Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Threatened Status for Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon, 10857-10876 [E9-5403]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10857-10876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5403]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 080229343-81352-02]
RIN 0648-XF87


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed 
Threatened Status for Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the NMFS, have completed a review of the status of the 
Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus; hereafter ``eulachon'') under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in response to a petition submitted by 
the Cowlitz Indian Tribe to list eulachon as a threatened or endangered 
species. After reviewing the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we have determined that the species is comprised of two or 
more distinct population segments (DPSs) that qualify as species under 
the ESA. Moreover, after evaluating threats facing the species, and 
considering efforts being made to protect eulachon, we have determined 
that the southern DPS is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We propose to list it 
as threatened under the ESA. The southern DPS of eulachon consists of 
populations spawning in rivers south of the Nass River in British 
Columbia, Canada, to, and including, the Mad River in California. 
Within the range of the southern DPS, major production areas or ``core 
populations'' for this species include the Columbia and Fraser rivers 
and may have historically included the Klamath River. We solicit 
information to inform the development of the final listing rule.
    Any protective regulations determined to be necessary and advisable 
for the conservation of the southern DPS of eulachon under ESA section 
4(d) will be proposed in a subsequent Federal Register notice. We 
solicit information to inform the development of proposed protective 
regulations and designation of critical habitat in the event the DPS is 
listed. If the proposed listing is finalized, a recovery plan will also 
be prepared and implemented for the southern DPS.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by May 12, 2009. A 
public hearing will be held promptly if any person so requests by April 
27, 2009. Notice of the location and time of any such hearing will be 
published in the Federal Register not less than 15 days before the 
hearing is held.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by 0648-XF87 by any of 
the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Chief, Protected 
Resources Division, Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, 
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information. We will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in 
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. The 
eulachon petition, status review, and other reference materials 
regarding this determination can be obtained via the Internet at: 
https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ or by submitting a request to the Assistant 
Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Northwest Region, 
NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Murray, NMFS, Northwest Region 
(503) 231-2378; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources 
(301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 16, 1999, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright of 
Olympia, Washington, to list and designate critical habitat for 
Columbia River populations of eulachon. On November 29, 1999, we 
determined that, while the petition indicated that eulachon catches had 
recently declined in the Columbia River basin, it did not present 
substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted (64 FR 66601). That finding was based on 
observations that the species is likely more abundant than commercial 
landings indicate and, based on life history attributes (e.g., the 
species' high fecundity and short life span) and assumptions from catch 
data and anecdotal reports, has a demonstrated ability to rebound from 
periods of low abundance. Additionally, the petition did not provide 
sufficient information regarding the distinctness of eulachon 
populations in the Columbia River relative to the other populations in 
the species' range.
    On November 8, 2007, we received a petition from the Cowlitz Indian 
Tribe requesting that we list the eulachon that spawn south of the 
U.S./Washington-Canada border as threatened or endangered under the 
ESA. In contrast to our 1999 review, we concluded there was sufficient 
information showing that eulachon may warrant delineation into DPSs and 
that eulachon in the petitioned portion of the species' range had 
substantially declined in abundance. On March 12, 2008, we determined 
that the petition presented substantial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted, and we requested information to 
assist with a status review to determine if eulachon warranted listing 
under the ESA (73 FR 13185).

ESA Statutory Provisions

    The ESA defines species to include subspecies or a DPS of any 
vertebrate species which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS have adopted a joint 
policy describing what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR 
4722; February 7, 1996). The joint DPS policy identifies two criteria 
for making DPS determinations: (1) the population must be discrete in 
relation to the remainder of the taxon (species or subspecies) to which 
it belongs; and (2) the population must be significant to the remainder 
of the taxon to which it belongs.
    A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered 
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) 
``it is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as 
a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation''; or (2) ``it is 
delimited by international

[[Page 10858]]

governmental boundaries within which differences in control of 
exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory 
mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)'' 
of the ESA.
    If a population segment is found to be discrete under one or both 
of the above conditions, its biological and ecological significance to 
the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated. This consideration may 
include, but is not limited to: (1) ``persistence of the discrete 
population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the 
taxon; (2) evidence that the loss of the discrete population segment 
would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence 
that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving 
natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an 
introduced population outside its historic range; and (4) evidence that 
the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations 
of the species in its genetic characteristics.''
    The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
threatened species as one that is likely to become an endangered 
species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532 (6) and (20)). The statute 
requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or 
threatened because of any of the following factors: the present or 
threatened destruction of its habitat, overexploitation, disease or 
predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or any 
other natural or manmade factors (16 U.S.C. 1533). We are to make this 
determination based solely on the best available scientific and 
commercial information after conducting a review of the status of the 
species and taking into account any efforts being made by states or 
foreign governments to protect the species.

Status Review

    To conduct the status review, we formed a Biological Review Team 
(BRT) comprised of Federal scientists from our Northwest, Southwest, 
and Alaska Fisheries Science Centers, the FWS, and the U.S. Forest 
Service. We asked the BRT to review the best available scientific and 
commercial information to determine whether eulachon warrant 
delineation into DPSs, using the criteria in the joint DPS policy. We 
then asked the BRT to assess the level of extinction risk facing the 
species, describing their confidence that the species is at high risk, 
moderate risk, or neither. We described a species with high risk as one 
that is at or near a level of abundance, productivity, and/or spatial 
structure that places its persistence in question. We described a 
species at moderate risk as one that exhibits a trajectory indicating 
that it is more likely than not to be at a high level of extinction 
risk in the foreseeable future, with the appropriate time horizon 
depending on the nature of the threats facing the species and the 
species' life history characteristics. In evaluating the extinction 
risk, we asked the BRT to describe the threats facing the species, 
according to the statutory factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the 
ESA. The draft report of the BRT deliberations (Gustafson et al., 2008) 
(hereafter ``status report'') thoroughly describes eulachon biology and 
natural history, and assesses demographic risks, threats, limiting 
factors, and overall extinction risk. The key background information 
and findings of the draft status report are summarized below.

Biology and Life History of Eulachon

    The biology of eulachon is described in detail in the draft status 
report and in Willson et al. (2006), and is summarized below. Eulachon 
are a member of the osmerid family (smelts), and no subspecies have 
been identified. The following section presents biology and life 
history information gathered from throughout the range of eulachon, 
though much of the research on eulachon has occurred in Alaska and 
British Columbia. A later section focuses on information specific to 
the southern DPS of eulachon.

Spawning Range

    Eulachon (also called Columbia River smelt, candlefish, or 
hooligan) are endemic to the northeastern Pacific Ocean, ranging from 
northern California to southwest and south-central Alaska and into the 
southeastern Bering Sea. In the portion of the species' range that lies 
south of the U.S./Washington-Canada border, most eulachon production 
originates in the Columbia River Basin (Figure 1). Within the Columbia 
River Basin, the major and most consistent spawning runs return to the 
mainstem of the Columbia River (from just upstream of the estuary, 
river mile (RM) 25, to immediately downstream of Bonneville Dam, RM 
146) and in the Cowlitz River. Periodic spawning also occurs in the 
Grays, Skamokawa, Elochoman, Kalama, Lewis, and Sandy rivers 
(tributaries to the Columbia River) (Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (ODFW) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 
2001). Other river basins in the lower 48 United States where spawning 
runs of eulachon have been documented include the Klamath River in 
northern California and infrequently in some, but not all, coastal 
rivers
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

[[Page 10859]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13MR09.000

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    in northern California, Oregon and Washington (Emmett et al., 1991, 
Willson et al., 2006). Major production areas in Canada are the Fraser 
and Nass rivers (Willson et al., 2006). Numerous other river systems in 
central British Columbia and Alaska have consistent yearly runs of 
eulachon and historically supported significant levels of harvest 
(Willson et al., 2006; Gustafson et al., 2008). Many sources note that 
runs occasionally occur in many other rivers and streams, although 
these tend to be erratic, appearing in some years but not others, and 
appearing only rarely in some river systems (Hay and McCarter, 2000; 
Willson et al., 2006).

Spawning Behavior

    Eulachon typically spend 3-5 years in saltwater before returning to 
fresh water to spawn from late winter through early summer. Spawning 
grounds are typically in the lower reaches of larger rivers fed by 
snowmelt (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Spawning typically occurs at night. 
Willson et al. (2006) concluded that the age distribution of eulachon 
in a spawning run probably varies among rivers and also varies between 
sexes in some years, and among years in the same river system. Males 
typically outnumber females by 2:1 or more. Spawning occurs at 
temperatures from 4[deg] to 10[deg] C in the Columbia River and 
tributaries (ODFW and WDFW, 2001) and from 0[deg] to 2[deg] C in the 
Nass River (Langer et al., 1977) over sand, coarse gravel, or detrital 
substrates. The sexes must synchronize their activities closely, unlike 
some

[[Page 10860]]

other group spawners such as herring, because eulachon sperm remain 
viable for only a short time, perhaps only minutes (Hay and McCarter, 
2000). Some researchers report that males lie next to, beside, or on 
top of females in riffles (Lewis et al., 2002). Langer et al. (1977) 
report that males congregate upstream of groups of females, releasing 
milt simultaneously, and females lay eggs as the milt drifts over them. 
Eggs are fertilized in the water column, sink, and adhere to the river 
bottom typically in areas of gravel and coarse sand. Most eulachon 
adults die after spawning.
    In many rivers, spawning is limited to the part of the river that 
is influenced by tides (Lewis et al., 2002), but some exceptions exist. 
In the Berners Bay system of Alaska, the greatest abundance of eulachon 
was observed in tidally-influenced reaches, but some fish ascended well 
beyond the tidal influence (Willson et al., 2006). Eulachon once 
ascended more than 160 km in the Columbia River system. There is some 
evidence that water velocity greater than 0.4 m/s begins to limit the 
upstream movements of eulachon (Lewis et al., 2002).
    Entry into the spawning rivers appears to be related to water 
temperature and the occurrence of high tides (Ricker et al., 1954; 
Smith and Saalfeld, 1955; Spangler, 2002). Spawning occurs in January, 
February, and March in the Columbia River, and April and May in the 
Fraser River. Eulachon runs in central and northern British Columbia 
typically occur in late February and March or late March and early 
April. Attempts to characterize eulachon run timing are complicated 
further by marked annual variation in timing. Willson et al. (2006) 
give several examples of spawning run timing varying by a month or more 
in rivers in British Columbia and Alaska.
    Although spawning generally occurs at temperatures from 4[deg] to 
7[deg] C in the Cowlitz River (Smith and Saalfeld, 1955), peak eulachon 
runs occurred at noticeably colder temperatures (between 0[deg] and 
2[deg] C) in the Nass River. The Nass River run is also earlier than 
the eulachon run that occurs at warmer temperatures in the Fraser River 
(Langer et al., 1977).

Early Life History and Maturation

    Eulachon eggs are approximately 1 mm in diameter, averaging about 
43 mg in weight; however, in the Fraser River population egg weight 
varied from 10 mg in fish measuring 120 mm in length to almost 30 mg in 
fish of 180-190 mm standard length (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Eggs are 
enclosed in a double membrane; after fertilization in the water, the 
outer membrane breaks and turns inside out, creating a sticky stalk 
which helps anchor the eggs to sand grains and small gravel (Hart and 
McHugh, 1944; Hay and McCarter, 2000). Eulachon eggs hatch in 20-40 
days, with incubation time dependent on water temperature. Shortly 
after hatching, the larvae are carried downstream and dispersed by 
estuarine and ocean currents. Similar to salmon, juvenile eulachon are 
thought to imprint on the chemical signature of their natal (birth) 
river basins. However, juvenile eulachon spend less time in freshwater 
environments than do juvenile salmon, and researchers believe that this 
short freshwater residence time may cause returning eulachon to stray 
more from their birth spawning sites than salmon (Hay and McCarter, 
2000).
    After leaving estuarine rearing areas, juvenile eulachon move from 
shallow nearshore areas to deeper areas over the continental shelf. 
Larvae and young juveniles become widely distributed in coastal waters, 
with fish found mostly at depths up to 15 m (Hay and McCarter, 2000) 
but sometimes as deep as 182 m (Barraclough, 1964). There is currently 
little information available about eulachon movements in nearshore 
marine areas and the open ocean. Willson et al. (2006) summarized the 
results of surveys showing concentrations of pre-spawning adult 
eulachon off Vancouver Island, in the Bering Sea, in the Gulf of 
Alaska, in Prince William Sound, and in the Coastal Fjords of Southeast 
Alaska. The amount of eulachon bycatch in the pink shrimp fishery seems 
to indicate that the distribution of these organisms overlap in the 
ocean.

Prey

    Eulachon feed on zooplankton, chiefly eating crustaceans such as 
copepods and euphausiids, including Thysanoessa spp. (Barraclough, 
1964; Hay and McCarter, 2000), unidentified malacostracans (Sturdevant 
et al., 1999), and cumaceans (Smith and Saalfeld, 1955). Eulachon 
larvae and post-larvae eat phytoplankton, copepods, copepod eggs, 
mysids, barnacle larvae, worm larvae, and eulachon larvae (WDFW and 
ODFW, 2001). Adults and juveniles commonly forage at moderate depths 
(15 to 182 m) in inshore waters (Hay and McCarter, 2000).

Predators

    Eulachon are very high in lipids, and, due to their availability 
during spawning runs, they are an important part of the Pacific coastal 
food web. They have numerous avian predators such as harlequin ducks, 
pigeon guillemots, common murres, mergansers, cormorants, gulls, and 
eagles. Marine mammals such as baleen whales, orcas, dolphins, 
pinnipeds, and beluga whales are known to feed on eulachon. During 
spawning runs, bears and wolves have been observed consuming eulachon. 
Fishes that prey on eulachon include white sturgeon, spiny dogfish, 
sablefish, salmon sharks, arrowtooth flounder, salmon, Dolly Varden, 
Pacific halibut, and Pacific cod. In particular, eulachon and their 
eggs seem to provide a significant food source for white sturgeon in 
the Columbia and Fraser Rivers.

Age and Length

    It is difficult to compare eulachon body lengths among reports 
because researchers have used different length measures (i.e., 
standard, fork, and total length) and these must be standardized for 
across-population comparisons (Buchheister and Wilson, 2005). As 
expected, both length and body mass increase with age. Eulachon on the 
Twentymile River averaged about 180-200 mm and 40-58 g at age 2, to 
220-225 mm and 80-90 g at age 5. At age 3, the most common age of 
spawners, fork length averaged about 200-215 mm and body mass averaged 
about 60-65 g (estimated from Spangler, 2002). For the Fraser River 
population, fork-length distribution was as follows: age 0+ fish were 
about 20-50 mm, age 1+ about 50-80 mm, age 2+ about 75-105 mm, age 3+ 
about 105-135 mm, and age 4+ about 135-160 mm (estimated by Willson et 
al., 2006, from Barraclough, 1964). Eulachon in the Kemano, Kitimat, 
Nass, Stikine, and Columbia rivers have similar distributions of size-
at-age, but the increase in size-at-age is small for both sexes (10 mm 
from age 3 to 4 and 4 mm from age 4 to 5; Lewis et al., 2002).

DPS Delineation

    Evidence that the BRT found informative for determining whether 
southern populations of eulachon may be discrete from northern 
populations of eulachon included differences in: spawning 
characteristics; size- and age-at-maturity of eulachon between northern 
and southern rivers in the species' range; ecological features of both 
the oceanic and freshwater environments occupied by eulachon; and 
genetic characteristics.
Spawning Characteristics
    Eulachon generally spawn in rivers that are glacier-or snowmelt-fed 
and have a pronounced peak freshet in spring. Some researchers 
hypothesize that the rapid flushing of eggs and

[[Page 10861]]

larvae out of the spawning river reach by these freshets may result in 
eulachon imprinting and homing to the larger local estuary rather than 
to individual spawning rivers (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Thus, the 
estuary has been invoked as the likely geographic population unit for 
eulachon (Hay and McCarter, 2000; Hay and Beacham, 2005).
    Variation in spawn timing among rivers has also been cited as 
indicative of local adaptation in eulachon (Hay and McCarter, 2000), 
although the wide overlap in spawn timing among rivers makes it 
difficult to discern distinctive patterns in this trait. These 
differences in spawn timing result in some populations spawning when 
water temperatures are as low as 0-2[deg] C, and sometimes under ice 
(e.g., in the Nass River; Langer et al., 1977), whereas other 
populations experience spawning temperatures of from 4-7[deg] C (e.g., 
in the Cowlitz River; (Smith and Saalfield, 1955)). In general, 
eulachon spawn earlier in southern portions of their range than in 
rivers to the north. River-entry and spawning begin as early as 
December and January in the Columbia River Basin and as late as June in 
central Alaska. However, eulachon have been known to spawn as early as 
January in rivers of the Copper River Delta of Alaska and as late as 
May in northern California. The general spawn timing pattern is 
reversed along the coast of British Columbia where the earliest 
spawning occurs in the Nass River in the far north in February to early 
March, and the latest spawning occurs in the Fraser River in April and 
May in the far south.
Size and Age-at-Maturity
    Coastwide, there appears to be an increase in both mean length and 
weight of eulachon at maturity with an increase in latitude. Mean 
eulachon fork length and weight at maturity range from about 215 mm and 
70 g in the Twentymile River in Alaska to 175 mm and 37 g in the 
Columbia River. This pattern is typical of many vertebrate 
poikilotherms (i.e., cold-blooded animals), for which higher rearing 
temperatures result in reduced size at a given stage of development 
(Lindsey, 1966; Atkinson, 1994; Stout et al., 2001a).
    Age determination of eulachon has been difficult to validate and 
estimates of age based on otolith increments may not be accurate 
(Ricker et al. 1954, Hay and McCarter 2000). Most studies based on 
otolith increments conclude that some eulachon spawn at age-2 through 
age-5, but most spawn at age-2, age-3 or age-4 (Barraclough, 1964; 
Langer et al., 1977; Hay and McCarter, 2000; Willson et al., 2006). 
Recently, Clarke et al. (2007) developed a method to estimate eulachon 
age at spawning from analysis of variations in barium and calcium in 
the otoliths. This study indicated that age structure of spawners in 
the southern areas may be limited to one or at most two year classes 
(Clarke et al., 2007). According to Clarke et al. (2007), the number of 
peaks in the Barium to Calcium ratio observed in eulachon otoliths 
increased with increasing latitude, suggesting that the age at maturity 
is older for northern populations.
Ecological Boundaries
    The fidelity with which eulachon return to their natal river, 
estuary, or inlet implies some association between a specific 
population and its freshwater and/or estuarine environment. Differences 
in life-history strategies among eulachon populations may have arisen, 
in part, in response to selective pressures of different freshwater/
estuarine environments. If the boundaries of distinct freshwater or 
estuarine habitats coincide with differences in life histories, it 
would suggest a certain degree of local adaptation. The BRT looked at 
the characteristics of the terrestrial and marine environments occupied 
by eulachon to assist in evaluating potential DPS structure.
    The BRT used the Environmental Protection Agency ecoregion 
designations (Omernik, 1987) to evaluate potential eulachon DPS 
structure based on freshwater distribution. These ecoregions have been 
used in past ESA status reviews and recovery plans to identify DPSs and 
population structure of Pacific salmon and other marine fishes (e.g., 
Good et al., 2005). The historical distribution of eulachon in 
Washington, Oregon, and California corresponds closely with the Coastal 
Range Ecoregion as defined in Omernik (1987). Extending from the 
Olympic Peninsula through the Coast Range proper and down to the 
Klamath Mountains and the San Francisco Bay area, this region is 
influenced by medium to high rainfall levels because of the interaction 
between marine weather systems and the mountainous nature of the 
region. Topographically, the region averages about 500 m in elevation, 
with mountain tops under 1,200 m in elevation. The region is heavily 
forested, primarily with Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and western red 
cedar. Streams occupied by eulachon within this region generally follow 
two distinct annual flow patterns: (1) Streams draining coastal 
watersheds, where winter rain storms are common, have high flow periods 
coinciding with these storms; (2) streams draining more interior areas, 
such as the Columbia and Cowlitz Rivers, have a distinct spring freshet 
period coinciding with snow melt. Eulachon production is highest in 
these latter systems.
    The BRT also used Environment Canada's (2008) established system of 
ecozones and ecoregions to help assess eulachon DPS boundaries in 
Canada. Their ``Ecozones'' are approximately the same size as the 
ecoregions defined by Omernik (1987), while their ecoregions are 
considerably smaller. All rivers that support regular runs of eulachon 
in British Columbia are within the Pacific Maritime Ecozone, which 
consists of 14 ecoregions. The Lower Mainland, Pacific Ranges, and 
Coastal Gap ecoregions contain rivers supporting regular runs of 
eulachon as defined in Hay and McCarter (2000) and Hay (2002). The 
Lower Mainland Ecoregion is dominated by the Fraser River and includes 
the Fraser River valley. Mean annual precipitation in the Fraser River 
Valley ranges from 200 cm in the Cascade foothills to 85 cm at the 
river's mouth. Mean summer and winter air temperatures in this region 
are 15[deg] C and 3.5[deg] C, respectively. Douglas fir dominates 
native forest stands while other common tree species include red alder, 
Pacific madrone, western red cedar and western hemlock. The Pacific 
Ranges Ecoregion extends from the southern extent of the steeply 
sloping irregular Coast Mountains at the US border to Bella Coola in 
the north. These mountains range from sea level to as high as 4000 m. 
Many rivers in this region originate in expansive ice-fields, and 
numerous glaciers extend into the lowlands. Mean summer and winter air 
temperatures in this region are 13.5[deg] C and -1[deg] C, 
respectively. Mean annual precipitation in this ecoregion ranges from 
340 cm at high elevations to 150 cm at sea level. The coastal forest 
zone is dominated by stands of western red cedar, western hemlock, and 
Pacific silver fir; and by Douglas fir and western hemlock in drier 
sites. The Coastal Gap Ecoregion extends from Dean Channel north to the 
border between British Columbia and Alaska and is bounded by the taller 
Pacific Ranges to the south and the Boundary Ranges to the north. The 
low-relief mountains in this ecoregion consist of the Kitimat Ranges, 
which rarely reach higher than 2400 m. Mean summer and winter air 
temperatures in this region are 13[deg] C and -0.5[deg] C, 
respectively. This ecoregion has the highest mean annual

[[Page 10862]]

precipitation in British Columbia, ranging from 200 cm on the coast to 
over 450 cm at high elevations. Forests are dominated by western red 
cedar, yellow cedar, and western hemlock. Some Sitka spruce and shore 
pine are also present with red alder being common on disturbed sites.
    The Nass Basin Ecoregion contains two rivers, the Nass and the 
Skeena, which also support regular runs of eulachon. The Nass Basin 
Ecoregion lies between the interior and coastal portions of the Coast 
Mountains in west-central British Columbia and is an area of low-relief 
composed of folded Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments that is almost 
encircled by mountains. Mean summer and winter air temperatures in this 
region are 11.5[deg] C and -9.5[deg] C, respectively. Mean annual 
precipitation ranges up to 250 cm at higher elevations to 150 cm in the 
lowlands. The moist montane zone is dominated by western red cedar and 
western hemlock, whereas forests in the subalpine zone contain 
subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce.
    The BRT also looked at ecological features of the ocean environment 
to evaluate potential eulachon DPS structure. Ware and McFarlane (1989) 
built upon previous descriptions of oceanic domains in the northeast 
Pacific Ocean by Dodimead et al. (1963) and Thomson (1981) to identify 
three principal fish production domains in the range of eulachon: (1) a 
Southern Coastal Upwelling Domain, (2) a Northern Coastal Downwelling 
Domain, and (3) a Central Subarctic Domain (the Alaskan Gyre). The 
boundary between the Coastal Upwelling Domain and Coastal Downwelling 
Domain occurs where the eastward flowing Subarctic Current (also called 
the North Pacific Current) bifurcates to form the north-flowing Alaska 
Current and the south-flowing California Current. This occurs in the 
vicinity of a Transitional Zone between the northern tip of Vancouver 
Island and the northern extent of the Queen Charlotte Islands (an 
archipelago off the northwest coast of British Columbia, Canada, just 
south of the Nass River outlet).
    Similarly, Longhurst (2006) identifies an Alaska Downwelling 
Coastal Province and a California Current Province within the Pacific 
Coastal Biome in his delineation of ocean zones. Within Longhurst's 
(2006) Pacific Coastal Biome, ocean distribution of eulachon spans the 
Alaska Downwelling Coastal Province and the northern portion of the 
California Current Province. Longhurst (2006) also places the boundary 
between the Alaska Coastal Downwelling Province and the California 
Current Province where the eastward flowing Subarctic Current (also 
called the North Pacific Current) bifurcates.
    Different modes of physical forcing and nutrient enrichment 
characterize these provinces. Eulachon occupying these different 
provinces likely experience different ocean conditions and selective 
pressures. In the Alaska Coastal Downwelling province, large amounts of 
precipitation and runoff from melting glaciers along the mountainous 
Alaskan coast provide the majority of freshwater input. In summer and 
fall, when runoff is at a maximum, waters in the fjord-like coastline 
and in this area are usually highly stratified in both temperature and 
salinity. Following the spring phytoplankton bloom, stratification in 
the top layers of the water column limits nutrient availability and 
leads to subsequent nutrient depletion. Occasional wind events lead to 
temporary local upwelling of nutrients and subsequent phytoplankton 
blooms. In general, water temperatures are lower in this province than 
the more southerly California Current Province.
    In the California Current Province, seasonal wind driven upwelling 
is a dominate feature of this province. This process carries nutrients 
onshore where they are upwelled along the coast, leading to high 
primary production that lasts through much of the spring and summer. 
Nearshore upwelling also results in higher salinities and lower 
temperatures compared to offshore locations.
    These two provinces are also characterized by distinct plankton 
communities: a boreal community in the Alaska Downwelling Province and 
a temperate community in the California Current Province. Food 
availability for eulachon differs in type and seasonal availability 
between provinces. It is likely that food availability highly 
influences eulachon behaviors such as seasonal movements.
Genetics
    The analysis of the geographical distribution of genetic variation 
is a powerful method for identifying discrete populations. In addition, 
such analysis can sometimes be used to estimate historical dispersals, 
equilibrium levels of migration (gene flow), and past isolation. 
Commonly used molecular genetic markers include protein variants 
(allozymes), microsatellite loci (variable numbers of short tandem 
repeats in nuclear DNA), and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
    The BRT reviewed three published genetic studies to consider 
evidence of population structure in eulachon. One of these studies 
(McLean et al., 1999) used restriction fragment length polymorphism 
analysis to examine variation in mtDNA. Mitochondrial DNA studies are 
generally most useful for detecting deep divergence patterns of 
population structure, and may not be very powerful for detecting 
structure among closely related populations. The other studies (McLean 
and Taylor, 2001; Kaukinen et al., 2004; Beacham et al., 2005) analyzed 
microsatellite loci. Microsatellite DNA markers can potentially detect 
population structure on finer spatial and temporal scales than can 
other DNA or protein markers because of higher levels of polymorphism 
(diversity) found in microsatellite DNA (reflecting a high mutation 
rate).
    McLean et al. (1999) examined mtDNA variation in 285 eulachon 
samples collected at 11 freshwater sites ranging from the Columbia 
River to Cook Inlet, Alaska, and also from 29 ocean-caught fish 
captured in the Bering Sea. They concluded that, overall, there was 
little genetic differentiation among eulachon collected from distinct 
freshwater locations throughout the eulachon range. The pattern of 
eulachon mtDNA variation does not indicate the existence of any highly 
divergent populations and is consistent with the hypothesis that 
eulachon dispersed from a single glacial formation and retreat event. 
However, McLean et al. (1999) did note an association of geographic 
distance with genetic differentiation among eulachon populations, and 
suggested this represented an emerging population subdivision 
throughout the range of the species.
    In a later study, McLean and Taylor (2001) used five microsatellite 
loci to examine variation in the same set of populations as McLean et 
al. (1999). The populations in the Columbia and Cowlitz rivers were 
represented by 2 years of samples with a total sample size of 60 fish 
from each river. However, several populations were represented by very 
few samples, including just five fish from the three rivers in Gardner 
Canal and just 10 fish from the Fraser River. Results from a 
hierarchical analysis of molecular variance test were similar to those 
of the McLean et al. (1999) mtDNA study, with 0.85 percent of variation 
occurring among large regions and 3.75 percent among populations within 
regions. In contrast to the mtDNA analysis however, genetic distances 
among populations using these five microsatellite loci were not 
correlated with geographic distances. Overall, McLean and Taylor (2001)

[[Page 10863]]

concluded that their microsatellite DNA results were mostly consistent 
with the mtDNA findings of McLean et al. (1999) and that both studies 
indicated that eulachon have some degree of population structure.
    The most extensive genetic study of eulachon, in terms of sample 
size and number of loci examined, is that of Beacham et al. (2005). 
Beacham et al. (2005) examined microsatellite DNA variation in eulachon 
collected at 9 sites ranging from the Columbia River to Cook Inlet, 
Alaska, using the 14 loci developed in an earlier study by Kaukinen et 
al. (2004). Sample sizes per site ranged from 74 fish from the Columbia 
River to 421 from the Fraser River. Samples collected in multiple years 
were analyzed from populations in the Bella Coola and Kemano rivers (2 
years of sampling) and also in the Nass River (3 years of sampling). 
Beacham et al. (2005) observed much greater microsatellite DNA 
diversity within populations than that reported by McLean and Taylor 
(2001), and all loci were highly polymorphic in all of the sampled 
populations. Significant genetic differentiation was observed among all 
comparisons of the nine populations in the study. A cluster analysis of 
genetic distances showed genetic affinities among the populations in 
the Fraser, Columbia, and Cowlitz rivers and also among the Kemano, 
Klinaklini, and Bella Coola rivers along the central British Columbia 
coast. In particular, there was evidence of a genetic discontinuity 
north of the Fraser River, with Fraser and Columbia/Cowlitz samples 
being approximately 3-6 times more divergent from samples further to 
the north than they were to each other. Similar to the mtDNA study of 
McLean et al. (1999), the authors also found that genetic 
differentiation among populations was correlated with geographic 
distances.
    Beacham et al. (2005) found stronger evidence of population 
structure than the earlier genetic studies, and concluded that their 
results indicated that management of eulachon would be appropriately 
based at the level of the river drainage. In particular, the 
microsatellite DNA analysis showed that populations of eulachon in 
different rivers are genetically differentiated from each other at 
statistically significant levels. The authors suggested that the 
pattern of eulachon differentiation was similar to that typically found 
in marine fish, which is less than that observed in most salmon 
species.
    Although Beacham et al. (2005) found clear evidence of genetic 
structure among eulachon populations, the authors also noted that 
important questions remained unresolved. The most important one in 
terms of identifying DPSs for eulachon is the relationship between 
temporal and geographic patterns of genetic variation. In particular, 
Beacham et al. (2005) found that year-to-year genetic variation within 
three British Columbia coastal river systems was similar to the level 
of variation among the rivers, which suggests that patterns among 
rivers may not be temporally stable. However, in the comparisons 
involving the Columbia River samples, the variation between the 
Columbia samples and one north-of-Fraser sample from the same year was 
approximately 5 times greater than a comparison within the Columbia 
from 2 different years.
    When all genetic studies are considered, the BRT found modest 
genetic structure within eulachon, with the most obvious genetic break 
appearing to occur in southern British Columbia north of the Fraser 
River. This break indicates a degree of reproductive isolation between 
northern and southern populations, suggesting the two population 
segments are discrete.

DPS Conclusions of the BRT

    Based on the foregoing, the BRT identified six possible DPS 
configurations or scenarios that could include eulachon that spawn in 
Washington, Oregon, and California rivers (i.e., the petitioned 
region). The geographic boundaries of possible DPSs considered in this 
evaluation were: (1) the entire biological species is the ``ESA 
species'' (i.e., there is no DPS structure within the species); (2) a 
DPS boundary near the Yakutat Forelands in Alaska such that eulachon in 
Southeast Alaska through Northern California consist of one DPS and 
eulachon further north and west consist of one or more additional 
DPS(s); (3) a DPS boundary just south of the Nass River/Dixon Entrance 
in British Columbia such that eulachon from south of the Nass River 
through Northern California consist of one DPS and eulachon from the 
Nass River and further north and west consist of one or more additional 
DPS(s); (4) a DPS boundary north of the Fraser River such that eulachon 
from the Fraser River through Northern California consist of one DPS 
and eulachon from the Fraser River and further north and west consist 
of one or more additional DPS(s); (5) a DPS boundary south of the 
Fraser River such that eulachon south of the US-Canada border consist 
of one DPS and eulachon from the Fraser River and further north and 
west consist of one or more additional DPS(s); (6) multiple DPSs of 
eulachon in Washington, Oregon and California and one or more 
additional DPSs throughout the remainder of the species' range.
    Because of the paucity of quantitative population data, the BRT 
used structured decision making to guide its determination of DPS 
structure and boundaries. To allow for expressions of the level of 
uncertainty in identifying the boundaries of a discrete eulachon 
population, the BRT adopted a ``likelihood point'' method, often 
referred to as the ``FEMAT'' method because it is a variation of a 
method used by scientific teams evaluating management options under the 
Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Ecosystem Management and Assessment Team, 
1993). In this approach, each BRT member distributed 10 ``likelihood 
points'' amongst these six DPS scenarios. This approach has been widely 
used by NMFS BRTs in previous DPS determinations (e.g., Pacific Salmon, 
Southern Resident Killer Whale). The BRT did not attempt to divide the 
entire species into DPSs, but rather focused on evaluating whether a 
DPS could be identified that contains eulachon that spawn in 
Washington, Oregon, and California, as discussed in the listing 
petition.
    Scenario 1 (no DPS structure) received about 12 percent of the 
total likelihood points. Scenarios 2 (one DPS inclusive of eulachon in 
Southeast Alaska to Northern California) and 5 (one DPS south of the 
Fraser River) received no support by the BRT. There was also very 
little BRT support for multiple DPSs of eulachon in the conterminous 
United States; only 4 percent of the likelihood points were placed in 
scenario 6. All remaining likelihood points (84 percent) were 
distributed among scenarios supporting a DPS at a level larger than the 
petitioned unit of Washington, Oregon, and California but smaller than 
the entire biological species. Scenario 3 (one DPS south of the Nass 
River/Dixon Entrance) received over 57 percent of the total likelihood 
points. Scenario 4 (one DPS inclusive of eulachon in the Fraser River 
through California) received significant support with over 27 percent 
of all points placed in this scenario.
    After reviewing these results, it was the majority opinion of the 
BRT that eulachon from Washington, Oregon, and California are not 
discrete from eulachon north of the U.S.-Canada boundary (as 
petitioned), but that eulachon south of the Nass River are discrete 
from eulachon in the Nass River and northward (Figure 1). This opinion 
is based on the evidence indicating that eulachon occurring in this 
area are discrete from eulachon occurring north

[[Page 10864]]

of this area based on differences in spawning temperatures; length- and 
weight-at-maturity; ecological features of both the oceanic and 
freshwater environments occupied by eulachon; and the genetic results 
(particularly of Beacham et al. 2005).
    This BRT determined the discrete population segment is significant 
to the species as a whole because it constitutes over half of the 
geographic range of the entire species' distribution and includes at 
least two of the major production areas (Columbia and Fraser rivers) 
for the entire species. Therefore, the loss of this DPS would result in 
a significant reduction in the species' overall distribution.
    During the status review, the BRT did not evaluate potential DPS 
structure of eulachon populations occurring north of the Nass River. 
The BRT found, however, that northern populations are discrete from 
southern populations. We conclude that this discrete northern 
population segment (from the Nass River (inclusive) to Bristol Bay, 
Alaska) would also be significant to the taxon because it comprises a 
substantial portion of the range of the species and because the Alaska 
Downwelling Coastal Province (described above) represents a unique 
ecological setting for the taxon. We have not considered whether this 
northern population segment of eulachon might be further subdivided 
into more than one DPS. We refer to the DPS south of the Nass River as 
the southern DPS.

Extinction Risk Assessment

Information Reviewed

    The BRT considered several types of information while evaluating 
the status of the southern DPS of eulachon. The available data types 
and their respective strengths and weaknesses are discussed in detail 
in the draft status report. Fishery-independent scientific assessments 
of the total number or biomass of spawning eulachon were only available 
for the Fraser River and from several other British Columbia rivers. In 
some areas, the only data available on eulachon abundance are derived 
from commercial or subsistence fisheries landings. Commercial landings 
were available from the Klamath, Columbia, Umpqua, Fraser, Kitimat, and 
Skeena rivers. Data from Canadian First Nations subsistence fisheries 
landings were available for the Fraser River and several other British 
Columbia coastal rivers. Recreational fisheries for eulachon have been 
poorly documented, even though the recreational catch may have been 
equal to the commercial catch on many rivers with eulachon runs. Some 
data are available for Fraser River recreational catches and the BRT 
considered this information. The BRT recognized that inferring 
population status from commercial, subsistence, or recreational fishery 
data can be problematic and considered this when drawing conclusions 
from fishery-dependant data.
    Numerous ethnographic studies emphasize the nutritional and 
cultural importance of eulachon to coastal Indian tribes and First 
Nations. The BRT examined ethnographic sources that describe historical 
distributions and relative abundance of eulachon fisheries within the 
boundaries of the DPS. Many of the statements in these sources as to 
the historical distribution and abundance of eulachon consisted of 
traditional ecological knowledge or were anecdotal in nature. The BRT 
also examined a variety of both primary anecdotal sources (e.g., 
accounts of early explorers, surveyors, fur trappers, and settlers; and 
newspaper articles) and secondary anecdotal sources (e.g., agency 
fisheries reports and journal articles that cite personal 
communications) that describe historical distributions and relative 
abundance of eulachon within the boundaries of the DPS.
Absolute Numbers
    The absolute number of individuals in a population is important in 
assessing two aspects of extinction risk. For small populations that 
are stable or increasing, population size can be an indicator of 
whether the population can sustain itself into the future in the face 
of environmental fluctuations and small-population stochasticity. In 
addition to total numbers, the spatial and temporal distribution of 
adults is important in assessing risk to a species or DPS. At a 
minimum, adults need to be in the same place at the same time for 
reproduction to occur.
    Several aspects of eulachon biology indicate that large 
aggregations of adult eulachon are necessary for maintenance of normal 
reproductive output. Eulachon are a short-lived, high-fecundity, high-
mortality forage fish, and such species typically have large population 
sizes. Research from other marine fishes (Sadovy, 2001) suggests that 
there is likely a biological requirement for a critical threshold 
density of eulachon during spawning to ensure adequate synchronization 
of spawning, mate choice, gonadal sterol levels, and fertilization 
success. Since eulachon sperm may remain viable for only a short time, 
perhaps only minutes, sexes must synchronize spawning activities 
closely, unlike other fish such as Pacific herring (Hay and McCarter, 
2000; Willson et al., 2006). In most samples of spawning eulachon, 
males greatly outnumber females (although many factors may contribute 
to these observations) (Willson et al. 2006), and in some instances 
congregations of males have been observed simultaneously spawning 
upstream of females that laid eggs as milt drifted downstream (Langer 
et al., 1977).
    In addition, the genetically effective population size of eulachon 
may be much lower than the census size. Effective size is important 
because it determines the rate of inbreeding and the rate at which a 
population loses genetic variation. In marine species, under conditions 
of high fecundity and high mortality associated with pelagic larval 
development, local environmental conditions may lead to random 
``sweepstake recruitment'' events where only a small minority of 
spawning individuals contribute to subsequent generations (Hedgecock, 
1994), and this effect appears to be more pronounced in larger 
populations (Hauser and Carvalho, 2008).
Historical Abundance and Carrying Capacity
    Knowing the relationship of present abundance to present carrying 
capacity is important for evaluating the health of populations; but the 
fact that a population is near its current carrying capacity does not 
necessarily signify full health. A population near carrying capacity 
implies that short-term management may not be able to increase fish 
abundance.
    The relationship of current abundance and habitat capacity to 
historical levels is another important consideration in evaluating 
risk. Knowledge of historical population conditions provides a 
perspective for understanding the conditions under which present 
populations evolved. Historical abundance also provides the basis for 
scaling long-term trends in populations. Comparison of present and past 
habitat capacity can also indicate long-term population trends and 
problems of population fragmentation. For eulachon, current and 
historical abundance data and information was available in the form of 
spawner biomass and/or total spawner counts, offshore juvenile eulachon 
biomass estimates, mean eulachon larval density, catch-per-unit-effort, 
commercial/recreational/subsistence fisheries landings, ethnographic 
studies, and anecdotal qualitative information.

[[Page 10865]]

Trends in Abundance
    Short- and long-term trends in abundance are a primary indicator of 
risk. Trends may be calculated from a variety of quantitative data, 
which are discussed in detail in specific sections below. 
Interpretation of trends in terms of population sustainability is 
difficult for a variety of reasons: First, eulachon are harvested in 
fisheries, and shifting harvest goals or market conditions directly 
affect trends in spawning abundance and catch. Second, environmental 
fluctuations on short timescales affect trend estimates, especially for 
shorter trends and relatively short-lived species like eulachon.
Recent Events
    A variety of factors, both natural and human-induced, affect the 
degree of risk facing eulachon populations. Because of time lags in 
these effects and variability in populations, recent changes in any of 
these factors may affect current risk without any apparent change in 
available population statistics. Thus, consideration of these effects 
must go beyond examination of recent abundance and trends. Yet 
forecasting future effects is rarely straightforward and usually 
involves qualitative evaluations based on informed professional 
judgment. Events affecting populations may include natural changes in 
the environment or human-induced changes, either beneficial or 
detrimental.
    It is generally accepted that important shifts in ocean-atmosphere 
conditions occurred about 1977 and again in 1998 that affected North 
Pacific marine ecosystems. Several studies have described decadal-scale 
oscillations in North Pacific climatic and oceanic conditions (Mantua 
and Hare, 2002). These changes have been associated with recruitment 
patterns of several groundfish species and Pacific herring (McFarlane 
et al., 2000). Increases in eulachon in the Columbia, Fraser, and 
Klinaklini rivers in 2001-2002 may be largely a result of the more 
favorable ocean conditions for eulachon survival during the transition 
from larvae to juvenile when these broods entered the ocean in 1998-
2000.
    At this time, we do not know whether recent shifts in climate/ocean 
conditions represent a long-term shift in conditions that will continue 
affecting populations into the future or short-term environmental 
fluctuations that can be expected to be reversed in the near future. 
Although recent conditions appear to be within the range of historic 
conditions under which eulachon populations have evolved, the risks 
associated with poor climate conditions may be exacerbated by human 
influence on these populations (Lawson, 1993).

Distribution and Abundance

    Historically important spawning areas for eulachon south of the 
Nass River include the Klamath, Columbia, and Fraser Rivers, and 
numerous coastal rivers in British Columbia (Willson et al. 2006).
Klamath and other Northern California Rivers
    There has been no long-term monitoring program targeting eulachon 
in California, making the assessment of historical abundance and 
abundance trends difficult (Gustafson et al., 2008). Ethnographic 
studies, pioneer diaries, interviews with local fishers, personal 
observations and communications from managers, and newspaper accounts 
are therefore the best scientific and commercial information available 
that provide documentation of eulachon occurrence in the Klamath River 
and other rivers on the Northern California coast.
    Hubbs (1925) and Schultz and DeLacy (1935), leading ichthyologists 
of their day, described the Klamath River in Northern California as the 
southern limit of the range of eulachon. More recent compilations state 
that large spawning aggregations of eulachon were reported to have once 
regularly occurred in the Klamath River (Fry 1979, Moyle et al., 1995; 
Larson and Belchik 1998; Moyle 2002; Hamilton et al., 2005) and on 
occasion in the Mad River (Moyle et al., 1995; Moyle 2002) and Redwood 
Creek (Redwood Creek is located south of the Klamath River near the 
town of Orick, California) (Moyle et al., 1995). In addition, Moyle et 
al. (1995) and Moyle (2002) stated that small numbers of eulachon have 
been reported from the Smith River (the Smith River is located just 
south of the Oregon/California border). California Department of Fish 
and Game's ``Status Report on Living Marine Resources'' document 
(Sweetnam et al., 2001) stated that ``The principal spawning run [of 
eulachon] in California is in the Klamath River, but runs have also 
been recorded in the Mad and Smith Rivers and Redwood Creek.''
    Eulachon have been occasionally reported from other freshwater 
streams of California. Jennings (1996) reported observations of adult 
eulachon in creeks tributary to Humboldt Bay, California in May of 
1977. Although Minckley et al. (1986) indicate that eulachon were 
native to the Sacramento River and drainages within the south 
California Coastal to Baja California region, no verifying references 
or actual observations for these assertions were given. Recently, 
Vincik and Titus (2007) reported on the capture of a single mature male 
eulachon in a screw trap at RM 142 on the Sacramento River.
    The California Academy of Sciences (CAS) ichthyology collection 
database lists eulachon specimens collected from the Klamath River in 
February 1916 and March 1947 and 1963, and in Redwood Creek in February 
1955 (see CAS online collections database at https://
research.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/collection/index.asp). A 
search of available online digital newspaper resources revealed an 
early account of eulachon in the Klamath River in a newspaper account 
in 1879 and runs large enough to be noted in local newspaper accounts 
occurred in the Klamath River in February 1919, March 1968, and April 
1963 and 1969; in Redwood Creek in April 1963 and 1967; and in the Mad 
River in April 1963 (see draft BRT report Appendix B). An early memoir 
by a traveler surveying timber resources on the Klamath River reported 
eulachon being harvested (15-20 pounds in a single dipnet haul) by 
Yurok tribal members in the early 1890s (Pearsall, 1928).
    Eulachon were of great cultural and subsistence importance to the 
Yurok Tribe on the Lower Klamath River (Trihey and Associates, 1996) 
and the Yurok People consider eulachon to be a Tribal Trust Species 
(Trihey and Associates, 1996; Larson and Belchik, 1998). Eulachon once 
supported popular recreational fisheries in Northern California rivers, 
but were never commercially important in California. The only reported 
commercial catch of eulachon in Northern California occurred in 1963 
when a combined total of 25 metric tons (56,000 lbs) was landed from 
the Klamath River, the Mad River, and Redwood Creek (Odemar, 1964). 
Larson and Belchik (1998), report that eulachon have not been of 
commercial importance in the Klamath and are totally unstudied as to 
their run strengths.
    Larson and Belchik (1998) also reported that according to accounts 
of Yurok Tribal elders, the last noticeable runs of eulachon were 
observed in the Klamath River in 1988 and 1989 by Tribal fishers. Most 
fishers interviewed perceived a decline in the mid to late 1970s, while 
about a fifth thought it was in the 1980s. A minority of those 
interviewed noticed declines in the 1950s and 1960s. Larson and Belchik 
(1998) further stated that ``in December 1988 and May 1989, a total of 
44 eulachon were identified in outmigrant

[[Page 10866]]

salmonid seining operations in and above the Klamath River estuary 
(CDFG unpublished seining data)'' and that only a single eulachon 
specimen (in 1996) was positively identified between 1991 and 1998 on 
the Klamath River. As detailed in Larson and Belchik (1998), the Yurok 
Tribal Fisheries Program spent over 119 hours of staff time from 5 
February to 6 May 1996 sampling for eulachon in the lower Klamath River 
at five different sites, where eulachon had been noted in the past, 
without encountering a single eulachon. However, one eulachon was 
captured by a Yurok Tribal member near the mouth of the Klamath River 
in 1996 (Larson and Belchik, 1998). Sweetnam et al. (2001) stated that 
``In recent years, eulachon numbers seem to have declined drastically; 
so they are now rare or absent from the Mad River and Redwood Creek and 
scarce in the Klamath River.'' They also stated that, ``the eulachon 
and its fishery have been largely ignored in the past'' in California. 
Sweetnam et al., 2001 suggest the perceived lack of eulachon in the 
Klamath River, currently and in the recent past, represents a low point 
in a natural cycle, though they also admit that the declines may be due 
to human activities. In January 2007, six eulachon were reportedly 
caught by tribal fishermen on the Klamath River (Dave Hillemeier, Yurok 
Tribe, pers. comm.).
    The BRT discussed several possible interpretations of the available 
information. In particular, the BRT discussed the possibility that, 
historically, runs of eulachon in the Klamath River were episodic and 
perhaps only occasionally large enough to be noticed. This 
interpretation, however, is inconsistent with the numerous anecdotal 
but independent reports of regular large runs. The BRT also considered 
the possibility that eulachon still occur in low but viable numbers in 
Northern California rivers but are not frequently observed because of 
the absence of a formal monitoring program, or that some eulachon may 
spawn in estuarine environments and are therefore not observed in the 
riverine environment. These interpretations are inconsistent with the 
following facts: state and tribal biologists are monitoring rivers 
where eulachon were historically reported but are not regularly finding 
eulachon; sizable spawning runs of eulachon attract large numbers of 
predators, which are readily observable and were historically well-
reported (see above); and eulachon are not known to spawn in estuaries 
in large numbers.
    After considering these possible interpretations of the available 
information, the BRT concluded that the explanation most consistent 
with the evidence is that Klamath River eulachon runs used to be 
regular and large enough to be readily noticeable and now are 
intermittent, small, and sporadic. In particular, various accounts 
written by California Department of Fish and Game personnel (Fry, 1979; 
Sweetnam et al., 2001; CDFG, 2008), Yurok Tribal Fisheries Department 
personnel (Larson and Belchik, 1998), the National Resource Council's 
Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River 
Basin (NRC, 2004), and available academic literature (Moyle et al., 
1995; Moyle, 2002; Hamilton et al., 2005) describe accounts of the past 
occurrence of eulachon in the Klamath River and their subsequent 
decline. Based on the available information, the BRT was unable to 
estimate the historical abundance of eulachon in northern California, 
but found no reason to discount the veracity of these anecdotal 
sources, which span a period of approximately 100 years and are 
consistent in their description of noticeable runs of eulachon having 
once ascended the Klamath River.
    Likewise, although the BRT was concerned about the absence of a 
contemporary monitoring program for eulachon, the available information 
strongly indicated that noticeable runs of eulachon are not currently 
spawning in Klamath River or other northern California rivers. In 
particular, the BRT thought it likely that if eulachon were returning 
in any substantial numbers it would be reported by local residents or 
those engaged in recreation, research, or management on rivers in 
Northern California. The BRT noted that large eulachon runs tend to 
attract the attention of fishers, and the previous runs on the Klamath 
River were readily noticeable (e.g., ``the fish moved up in huge 
swarms, followed by large flocks of feeding seabirds'' (Moyle, 2002)). 
The BRT therefore concluded that the available information was most 
reasonably interpreted as indicating that noticeable, regularly 
returning runs of eulachon used to be present in the Klamath River, but 
have been rare or sporadic for a period of several decades.
    Although the BRT was reasonably confident that eulachon have 
declined substantially in Northern California, it is also clear that 
they have not been totally absent from this area in recent years. In 
particular, recent reports from Yurok Tribal fisheries biologists of a 
few eulachon being caught incidentally in other fisheries on the 
Klamath in 2007 indicates eulachon still enter the Klamath River on 
occasion in low numbers. We agree that the BRT's conclusions regarding 
eulachon presence and declines in the Klamath and other Northern 
California rivers are the most persuasive interpretation of the best 
available scientific and commercial information.
Columbia River
    The Columbia River and its tributaries support the largest known 
eulachon run. Although direct estimates of adult spawning stock 
abundance are unavailable, records of commercial fishery landings begin 
in 1888 and continue as a nearly uninterrupted data set to the present 
time (Gustafson et al., 2008). A large recreational dipnet fishery for 
which catch records are not maintained has taken place during the same 
time as the commercial fishery (WDFW and ODFW, 2001).
    Although commercial eulachon landings do not provide a quantitative 
measure of spawning stock abundance, since they can be driven