, it is impossible to 16407), and there is some indication returns for the Elochoman River trap determine the rate of decline with any that the adult portion of the population were difficult to fully analyze due to a certainty in the absence of data on may be stable or increasing, at least in significant gap in the data. There are angling effort (WDFW 2001c). Given the Bingham Creek. only seven years of data following this lack of angler effort with which to Juvenile (downstream migrant) count gap, ending in 1995 when trapping was standardize the counts, we can no data were available from many locations discontinued. longer conclude that the creel census

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44940 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

data indicates a specific level of decline (64 FR 16407). Based on the latest population trends indicate that coastal in the anadromous portion of the information, there is no reliable cutthroat trout are likely to be extirpated cutthroat trout DPS as described in the evidence that the adult population in from any significant portion of their proposed rule (64 FR 16397). the Grays Harbor tributaries is declining range in the foreseeable future. The NMFS Status Review also cited over the long term and some indication Life History Diversity concern relative to two near extinctions that the adult population may be stable of anadromous runs in the Hood and or increasing in at least some areas. The proposed rule stated that ‘‘[a] Sandy Rivers (6 percent of the DPS’s There is an indication from a single trap significant risk factor for coastal range) (see Population Size section). that juvenile outmigration may be cutthroat trout in this [DPS] was a There has been a decline in the number declining, though we lack data for the reduction of life-history diversity’’ (64 of anadromous cutthroat caught at the past seven years. Therefore, we no FR 16407), based on serious declines in trap in the Sandy River, though it is longer conclude that trends of the adult anadromous life history forms and near difficult to extrapolate data from one anadromous portion of the population extirpation in at least two rivers on the trap located on a tributary to the main and outmigrating juveniles in the Oregon side of the basin. The proposed river to a meaningful population trend southwest Washington portion of the rule does acknowledge that freshwater in this system. Captures have been very DPS are all declining markedly as forms remained well distributed and in low at Powerdale Dam on the Hood described in the proposed rule (64 FR relative high abundance (64 FR 16407). River (see Population Size section). The 16407). The proposed rule indicated that habitat degradation in stream reaches accessible data were insufficient to conduct any The proposed rule stated that meaningful trend analysis. Given the to anadromous cutthroat trout, and poor ‘‘[r]eturns of both naturally and long history of this dam, it is not ocean and estuarine conditions, likely hatchery produced anadromous coastal surprising that the anadromous portion have combined to severely deplete the cutthroat trout in almost all lower of the population in Hood River is anadromous life history form Columbia River streams have declined severely depressed. The resident portion throughout the lower Columbia River markedly over the last 10 to 15 years,’’ of the population within this system is Basin. Finally, the proposed rule further with the only increase in the Toutle in better condition, with relatively high stated that ‘‘Reduced abundance in River (64 FR 16407). The petition to list densities (ODFW 1998), though no trend anadromous fish will tend to restrict sea-run cutthroat trout (ONRC 1998) data exist for this portion of the connectivity of populations in different stated that ‘‘[i]f angler catch truly population. watersheds, which can increase genetic Data were available for the smolt to mirrors run size, * * * then the latest and demographic risks. * * * The adult return rate at the Cowlitz River surveys suggest a decline of close to 99 significance of this reduction in life- Hatchery. These rates have declined in percent in sea-run cutthroat trout history diversity to the [sic] both the the long-term (19 years) (6 percent numbers from historical levels in the integrity and the likelihood of this decline per year, p = 0.01, r2 = 0.34). In lower Columbia River and its [DPS’s] long-term persistence is a major the short term (11 years), the data do not tributaries.’’ As described above, due to concern to NMFS’’ (64 FR 16407). reliably show an increasing or changes in regulations and the lack of ODFW and WDFW presented decreasing trend (p = 0.46, r2 = 0.06). angler effort data, we conclude that preliminary evidence to the Status The last return rate (1998 juveniles) was angler catch data for the lower Columbia Review team that freshwater cutthroat 4.1 percent, the highest value since River is likely not a true representation trout could produce anadromous 1988. These data are based on hatchery of run size. Data for the lower Columbia migrants, which could mitigate risks to fish and likely underestimate natural River are limited and there are the anadromous portion of the survival rates of cutthroat in this system significant concerns about the reliability population. The proposed rule did note because of the higher levels of survival of the results. There are indications of that the presence of well distributed of wild over hatchery produced declines in the anadromous component freshwater forms in relatively high salmonids (Chilcote in prep). of the adult portion of the population in abundance, coupled with the possibility Data on population trends for the Columbia River, though the rate of that freshwater forms could produce juveniles (downstream migrants) were the decline is uncertain due to concerns anadromous progeny ‘‘* * * could act very limited. Most data sets were short over the reliability of the analyses and to mitigate risk to anadromous forms of and trend could not be determined with potential biases in the data sets. While coastal cutthroat trout,’’ though the any certainty. Trends varied from weak the number of anadromous coastal observation that sea-run coastal increases to weak declines. The Status cutthroat trout have likely declined in cutthroat trout population sizes Review noted a 16 percent decline in the Columbia River, we do not have remained consistently low remained a smolt abundance in the Kalama River. sufficient data to determine a reliable cause for concern (64 FR 16407). This was based on data from 7 years rate of recent decline and, therefore, no Anadromous cutthroat trout, (1978–1984) followed by a gap of 8 longer conclude that returns of particularly in the lower Columbia years and 3 years of additional data anadromous cutthroat trout in almost all River, are the most negatively affected (1992–1994). The gap and short nature lower Columbia River streams have portion of the DPS. The degree to which of the end portion of the data make it ‘‘declined markedly over the last 10 to the reduced numbers of the anadromous difficult to interpret a reliable rate of 15 years’’ as described in the proposed portion of the population of coastal decline. rule (64 FR 16407). There is little cutthroat trout represent a risk to the information on population trends for DPS as a whole depends, in part, on the Summary of Trend Analysis resident or freshwater forms of cutthroat importance of this life history strategy Based on the above information, trout in the DPS, though populations in and the extent to which the expression population trends of the DPS appear the Washington portion of the DPS of life history strategies are genetically more variable than previously thought. appear to remain at levels comparable to versus environmentally controlled. The proposed rule stated that ‘‘[t]rends healthy-sized populations, indicating The anadromous life history strategy in anadromous adults and outmigrating that large-scale, long-term declines have is likely important to the DPS for smolts in the southwestern Washington not occurred at a landscape level. Based genetic mixing in the long-term and for portion of this [DPS] are all declining’’ on these data, we do not find that the potential recolonization after

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44941

catastrophic events. Genetic exchange migration. WDFW has marked coastal rivers). In addition, there is no evidence can be important in evolutionary time cutthroat trout smolts produced by at this time that coastal cutthroat trout scales to maintain diversity within upstream freshwater fish at Cowlitz pursuing the anadromous life history populations, but requires that only a few Falls, which lies above Mayfield Dam. strategy are segregated from the individuals interbreed successfully over Two adults returned from smolts tagged remainder of the population. In fact, time. The Pacific Northwest is subject to in 1997, one of which was sacrificed studies show that individuals above periodic catastrophic events such as and microchemistry results confirmed it barriers and below barriers with access volcanic eruptions and stand had migrated to salt water and returned. to the sea are more closely related replacement fires that can seriously Eight fish from smolts tagged returned within a drainage than are individuals depress, and even extirpate, local in 1998. While this portion of the DPS from different drainages (Behnke 1997, populations. These types of events may contain residualized anadromous Johnson et al. 1999). This further occur on very long time scales and at cutthroat trout trapped behind the dam, supports the conclusion that watershed or sub-basin scales. it has continued to produce downstream anadromous and non-anadromous Anadromous cutthroat represent one migrants for over 40 years (more than 10 individuals are not substantially possible source of individuals for generations). These results are separate subpopulations. Therefore, recolonization, the other being resident consistent with the hypothesis that based on the evidence that freshwater cutthroat trout above or outside the area resident fish in anadromous fish zones and isolated portions of the population of the catastrophic event. The ability of are capable of producing migratory are capable of producing anadromous anadromous cutthroat trout to juveniles (i.e., smolts) and ‘‘sea-run’’ migrants, we now conclude that recolonize is limited by barriers and adults. freshwater and isolated portions of the they cannot provide rescue to The few existing studies show that, coastal cutthroat trout population are populations above large, natural although both allele frequencies and mitigating risks to anadromous forms to barriers. morphology may differ between some degree. The ability for non- The extent to which each life history populations above barriers and anadromous cutthroat trout to produce expression is partitioned or isolated populations below barriers with access anadromous progeny reduces the risk of among and within populations is largely to the sea, these different life history loss of the anadromous life history unknown, though there is growing forms are generally more closely related strategy in the foreseeable future. evidence that individuals may express within a drainage than are populations multiple life history behaviors over time from different drainages (Behnke 1997, Distinct Population Segment (Johnson et al. 1999). Coastal cutthroat Johnson et al. 1999). These results The analysis for this listing trout that were believed to be freshwater indicate that the migratory and non- determination is based on the DPS as forms one year may migrate to the sea migratory portions of the population of described in the April 5, 1999, Federal another year; some individuals may not cutthroat trout represent a single Register proposed rule (64 FR 16397). In make their initial migration to sea until evolutionary lineage in which the that proposed rule, the DPS was defined age six (Sumner 1962, Geiger 1972). various life history characteristics have to include naturally spawned cutthroat Some sea-run cutthroat trout may not arisen repeatedly in different geographic trout below long-standing, naturally- enter saltwater every year after their regions. These relationships for coastal impassable barriers. However, at that initial seaward migration (Tomasson cutthroat trout are similar to those for time we indicated that, prior to the final 1978). other salmonid fishes, particularly listing, we would examine the Both ODFW (1998) and WDFW (2001) sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) relationship between hatchery and presented information showing and its non-anadromous form, kokanee. naturally spawned cutthroat trout, and evidence of production of anadromous NMFS (Johnson et al. 1999) cutthroat trout above barriers to assess progeny by freshwater resident cutthroat acknowledged that if freshwater coastal whether any of these populations trout. Studies of brown trout have cutthroat trout can produce smolts, this warrant inclusion in the DPS. In the demonstrated that non-anadromous could mitigate the risks to the proposed rule, we indicated that this adults can produce anadromous anadromous portion of the population, could result in the inclusion of specific offspring, though at lower levels than though at the time they lacked hatchery populations or populations anadromous adults. For other salmonids information on the length of isolation of above barriers as part of the DPS. with multiple life history forms, Jonsson populations above Mayfield Dam to Only one coastal cutthroat trout and Jonsson (1993) suggested that in a fully evaluate this phenomenon. They hatchery remains active in the DPS’s single mating, parents may produce did note that even if smolts were being range, the Cowlitz River Hatchery. We offspring with different migratory produced, the anadromous portion of examined the relationship between this strategies, though this has not been the population remains consistently low hatchery and unmarked fish from the confirmed experimentally for coastal in many areas which is cause for DPS. Genetically, the remaining cutthroat trout (Johnson et al. 1999). concern. Coastal cutthroat trout above hatchery population appears more WDFW (2001) provided additional Mayfield Dam have been isolated for similar to other populations within the information on the production of over 40 years, representing many DPS than to populations from outside downstream migrants by cutthroat trout generations, and continue to produce the DPS (Johnson et al. 1999). Stock for entrained above dams on the Cowlitz appreciable numbers of downstream this hatchery came initially from the River. A downstream migrant trap at migrants. The fact that they continue to now closed Beaver Creek Hatchery, Mayfield Dam recorded between 60 and produce smolts after long isolation which in turn was initiated using a 812 migrants per year from 1978 to suggests that even if the anadromous mixed stock of fish from within the DPS 1999. There was a single release of portion of the population continues to (Crawford 1979). We have no hatchery-derived anadromous cutthroat experience low number and declines, information that would lead us to trout above Mayfield Dam in 1981, but smolts will be produced that can exclude the Cowlitz River Hatchery all cutthroat trout currently above the supplement the anadromous portion of stock from the DPS at this time. dam are considered to be freshwater the population and take advantage of Therefore, all further analyses were forms (WDFW 2001c). Mayfield Dam any improvement in anadromous conducted including the Cowlitz River was built in 1962, blocking upstream habitat (e.g., ocean, estuary, mainstem Hatchery stock.

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44942 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

As described in the proposed rule, we cutthroat trout due to budgetary specifically allows for the recognition of indicated that populations above limitations. On August 29, 2001, we DPSs at levels below taxonomically barriers that permit some one-way issued a press release announcing that, recognized species or subspecies. The migration should generally be included as part of a settlement agreement with coastal cutthroat trout is a recognized in the DPS. Populations above such conservation groups, we would subspecies of cutthroat trout (Behnke barriers may contribute commence work on the final listing 1992). demographically and genetically to decision for the Southwestern Issue 2: Two commenters suggested populations below barriers. The genetic Washington/Columbia River coastal that all life history forms, including similarity observed between cutthroat trout DPS (Center for populations above long-standing, populations above and below barriers Biological Diversity, et al. v. Norton, naturally-impassable barriers should be supports this interpretation (Johnson et Civ. No. 01–2063 (JR) (D.D.C.)). This included in the DPS. Two commenters al. 1999). Few, if any, natural barriers was followed by another proposed rule suggested that resident coastal cutthroat prevent some one-way migration. announcing an additional 30-day trout may contribute to anadromous Therefore, we have included all above- comment period, published in the smolt production, supporting the barrier populations as part of the DPS Federal Register (66 FR 58706) on inclusion of resident fish in the DPS. for the following analysis. Therefore, the November 23, 2001. We requested any Service Response: We fully evaluated DPS analyzed in this listing new information related to the status information on the relationship between determination includes all coastal and biology of the coastal cutthroat trout populations above and below long- cutthroat trout, whether naturally population in southwestern Washington standing, naturally-impassable barriers spawned, from hatcheries, or above and the Columbia River, any threats to and agree with the commenters (see barriers, within the area described the species, and any efforts being made Distinct Population Segment section). above. to protect native, naturally reproducing Based on the latest information populations. provided by WDFW (2001), we concur Previous Federal Actions that there are data showing that NMFS published a Status Review of Summary of Comments and cutthroat trout above long-standing coastal cutthroat trout in Washington, Recommendations barriers produce offspring that migrate Oregon, and California in January 1999. In the April 5, 1999, proposed rule to the estuary or ocean and return. We On April 5, 1999, NMFS and the Service and associated notifications, all have considered this information fully published a proposed rule in the interested parties were requested to in the Life History Diversity section Federal Register (64 FR 16397) submit factual reports or information above. We have included all life history proposing to list the coastal cutthroat that might contribute to the forms and populations above long- trout population in southwestern development of a final rule. Additional standing, naturally-impassable barriers Washington and the Columbia River, requests for public comment were in the final analysis of the DPS. excluding the Willamette River above published on April 14, 2000 (65 FR Issue 3: One commenter questioned Willamette Falls, as threatened pursuant 20123); July 14, 2000 (65 FR 43730); the delineation of the DPS, suggesting to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 September 6, 2000 (65 FR 53974); and that observed minor differences in (Act). We published a document in the November 23, 2001 (66 FR 58706). genetic makeup, life history, phenotypic Federal Register (65 FR 20123) on April Appropriate Federal and State agencies, traits, and habitat characteristics did not 14, 2000, extending the deadline from county governments, scientific support multiple DPSs for coastal April 5, 2000, to October 5, 2000 for the organizations, and other interested cutthroat trout. Several commenters final action on the proposed rule to list parties were contacted and requested to suggested the DPS did not meet the this population in Washington and comment. During the five open requirement for discreteness from other Oregon, and to provide a 30-day comment periods, a total of 127 populations beyond the DPS. comment period. On April 21, 2000, comments were received from 96 Service Response: DPSs of vertebrate NMFS and the Service published a different government agencies, populations may be listed under the Act notice of our assumption of jurisdiction organizations, or individuals, including if they satisfy the following two for coastal cutthroat trout. We published oral testimony at the four hearings held elements: (1) discreteness of the a document on June 2, 2000 (65 FR during the process. Many government population segment in relation to the 35315), reopening the public comment agencies, organizations, and individuals remainder of the species or subspecies period and announcing a public hearing provided comments during more than to which it belongs; and (2) significance in Illwaco, WA, on June 20, 2000. On one public comment period or hearing. of the population segment to the species July 14, 2000, we published a proposed Issue 1: Several commenters stated or subspecies to which it belongs (61 FR rule in the Federal Register (65 FR that coastal cutthroat trout should not 4721). 43730) to clarify the take prohibitions be listed as a DPS, but should be To be considered discrete, a DPS must for coastal cutthroat trout and provide considered for listing at the subspecies be markedly separated from other for a 30-day public comment period. levels and then only if it is reasonably populations of the same taxon as a This proposed rule was necessary to certain that it constitutes a separate consequence of physical, physiological, answer questions we had received subspecies based on significant ecological, or behavioral factors. regarding the application of the take characteristics. Quantitative measures of genetic or prohibitions of section 9 of the Act to Service Response: The Act defines morphological discontinuity may the proposed listing of the coastal species as ‘‘any species of fish or provide evidence of this separation. cutthroat trout as threatened. The wildlife or plants, and any DPS of any Genetic tests of samples from coastal comment period was again reopened species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that cutthroat trout in the DPS show that September 6, 2000 (65 FR 53974), and interbreeds when mature.’’ 16 U.S.C. populations within the DPS are more a hearing was held September 21, 2000, 1532(15). A DPS is a population of a closely related to each other than to in Aberdeen, WA, based on a request vertebrate species that is distinct from, populations in adjacent areas. This during the public comment period. In and significant to, the remainder of the indicates some level of reproductive November 2000, we suspended work on species or subspecies to which it isolation. As it only requires the proposed listing of the coastal belongs (61 FR 4721). This definition interbreeding of a few individuals

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44943

between populations to effectively keep (50 mi)), and the fact that coastal analysis, treatment of outliers and the population genetics from diverging cutthroat trout are not thought to cross hybrids, analysis procedures (e.g., significantly, the differences described large open water as potential isolating measures of genetic distance), presence in the Status Review (Johnson et al. factors that would support smaller of hatchery and mixed origin stocks in 1999) demonstrate marked separation of DPSs. However, the same commenter the samples, and the potential effect of the coastal cutthroat trout in the DPS did provide evidence that isolation hatchery stock on local population from other adjacent areas. between Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay genetics. WDFW provided an alternative The second requirement for DPS and/or Lower Columbia coastal analysis and conclusion of the genetic status is the biological and ecological cutthroat is not complete, because information. significance of the population to the hatchery marked coastal cutthroat are Service Response: The principal subspecies. Significance includes, but is frequently observed at Willapa Bay purpose of genetic analyses for not limited to the following: (1) salmon hatcheries. WDFW (2000) Endangered Species Act evaluations is persistence of the DPS in an ecological suggested that the hatchery marked fish to understand the magnitude of genetic setting unusual or unique for the taxon; originated from either Lower Columbia diversity among populations throughout (2) evidence that loss of the discrete River or Grays Harbor because there the range of the species considered for population segment would result in a were no hatchery plants of coastal listing under the Act. The goal of such significant gap in the range of a taxon; cutthroat in Willapa Bay during this evaluations is not to identify every or (3) evidence that the discrete time period. Therefore, we conclude genetically isolated (or diverged) population segment differs markedly that the distance between Willapa Bay population, but rather to identify from other populations of the species in and Columbia River coastal cutthroat geographic subsets of the species its genetic characteristics (61 FR 4721). trout populations would not prevent conforming to the definition of a DPS The DPS has unique ecological anadromous cutthroat from interacting (61 FR 4721). The pattern of genetic characteristics that distinguish it from across these systems. diversity throughout the range of the other portions of the range. The DPS The alternative genetic analysis species is evaluated geographically to occupies aquatic systems that feed three presented by WDFW (2001) actually identify potential subsets for further large estuaries with extensive intertidal revealed a slightly higher genetic evaluation as DPSs. mud and sandflats, very different from similarity between Willapa Bay and In the genetic analysis, Johnson et al. estuaries north and south of the DPS. Lower Columbia River populations than (1999) excluded some outlier Loss of coastal cutthroat in the DPS between the former populations and populations from the statistical analysis. would result in a significant gap in the Grays Harbor. We agree that populations None of the populations within the DPS range of the taxon. Populations may be of coastal cutthroat trout in the DPS were excluded. Most of the excluded reproductively isolated because of appear to be substructured according to populations were from the Upper limited migratory range and timing. The major geographic areas. However, the Willamette DPS, and only one was from loss of these populations would magnitude of this substructuring, an adjacent DPS with anadromous negatively affect the genetic resources of relative to the amount of genetic components. Therefore, the exclusion of coastal cutthroat. divergence among the six DPSs outlier populations is unlikely to have Based on a review of available identified by NMFS (Johnson et al. significantly affected the interpretation information, we concluded that the DPS 1999), does not warrant further of the genetic information relative to the meets the criteria for discreteness and partitioning into two or more separate DPS. significance. Available data demonstrate DPSs. WDFW also presented observed We recognize that exclusion of that both environmental and genetic differences regarding life history ‘‘hybrids’’ from the population genetic factors indicate that the DPS is different characteristics of juvenile anadromous analyses conducted by the Status from other populations of coastal coastal cutthroat (smoltification age) Review Team may be more problematic. cutthroat trout. Further, we concluded comparing a single stream in the NMFS used a qualitative, genotypic that the available information supports Columbia River portion to a combined approach in their genetic analyses to the conclusion that the southwest data set from three streams in Willapa classify each individual fish as either a Washington/Columbia River DPS of Bay. While there were differences in the cutthroat trout, a rainbow/steelhead coastal cutthroat is biologically and percentage of individuals making their trout, or a ‘‘hybrid’’ (Johnson et al. ecologically significant to the first marine migration at age two (86 1999). It is necessary to remove hybrids subspecies. versus 61 percent), this may well be to accurately analyze regional genetic Issue 4: Several commenters evidence of minor local adaptations to patterns for coastal cutthroat trout, recommended splitting the DPS into the specific conditions in these few especially where hybrids are common. smaller segments. Most commenters individual streams. Without a more We are currently re-analyzing the data suggested separating the Grays Harbor/ extensive study, it is impossible to with a more quantitative approach Willapa Bay area from the Columbia determine if this difference is indicative based on multivariate statistical River because of physical, geographic, of these portions of the DPS. analyses. These analyses are not yet and/or biological isolating mechanisms. Based on the latest information, we complete, but preliminary analyses One commenter provided an alternative conclude that the DPS as defined in the indicate that the quantitative and genetic analysis that indicated the DPS proposed rule (64 FR 16397) meets the qualitative approaches are classifying should be split into three separate DPSs. requirements of a DPS, and that most individuals consistently. Service Response: There are alternative smaller DPSs are not Issue 6: Several commenters reported significant ecological and genetic supported by the information available that coastal cutthroat (especially similarities between the Columbia at this time. resident forms) are distributed River, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor Issue 5: Several commenters throughout the DPS and are locally portions of the DPS. All three occupy questioned the analysis and abundant in most areas. large estuary systems. One commenter interpretation of genetic data based on Service Response: Since obtaining pointed to the relatively long distances sample size, limited collection period, sole jurisdiction for this subspecies (64 between the Willapa Bay and Columbia lack of information on the resident FR 21376), we have assembled an River tributaries (approximately 80 km portion of the population in the extensive database regarding

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44944 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

distribution (presence) of coastal we invoked this provision to help healthy-sized outside the DPS. cutthroat in the DPS. For example, in resolve substantial scientific However, this does not prove that Washington, we have documented that disagreement concerning above-barrier freshwater conditions have not coastal cutthroat occur in over 1,300 coastal cutthroat and hatchery contributed to declines in the locations within the DPS. This data set populations of coastal cutthroat (65 FR anadromous portions of the coastal includes the year 2001 sampling effort 20123). In addition, the current listing cutthroat trout population. Conditions conducted by WDFW in Lower decision is part of a settlement in spawning areas used by anadromous Columbia River streams. With this new agreement with conservation groups individuals and barriers to historic distribution information, we now have a that requires the final listing decision by anadromous spawning areas likely high degree of certainty that this June 23, 2002. Therefore, we are using contributed to declines, as have changes subspecies is well distributed the best available scientific and in the migration corridors (large rivers), throughout suitable habitats in the DPS. commercial information to reach a estuaries, and marine conditions. From these data, it is now apparent that listing decision, as required by the Act, Issue 10: Several commenters the historical distribution of coastal and by the court agreed deadline. described the impact of continued cutthroat has not contracted appreciably The Act requires that listing effects of logging to coastal cutthroat in the DPS (see Range and Distribution determinations be based on the best trout populations, including effects on section below). available commercial and scientific large woody debris availability, Issue 7: Several commenters information. We have received new increased disease, altered timing of suggested that the biological information since the proposed listing juvenile migrations, increased information presented in the Status specific to coastal cutthroat trout in the predation, smothering of eggs and fry in Review and proposed rule was not DPS. While information on this species gravels, and adverse effects to benthic adequate to proceed with a final listing. is not as rigorous and complete as is (bottom dwelling) invertebrates that Several commenters requested that we available for some other salmonids, we provide food for cutthroat trout. extend the time for the decision on the believe we have sufficient information Service Response: We agree that proposed rule to list, in part to better and evidence to support a final listing logging activities may have adverse assess or gather additional biological determination at this time. effects on coastal cutthroat trout and information. Issue 8: Several commenters have fully evaluated the past, current, Service Response: We are fully aware requested that we provide specific and future threats from these activities. of limited data available for the coastal numeric values for distribution and Our analysis is described in the Forest cutthroat trout in the DPS. The population thresholds. They stated that Management section below. The proposed rule (64 FR 16397) specifically these values were essential to determine completion of two large-scale forest addressed this issue in a section threatened status and future recovery for HCPs and Washington Forest Practices entitled, Data Limitations and Scientific this subspecies. Regulations have significantly reduced Uncertainty. In the proposed rule and Service Response: Distribution and the threats to coastal cutthroat trout subsequent Federal Register proposed population levels were evaluated in from logging in the DPS. Collectively, rules, we specifically requested determining the status of the species in remnant high quality habitat, ongoing additional information to aid us in the context of the historic condition of forest recovery, active efforts to identify acquiring the best scientific and the DPS, rather than in the context of and correct legacies of past commercial data available. In 2001, predetermined specific numerical management, improved standards for WDFW biologists, with some funding thresholds. We did not find any future management actions, and the from the Service, sampled over 130 significant change in distribution of ability of coastal cutthroat trout to locations to determine presence/absence coastal cutthroat trout in this DPS. As survive for long periods in degraded and relative abundance of coastal with most species, actual population aquatic and riparian systems provide cutthroat in Lower Columbia River numbers were not available for most of the basis for maintenance of habitat for tributaries. They also compiled other the DPS. Indices of population levels the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout. fish survey data sets from the year 2000 and trends were used to evaluate these Therefore, forest management is not to increase the sample size to over 150 aspects of the DPS and are described in likely to result in the DPS of coastal locations. The data collected from these the Population Size section above. cutthroat trout becoming endangered in surveys were extremely valuable in Perhaps of more value in determining the foreseeable future. assessing presence/absence and relative current condition and threats to the DPS Issue 11: One commenter expressed abundance, and in the analysis of the than actual numbers are the trends in concern about the potential impacts of five threat factors for much of the DPS. these index values and in potential municipal discharges and its impact to In 2001 we also funded a study that threats to the DPS, which were also water quality; instream and adjacent helped resolve issues of hybridization used in this determination and gravel pit operations and its effects on with rainbow/steelhead trout in described in the Population Trend spawning gravels; water withdrawals Washington. We have made every effort section above. reducing flows at critical periods; to gather all available information to Issue 9: One commenter suggested sedimentation as a result of road complete this listing determination. that because resident cutthroat trout building near spawning beds; and The Act requires us to complete a populations are generally healthy-sized, development resulting in reduced final listing decision within one year of one could conclude that human and riparian zones. Another commenter the publication of a proposed listing, natural factors resulting in adverse pointed out the potential effects of though it does allow for an extension of marine conditions, rather than agriculture and urban/rural not more than six months if there is ‘‘ freshwater conditions, are the cause of development on habitat conditions for * * * substantial disagreement among declines in anadromous forms. coastal cutthroat trout. scientists knowledgeable about the Service Response: We agree that the Service Response: We agree that all of species concerned regarding the latest information indicates that the these activities may adversely affect sufficiency or accuracy of the available resident portion of the population exists coastal cutthroat trout. We have fully data relevant to the determination in range and densities comparable to evaluated the past, current, and future concerned* * *.’’ On April 14, 2000, populations that are thought to be threats from these activities (Agriculture

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44945

and Grazing Management, Mining, and coastal cutthroat trout in the DPS have steelhead and coho could affect Urban and Industrial Development likely decreased angler effort, in turn cutthroat trout in localized areas, sections below). While these activities reducing direct and indirect mortality of depending on the location and have affected aquatic and riparian coastal cutthroat trout in the DPS. magnitude of the releases. Releases in conditions in the DPS’s range, they are Information obtained during the public areas outside of historic coho habitat or generally localized in impact and do not comment periods supports the in numbers that greatly exceed natural affect the majority of the DPS. Under observation that angler effort has levels could have negative effects on current regulations, continued impacts decreased over time (see Overutilization cutthroat trout in the area of the release. from these activities are not likely to for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, However, information demonstrating lead to the endangerment of the coastal or Educational Purposes section below). effects to the DPS from coho releases is cutthroat trout in the foreseeable future. We are aware that coastal cutthroat trout limited and the extent to which Issue 12: Several commenters are susceptible to hook and handling hatchery management affects coastal described the potential effects of mortality. While there are no studies cutthroat as a whole is uncertain. barriers (dams and culverts) to that have specifically evaluated the Interactions with hybrid steelhead/ anadromous cutthroat trout, including hooking mortality from bycatch of cutthroat trout are likely limited. Hybrid blockage of historic habitat and cutthroat trout in steelhead and salmon fish are no longer stocked in the DPS’s significant declines in all major fisheries, we anticipate that mortality range. Cutthroat trout and steelhead are tributaries above dams, with the likely from this bycatch would generally be naturally sympatric and have likely extinction of populations in the Wind small because of differences in the gear evolved mechanisms to avoid and Klickitat Rivers. One commenter used and timing of these fisheries. hybridization. Recent genetic data pointed out that coastal cutthroat trout Issue 14: Several commenters indicate that high levels of have generally not been included in the expressed concern about the potential hybridization are limited to a few areas. trucking efforts for other salmonids, effects of the introduction of non-native This is not currently considered a increasing the impact of barriers to these predators, including brook trout significant threat to the DPS of coastal fish. (Salvelinus fontinalis), shad (Alosa cutthroat trout. Service Response: We agree that sapidissima), largemouth bass Issue 15: Several commenters barriers can adversely affect migratory (Micropterus dolomieui), smallmouth suggested that we had not fully coastal cutthroat trout (see Dams and bass (Micropterus salmoides), and evaluated the contribution of existing Barriers section below). Existing dams walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Several conservation efforts and regulatory block upstream access in several commenters were also concerned about mechanisms to potential future portions of the DPS’s range. The the potential effects of competition from conditions for the coastal cutthroat anadromous portion of the population is hatchery-stocked cutthroat trout, coho, trout, including the Oregon Salmon most likely affected by these large dams, and steelhead; hybrid cutthroat/ Plan, the Healthy Streams Partnership, while resident and some freshwater steelhead; and introduced non-native Oregon Land Use Planning regulations, migratory portions are likely little fish. Washington Growth Management affected as their habitat remains Service Response: We agree that Planning, Federal and State Clean Water substantially intact above dams and introduced predators or competitors can laws, Federal listing of other species diversions. Culverts are the most adversely affect coastal cutthroat trout under the Act, recent changes in Oregon widespread potential barriers to (see Disease and Predation section and Washington Forest Practices upstream migration. Again, anadromous below). Some of the non-native fish Regulations, changes in fishing and migratory portions of the coastal species listed by the commenters are regulations, and actions of local cutthroat trout population are the most known to prey on, or compete with, governments to protect and restore likely affected by these barriers, while salmonids in the DPS’s range (Poe et al. watersheds. the resident portion of the population 1994). However, no specific information Service Response: We fully evaluated likely remains extant above most exists regarding predation impacts by information on the most recent barriers. Blockage of upstream migration introduced predatory fishes on coastal regulations and their implementation, is not likely to increase given current cutthroat trout and we have no evidence including the State Forest Practices regulations, and some improvements are that introduced predators represent a Regulations and Clean Water Act likely through dam removal and culvert major threat to the DPS of coastal (CWA). There have been significant improvements. Despite existing barriers, cutthroat trout at this time. changes in the Washington Forest coastal cutthroat trout remain well We agree that competition with Practices Regulations since the distributed throughout the DPS’s range hatchery salmonids or non-native fish publication of the proposed rule. We and at levels apparently comparable to could adversely affect cutthroat trout also evaluated all other conservation healthy-sized populations in many (see Disease and predation, Hatchery efforts for salmonids, many of which are areas. Based on the current and likely management, and Other Factors sections non-regulatory in nature. In all cases, future effects, existing dams and other below). Only one hatchery still we evaluated the likelihood that the barriers are not likely to result in produces and stocks cutthroat trout regulation or program would be endangerment of the DPS of coastal within the DPS’s range. This hatchery implemented and would prove effective cutthroat trout in the foreseeable future. produces anadromous cutthroat trout in in reducing threats to the coastal Issue 13: Two commenters indicated a system with several barrier dams that cutthroat trout (see Inadequacy of that fishing pressure for anadromous have reduced natural access to historic Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and coastal cutthroat has decreased under freshwater habitat for anadromous Foreseeable Conservation Measures the current restricted regulations. cutthroat trout which is considered part sections below). Another commenter indicated that of the DPS. Hatchery steelhead and coho Issue 16: One commenter described hooking mortality from steelhead and are stocked in several streams in the the impacts from dredging, filling, and salmon fishing is a threat to coastal DPS’s range. Cutthroat trout and coho diking, all of which can affect important cutthroat trout. are naturally sympatric and have likely staging and feeding areas for Service Response: We are aware that evolved mechanisms to coexist. outmigrating trout, and thus adversely increasing restrictions of harvest for However, release of hatchery-raised affect populations. Another commenter

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44946 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

stated that current guidelines for be determined to be an endangered or life-history form throughout the lower permitting programs (dredging, wetland threatened species due to one or more Columbia River Basin’’ (64 FR 16407). filling, etc.) lack a method for assessing of the five factors described in section While neither of these references specify cumulative impacts. 4(a)(1). If, upon consideration of these habitat loss due to forest management, Service Response: We agree that five factors, the species is found to meet this is the principal factor for decline dredging, filling, and diking can the definition of either a threatened or described in the proposed rule related to adversely affect coastal cutthroat trout endangered species, then listing is freshwater habitat loss. (see Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory called for. The proposed rule Forest Management Mechanisms section below). However, summarized the ‘‘* * * findings based on the implementation of current regarding the principal factors for The proposed rule to list the DPS as laws and regulatory programs, we decline across the range of coastal threatened stated that ‘‘[h]abitat conclude that the regulation of dredge, cutthroat trout’’ (64 FR 16402) (hereafter degradation and impacts associated fill, and in-water construction activities referred to as subspecies-wide review). with logging and related land through the section 404 and section 10 These were generalized for the entire management activities, in particular, permit processes and through State range of the six DPSs of the subspecies, have likely contributed to the decline of programs will provide some protection and were not specific to the coastal cutthroat trout’’ (64 FR 16402). and support of aquatic resources, southwestern Washington/Columbia The potential effects of logging and though they may not fully remove the River DPS that was proposed for listing. related practices described in the risk of some losses to cumulative effects The specific factors relevant to the proposed rule included changes in from small individual projects. The proposed rule to list the Southwestern water temperature leading to potential remaining risks from cumulative effects Washington/Columbia River DPS are disease outbreaks, altered timing of are likely to be small in the short term described in a separate section of the migration, and accelerated maturation; and we do not anticipate that proposed rule (64 FR 16407, 16408). changes in stream flow regimes cumulative effects of these small These factors and their application to potentially leading to adverse water projects will reach a level at which they our decision to withdraw the proposed velocities and depth characteristics; loss would be likely to result in the DPS of rule to list the coastal cutthroat trout in of potential for new large woody debris coastal cutthroat trout becoming southwest Washington and the potentially increasing predation rates on endangered in the foreseeable future. Columbia River are described below. cutthroat trout; loss of riparian areas leading to decreased invertebrate Issue 17: One commenter requested The following specifically addresses production and detritus sources, key that we propose critical habitat at the conditions and threats within the DPS’s components in the food chain; and time of listing. range. Service Response: When we list a siltation which may hinder fry species as threatened or endangered, the A. The Present or Threatened emergence and production of benthic Act requires that the listing rule specify, Destruction, Modification, or invertebrates. Indirect effects of logging ‘‘* * * to the maximum extent prudent Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range. could also reduce dissolved oxygen and determinable,’’ the species’ critical reducing egg and fry survival. Threats to Coastal Cutthroat Trout Past and current forest management is habitat. However, critical habitat is no Habitat longer an issue as we are withdrawing the most widespread source of the proposed rule to list the coastal Six types of activities or land use have modification of aquatic, riparian, and cutthroat trout. potential to affect coastal cutthroat trout watershed conditions within the DPS’s Issue 18: Grays Harbor County habitat, including forest management, range, as forests cover 66 percent of the suggested that we are required to agriculture and livestock management, land base. Past timber management complete an Environmental Impact dams and barriers, urban and industrial practices such as the use of splash dams Statement under the National development, mining, and estuary (early 1900s), extensive riparian harvest, Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on degradation. Only forest management concentrated upland harvest, riparian the proposed listing and asked to be and estuary degradation were described and mid-slope roads, and sidecast road designated as the lead organization for as principal factors for declines across construction have modified aquatic and writing the document. the range of coastal cutthroat trout in riparian conditions in many portions of Service Response: In regards to NEPA, the subspecies-wide review in the the DPS’s range. These practices have we have determined that Environmental proposed rule (64 FR 16402) and only reduced current and future large woody Assessments and Environmental Impact estuary degradation was specifically debris, reduced pool quality, decreased Statements, as defined under the mentioned specific to the southwestern stream shading resulting in increased authority of the NEPA of 1969, need not Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 FR water temperature, and increased the be prepared in connection with 16407). prevalence of landslides in some areas. regulations adopted pursuant to section Specific to the southwestern This is of particular concern in areas 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as Washington/Columbia River DPS, the where watersheds have been fully amended. A notice outlining our proposed rule stated that ‘‘* * * severe harvested in the past, such as some reasons for this determination was habitat degradation throughout the Grays Harbor tributaries (1940s and published in the Federal Register on lower Columbia River has contributed to 1950s), and in areas where harvest did October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). dramatic declines in anadromous not peak until the late 1970s, such as coastal cutthroat trout populations and some Willapa Bay tributaries. Most of Summary of Factors Affecting the two near extinctions of anadromous these practices are no longer allowed Species runs in the Hood and Sandy Rivers’’ (64 under recent and current forest Section 4(a)(1) of the Act and FR 16407). The proposed rule also management regulations, and splash regulations implementing the listing stated that ‘‘[h]abitat degradation in dams have not been used for many provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) stream reaches accessible to decades. set forth the procedures for adding anadromous coastal cutthroat trout, and Despite the long-term, widespread species to the Federal list of threatened poor ocean and estuary conditions, impacts to aquatic and riparian and endangered species. A species may likely combined to severely deplete this conditions, coastal cutthroat trout have

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44947

survived in all portions of the DPS for Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory management was not identified as a many generations, and apparently Mechanisms section). Collectively, primary threat to the subspecies or the remain at densities comparable to remnant high quality habitat, ongoing DPS in the proposed rule and is not healthy-sized populations elsewhere forest recovery, active efforts to identify considered a significant threat at this (WDFW 2001), indicating that they are and correct legacies of past time. capable of surviving long periods under management, improved standards for Dams and Barriers these conditions. There is no reason to future management actions (Inadequacy believe that they will not continue to do of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms Within the DPS, migratory coastal so. We have no specific evidence of section), and the ability of coastal cutthroat trout access and movements disease outbreaks, altered timing of cutthroat trout to survive for long are blocked in some areas by dams, migration, and accelerated maturation periods in degraded aquatic and diversions, dikes, tide gates, poorly- resulting from water temperature riparian systems provide the basis for designed culverts, and poor water changes, or of significantly increased maintenance of habitat for the DPS of quality, though dams and barriers were predation rates, which were described coastal cutthroat trout. Therefore, forest not identified as threats in the in the proposed rule as principal factors management is not likely to result in the subspecies-wide review of listing factors for declines across the range of coastal DPS of coastal cutthroat trout becoming (64 FR 16402) or the DPS-specific cutthroat trout (64 FR 16402) as the endangered in the foreseeable future. review for the southwestern consequences of logging and related Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 FR Agriculture and Livestock Management land management activities. Nor do we 16407). Existing dams have blocked have any evidence of decreased Agriculture and livestock access for upstream migration to several invertebrate production in forested areas management occur on at least 16 portions of the DPS. Even dams with leading to decreases in available food or percent of the lands in the southwestern fish passage structures result in some reduced egg or fry survival, also Washington/Columbia River DPS, with mortality and may delay migrations. described in the proposed rule as the relatively greater representation in the The anadromous portion of the DPS is consequences of logging and related Grays Harbor tributaries. Neither of the most likely affected by dams and land management activities. these activities were identified as a diversions, as these often limit access to Conditions of the riparian and aquatic threat to coastal cutthroat trout in the historic spawning areas. Resident and systems in some forest lands are subspecies-wide review of listing factors some freshwater migratory portions of actually in the long-term process of (64 FR 16402) or the DPS-specific the DPS are likely little affected by large recovery from past forest management review for the southwestern barriers, as their access to habitat practices, though the total area of Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 FR remains intact above the dam. Road improvement is unrecorded. For 16407). Some of the aquatic and riparian culverts, especially on forest roads, example, some flow regimes are already impacts associated with agriculture are present widely-dispersed potential beginning to improve as forest cover has locally severe and very long-term, such barriers to upstream movements of increased and some riparian areas are as diking, filling, riparian conversions, coastal cutthroat trout in the DPS, revegetated with 40-year-old conifers channelization, sediment and flow though most culverts allow for that will provide large woody debris regime changes, and persistent toxic downstream movements, and some sources in the future. Some areas of high chemicals. In addition, agricultural allow upstream movement seasonally. quality aquatic and riparian systems areas are often located in the lowest Existing information indicates that remain. Approximately eight percent of stream sections which are often the culverts have limited upstream access to the DPS’s range is in wilderness or most productive portions of the streams. a portion of historic habitat though the National Parks and is in good condition. Impacts to these stream sections have a extent of this limitation is not fully High quality aquatic and riparian areas proportionally greater effect on the documented. Again, anadromous and remain on other lands, ranging from 13 anadromous and migratory portions of migratory portions of the coastal percent in narrow valleys to 31 percent the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout, which cutthroat trout population are the most in wider, forested valleys. use these sections for migration, likely affected by these barriers, while Over time, aquatic and riparian overwintering, and rearing young, while the resident portion of the population habitats important to coastal cutthroat much of the resident portion of the likely remains extant above most trout are likely to continue to improve. population resides in the upper barriers. Federal forest management and watershed areas where agriculture is not Current Washington and Oregon State Washington Forest Practices Regulations generally prevalent. Forest Management Regulations and fish have been revised significantly in recent Most lands suitable for agriculture passage standards will minimize the years so that habitat modification of the and grazing management have already threat that new culverts will block fish magnitude or type experienced over the been converted and it is unlikely that passage (see Inadequacy of Regulatory past 70 years is no longer likely to there will be any significant increase in Mechanisms section). In addition, under occur. Current regulations, mainly the amount of agricultural and grazing the latest Washington Forest Practices aimed at improving stream habitat for lands in the future. While agriculture Regulations, forest managers are salmon and steelhead, impose more and grazing management may have had required to develop road maintenance restrictive standards for riparian significant localized and long-term and management plans within 5 years harvest, harvest on unstable slopes, road effects to riparian and aquatic systems and implement such plans within 15 construction, and road maintenance; in the DPS’s range, coastal cutthroat years. Blockage of upstream migration is and reduce the likelihood of large-scale trout remain extant in all the affected not likely to increase given current removal of forest cover in a watershed watersheds. Based on the limited extent regulations. Despite existing barriers, on Federal lands, and State and private of agricultural lands, agriculture and coastal cutthroat trout remain well timberlands in Washington. These grazing are not likely to result in the distributed throughout the DPS’s range changes have greatly reduced the long- southwestern Washington/Columbia and at levels apparently comparable to term risk of continued modification of River DPS of coastal cutthroat trout healthy-sized populations in many aquatic and riparian habitats in 57 becoming endangered in the foreseeable areas. The greatest threat from barriers percent of the DPS’s range (see future. Agriculture and livestock is interference with recolonization of

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44948 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

areas after catastrophic disturbances, of the current land base in the DPS. on how coastal cutthroat trout use the though these are very long-term Expansion of urban areas is likely to estuary habitats, we cannot predict the concerns. Floods and related events, in occur primarily within the areas already effect of this loss on the coastal particular, tend to remove roads and impacted and is not likely to cutthroat trout population. However, the barrier culverts. Based on the current substantially increase the impacts to the loss of estuary habitat has likely and likely future effects, and the low DPS. The vast majority of the DPS is not contributed to the lower-than-historical potential for significant additional significantly affected by urbanization. numbers of the anadromous portion of barriers to be created under current Therefore, urbanization and industrial the DPS, though anadromous cutthroat regulations, dams and barriers are not development are not likely to result in trout remain extant in all three major likely to result in endangerment of the the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout basins within the DPS. Resident and DPS of coastal cutthroat trout in the becoming endangered in the foreseeable freshwater migratory portions of the foreseeable future. Dams and barriers, future. population do not use, and therefore are other than those potentially associated not affected by changes in, the estuaries. Mining with logging practices, were not Given current laws and regulations on identified as a primary threat in the Gravel mining has degraded some wetland dredge and fill (see Inadequacy proposed rule and are not considered a stream channels in portions of the DPS’s of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms significant threat at this time. range as a result of past, unregulated section), we do not anticipate additional removal. Mining was not identified as a large-scale conversion or loss of estuary Urban and Industrial Development threat in the subspecies-wide review of or off-channel areas, though some small Although the direct aquatic and listing factors (64 FR 16402) or the DPS- scale impacts are still likely, and the riparian impacts of urbanization in the specific review for the southwestern legacy of past actions will result in some southwestern Washington/Columbia Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 FR continued changes. The only large-scale River DPS are not widespread, they are 16407). Current regulations and permit project currently proposed is the locally severe and essentially requirements have reduced, though not Columbia River Channel Improvement permanent. Urban and industrial totally eliminated, the impact of gravel Project which will deepen 166 km (103 development was not specifically mining (see Inadequacy of Existing mi) of the already-dredged, narrow identified as a threat in the subspecies- Regulatory Mechanisms section). While navigation channel. This project is wide review of listing factors (64 FR some continued problems may occur, anticipated to have limited short-term 16402) or the DPS-specific review for these will be fairly small and localized, impacts to estuarine and riverine the southwestern Washington/Columbia and do not represent a major threat to conditions, and will be monitored River DPS (64 FR 16407), although it the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout at this carefully in the future to minimize any was identified as a potential effect in the time. There is a single coal mine in the impacts to known fish habitat (USFWS range of the species where it occurs Skookumchuck basin (WSCC 2001) and 2002). The resident portion of the within estuaries. ‘‘Dredging, filling, and no known plans for additional coal or population is completely unaffected by diking of estuarine areas for * * * hardrock mining in the DPS’s range. estuary conditions and changes. The commercial or municipal uses have Other mining activity in the DPS’s range current condition, limited likelihood of resulted in loss of many estuary is very limited and does not represent continued degradation or loss of estuary habitats’’ (64 FR 16402). This element of a major threat to the coastal cutthroat habitat, and remaining populations of development is addressed in the Estuary trout. Mining was not identified as a cutthroat trout lead us to conclude that Degradation section. Many of the largest primary threat in the proposed rule and estuary conditions are not likely to urban areas in this DPS lie above the is not considered a significant threat at result in the DPS of coastal cutthroat estuaries, and therefore have not this time. trout becoming endangered in the resulted in physical changes to the foreseeable future. Estuary Degradation estuaries. The proposed rule described the Urban areas are expected to expand in The proposed rule described the potential loss of important estuary some areas as human populations potential loss of important estuary habitat and stated that reductions in the increase, particularly in the Portland habitat through the ‘‘[d]redging, filling, quantity and quality of estuarine habitat Metropolitan area. The long-term effects and diking of estuarine areas for probably contributed to declines of of urbanization include diking, filling, agricultural, commercial, or municipal anadromous cutthroat trout, but the riparian conversion, channelization, uses’’ (64 FR 16402) and stated that relative importance of these risks was sediment and flow regime changes, ‘‘reductions in the quantity and quality not well understood (64 FR 16402). This water storage, and persistent toxic of estuarine * * * habitat have probably is further complicated by the lack of chemicals. These urban areas are often contributed to declines, but the relative information on how coastal cutthroat located in the lowest stream sections importance of these risks is not well trout use these large estuary systems. where flood plains are wide and stream understood’’ (64 FR 16408). Significant portions of the estuarine gradients are low, and therefore have a Anadromous coastal cutthroat trout wetlands remain intact in the Willapa proportionally greater effect on the likely make use of estuaries for growth Bay and Grays Harbor systems and, to anadromous and migratory portions of and development, though we have little a lesser degree, the Columbia River the coastal cutthroat trout population information on how individual trout use estuary. Given current regulations, we that use these sections for migration, the various portions of the estuary, do not anticipate additional large-scale overwintering, and rearing. Much of the especially the large estuaries included conversion or loss of estuary or off- resident portion of the population in this DPS. The Columbia River estuary channel areas. While past losses of resides in the upper watershed areas has lost 12 percent of its area since estuaries may have contributed to a where urbanization is not prevalent. 1868, including 65 to 75 percent of off- reduction in the anadromous portion of While urbanization and associated channel habitats. Thirty percent of the the coastal cutthroat trout population industrial development have potentially historical wetland habitat in Grays over historic levels, we do not have substantial effects on aquatic and Harbor estuary has been lost, as well as evidence that the past and potential riparian habitats in localized areas, 31 percent of the historical Willapa Bay future losses are likely to result in the these include only about three percent estuary wetlands. Without information DPS of coastal cutthroat trout as a whole

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44949

becoming endangered in the foreseeable cutthroat trout throughout the range of of the DPS for presence and abundance future. this DPS. Some areas have begun to of coastal cutthroat trout. Additional recover from past forest practices and data were presented by WDFW (2001) Conclusion new regulations are in place that reduce for surveys conducted by Weyerhaeuser The proposed rule stated that ‘‘*** the risk of continued adverse impacts to Company in 1994–95. The percentage of severe habitat degradation throughout much of the DPS. Conditions in many locations with cutthroat trout from both the lower Columbia River has parts of the DPS’s range are expected to studies was compared to data collected contributed to dramatic declines in continue to improve over time and in the 1970s from the Olympic anadromous coastal cutthroat trout many of the most damaging past Peninsula and Puget Sound areas. populations and two near extinctions of practices (e.g., splash dams, large-scale Populations in these areas were anadromous runs in the Hood and wetland conversion) are not expected to considered healthy-sized during this Sandy Rivers,’’ and that ‘‘[h]abitat occur in the future due to current laws time period (WDFW 2001c). The degradation in stream reaches accessible and regulations. Given that coastal percentage of sample sites with coastal to anadromous coastal cutthroat trout, cutthroat trout have not only survived cutthroat trout within the DPS’s range and poor ocean and estuary conditions, the long-term and widespread impacts below Bonneville Dam (Mongillo and likely combined to severely deplete this of these past practices to aquatic and Hallock 2001, WDFW 2001c) was not life-history form throughout the lower riparian conditions in large portions of significantly different than the early Columbia River Basin’’ (64 FR 16407). the DPS’s range for many generations, data from the apparently healthy-sized Based on analysis of the latest data, we but apparently remain well distributed populations in the Olympic Peninsula now conclude that, while the at densities comparable to healthy-sized and Puget Sound DPSs, indicating that anadromous portion of the population populations elsewhere, the condition of populations in the DPS are still well of coastal cutthroat trout is likely at aquatic and riparian systems is not distributed. lower-than-historic levels, there is little likely to result in endangerment of the The percentage of sites where specific information indicating that DPS of coastal cutthroat trout in the cutthroat trout were found in the populations, even of the anadromous foreseeable future. Therefore, we no Washington portion of the DPS above portion of the DPS, are at extremely low longer conclude that past habitat Bonneville Dam was very low when levels in most areas of the DPS (see degradation has led to severe declines in compared to the rest of the DPS. No Population Size section). Relative to the the population of coastal cutthroat trout similar information was available for two near extinctions cited in the in the southwestern Washington/ Oregon portions of the DPS. The area proposed rule, the data do not support Columbia River DPS. In addition, above the Bonneville Dam is this conclusion (see Population Size current regulations (described in the ecologically very different from the section). The trap location on a side Forest Management and State Land Use remainder of the subspecies’ range and channel in the Sandy River system Practices sections) greatly reduce the is the only area within its range where makes it impossible to extrapolate to the risk that significant additional the subspecies is found east of the entire River system. Anadromous modification of habitat will occur in the Cascade Mountain Divide. This area cutthroat trout are still occasionally foreseeable future. experiences a very different hydrologic trapped at Powerdale Dam on the Hood and climatic environment than the rest River, including 11 upstream migrants Curtailment of Range of the subspecies’ range, which may in 2001 (Connolly et al. 2002). According to WDFW (2001), the influence the abundance of coastal The proposed rule’s conclusions southwestern Washington-lower cutthroat trout. In addition, many assumed that the anadromous Columbia River region historically sample sites from the Mongillo and component of the population of coastal supported healthy, highly productive Hallock study (2001) in the Washington cutthroat trout is effectively isolated coastal cutthroat trout populations. portion of the DPS above Bonneville from other portions of the population Coastal cutthroat trout, especially the Dam included areas outside the likely and that the anadromous component freshwater forms, are still well historic range of the species, which represents a significant portion of the distributed in most river basins in this would have artificially depressed the DPS. However, new data indicate that geographic region, although probably in percentage of locations with cutthroat fish with these various life strategies do lower numbers relative to historical trout. Based on these factors, the interact and that anadromous progeny population sizes (Johnson et al. 1999). calculated percentage of sites with may be produced by non-anadromous Based on over 1,300 locations from 5 cutthroat trout from the Mongillo and parents, even after many generations of data sources (WDFW 2001a (Resident Hallock study (2001) above Bonneville isolation above barriers (see Life History Fish Database 1987–97), WDFW 2001b Dam likely under-represents the true Diversity section). Therefore, coastal (Priority Habitat Species database 1989– density of coastal cutthroat trout in this cutthroat trout populations are more 90), Washington Department of Natural area. appropriately evaluated including all Resources (WDNR) 2001 (Last Fish, Last There has been a change in the life history strategies, anadromous, Fish Habitat Database 2001), Mongillo accessibility of some areas to migratory and resident. Resident/ and Hallock 2001, U.S. Forest Service anadromous cutthroat trout due to freshwater forms remain well Watershed Analysis Documents 1995– barriers created by dams, diversions, distributed and at reasonable densities 2001), cutthroat trout remain extant culverts, dikes, tidegates, and water in the lower Columbia River, including throughout their historic range in the quality. Some streams within the DPS’s areas accessible to anadromous fish, and Washington portion of the DPS. Little range have been lost to development, in the Sandy and Hood Rivers where the systematic information is available for such as streams in the more developed anadromous portion of the population is the Oregon portion of the DPS, though portions of Portland, Oregon. The total low. cutthroat trout, particularly resident amount of currently inaccessible habitat While aquatic and riparian systems forms, are known to occur throughout is unknown, but it includes only a very have been heavily altered in some areas, the DPS in Oregon (Hooton 1997). small percentage of the total available the latest information does not support Mongillo and Hallock (2001) habitat within the DPS’s range and is the conclusion that this has severely conducted extensive surveys of 156 interspersed with occupied habitat. affected the habitat of the coastal locations within the Washington portion Despite the long-term, widespread

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44950 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

impacts to aquatic and riparian portions of the DPS in Washington. might occur and this was not identified conditions, coastal cutthroat trout have Washington’s current fishing as a specific threat in the southwestern survived in these areas for many regulations, particularly the more Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 FR generations and remain well distributed restrictive ‘‘special rules’’ which affect 16407). There is no evidence that at densities comparable to healthy-sized nearly all of the DPS, provide protection poaching is a significant threat to the populations in large portions of the to coastal cutthroat while allowing DPS of cutthroat trout. DPS’s range. There is no reason to fishing opportunities that can promote There is no information to indicate believe that they will not continue to do conservation of this subspecies. We that commercial or recreational fishing so. Based on the above information, believe that carefully regulated fishing represents a threat to the DPS of coastal there is no significant present or can promote awareness and cutthroat trout. Overutilization, identifiable threat of curtailment of the conservation of coastal cutthroat trout including recreational and commercial range of the DPS. by maintaining public support for its fishing, was not identified in the conservation. Continued recreational proposed rule as a threat to this DPS B. Overutilization for Commercial, fishing conducted in a manner and is not considered a threat at this Recreational, Scientific, or Educational consistent with the conservation of the time. The States of Washington and Purposes. coastal cutthroat trout helps to maintain Oregon have continued to modify Cutthroat trout are not harvested a broad support base for the regulations in response to changes in commercially. Scientific and conservation of aquatic resources, cutthroat trout populations. educational programs have probably including coastal cutthroat trout. C. Disease or Predation had little or no impact on the DPS. Leider (1997) provided a summary of The proposed rule to list the WDFW ‘‘special regulation’’ changes The proposed rule stated that Southwestern Washington/Columbia that were developed to protect coastal ‘‘[d]isease may be a factor contributing River coastal cutthroat trout DPS stated cutthroat in Washington. In the DPS’s to the decline of cutthroat trout that ‘‘* * * cutthroat trout are a popular range, major special regulations populations,’’ including the parasite gamefish throughout the Pacific occurred in 1983 (limit reduced from 12 Ceratomyxa shasta in the Columbia and Northwest, and available information to 8 trout per angler), 1986 (limit further Willamette Rivers (ODFW 1998), though indicates that recreational fishing may reduced to 5 fish), 1992 (limit reduced the extent to which this and other have contributed to the general decline to 2 fish). Minimum size limits also diseases affect cutthroat trout of cutthroat trout populations increased during this time. In addition, populations was unknown (64 FR (Gresswell and Harding 1997)’’ (64 FR wild cutthroat release was required in 16402). Disease or parasites were not 16402). This information was not some streams within the DPS’s range listed as a specific threat to the majority specific to coastal cutthroat trout, or to starting in 1989 and expanded to all of the DPS (64 FR 16407). Predation by the southwestern Washington/Columbia lower Columbia River streams below non-native fish and pinnipeds (seals River DPS, and the referenced paper Portland/Vancouver in 1992 (Leider and sea lions) was also identified as a does not indicate that angling is a direct 1997). Currently, in the Chehalis River potential threat, though the extent to cause of decline. Basin, most streams allow a 2-fish daily which this was a factor in coastal Cutthroat trout are among the limit with a 36 cm (14 in) minimum size cutthroat trout declines was unknown salmonids most vulnerable to limit and, in Willapa Bay and Lower (64 FR 16402) and predation was not overharvest by angling (Gresswell and Columbia tributaries, wild cutthroat listed as a specific threat to the DPS (64 Harding 1997, Johnson et al. 1999), release is generally required. The FR 16407). especially during post-spawning exceptions to this wild cutthroat release Coastal cutthroat trout in the outmigrations to summer feeding areas. regulation are mainly in the mainstem Columbia and other large rivers with In many areas, coastal cutthroat trout Columbia River above Bonneville Dam, hydroelectric dams are potentially harvest is primarily incidental in above the Cowlitz River Dams, and in vulnerable to gas bubble disease caused recreational fisheries for other species of the Toutle River Drainage (WDFW by increased gas saturation levels salmonids. Because of harvest 2001d). associated with the spilling of water at restrictions on naturally produced The proposed rule stated that ‘‘*** dams. The disease’s effects can range coastal cutthroat trout in many areas coastal cutthroat trout are especially from temporary debilitation to and the lack of targeted fisheries, direct susceptible to hooking mortality and mortality. Because of variability in mortality due to fishing pressure is incidental catch in recreational and water temperature, depth, flow, and thought to be relatively low, at least in commercial fisheries targeting Pacific other factors, the biological effects of a recent years (Hooton 1997, Gerstung salmon and steelhead’’ (64 FR 16402). given level of dissolved gas saturation 1997, WDFW 1998a). In addition, Studies of anadromous cutthroat trout are likely to vary in different areas at fishing regulations establishing size and show variable susceptibility to baited various times of the year. Increased gas bag limits are relatively recent, and hook mortality, from 6 to 58 percent saturation levels have been identified at biologists familiar with coastal cutthroat (Gresswell and Harding 1997). There is the Bonneville and Dalles dams, and trout feel that in some areas their no current evidence that recreational can adversely affect fish downstream of abundance has begun to increase only harvest, whether targeted or incidental these dams. In recent years, NMFS has recently due to imposition of these more to other fisheries, is contributing to proposed to balance the needs of restrictive fishing limits (WDFW 1998b). declines in the DPS. There is also no juvenile salmonid migrants by The Washington and Oregon trout evidence that bycatch of coastal increasing spill levels to reduce turbine- fishing regulations have become cutthroat trout in commercial salmon related mortalities, resulting in elevated incrementally more restrictive in the and steelhead fisheries is a significant gas supersaturation levels in the past two decades. Several types of source of mortality in this DPS. Columbia River. Spill levels of up to 120 recreational fishing for coastal cutthroat The proposed rule stated that ‘‘*** percent of saturation at ambient trout are allowed under current fishing poaching may pose a significant threat temperature and pressure have occurred regulations in these States. However, to depressed populations of cutthroat in recent years during managed spills, catch and keep fisheries on wild coastal trout in some areas’’ (64 FR 16402), with involuntary spill episodes cutthroat trout are limited to some though it did not indicate where this resulting in levels as high as 140 percent

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44951

at some sites (NMFS 2000). At levels of Columbia River estuary near artificial productivity and resiliency of riparian 120 percent, gas bubble disease affects islands in the Columbia River, though and aquatic ecosystems. a maximum of 0.7 percent of fish there is no information on the Riparian reserves apply to all lands exposed, and near 140 percent, over 3 vulnerability of cutthroat trout in this managed under the Northwest Forest percent of fish exposed are affected situation. There is no evidence that Plan and are intended to maintain and (NMFS 2000). While this could cause mammal or bird predation represents a restore riparian structures and the loss of some individuals, it is not significant threat to the DPS of coastal functions. They occur at the margins of considered a significant threat at this cutthroat trout at this time. Predation standing and flowing water, intermittent time. was not identified in the proposed rule stream channels, ephemeral ponds, and Ceratomyxa shasta, a native parasite as a specific threat to this DPS (64 FR wetlands, though they may also include that can kill cutthroat trout when water 16407) and is not considered a threat at upland areas necessary for maintaining temperatures are high, occurs in the this time. ecological processes. Key watersheds lower Columbia River drainages serve as refugia for maintaining and (Hoffmaster et al. 1988) and has been a D. The Inadequacy of Existing recovering habitat for at-risk stocks of factor in the loss of cutthroat trout at Regulatory Mechanisms. anadromous salmonids and resident fish hatcheries in this area. The effect of the Federal Land Management Practices species. parasite increases as water temperature Watershed analyses are the principal increases. Ceratomyxa shasta is a native The proposed rule indicated that the tool for implementation of the Aquatic parasite in the Pacific Northwest and Northwest Forest Plan’s management Conservation Strategy and play a critical coastal cutthroat trout have likely policy provided important benefits for role in providing for aquatic and developed strategies or life history salmonids, including coastal cutthroat riparian habitat protection. Watershed adaptations to cope with this parasite. trout, though its effectiveness in analyses should identify processes that Parasites and diseases were not listed in conserving cutthroat trout was limited are active within a watershed, how the proposed rule as specific threats in by the extent and distribution of Federal those processes are distributed in time the DPS (64 FR 16407) and are still not land ownership (64 FR 16397). and space, the current upland and anticipated to threaten wild coastal Approximately 27 percent of the land riparian conditions of the watershed, cutthroat trout in the DPS. No base within the DPS’s range is Federal and how all of these factors influence introduced diseases have been land, managed by the Forest Service, riparian habitat and other beneficial documented in the DPS. There is no Bureau of Land Management, National uses. Watershed analyses provide the evidence of significant loss of wild Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife contextual basis at the site level for cutthroat trout to parasites or disease in Service. One percent of the DPS’s range decision makers to set appropriate the DPS at this time. is in National Parks or National Wildlife boundaries of Riparian Reserves, plan Several non-native fish species are Refuges, both of which are managed land use activities compatible with known to prey on, or compete with, under laws and regulations that should disturbance patterns, design road salmonids within the DPS’s range (Poe provide adequate management for the transportation networks that pose et al. 1991). However, no specific conservation of the cutthroat trout. The minimal risk, identify high priority information exists regarding predation remaining 26 percent is managed under restoration activities, and establish specific parameters and activities to be impacts by predatory fishes on cutthroat the requirements of the Northwest trout, though it is reasonable to assume monitored. Watershed restoration is also Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan some predation does occur. We have no an integral part of a program to aid contains important benefits to, and evidence that aquatic predators have recovery of fish habitat, riparian habitat, conservation measures for, salmonids, significantly reduced coastal cutthroat and water quality, and is based on including cutthroat trout. The overall trout populations or represent a major watershed analyses and planning. effectiveness of the Northwest Forest threat to coastal cutthroat trout. Non- All lands within the Northwest Forest Plan in conserving the DPS of cutthroat native predators were not identified in Plan are placed into one of six land use trout is somewhat limited by the extent the proposed rule as a threat to this DPS allocations. These allocations dictate the of Federal lands and by the fact that (64 FR 16407) and are not considered a type and standards for activities within Federal land ownership is not uniformly significant threat at this time. the allocation. Congressionally Reserved The proposed rule stated that while distributed. Most of the lands in the Areas (e.g., wilderness areas) constitute pinniped populations are increasing on DPS’s range are located in the upper 22 percent of the Federal lands within the West Coast, ‘‘* * * the extent to watersheds, providing habitat primarily the DPS’s range and are the most which pinnipeds predation is a factor for freshwater forms of the cutthroat protected type of allocation. causing the decline of coastal cutthroat trout. Two components of the Northwest Administratively Withdrawn Areas are trout is unknown’’ (64 FR 16402). Forest Plan provide conservation for designated for a variety of reasons and Pinnipeds are potential natural salmonids, the Aquatic Conservation are generally fairly protective of aquatic predators of cutthroat trout that use the Strategy and land allocations with their and riparian systems. Administratively estuaries and near-shore marine associated standards and guidelines. Withdrawn Areas constitute 5.7 percent environment (NMFS 1997, Beach et al. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Federal lands within the DPS’s 1985). In addition, mustelids, such as was developed to restore and maintain range. There is a low likelihood of short- otter and mink, and other mammals are the ecological health of watersheds and or long-term adverse effects to cutthroat natural predators in both salt and aquatic ecosystems contained within trout in Congressionally Reserved Areas freshwater environments, though there lands administered by the Bureau of or Administratively Withdrawn Areas are no studies of the level of predation Land Management and Forest Service. It due to the low likelihood of activities by any mammals. Piscivorus birds, such consists of four primary elements: (1) occurring that impact resident or as terns and cormorants, are also natural riparian reserves; (2) key watersheds; (3) anadromous coastal cutthroat trout or predators of coastal cutthroat trout. watershed analyses; and (4) watershed their habitat. There is information indicating that restoration. All four of these Late-Successional Reserves are terns and cormorants may take components are designed to operate intended to maintain a functional, significant numbers of salmonids in the together to maintain and restore the interactive, late-successional and old

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44952 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

growth forest ecosystem. In the long correction of site-specific road impacts Act is limited, and minimum guidelines term, Late-Successional Reserves and (culvert replacement, drainage established by the State for designating their associated Standards and problems, etc.). natural resource lands and procedural Guidelines, will likely prove extremely Based on the Aquatic Conservation criteria to guide the development of beneficial to resident and anadromous Strategy and management guidelines for comprehensive plans are not mandatory fish by providing islands of functional the individual land allocations, Federal for the cities and counties. reserves in late seral (older) forest lands within the DPS’s range (27 The Washington Forest Practices Act condition with high water quality and percent of the land base) should be (WFPA) regulates timber management habitat complexity. Late-Successional managed in a manner that provides and related activities on most non- Reserves constitute 31.2 percent of the long-term improvement in aquatic Federal forest lands in the Washington Federal land allocations in the DPS’s habitat and limits short-term habitat portion of the DPS’s range (30 percent range. Managed Late-Successional Areas quality declines. These lands should of DPS’s range). The WFPA was are similar to Late-Successional provide significant contributions to the improved in 2001 to address water Reserves, but constitute less than one conservation of the coastal cutthroat quality concerns and conservation of percent of the Federal lands in the trout in the foreseeable future. These listed salmonids which will also DPS’s range. Management activities in lands typically lie in the upper portions contribute to coastal cutthroat trout both of these allocations may result in of the watersheds, above the areas conservation. The new rules set some latent impacts due to present generally used by the anadromous standards for timber harvest activities in baseline conditions (existing riparian portion of the population. and around riparian areas and unstable slopes, and for road use, construction, and upslope roads, past timber State Land Use Practices management activity), silviculture, road- and maintenance related to forest related impacts, and short-term impacts Washington management. These rules include regulations requiring increased riparian associated with restoration activities. The proposed rule concluded that the However, these impacts will be reduced buffer widths, reduced level of Washington Forest Practices Regulations management activities within the over time as Riparian Reserves and did ‘‘* * * not provide for properly forests mature. buffers, and an increase in the functioning riparian and instream percentage of the stream network Adaptive Management Areas are habitats,’’ including failure to address subject to these buffers. Under the new landscape units designated to encourage large woody debris recruitment, tree regulations, virtually all perennial the development and testing of retention to maintain stream band and streams will receive some level of technical and social approaches to channel integrity, and chronic and protection. Landowners will be required achieving desired ecological, economic, episodic inputs of coarse and fine to develop plans for ensuring that and social objectives. Activities may sediments (64 FR 16402). existing forest roads meet improved vary greatly, depending on the Washington’s Growth Management standards for fish passage, protection of individual management plans of these Act requires counties and cities in the unstable slopes, minimization of areas. Adaptive Management Areas State to designate natural resource lands sediment and runoff within 15 years. comprise seven percent of the Federal and to designate and protect critical These new rules represent a substantial land in the DPS’s range. Matrix lands areas (such as wetlands, fish and improvement over previous practices constitute 33.4 percent of the Federal wildlife habitat conservation areas, and should substantially reduce the land in the DPS’s range. This allocation frequently flooded areas, geologically adverse impacts of current and future focuses on providing for timber harvest hazardous areas, and aquifer recharge management activities to aquatic and and commodity resources and will have areas) consistent with overall State-level riparian systems supporting coastal the highest level of management guidelines and objectives. The cities and cutthroat trout compared to those that activities. Riparian Reserve and other counties are required to review and would have occurred under previous Aquatic Conservation Strategy implement development regulations standards. Revegetation and natural requirements do apply to Matrix lands. relative to these designations on a five- regeneration will result in the long-term Management activities on Matrix lands year cycle. Development regulations process of recovery of these areas from are expected to have somewhat greater include a zoning code, subdivision past forest management practices. impacts to aquatic systems than in ordinance, clearing and grading Standards for construction of new roads reserve land allocations due to the latent ordinance, critical areas ordinance and are also designed to meet water quality effects of past management (existing other regulations as necessary. Recent goals. riparian and upslope roads, past timber amendments to the Growth Management We and others have noted some management activity), ongoing Act require the use of ‘‘best available uncertainty about the effects of portions silvicultural activities, road-related science’’ and consideration of salmonid of this regulatory program, especially as impacts, and short-term impacts habitat in developing these regulations. related to non-fish bearing streams, road associated with restoration activities. However, recent reviews of Growth practices, and management of However, impacts to aquatic and Management Act implementation (State cumulative watershed impacts. A riparian systems will be reduced over of Washington 1998 and 1999) have comprehensive, long-term research, time as Riparian Reserves mature. Some indicated that protection of water monitoring, and adaptive management long-term indirect impacts from quality and aquatic and riparian program has been established to management activity may occur due to resources have not been prioritized in determine the validity of these and timber management and silvicultural local planning, many cities and counties other concerns, and to remedy any activities in upslope areas. Both short- have not yet adopted the required identified shortfalls of the WFPA in a and long-term road-related impacts may designations and regulations, and most timely fashion. This adaptive result from new and existing roads used local plans have not yet incorporated management includes a formal, to implement management direction. the best available data. Additionally, the structured process with the Service as a We expect that the level of road-related ability of the State to impose sanctions participant. Specific questions and impacts will be reduced over time on the cities and counties for failure to issues related to concerns raised during through reduced road densities and comply with the Growth Management the development of these rules have

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44953

been identified and prioritized. Both of specific stream classes. This was small streams and lakes. Every local Federal and State agencies have funded designed to provide greater certainty government with shorelines is required the adaptive management monitoring that they would identify and conserve to adopt a local shoreline plan which and research to date, and support for areas with direct and indirect influence must be reviewed and approved by the continued funding remains high. on the streams and associated Department of Ecology for consistency Approximately 325,450 ha (804,202 salmonids, including cutthroat trout. with State-level Shoreline Management ac) (8.7 percent of the DPS’s range) Overall, the HCP should result in stream Act guidelines. Most of the local within the Washington portion of the protections similar to, or greater than, shoreline master programs in effect DPS are managed through the those required under Washington Forest today were originally adopted in the provisions of HCPs approved under Practices Regulations, and improved mid-to late-1970s and are based on section 10 of the Act. The most remediation or closure of problematic guidelines that do not reflect current significant of these include those forest roads (USDI 2000). Collectively, scientific understanding or the current developed by Simpson Timber (61,638 the HCP measures should minimize the emphasis on salmonid conservation. ha (152,311 ac)) (USFWS and NMFS adverse effects of future forest Recent efforts by the Washington 2000) and the WDNR (263,812 ha management activities on Simpson Department of Ecology to ensure that (651,891 ac)) (WDNR 1997). These HCPs Timberlands in the DPS. local plans were revised consistent with include riparian management standards Changes in the WFPA since the current science and priorities have been somewhat different from those normally original proposed rule to list the coastal subject to litigation and have not been applied under the WFPA. The WDNR cutthroat trout as threatened in the finalized. Thus, the extent to which the HCP was approved in 1997, though not southwestern Washington/Columbia Shoreline Management Act can be used fully addressed in the original listing River DPS (64 FR 16397) and provisions as a tool to support salmonid proposal, and is scheduled to remain in of two long-term forest HCPs completed conservation is uncertain. Under the effect through 2093. This HCP contains in the Washington portion of the DPS State Environmental Policy Act, an a Riparian Conservation Strategy should greatly reduce the risk of agency may deny permits or other designed to maintain the integrity and continued degradation of aquatic and approvals if the proposed rule would function of freshwater stream habitat riparian systems on forest lands in 30 likely result in significant adverse necessary for the health and persistence percent of the DPS’s range. The environmental impacts and if mitigation of aquatic species, including coastal proposed rule concluded that the WFPA measures would be insufficient to avoid cutthroat trout. The strategy includes did ‘‘* * * not provide for properly or reduce those impacts. The use of the stream, lake, and wetland buffers of functioning riparian and instream State Environmental Policy Act in this various widths managed under habitats,’’ with specific concerns about fashion by local and State agencies has standards that must ‘‘maintain or restore failure to address large woody debris been extremely limited and, as a result, salmonid habitat’’ (WDNR 1997). The recruitment, tree retention to maintain has not effectively served as a HCP also includes road maintenance stream band and channel integrity, and conservation mechanism or to address and network planning standards, chronic and episodic inputs of coarse the inadequacies of other regulatory protection of disturbance-sensitive sites, and fine sediments (64 FR 16402). Based programs (State of Washington 1999). and overall landscape-level forest on the new provisions addressing: (1) habitat condition standards. Timber harvest activities in and around Oregon Collectively, these HCP measures riparian areas and unstable slopes; (2) The proposed rule stated that the should minimize the adverse effects to road use, construction, and maintenance Oregon Forest Practices Act did not coastal cutthroat trout of future forest related to forest management; and (3) adequately protect salmonid habitat, management activities on WDNR lands increased riparian buffer widths, specifically including production and in the DPS’s range. However, even with reduced level of management activities introduction of large woody debris into the HCP in place, ‘‘adverse impacts to within the buffers and an increase in the medium, small, and non-fish bearing salmonid habitat will continue to occur percentage of the stream network streams; timber harvest and road because past forest management subject to these buffers, we no longer construction on unstable slopes subject practices have left a legacy of degraded conclude, as described in the proposed to mass wasting; and cumulative effects riparian ecosystems, deforested unstable rule (64 FR 16402), that the Washington (64 FR 16403). slopes, and a poorly planned and Forest Practices Regulations do not Oregon was the first State to adopt maintained road network’’ (WDNR provide for the conservation of coastal comprehensive land-use planning laws 1997). While the HCP will address some cutthroat trout and their habitat. While and these remain among the strongest in of these legacy threats, implementation some degradation of aquatic and the nation. Under this regulatory of the full suite of necessary corrective riparian systems will continue as a program, the State’s 36 counties and 240 and restorative actions on WDNR land legacy of past management activities, municipalities were required to develop is subject to the WFPA and other State and some elements of the riparian/ comprehensive plans that addressed programs and policies. aquatic systems are naturally slow to applicable statewide planning goals, The Simpson Timberlands HCP was recover, these conservation efforts including several related to approved in 2000 and is scheduled to should significantly improve the long- maintenance of natural resource lands remain in effect through 2050. It term conditions for coastal cutthroat (agriculture and forest), critical fish and contains elements similar to those in the trout in a significant portion of the wildlife habitats, and protection of WDNR HCP, including a riparian DPS’s range. water quality and supply. The planning conservation strategy; buffers for Within the Washington portion of the goals themselves do not regulate streams, lakes, wetlands, and other DPS, there are two additional regulatory individual land development decisions, disturbance-sensitive sites; and road programs that apply to all of the non- but are implemented through county maintenance and network planning federal land use activities discussed and local comprehensive plans, standards. The HCP is unique in that above, the Shoreline Management Act ordinances, and standards which, in buffers and management standards for and State Environmental Policy Act. turn, regulate individual land use and riparian resources are tailored to the The Shoreline Management Act applies development decisions. The geomorphology and hydrologic function statewide to all water bodies, except for comprehensive plans typically involve

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44954 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

tradeoffs to balance numerous goals and as described in the proposed rule (64 FR amount needed to complete the project; objectives, some of which may conflict. 16403). However, as the OFPA affects a and replacement, re-establishment and Most local plans now in effect have not relatively small portion of the DPS (8 replanting riparian vegetation is an prioritized goals related to water quality percent of the land base), it is not likely essential permit condition. As with and aquatic habitat protection, and have to result in the DPS of coastal cutthroat CWA permits, removal-fill permits are not been based on the best currently trout becoming endangered in the also reviewed by the Department of available data; therefore, they may not foreseeable future. Environmental Quality for consistency eliminate adverse effects to the riparian with State water quality standards. Dredge, Fill, and Inwater Construction and aquatic environment and provide Protection and restoration of salmonid Programs protection for some areas of cutthroat habitat has recently received increased habitat (State of Oregon 2000a). The proposed rule described the emphasis in administration of this law. The Oregon Forest Practices Act potential protection of aquatic systems In Washington, similar activities are (OFPA) regulates timber management under section 404 of the CWA, though regulated under the State Hydraulics and related activities on most non- there was concern for the lack of a Code, which is administered by the Federal forest lands in the Oregon specific methodology to address WDFW through its Hydraulic Project portion of the DPS (8 percent of DPS’s cumulative effects and additive effects Approval program. Hydraulic Project range). The OFPA sets standards for of continued development (64 FR Approval program standards and timber harvest activities in and around 16403). Dredge, fill, and inwater guidelines are specifically focused on riparian areas, and was improved in construction programs were not listed as the protection of fish life and aquatic 1995 to better protect aquatic resources a specific threat to the DPS (64 FR habitats, and are subject to review every and address water quality concerns. 16407), though they may have five years to ensure consistency with Additional improvements were recently contributed to some past habitat loss, these objectives. recommended to better support particularly in the estuaries and large Based on the implementation of watershed health and conservation of rivers. current laws and regulatory programs, listed salmonids (State of Oregon A wide variety of instream and near- we conclude that the regulation of 2000b). While some of these stream activities are regulated under dredge, fill, and in-water construction recommendations may be implemented section 404 of the CWA and section 10 activities through the section 404 and as regulations through the OFPA in the of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, section 10 permit processes, and future, others will likely be which are administered by the U.S. through State programs, will provide implemented voluntarily and through Army Corps of Engineers (COE). some protection and support of aquatic various incentive-based programs. Even Examples include wetland fills; channel resources, though they may not fully considering possible near-term dredging; bank stabilization; pipeline remove the risk of some losses to improvements, there is substantial trenches; road and bridge construction; cumulative effects from small concern about whether the types and survey activities; outfall construction; individual projects. The remaining risks levels of management activities allowed and boat ramps, pilings and other from cumulative effects are likely to be within and adjacent to riparian zones structures. Section 404 of the CWA small in the short term, and we do not under the regulatory component of the requires that the COE not permit such anticipate that the cumulative effects of OFPA will adequately support riparian activities if they ‘‘cause or contribute to these small projects will reach a level at processes and conditions crucial to significant degradation of the waters of which they would be likely to result in salmonid habitat. Specifically, there is the United States.’’ The States also play the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout concern for how well current OFPA a role in CWA implementation by becoming endangered in the foreseeable regulations address tree retention to reviewing and conditioning proposed future. Dredge, fill, and inwater maintain stream bank integrity and section 404 permits relative to State construction programs were not channel networks within flood plains; water quality standards and State identified in the proposed rule as a chronic and episodic inputs of coarse coastal zone management policies. threat to this DPS (64 FR 16407) and are and fine sediment processes; and the These joint State/Federal CWA not considered a significant threat at recruitment of large woody debris into determinations focus primarily on water this time. the aquatic systems, all of which are quality and pollution. COE guidelines Water Quality Programs critical to maintaining functioning do lack a specific methodology for habitat for all life stages of cutthroat assessing cumulative impacts in the The proposed rule stated that ‘‘*** trout. Much of the concern focuses on decision-making process, or for implementation [of the Federal CWA] management standards for medium, minimizing and mitigating the additive has not been effective in adequately small, and non-fish bearing streams. The effects of the continued development of protecting fishery resources, particularly OFPA does not adequately manage waterfront, riverine, coastal, and with respect to non-point sources of timber harvest and road construction on wetland properties. pollution’’(64 FR 16403), though this sensitive, unstable slopes subject to Many of the activities regulated under was not listed as a specific threat to the mass wasting, and the lack of the CWA are also controlled by State- DPS (64 FR 16407). The proposed rule consideration for cumulative effects is level regulatory programs. In Oregon, did describe the long-term benefits of of concern, especially in light of current work which may modify the bed or developing Total Maximum Daily Loads harvest rotation schedules banks of rivers, lakes, streams, estuaries (TMDLs) and the ability of these to (approximately 50 years). and wetlands of the State must receive protect cutthroat trout in the long term, While potential changes are on the a permit under the Removal-Fill Law though they would be difficult to horizon, we are still concerned that the administered by the Division of State develop in the short term and their OFPA may not adequately provide for Lands. Permits are conditioned to efficacy in protecting salmonid habitat large woody debris input into medium, reduce adverse impacts to water quality would be unknown for years (64 FR small, and non-fish bearing streams; and aquatic resources or to mitigate 16403). address timber harvest and road those impacts. A standard condition Under section 303(c) of the CWA, construction on unstable slopes subject stipulates that riparian vegetation States are required to adopt water to mass wasting; and cumulative effects, removal be limited to the minimum quality standards to restore and

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44955

maintain the chemical, physical and percent saturation of the water column hatchery introductions may biological integrity of the nation’s or intergravel dissolved oxygen criterion significantly reduce the production and waters. As part of this process, the for a given stream reach or sub-basin, or survival of native, naturally-spawned States develop standards for TMDLs of in natural lakes. In addition to revising cutthroat trout’’ (64 FR 16403). The pollutants relative to particular water numeric standards, Oregon incorporated proposed rule described potential quality standards. TMDLs offer a language to address water bodies effects of introduction of rainbow/ method for quantitatively assessing exceeding the relevant numeric steelhead trout outside their historic environmental problems in a watershed temperature criterion and included on range where cutthroat trout had not and identifying pollution reductions the State’s 303(d) list. Oregon rules evolved in concert with these species needed to protect drinking water, require development and (64 FR 16403) and discussed the past aquatic life, recreation, and other uses of implementation of a surface water loss of interior strains of cutthroat trout rivers, lakes, and streams. TMDLs temperature management plan which to hybridization due to these hatchery address pollution sources, including describes the best management releases. However, this is not true for such point sources as sewage or practices, measures, and/or control the DPS or the coastal subspecies in industrial plant discharges, and such technologies which will be used to general. This subspecies has evolved non-point discharges as runoff from reverse the warming trend of the basin, with rainbow/steelhead trout and has roads, farm fields, and forests. The CWA watershed, or stream segment identified not suffered the impacts from hatchery gives State governments the primary as water quality limited for temperature. introductions described for interior responsibility for establishing TMDLs. Washington has submitted, and is subspecies (see Hybridization section Section 303(d) of the CWA requires implementing, a TMDL schedule for more information). States to identify surface waters that do running through 2013. As of May 2000, Specific to this DPS, the proposed not meet State water quality standards. TMDLs had been established for rule stated that ‘‘[n]egative effects of The Oregon Department of approximately 249 stream/water body hatchery coastal cutthroat trout may be Environmental Quality (ODEQ) segments and additional TMDLs are contributing to the risks facing naturally submitted revised water quality under development. A memorandum of spawned coastal cutthroat trout in this standards to the U.S. Environmental agreement between EPA and the [DPS]’’ (64 FR 16407). They noted that Protection Agency (EPA) for review and Washington Department of Ecology lower Columbia River tributaries were approval on July 11, 1996. EPA stipulates that time frames for meeting the only streams receiving hatchery- considered approval of Oregon’s water water quality standards, a plan to origin coastal cutthroat trout, and that quality standards for dissolved oxygen, implement control actions, and a the number of trout released has been temperature, and pH as submitted, with monitoring plan will be developed by substantially curtailed. The proposed the exception of the temperature 2003. rule stated that ‘‘[t]he ultimate effects of criterion for the Willamette River from Inadequacy of water quality hatchery fish depend on the relative size the river’s mouth to river mile 50. regulatory mechanisms was not of hatchery and naturally spawned Consideration of the temperature identified in the proposed rule as a populations, the spatial and temporal criterion for this reach of the Willamette specific threat to this DPS (64 FR 16407) overlap of hatchery and naturally River was deferred until a final action and is not considered a significant spawned fish throughout their life (approval of a revised State criterion or threat at this time. The current cycles and the actual extent to which a new criterion promulgated by EPA) is standards established by Oregon, and hatchery fish spawn naturally and proposed by EPA. ODEQ has recently the ongoing efforts by both States, to interbreed with naturally produced finalized the 1998 303(d) list and establish TMDLs and rectify water fish’’ (64 FR 16407), as well as the level submitted to EPA a schedule for quality problems should result in of incidental harvest of naturally completing TMDLs by the year 2007. significant improvements in habitat spawned fish in fisheries targeting Unless specifically allowed under an conditions for cutthroat trout in the long hatchery salmonids. The proposed rule ODEQ-approved surface water term. However, until TMDLs are provided no estimate or evaluation of temperature management plan, no finalized and remediation efforts these factors. measurable surface water temperature implemented for a period of time, In an attempt to mitigate the loss of increase resulting from anthropogenic adverse water quality may continue in habitat, hatchery programs were activities is allowed in the following some portions of the DPS’s range. The implemented by the States throughout cases: (1) In a basin for which salmonid ability of these TMDLs to protect the range of coastal cutthroat trout. fish rearing is a designated beneficial cutthroat trout should be significant in Until recently, the transfer of hatchery use, and in which surface water the long term, and significant increases stocks of coastal cutthroat trout between temperatures exceed 17.8 degrees C (64 in water quality problems should not distant watersheds and facilities was a degrees F); (2) in waters and periods of occur in the interim. Water quality common management practice in the year determined by the ODEQ to regulations and programs should reduce Oregon and Washington watersheds support native salmonid spawning, egg the risk of continued habitat (Crawford 1979, Kostow 1995). Growing incubation, and fry emergence from the degradation, and water quality concerns concern about the genetic and ecological egg and from the gravels in a basin are not likely to increase to a level at consequences of this practice prompted which exceeds 12.8 degrees C (55.0 which they are likely to result in the management agencies to institute degrees F); (3) in waters determined by DPS of coastal cutthroat trout becoming policies to reduce the exchange of the ODEQ to be ecologically significant endangered in the foreseeable future. coastal cutthroat trout stocks among cold-water refugia; (4) in stream watersheds, primarily by terminating segments containing Federally-listed Hatchery Management releases of fish in all but a few locations. threatened or endangered species if the The proposed rule stated that ‘‘*** Appendix A–1 of the Status Review increase would impair the biological the impact of [hatchery] programs on (Johnson et al. 1999) contains detailed integrity of the threatened or native, naturally spawned stocks are not records of the stocking history of the endangered population; and (5) in well understood,’’ but noted that DPS’s range. Only the Cowlitz River Oregon waters when the dissolved ‘‘[c]ompetition, genetic introgression, Hatchery continues to produce and oxygen levels are within 0.5 ppm or 10 and disease transmission resulting from release coastal cutthroat trout within the

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44956 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

DPS, and this at substantially reduced fish are likely to be concentrated in the considered a significant threat at this levels. This hatchery produces anadromous-accessible areas. The time. anadromous cutthroat trout in a system resident portion of the population in the Fire events in Pacific northwest with several barrier dams that have upper portions of the watersheds is not coastal zones are generally of low reduced natural access to historic likely to be affected by these hatchery frequency (more than 200 years between freshwater habitat for anadromous releases. However, information disturbances) and high severity (e.g., a cutthroat trout. demonstrating effects from coho releases high proportion of the trees are killed) There is no evidence that is limited within the DPS’s range, and (Agee 1993). Although fires can be large competition, genetic introgression, or the extent to which hatchery and intense, unburned patches and disease transmission from hatchery management affects the DPS of coastal refugia often persist. These refugia introductions which were described in cutthroat as a whole is unknown. We provide a source of fish to recolonize the proposed rule as the potential have no evidence that coho releases in other areas once the habitat recovers. consequences of the release of hatchery the DPS are producing competition The effects of fire are likely to be raised cutthroat trout (64 FR 16403) above natural levels or represent a episodic, dispersed through time and have significantly reduced the significant risk to the DPS. Competition space. Coastal cutthroat trout appear to production and survival of native, from hatchery releases of coho salmon be well adapted to such natural pulsed naturally spawned cutthroat trout in the was not identified as a specific threat to disturbances. This process historically DPS. Coastal cutthroat trout production the DPS (64 FR 16407) and is still not may have posed little threat to most has been reduced to a single hatchery considered a significant threat to the local and regional populations. and there is no information at this time DPS at this time. Coastal cutthroat trout are well to indicate that the limited ongoing distributed within the all three major coastal cutthroat hatchery releases have E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors drainage areas within the DPS’s range. an adverse effect on the DPS of coastal Affecting Its Continued Existence This wide distribution reduces the cutthroat trout. Therefore, we conclude Climate and Catastrophic Natural Events likelihood that catastrophic natural that release of hatchery coastal cutthroat events would severely deplete The proposed rule stated that trout in this DPS does not represent a populations throughout the DPS’s range. ‘‘[p]ersistent drought conditions have significant risk to naturally spawning Stochastic events such as fire, flood, and reduced the already limited spawning, cutthroat trout in this DPS. volcanic eruptions, are likely to impact The proposed rule also described the rearing, and migration habitat’’ (64 FR coastal cutthroat trout at a watershed or potential ‘‘* * * negative consequences 16403), though this was not listed as a sub-basin scale and would not affect all of interactions between coho salmon fry specific threat to the DPS (64 FR 16407). portions of the DPS concurrently. released from hatcheries and coastal The proposed rule also stated that Therefore, even if portions of the DPS cutthroat trout’’ (64 FR 16403), though climate conditions appeared to have are depressed, the risk of a catastrophic this was not identified as a specific resulted in decreased ocean event severely impacting the DPS as a threat to the DPS (64 FR 16407). Coho productivity, which might have whole is very limited and is not fry can compete with cutthroat trout for compounded degraded freshwater anticipated to significantly threaten feeding and rearing habitat. Release of habitat (64 FR 16403). Juvenile and coastal cutthroat trout in the foreseeable hatchery coho and steelhead may have adult anadromous cutthroat trout use future. adverse effects to local cutthroat trout tidal rivers and low-gradient estuarine Hybridization populations, especially if they are sloughs and tributaries during spawning stocked in headwater tributaries above and feeding migrations (Kostow 1995). The proposed rule stated that traditional coho or steelhead habitat. These nearshore areas can be influenced ‘‘[h]ybridization between coastal Juvenile coho are dominant over by ocean productivity. The El Nin˜ o- cutthroat trout and Oncorhynchus juvenile cutthroat trout (Chapman 1962, Southern Oscillation cycle (commonly mykiss may prose serious risks for this Glova 1987, Rosenau and McPhail 1987, known as El Nino), causes periodic species’’ (64 FR 16403), though it was Trotter et al. 1993, Johnson et al. 1999) declines in ocean productivity that not listed as a threat to the DPS (64 FR and coastal cutthroat trout are often could affect the survival and 16407). The proposed rule described the displaced to less desirable habitats in productivity of anadromous coastal potential adverse effects of the the presence of other native salmonids cutthroat trout during low periods. widespread release of hatchery rainbow (Hartman and Gill 1968, Griffith 1988). During periods of warm ocean trout throughout the range of interior Coho and steelhead are natural conditions, freshwater habitat cutthroat trout; resulting hybridization competitors of cutthroat trout and conditions may also be affected due to between the species could pose serious cutthroat trout are likely adapted to reduced rainfall with associated impacts risks for cutthroat trout (64 FR 16403). some levels of competition from these on streamflows and increasing river However, this is specific to interior species. The effect of coho and temperatures (Greenland 1998). These subspecies that did not evolve in steelhead stocking is dependent on the types of climate changes are natural, contact with rainbow/steelhead trout. location and magnitude of the releases. long-term cycles, and coastal cutthroat The coastal cutthroat trout differs from Releases in areas outside of historic trout are likely adapted to this variation. these interior subspecies as they coho habitat or in numbers that greatly Therefore, these climate cycles would evolved with the presence of rainbow/ exceed natural levels could have not be expected to significantly threaten steelhead trout and therefore have negative effects on cutthroat trout in the coastal cutthroat trout in the foreseeable developed mechanisms to limit area of the release. Effects are likely to future. There is no evidence that hybridization. be limited to the stocked area and drought or other climate cycles have Hybridization of coastal cutthroat downstream migration habitats. significantly reduced spawning, rearing, trout among subspecies and with other Hatchery coho and steelhead releases or migration habitat for the DPS. species of trout, particularly rainbow are likely to have a proportionally Climate change, specifically persistent trout, is known to occur, and has long greater effect on the anadromous portion drought, was not identified in the been implicated in the decline of other of the coastal cutthroat trout population proposed rule as a specific threat to this cutthroat subspecies (Busack and Gall because releases of these anadromous DPS (64 FR 16407) and is not 1981, Young 1995, Willers 1991). Unlike

VerDate May<23>2002 18:00 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44957

interior subspecies of cutthroat trout steelhead trout in tributaries of the because specific proposals are subject to that evolved in the absence of other Columbia River and found hybridization ongoing legal challenges; (2) the salmonids, coastal cutthroat trout to be common, though at low levels in ecological effects of practices and evolved in sympatry with a suite of most samples. Only a few isolated projects that are implemented may not other Pacific salmonids, their range locations showed high levels of be realized for years or even decades; closely overlapping with steelhead in hybridization. and (3) for some suites of activities, coastal drainages of western North Although the data on hybridization there is no readily available information America. Behnke (1992) concluded that between coastal cutthroat trout and regarding the nature or distribution of cutthroat and rainbow trout shared a rainbow/steelhead trout are limited, on-ground practices or projects. common ancestor as recently as two indications are that hybridization has The States’ overall recovery million years ago. As a result, it is likely likely been occurring for at least several frameworks are contained within the that the long evolutionary association of decades at low levels where these two Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout species co-exist. Much scientific (Oregon Plan) and the Washington would have led to isolating mechanisms uncertainty currently surrounds the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon: that would minimize the occurrence of causes of hybridization and its ‘‘Extinction is not an Option’’ hybridization. evolutionary consequences. In view of (Washington Strategy). Both of these Recent information (Campton 1981, the limited nature of hybridization in frameworks emphasize improved Campton and Utter 1985, Hawkins and the DPS and the natural co-occurrence implementation and enforcement of Quinn 1996, Williams et al. 1997, of these species, hybridization between existing regulations, greater Johnson et al. 1999) suggests that cutthroat trout and rainbow/steelhead coordination and prioritization of hybridization of coastal cutthroat trout trout is not currently considered a conservation projects, and voluntary with steelhead may be more prevalent significant threat to the DPS of coastal and incentive-based measures to in the Pacific Northwest than previously cutthroat trout. Low levels of provide greater site-specific protection. believed. Hybridization appears to occur hybridization may represent natural Based on recent implementation of in a mosaic pattern at naturally low interaction between rainbow/steelhead these recovery frameworks, there will levels in areas where coastal cutthroat trout and coastal cutthroat trout. likely be some level of widespread effort trout and steelhead spawn in the same Populations with high levels of to identify and correct existing fish streams, but the conditions triggering hybridization are few and isolated. passage problems (and to prevent future this apparent interbreeding are Hybridization was not identified in the obstacles), and to restore previously unknown. Hubbs (1955) and Campton proposed rule as a specific threat in the degraded riparian and aquatic habitats (1987) suggest that anthropogenic DPS, and is not considered a significant on a site-specific basis. The Oregon Plan factors can cause or stimulate natural threat at this time. and the Washington Strategy also hybridization where it previously was encourage or otherwise support a Foreseeable Conservation Measures rare or uncommon. However, biologists handful of larger, more comprehensive, studying this issue cannot determine Numerous conservation efforts related restoration-oriented conservation whether the observed occurrences of to maintenance and protection of projects within the DPS’s range, such as hybridization result from anthropogenic threatened salmonids, riparian and the multi-stakeholder Sandy River Basin factors (e.g., stocking of hatchery-origin aquatic habitats, and overall watershed Agreement in Oregon. These projects steelhead, habitat modifications, etc.) or health are underway in Oregon and will likely continue under the auspices simply reflect a natural evolutionary Washington. These are being driven by of scientifically credible watershed process that has been ongoing for the overall salmonid recovery assessments that minimize the hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. frameworks in place in the States and by likelihood of inappropriate ‘‘fixes’’ and The most recent hybridization studies specific growth management and undesirable adverse effects. Such within southwest Washington and the Endangered Species Act considerations. restoration-oriented projects have the Columbia River indicate that Efforts range from broad scale potential to substantially improve hybridization occurs in scattered application undertaken by State or conditions for this species in many locations, but generally at low levels regional authorities to site-specific watersheds in the DPS’s range. throughout the range of coastal projects implemented by individual However, such improvements may not cutthroat. In 2000 and 2001, U.S. landowners or local action groups such be sufficient, and in many cases may be Geological Service-Biological Resources as watershed councils. These are negated, unless the broader suite of Division investigators analyzed a total of generally non-regulatory in nature, land-use activities occurring within the 230 coastal cutthroat tissue samples relying on incentives or voluntary watersheds are modified to reduce from coastal cutthroat trout captured compliance, or are still in development. future adverse effects. within southwest Washington and the Therefore, while they may contribute to The Washington Strategy targets a Columbia River (Carl Ostberg, U.S. conservation of coastal cutthroat trout, number of specific land-use regulatory Geologic Survey, pers. comm., 2001). we have not assumed any specific programs for improvement, and in Fourteen streams were sampled contribution in the listing general supports consideration of including six streams within the Grays determination. improved regulatory standards, either Harbor drainage, three streams in the Several factors make it difficult to through formal rule-making or through Willapa Bay drainage, and one stream predict the extent to which these efforts stakeholder negotiation processes. In each from the Lower Columbia, Upper will result in improved implementation addition to the previously mentioned Cowlitz, Kalama, East Fork Lewis, and of the non-federal land use practices Hydraulic Project Approval program Upper Washougal rivers. Only 1 of the described above, or redress problems revisions, examples include efforts to 14 streams sampled contained hybrids associated with past activities, strengthen the Shoreline Management (the Green Fork of the East Fork Lewis including: (1) Many specific regulatory Act and State water policies, and to River (4 of 25 individuals) (USFWS changes and on-ground projects have develop more consistent and reliable 2001). Spruell et al. (1998) examined not yet been implemented either standards for agricultural practices and incidence of hybridization between because related negotiation and rule- pesticide use. These efforts may lead to coastal cutthroat trout and rainbow/ making are in the formative stages, or at least some improvement in statewide

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44958 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

standards for agricultural practices and measures under consideration. For sizes are comparable to those of healthy urban and rural development, and example, under the City of Portland’s populations in other areas; (2) new redress some of the previously noted ‘‘Healthy Portland Streams’’ program information and analyses calling into problems with these practices. and Metro’s Statewide Planning Goal 5 question past interpretation of the size In limited portions of the DPS’s range program, new rules are being developed of the anadromous portion of the in both States, regional and local efforts to protect important streamside areas population in the Columbia River and to address growth management issues and vulnerable upslope habitats from indicating higher numbers than and Federal Endangered Species Act inappropriate development and to previously described; (3) new data and issues for other listed species may facilitate restoration of some previously analyses no longer showing declining improve programmatic standards or degraded areas. Similarly, the Portland adult populations in the Grays Harbor landowner-specific practices beyond Water Bureau’s Bull Run Watershed tributaries; (4) new analyses that call those likely under the broad State Management program is close to into question the past interpretation of recovery frameworks. In the Washington finalizing proposals to more trend data, and therefore the magnitude portion of the DPS’s range, several appropriately manage water quality, of the trend in the anadromous portion forestry and agricultural planning efforts flow, temperature, and other impacts of the population in the Columbia River; are underway, including the Cowlitz associated with the City’s water supply (5) new information about the Tree Farm HCP, Tagshinny Safe-Harbor and distribution operations. In these production of anadromous progeny by and Candidate Conservation Agreement, programs, the measures being above-barrier cutthroat trout; and (6) Scatter Creek HCP, and Lewis County considered represent improvements two large-scale Habitat Conservation Family Forest Conservation project. In over previous practices, and could be an Plans (HCPs) and significant changes in addition, Clark County has initiated an important contribution to ensuring that Washington Forest Practices Regulations Endangered Species Act Response the activities of local governments and substantially reducing threats to aquatic Program that will address water quality, their constituents in the Portland and riparian habitat on forest lands in aquatic and riparian habitat protection, metropolitan region are consistent with Washington. and conservation of listed salmonids for the conservation of this species. Once The proposed rule stated that ‘‘NMFS a number of development and urban fully in force, these programs may also remains concerned about the extremely land-use activities under the county’s contribute significantly to the low population size of anadromous purview. Ongoing and future conservation of other sensitive species coastal cutthroat trout in lower components of this effort include and help preclude the need to list them Columbia River streams, indicated by assessments of biological resources and as threatened or endangered. low incidental catch of coastal cutthroat potential impacts of various activities; Continuation and successful trout in salmon and steelhead review and revision of development implementation of conservation efforts recreational fisheries, and by low trap codes, ordinances, and operating such as those mentioned above, and counts in a number of tributaries procedures; and prioritization and expansion of these efforts to additional throughout the region,’’ and that ‘‘*** implementation of restoration and activities and areas will be necessary to numbers of adults returning to traps in acquisition projects. fully address concerns associated with the lower Columbia River tributaries In the Oregon portion of the DPS’s previous management legacies and with were consistently below 10 fish in most range, a large number of municipalities the existing regulatory framework. Such streams over each of the past 6 years’’ and counties in the Portland efforts will be a critical determinant of (64 FR 16407). Despite extensive metropolitan area have initiated efforts whether current cutthroat trout habitats changes to aquatic and riparian to revise comprehensive plans and and populations are maintained and condition in many portions of the DPS’s address Endangered Species Act issues improved in the long run to an extent range, coastal cutthroat trout remain in a fashion similar to those described that supports long-term conservation. extant throughout their historic habitat for Clark County, Washington. Primary As such, we will continue to monitor and populations in a large portion of the examples include Clackamas County, and review the progress of these efforts DPS are found in densities comparable the City of Lake Oswego, City of very carefully to determine their impact to populations considered to be healthy- Gresham, the Metro regional on the future status of the species. sized. The anadromous portion of the government, and the City of Portland. However, because these are non- DPS is likely depressed from historic These efforts are in various stages of regulatory programs or are still in levels, though it also appears to remain development and are likely to evolve development, we did not base our final extant in all accessible portions of the incrementally (i.e., sets of measures to listing determination on the assumption DPS’s range. There is little specific address road management followed by that these programs would be information indicating the actual size of measures to address stormwater implemented. the anadromous portion of the management or streamside population or that these populations are Finding and Withdrawal development, etc.) over the next several extremely low. Coastal cutthroat trout as years. As described in the proposed rule (64 a whole, in the Washington portion of Notwithstanding the formative and FR 16407), some portions of the the DPS, remain at comparable densities uncertain nature of most of these local proposed coastal cutthroat trout DPS are to other areas considered to have level planning efforts, we are likely at lower-than-historic levels and healthy-sized populations. There is no encouraged by the efforts. Most of the are probably still declining. However, information that leads us to conclude sponsoring entities have continued to new information and recent changes in that coastal cutthroat trout populations commit staff and financial resources to regulations have changed our in a significant portion of the DPS’s the projects despite recent budget conclusion about the risk that the range are at levels that would lead to limitations. The issues and approaches species may become endangered in the risk of extinction due to small comprising many of the projects appear foreseeable future. This withdrawal is population size in the foreseeable consistent with conservation objectives based on: (1) New data indicating that future. for cutthroat trout. Finally, the handful coastal cutthroat trout are more The proposed rule stated that of projects that are more evolved show abundant in southwest Washington than ‘‘[t]rends in anadromous adults and promise in terms of some of the previously thought and that population outmigrating smolts in the southwestern

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44959

Washington portion of this [DPS] are all ‘‘The significance of this reduction in Some areas have begun to recover from declining’’ (64 FR 16407) and that life-history diversity to both the past forest practices and new ‘‘[r]eturns of both naturally and integrity and the likelihood of this regulations are in place that reduce the hatchery produced anadromous coastal [DPS’s] long-term persistence is a major risk of continued adverse impacts to cutthroat trout in almost all lower concern to NMFS’’ (64 FR 16407). much of the DPS. Conditions in many Columbia River streams have declined WDFW (2001) provided additional parts of the DPS’s range are expected to markedly over the last 10 to 15 years,’’ information demonstrating the continue to improve over time and with the only increase in the Toutle capability of resident coastal cutthroat many of the most damaging past River (64 FR 16407). The most recent trout to produce anadromous progeny practices (e.g., splash dams, large-scale data indicate variable population trends after long isolation (40 years), suggesting wetland conversion) are not expected to throughout the DPS and do not support that even if the anadromous portion of occur in the future due to current laws the conclusion that trends of the population continues to experience and regulations. Despite the long term, anadromous adults and outmigrating low number and declines, smolts will be widespread impacts to aquatic and smolts in the DPS are all declining, as produced that can supplement the riparian conditions, coastal cutthroat described in the proposed rule. There is anadromous portion of the population trout have survived in these areas for no evidence that the adult portion of the and take advantage of any improvement many generations and remain at population in the Grays Harbor in anadromous habitat. There is no densities comparable to healthy-sized tributaries is declining over the long evidence at this time that coastal populations in large portions of the term, and some indication that the adult cutthroat trout pursuing the DPS’s range. Therefore, there is no portion of the population may be stable anadromous life history strategy are significant present or identifiable threat or increasing. Therefore, we no longer segregated from the remainder of the of curtailment of the range of the DPS. conclude that trends in anadromous population. In fact, studies show that Given that coastal cutthroat trout have adults and outmigrating smolts in individuals above barriers and below survived the long-term and widespread southwest Washington are all declining barriers with access to the sea are more impacts of these past practices on as described in the proposed rule. There closely related within a drainage than aquatic and riparian conditions in large are indications of declines in the adult are individuals from different drainages portions of the DPS’s range for many portion of the population in the (Behnke 1997, Johnson et al. 1999). This generations, and apparently remain well Columbia River tributaries, though the further supports the conclusion that distributed at densities comparable to rate of the decline is uncertain due to anadromous and non-anadromous healthy-sized populations elsewhere, concerns over the reliability of the individuals are not substantially the condition of aquatic and riparian analyses and potential biases in the data separate subpopulations. Therefore, systems is not likely to result in sets. Therefore, we no longer conclude based on the evidence that freshwater endangerment of the DPS of coastal that returns of anadromous cutthroat and isolated portions of the population cutthroat trout in the foreseeable future. trout in ‘‘almost all’’ lower Columbia are capable of producing anadromous Therefore, we no longer conclude that River streams have declined markedly migrants, we now conclude that past habitat degradation has led to over the last 10 to 15 years as described freshwater and isolated portions of the severe declines in the population of in the proposed rule (64 FR 16407). coastal cutthroat trout population are coastal cutthroat trout in the There is little information on population contributing to the anadromous portion southwestern Washington/Columbia trends for the resident or freshwater of the population and mitigating risks to River DPS. portion of the population in the DPS, anadromous portion of the population All Federal lands within the DPS’s though populations in the Washington to some degree. The ability for non- range (27 percent) are managed in a portion of the DPS appear to remain at anadromous cutthroat trout to produce manner conducive to the conservation levels comparable to healthy-sized anadromous progeny reduces the risk of of coastal cutthroat trout. The proposed populations, indicating that large-scale loss of the anadromous life history rule concluded that the Washington declines have not occurred at a strategy in the foreseeable future. Forest Practices Regulations did ‘‘*** landscape level. Based on these data, we Specific to the southwestern not provide for properly functioning do not find that population trends Washington/Columbia River DPS, the riparian and instream habitats,’’ indicate that coastal cutthroat trout are proposed rule stated that ‘‘* * * severe including failure to address large woody likely to be extirpated from any habitat degradation throughout the debris recruitment, tree retention to significant portion of their range in the lower Columbia River has contributed to maintain stream band and channel foreseeable future. dramatic declines in anadromous integrity, and chronic and episodic The degree to which the reductions in coastal cutthroat trout populations and inputs of coarse and fine sediments (64 the anadromous portion of the coastal two near extinctions of anadromous FR 16402). The Washington Forest cutthroat trout population represent a runs in the Hood and Sandy Rivers’ (64 Practices Regulations were updated risk to the population in the DPS as a FR 16407). The proposed rule also since the proposed rule. These new whole depends, in part, on the extent to stated that ‘‘[h]abitat degradation in regulations include improvements to: which various coastal cutthroat trout stream reaches accessible to (1) Timber harvest activities in and life history strategies are genetically anadromous coastal cutthroat trout, and around riparian areas and unstable versus environmentally controlled. The poor ocean and estuary conditions, slopes; (2) road use, construction, and proposed rule stated that ‘‘*** a likely combined to severely deplete this maintenance related to forest significant risk factor for coastal life-history form throughout the lower management; and (3) increased riparian cutthroat trout in this [DPS] was a Columbia River Basin’’ (64 FR 16407). buffer widths, reduced level of reduction of life-history diversity’’ and While aquatic and riparian systems have management activities within the that ‘‘[r]educed abundance in been heavily altered in some areas, the buffers, and an increase in the anadromous fish will tend to restrict latest information does not support the percentage of the stream network connectivity of populations in different conclusion that this has severely subject to these buffers. Given these watersheds, which can increase genetic affected the habitat of the coastal improvements, we no longer conclude and demographic risk’’ (64 FR 16407). cutthroat trout in this DPS as a whole. that the Washington Forest Practices

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 44960 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules

Regulations do not provide for the 16407), as well as the level of incidental While regulation of dredge, fill, and conservation of coastal cutthroat trout harvest of naturally spawned fish in in-water construction activities through and their habitat. The lands affected by fisheries targeting hatchery salmonids. the section 404 permit process in the the WFPA and two long-term forest The proposed rule provided no estimate DPS’s range may not eliminate all HCPs completed in the Washington or evaluation of these factors. Coastal adverse effects to the riparian and portion of the DPS’s range should cutthroat trout production has been aquatic environment, we conclude that greatly reduce the risk of continued reduced to a single hatchery. Analysis of it should provide significant protection cutthroat habitat degradation and loss in the remaining hatchery stock history for aquatic resources, and the ability for an additional 30 percent of the DPS’s and genetics indicate that the hatchery us to track continuing effects through range. Therefore, 57 percent of the stock is similar to the naturally spawned the review of permit applications. The DPS’s range is under management and stock. There is no information at this remaining risks from cumulative effects regulations that should greatly reduce time to indicate that the limited ongoing are likely to be small in the short term the rate of future habitat impacts and coastal cutthroat hatchery releases have and we do not anticipate that the provide for long-term improvement of an adverse effect on the DPS of coastal cumulative effects of these small coastal cutthroat trout habitat in the cutthroat trout. Therefore, we conclude projects will reach a level at which they DPS’s range. Collectively, remnant high that the release of hatchery coastal would be likely to result in the DPS of quality habitat, ongoing forest recovery, cutthroat trout in this DPS does not coastal cutthroat trout becoming active efforts to identify and correct represent a significant risk to naturally endangered in the foreseeable future. legacies of past management, improved spawning cutthroat trout in this DPS. Current standards established by Oregon standards for future management Several other potential threats were under the CWA should result in actions, and the ability of coastal described in the Summary of Factors significant improvements in habitat cutthroat trout to survive for long Affecting the Species section of the conditions for native fish. periods in degraded aquatic and proposed rule (64 FR 16402) as The proposed rule stated that drought riparian systems provide the basis for principal factors for decline in the and climate condition resulting in maintenance of habitat for coastal subspecies-wide review of listing factors decreased ocean productivity might cutthroat trout within the DPS’s range. (64 FR 16402), but were not identified have compounded degraded freshwater Therefore, forest management is not as a specific threat to the southwestern habitat (64 FR 16403). These types of likely to result in the DPS of coastal Washington/Columbia River DPS (64 FR climate changes are natural, long-term cycles and coastal cutthroat trout are cutthroat trout becoming endangered in 16407). These include overutilization likely adapted to this variation. the foreseeable future. for commercial, recreational, scientific, The proposed rule described the Therefore, these climate cycles would or educational purposes (recreational potential loss of important estuarine not be expected to significantly threaten angling, by catch in recreational and habitat and stated that reductions in the coastal cutthroat trout in the foreseeable commercial harvest of other species, quantity and quality of estuarine habitat future. There is no evidence that and scientific or educational uses); probably contributed to declines of drought or other climate cycles have predation; some regulatory mechanisms anadromous cutthroat trout, but the significantly reduced spawning, rearing, (dredge, fill, and inwater construction relative importance of these risks was or migration habitat for the DPS. programs and water quality programs); not well understood (64 FR 16402). This Hybridization with other species climate and catastrophic natural events, is further complicated by the lack of could affect coastal cutthroat trout. The information on how coastal cutthroat and hybridization. We evaluated the most recent hybridization studies trout use large estuary systems. latest information on each of these within southwest Washington and the Significant portions of the estuarine potential threats and conclude that they Columbia River indicate that wetlands in the Willapa Bay and Grays are still not considered a threat at this hybridization occurs in scattered Harbor systems, and to a lesser degree time. locations, but generally at low levels in the Columbia River estuary, remain Cutthroat trout are not harvested throughout the range of coastal intact. Given current regulations, we do commercially within the DPS. Scientific cutthroat. Coastal cutthroat trout, unlike not anticipate additional large-scale and educational programs likely have most other cutthroat trout subspecies, conversion or loss of estuary or off- little impact on these populations and evolved in contact with rainbow/ channel areas. While past losses of recreational fishing under current steelhead trout and it is likely that the estuaries may have contributed to a regulations does not represent a long evolutionary association of reduction in the anadromous portion of significant threat to the DPS of cutthroat rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout the coastal cutthroat trout population trout. No introduced diseases have been would have led to isolating mechanisms over historic levels, we do not have documented in coastal cutthroat trout that would minimize the occurrence of evidence that the past and potential populations within the DPS and there is hybridization. This means there is a low future losses are likely to result in the no evidence of significant, elevated loss potential risk of hybridization DPS of coastal cutthroat trout becoming of wild cutthroat trout to native disease significantly affecting coastal cutthroat endangered in the foreseeable future. in the DPS at this time. No specific trout. The few areas observed with high Specific to this DPS, the proposed information exists regarding predation levels of hybridization are isolated and rule stated that ‘‘[n]egative effects of impacts by predatory fishes on cutthroat scattered, and do not appear to hatchery coastal cutthroat trout may be trout, though it is reasonable to assume represent a widespread threat to coastal contributing to the risks facing naturally some predation does occur. We have no cutthroat trout at this time. spawned coastal cutthroat trout in this evidence that aquatic predators have A few potential threats were not [DPS]’’ (64 FR 16407), though the significantly reduced coastal cutthroat described in the subspecies-wide review ultimate effects of hatchery practices trout populations or represent a major of listing factors in the proposed rule depend on the relative size of the threat to coastal cutthroat trout at this (64 FR 16402) or identified as a DPS- populations, the overlap of hatchery and time. There is no evidence that mammal specific threat to the southwestern naturally spawned fish, and the actual or bird predation represents a Washington/Columbia River DPS. These extent to which hatchery fish interbreed significant threat to the DPS of cutthroat include losses of habitat to agriculture with naturally produced fish (64 FR trout at this time. and livestock management, dams and

VerDate May<23>2002 11:50 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2002 / Proposed Rules 44961

barriers, urban and industrial southwestern Washington and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see development, and mining. We evaluated Columbia River, excluding the ADDRESSES). the latest information on each of these Willamette River above Willamette potential threats and concluded that Falls, as threatened. We will continue to Authors they are still not a significant threat at monitor the conditions of the coastal The primary authors of this document this time. cutthroat trout in southwest Washington are Robin Bown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife While populations of some portions of and the Columbia River. In the event Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office the DPS of coastal cutthroat trout are that conditions or threats change and (see ADDRESSES) and Scott Craig, U.S. likely at lower-than-historic levels and the species becomes imperiled, we probably still declining, recent changes could again propose to list the species Fish and Wildlife Service, Western in regulations have reduced threats to as endangered or threatened under the Washington Office, 510 Desmond Drive the DPS as a whole. This, and the latest Act. We will continue to provide SE, Lacey, WA 98503. information indicating relatively technical assistance to Federal, State, Authority healthy-sized total populations (all life and other entities and encourage them history strategies) in a large portion (75 to address the conservation needs of the The authority for this action is section percent) of the DPS’s range, and the coastal cutthroat trout. We will continue 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Endangered Species production of anadromous trout from to work with these agencies and entities Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 residents, lead us to conclude that the to collect additional biological et seq.). DPS of coastal cutthroat trout is not in information, monitor the status of Dated: June 24, 2002. danger of becoming endangered in the coastal cutthroat trout, and monitor the foreseeable future and, therefore, does progress of conservation efforts for the Steve Williams, not meet the definition of a threatened DPS. Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. species at this time. Therefore, we [FR Doc. 02–16579 Filed 7–3–02; 8:45 am] References Cited withdraw the April 5, 1999, proposed BILLING CODE 4310–55–P rule (64 FR 16397) to list the coastal A complete list of all references cited cutthroat trout population in is available upon request from the

VerDate May<23>2002 18:00 Jul 03, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JYP2.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 05JYP2