Q: When does the comment period end for the National Marine Fisheries Service finding that ten of fifteen remaining west coast steelhead populations are threatened or endangered with extinction?

A: On August 9, 1996, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposed that ten of fifteen remaining west coast steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Units warranted designation as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Public comment was solicited through November 7, 1996 and fifteen public hearings were convened throughout the Pacific Northwest and California. NMFS has decided to extend the comment period by 60 days and comments will now be accepted until January 6, 1997. A sixteenth and final public hearing will also be held to hear additional public comment on December 3, 1996 from 6:30 to 9:30 pm at the Pocatello City Hall in Pocatello, Idaho.

Q: What findings under the Endangered Species Act did the National Marine Fisheries Service announce on October 25, 1996 for west coast coho salmon?

A: In July 1995, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced findings for the six west coast coho salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU's). Central California coho, Southern Oregon/Northern California coho, and Oregon Coast coho were proposed as threatened species, Lower Columbia River/Southwest Washington Coastal coho and Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho were proposed as candidate species, and Olympic Peninsula coho were determined to be neither threatened nor endangered. Final determinations, required one year after proposed findings were announced on October 25, 1996 following a three month moratorium on listing activities imposed by Congress. At this time NMFS listed Central California coho as a threatened species and deferred a final decision on whether to list Southern Oregon/Northern California and Oregon Coast coho until April 25, 1997. Only natural coho salmon in Central California (the progeny of naturally spawning parents that have spent their entire life cycle in their native habitat) are listed, and take prohibitions go into effect for Central California coho on December 2, 1996. NMFS deferred any listing decision for Southern Oregon/Northern California and Oregon Coast coho for six months under Section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA because of substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of information relevant to a final listing decision. Oregon, California and a peer reviewer believe that NMFS's risk analysis is biased toward finding relatively high risk for these ESUs. NMFS is evaluating existing and new information and will hold a risk assessment workshop in Seattle on November 13 and 14 to address this scientific disagreement. NMFS also expects to determine by April 25, 1997 whether Columbia River/Southwest Washington Coastal coho and Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho (both designated as candidate species) should be proposed as threatened or endangered.

Q: Why is the Federal Government even involved in salmon, steelhead, and trout management?

A: One factor for the decline of salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout is that different jurisdictions that affect them (international, Federal, state, and local authorities) have not shared common objectives or authorities and together have not been adequate to the task of balancing resource allocation decisions. When a species is threatened or endangered with extinction, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) stands as the last resort to save the species from disappearing forever. NMFS is accountable under the ESA to ensure that Federal, state, local, and private entities acknowledge their conservation responsibilities and work collaboratively to achieve the preservation and sustainability of species.

Q: To save a species from extinction and restore it to healthy numbers, would conservation measures under the Endangered Species Act be more restrictive than state or local measures implemented for the same purpose?

A: Listing or not, necessary conservation actions are determined by the status of the species. Listing or not, the same factors for decline must be addressed, and similar or identical actions will have to be taken. Common sense dictates and experience shows that as a species declines management options diminish and the difficulty and the cost of species conservation increases.

Q: Will the Endangered Species Act close all fisheries for cutthroat trout and steelhead?

A: No. In general, fisheries for cutthroat trout and steelhead not threatened or endangered with extinction can continue. Where threatened or endangered fish mix with other fish populations, precautions will be necessary to ensure that fisheries do not jeopardize the threatened or endangered populations. For the Umpqua Basin, several regulations including, closure of trout fishing in streams where resident and searun cutthroat trout spawn and rear, designated fly-fishing only areas in the North Umpqua, and mandatory release of any cutthroat hooked while fishing for other species were already inacted by the state of Oregon before cutthroat trout in the Umpqua River basin were listed as an endangered species.

Q: How will listing central California coho salmon as a threatened species affect ocean and freshwater fisheries?

A: The direct or intended take of threatened coho obviously must be prohibited. Harvest impacts on natural coho salmon have already been substantially reduced under Amendment 11 to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (PFMC) Ocean Salmon Fishery Management Plan. Ocean coho fisheries off California, Oregon and Washington have been severely restricted or closed since 1994. NMFS will continue to work with the PFMC on harvest regulations that ensure sustainable harvests on healthy fish stocks and the survival and recovery of threatened coho.

Q: How do hatchery fish factor into decisions under the Endangered Species Act?

A: The strength of fisheries management decisions and findings under the Endangered Species Act depend on sound biological groundwork that identifies important groupings of a species and their corresponding distribution and abundance. Defining distinct populations or Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU's) of Pacific salmon, steelhead, and trout species is strictly a scientific exercise in classification. Hatchery fish are included in an ESU if they are biologically similar to the native population. Hatchery fish are only listed if they represent a substantial part of the remaining ESU and are essential to stabilize or preserve the ESU. Hatchery fish are a conservation tool not an indicator of population health. The true measure of a populations condition is the populations sustainability in nature, and thus listing and delisting decisions depend solely on the abundance of natural fish in an ESU.

Q: What does listing a species under the Endangered Species Act mean to private landowners?

A: Threatened or endangered species are public resources and it is the responsibility of all citizens and the Federal government to ensure that these resources are preserved for future generations. The Endangered Species Act offers several options for private landowners to help preserve threatened or endangered species. Options available to private landowners include habitat conservation plans, recovery planning, and section 10 permits, and the National Marine Fisheries Service is ready to work with landowners on common sense approaches to ensure environmental health and species protection.

Q: How will a listing affect timber harvest on private lands?

A: Timber harvest on private lands has the potential to incidentally take listed fish or degrade their habitat. After a listing, landowners have the option of either avoiding take and habitat degradation or they will need to obtain incidental take authorization from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Timber operations that avoid adverse effects on threatened or endangered fish can proceed as planned and an incidental take permit is not required. NMFS is currently working with California to develop guidelines for timber harvest that avoid take and habitat degradation. In addition, NMFS is working with California to develop coho salmon protection strategies to help landowners who don't have the resources to develop in-depth habitat conservation plans. Finally, NMFS is working with several large industrial timber landowners to develop habitat conservation plans that would include issuance of incidental take permits.

Q: What factors must the National Marine Fisheries Service consider when deciding whether to list a species?

A: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must make listing decisions solely on the basis of the biological status of the species and after taking into account those efforts being made by any state, local group, or foreign nation to protect the species (Section 4 (b)(1)(A) of the ESA). NMFS believes that state and local efforts are the key to successful salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout restoration, and any listing decisions under the Endangered Species Act will give meaningful state and local efforts serious consideration.

Q: What are the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (CSRI) and the California Salmon Initiative (CSI)?

A: The CSRI is a comprehensive initiative by the state of Oregon to restore coastal salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. State agencies are assessing their programs and first concentrating on measures to restore coho salmon. The CSRI is a work in progress and a draft of the plan at this preliminary stage has been submitted to NMFS for comment. The CSRI's immediate focus is to identify restoration measures under existing state laws and programs. The state is encouraging communities and private entities to contribute to this process. The CSI is a similar effort undertaken by California, through which the state is encouraging communities, private entities, and public agencies to restore salmon, steelhead and trout in California.

Q: What is the National Marine Fisheries Service's assessment of the CSRI and CSI?

A: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) believes that state and local efforts in California, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon will be the key to restoring environmental health and fisheries resources. NMFS supports the CSRI and the CSI process and is encouraging the states to take decisive and immediate action to restore coastal salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout populations. A final draft of Oregon's CSRI is expected next spring. California may have a similar draft prepared next year.

Q: Has anything been done in California to improve coho salmon habitat?

A: The California Department of Fish and Game has begun a series of cooperative efforts with the California Department of Forestry and Santa Cruz County to resolve habitat issues and improve implementation of the state's forest practice rules. Although these programs will have to be evaluated as they develop, NMFS is encouraged by the efforts the state and Santa Cruz County have already shown to provide greater protection for coho habitat.

Q: What about other local efforts in California to improve coho habitat?

A: There are a number of new conservation measures in place to improve coho habitat in California. Among them is local conservation work in Lagunitas Creek (Marin County), the Russian and Gualala rivers (Sonoma County), the San Lorenzo River (Santa Cruz County), and the Garcia and Navarro rivers (Mendicino County).

Q: How does the National Marine Fisheries Service decide whether state and other efforts to protect a species are sufficient to preclude a listing?

A: State and other conservation efforts must be sufficient in scope, they must be biologically credible, and implementation of actions must be reliable to preclude listing a species as threatened or endangered. New efforts or plans may be judged sufficient in the absence of tangible results. A National Marine Fisheries Service decision that state and other efforts are sufficient to preclude a listing is subject to judicial review.

Q: What will happen now that Umpqua River cutthroat trout are listed as an endangered species?

A: Specific regulations or actions necessary to protect a species are usually not identified or implemented at the time a species is added to the list of threatened or endangered species. This is also the case for Umpqua River cutthroat. Listing generally only determines a species status (threatened or endangered), and makes it unlawful to take, import, sell, or possess the species without a permit. A comprehensive conservation strategy including regulations, agreements, plans, or rules to protect the species can be developed cooperatively with appropriate authorities and involved parties either before or after listing. The state of Oregon's Coastal Conservation Initiative and the Umpqua Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative (UBFRI) were initiated because cutthroat trout, coho salmon, and steelhead in the Umpqua River Basin are in trouble and because existing management is inadequate to save them. The Endangered Species Act jump starts conservation efforts and should compliment these and other restoration initiatives. The National Marine Fisheries Service is working hand in hand with the State of Oregon, the UBFRI, and with Federal agencies so that decisive action is taken to restore these animals to levels that benefit local economies.

Q: When did the listing of Umpqua River cutthroat trout take effect?

A: The Federal Register Notice announcing the final rule to list Umpqua River cutthroat trout as an endangered species was published on August 9, 1996 (61 FR 41514). Protections under the Endangered Species Act for Umpqua River cutthroat became effective on September 9, 1996.

Q: What is National Marine Fisheries Service's assessment of the Umpqua Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative?

A: The Umpqua Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative (UBFRI) has made good progress with actions that will benefit salmon, trout, and steelhead in the Umpqua Basin. The National Marine Fisheries Service is working with the UBFRI to expand its scope and deal with all major factors that degrade environmental quality and impact fisheries resources.

Q: Is the President's Forest Plan sufficient to protect cutthroat trout, steelhead, and coho salmon habitat on Federal lands?

A: Yes. The Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) was designed to produce a predictable and sustainable level of timber harvest and nontimber resources and not degrade or destroy the environment. Timber sales and other land management activities that fully meet the requirements of the NFP Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of salmon, trout, and steelhead. The ACS includes four primary components, riparian reserves, key watersheds, watershed analysis, and watershed restoration, as well as nine ACS objectives against which projects must be evaluated. Successful implementation of all NFP components is essential to ensure that aquatic habitats function to support salmon, trout, and steelhead survival and recovery.

Q: What will the National Marine Fisheries Service do about designating critical habitat for endangered Umpqua cutthroat trout, threatened Central California coho salmon, and west coast steelhead populations proposed as threatened or endangered species?

A: Unprecedented reviews of salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout populations from southern California to the Canadian border have forced the National Marine Fisheries Service to first complete those actions that afford the most immediate and greatest benefits to species conservation. In general, critical habitat designation will be addressed subsequent to listing determinations which afford protections under the ESA to both the species and its supporting habitats. For Umpqua River Cutthroat trout, NMFS has committed to a final decision on critical habitat designation by August 1997.

Q: The National Marine Fisheries Service proposed that Klamath Mountains Province (KMP) steelhead be listed as a threatened species on July 25, 1995. Why did the National Marine Fisheries Service again propose KMP steelhead as a threatened species on August 9, 1996?

A: KMP steelhead were proposed as a threatened species well before the completion of the comprehensive scientific review of steelhead in California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Since it makes sense to consider the biological status, factors for decline, conservation efforts, and new information for KMP steelhead in the context of coastwide steelhead groupings, KMP steelhead were incorporated into the West Coast steelhead review process.

Q: What steps must the National Marine Fisheries Service take before making final decisions whether to list west coast steelhead now proposed as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act?

A: The Federal Register notice announcing National Marine Fisheries Service findings and proposals to list certain west coast steelhead populations as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act was published on August 9, 1996. Final decisions on whether to list west coast steelhead populations will follow: 1. public hearings in California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington to hear public comment on decisions whether or not to propose listing different west coast steelhead populations, 2. work with scientists and resource managers to ensure available information is up to date and complete, and 3. thorough assessment of state, local, and other efforts to conserve the species.

Q: Will listing Umpqua River cutthroat trout under the Endangered Species Act affect logging under section 2001(k) of the Rescissions Act (also known as the salvage rider)?

A: The Rescission Act passed by Congress protected timber sales subject to section 2001(k) from having to comply with environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act until October 1, 1996. All but a few of the 2001(k) sales that might adversely affect Umpqua River cutthroat trout were harvested while this provision of the law was in place. On October 1, the U.S. Forest Service suspended the remaining 2001(k) sales that were judged likely to adversely affect Umpqua River cutthroat trout. Different means to bring these sales into compliance with the ESA are now being discussed by the Forest Service and NMFS. Despite efforts by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to reduce adverse environmental impacts from 2001(k) sales, it is likely that salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout habitat in the Umpqua River Basin has been degraded by logging under the Recission Act. Because of this habitat degradation resulting from implementation of the Recission Act, future timber harvest options under the Northwest Forest Plan may be affected.

Q: When a species is listed and protections under the Endangered Species Act take affect, must all activities in the vicinity of the species stop until incidental take permits are issued?

A: Most people will not be affected from a listing because only those activities that "take" a species will be affected. Those actions likely to adversely affect a threatened or endangered species must be reviewed so that all appropriate steps are being taken to ensure the survival and recovery of the species. Under the ESA, it is unlawful for any person to take an endangered species (take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect the species). Unless otherwise specified by separate regulation, these same prohibitions also apply to threatened species. Activities that do not take threatened or endangered species may proceed as planned and an incidental take permit is not required. j:/jones/Q&A's
Back to Fish Index Page
Back to Whats New Index Page
Back to Chehalis River Council Index Page