[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43974-43976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21660]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 227
[Docket No. 960730210-7194-03; I.D. 012595A]
RIN 0648-XX65
Endangered and Threatened Species: Notice of Partial 6-Month
Extension on the Final Listing Determination for Several Evolutionarily
Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Steelhead
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; partial extension of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has made final listing determinations for five
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of west coast steelhead under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESUs listed as threatened or
endangered species are the Upper Columbia River (endangered), Snake
River Basin (threatened), Central California Coast (threatened), South-
Central California Coast (threatened) and Southern California
(endangered).
NMFS has also determined that substantial scientific disagreement
exists regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to
listing five other west coast steelhead ESUs. Specifically, NMFS has
determined that substantial scientific disagreements exist regarding
the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to final listing
determinations for the Lower Columbia River, Oregon Coast, Klamath
Mountains Province, Northern California, and California's Central
Valley ESUs. These scientific disagreements concern the data needed to
determine the status of these species, the threats to their continued
existence, and the geographic boundaries of certain ESUs. Consequently,
NMFS extends the deadline for a final listing determination for these
ESUs for 6 months to solicit, collect, and analyze additional
information from NMFS scientists, co-management scientists, and
scientific experts on this species enabling NMFS to make the final
listing determination based on the best available data.
Several efforts are underway that may resolve scientific
disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to
these listings. NMFS has undertaken an intensive effort to analyze data
received during and after the comment period on the proposed ESUs from
the States of Washington, Oregon, and California, as well as from peer
reviewers. This work will include evaluating new population models,
analyzing population abundance trends where new data are available, and
examining new genetic data relative to the relationship between winter
and summer steelhead and between hatchery and wild fish. Results of
these analyses are anticipated within the next two to three months.
NMFS will also receive and analyze additional genetic samples for
California's Central Valley ESU as well as rigorously evaluate
ecological characteristics to determine if further subdivision of this
ESU is warranted.
During the 90-day comment period following the published proposed
listings rule on August 9, 1996, NMFS held sixteen public hearings at
which testimony was heard from 188 commenters. Additionally, NMFS
received and continues to analyze 939 written comments.
DATES: The new deadline for final action on the deferred ESUs of west
coast steelhead is February 9, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Northwest Region, 525 NE
Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, 503-231-2005, Craig
Wingert, 310-980-4021, or Joe Blum, 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Historically, steelhead likely inhabited most coastal streams in
[[Page 43975]]
Washington, Oregon, and California as well as many inland streams in
these states and Idaho. However, during this century, over 23
indigenous, naturally-reproducing stocks of steelhead are believed to
have been extirpated, and many more are thought to be in decline in
numerous coastal and inland streams in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
California (Nehlsen et al., 1991). Forty-three stocks of steelhead have
been identified as being at moderate or high risk of extinction
(Nehlsen et al. 1991).
The history of ESA listing petitions received regarding west coast
steelhead is summarized in the proposed listings rule published on
August 9, 1996 (61 FR 41541). The most comprehensive petition was
submitted by Oregon Natural Resources Council and 15 co-petitioners on
February 16, 1994. In response to this petition, NMFS collected and
assessed the best available scientific and commercial data, including
technical information from the Pacific Salmon Biological Technical
Committee (PSBTC) and interested parties in Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
and California. The PSBTC consisted primarily of scientists from
Federal, state, and local resource agencies, Indian tribes, industries,
universities, professional societies, and public interest groups
possessing technical expertise relevant to steelhead and their
habitats. A total of seven PSBTC meetings were held in the states of
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California during the course of the west
coast steelhead status review. NMFS also established a Biological
Review Team (BRT) that conducted a coastwide status review for west
coast steelhead (Busby et al., 1996). The BRT was composed of staff
from NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Southwest Regional
Office, as well as a representative of the National Biological Survey.
Based on the results of the BRT report, and after considering other
information and existing conservation measures, NMFS published a
proposed listing determination (61 FR 41541, August 9, 1996) that
identified 15 ESUs of steelhead in the States of Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and California. Ten of these ESUs were proposed for listing as
threatened or endangered species, four were found not warranted for
listing, and one was identified as a candidate for listing under the
ESA.
Finding
Within 1 year from the date of a proposed listing, section 4(b)(6)
of the ESA requires NMFS to take one of three actions: (1) Finalize the
proposed listing; (2) withdraw the proposed listing; or (3) extend the
1-year period for not more than 6 months pursuant to section
4(b)(6)(B)(i).
Section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the ESA authorizes NMFS to extend the
deadline for a final listing determination for not more than 6 months
for the purpose of soliciting additional data. NMFS' ESA implementing
regulations condition such an extension on finding ``substantial
disagreement among scientists knowledgeable about the species concerned
regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to
the determination.'' (50 CFR 424.17(a)(1)(iv)).
NMFS has now analyzed new information and public comment received
in response to the August 9, 1996, proposed rule. NMFS' BRT has
likewise analyzed this new information and has updated its conclusions
accordingly (BRT Report memo from M. Schiewe to W. Stelle and W.
Hogarth, July 7, 1997). Copies of the BRT's updated Status Review are
available upon request (see ADDRESSEES).
Based on this analysis, NMFS has made final determinations for five
ESUs of west coast steelhead. The ESUs listed as threatened or
endangered are the Upper Columbia River (endangered), Snake River Basin
(threatened), Central California Coast (threatened), South-Central
California Coast (threatened) and Southern California (endangered). For
NMFS' determination on the listing of five ESUs of west coast steelhead
as threatened or endangered species, see the west coast steelhead ESU
listing notice in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal
Register.
As a result of comments received in response to the August 9, 1996,
proposal, NMFS has determined that substantial scientific disagreements
exist regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to final
listing determinations for the Lower Columbia River, Oregon Coast,
Klamath Mountains Province, Northern California, and California's
Central Valley ESUs (BRT Report memo from M. Schiewe to W. Stelle and
W. Hogarth, July 18, 1997). These scientific disagreements concern the
data needed to determine the status of these species, the threats to
their continued existence, and the geographic range of steelhead within
certain ESUs. Therefore, NMFS extends the final listing determination
deadline for the Lower Columbia River, Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountains
Province, Northern California, and California's Central Valley ESUs for
6 months to solicit, collect, and analyze additional data. Several
efforts are underway that may resolve scientific disagreement regarding
the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to these ESUs. These
efforts include: 1) Analysis of samples being collected this summer by
the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) of the Central Valley
ESU of steelhead to determine genetic makeup; and 2) NMFS review of the
new Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) risk analysis model
for the Lower Columbia River, Central Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountain
Province, and North California Coastal ESUs as well as outside peer
review of those same models. A more detailed discussion of these
efforts is provided below under ``Prospects for Resolving Existing
Disagreements.''
Points of Substantial Scientific Disagreement
Some peer reviewers, in addition to some knowledgeable scientists
from state fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and the public, dispute
the sufficiency and accuracy of data employed by NMFS in its proposed
listing of west coast steelhead ESUs in California, Oregon, and
Washington. The primary areas of dispute concern data relevant to: risk
assessment, in particular the types of data used to determine abundance
as well as the impacts of artificial production; and the configuration
of certain ESU boundaries, including the relationship of summer and
winter steelhead in the same ESUs. The following sections briefly
discuss the types of data subject to substantial scientific
disagreement.
Risk Assessment
Risk assessment involves the collection and analysis of data on the
status of west coast steelhead and the threats presented by various
human activities and natural occurrences. In its Factors for Decline
report for west coast steelhead, NMFS identified the principal threats
to steelhead as past and present hatchery practices, habitat loss,
adverse ocean conditions, habitat blockages, and habitat fragmentation
(NMFS, 1996).
With respect to abundance data, several commenters argued that NMFS
lacked sufficient and accurate data to estimate current steelhead
abundance. These commenters argued that NMFS failed to accurately
estimate the number and effects of hatchery fish spawning in the wild,
and that NMFS relied too heavily on the use of sport catch data. These
commenters argued that this analysis upwardly biased NMFS assessment of
the risks facing steelhead in those instances.
For example, in the Lower Columbia River ESU, the State of Oregon
disagrees with NMFS' assessment of risks facing
[[Page 43976]]
steelhead in this ESU. ODFW argued that although steelhead populations
in this ESU are depressed, their modeling suggests that recent actions
protective of steelhead, together with re-analysis of updated data
argue against NMFS' proposed determination. Because it received ODFW's
information only in June 1997, NMFS has not fully evaluated the model
or validated its results in order to assess overall abundance in this
ESU shared by Oregon and Washington.
In the Oregon Coast ESU and the Oregon portion of the Klamath
Mountains Province ESU, substantial scientific disagreement exists
regarding the sufficiency of data used to assess the risks faced by
steelhead. Specifically, ODFW criticized NMFS' assessment of these ESUs
for relying on insufficient data (Chilcote, June 1997). ODFW argued
that NMFS did not consider accurate data sets because NMFS was overly-
reliant on sport catch data. ODFW reasoned that sport catch data,
although the only complete data available, are inaccurate because of
biases in its recording and because most fishing effort focuses on
hatchery steelhead runs, thus reflecting poor wild steelhead abundance.
ODFW also argued that NMFS analyzed a time series that was not
inclusive of all the available data for these coastal steelhead
populations. ODFW argued that NMFS' risk analysis, based on the
available data at the time of the 1995 status review, was biased toward
finding a relatively higher risk for these coastal Oregon ESUs, thus
overstating the depressed condition of Oregon coastal steelhead and
leading NMFS to incorrectly conclude that the proposed listing is
warranted.
ODFW developed two different population models in an attempt to
define the risk of extinction faced by steelhead in the Oregon ESUs.
The first of these models applies spawner and recruitment data to
determine population abundance in the context of habitat capacity. The
second modeling effort attempts to assess the risk of extinction for
those populations where sufficient data exist to estimate spawner-
recruitment relationships (Chilcote, June 1997). To date, the models
have produced status assessments that are inconsistent with those made
by NMFS for the Lower Columbia River, Oregon Coast and Oregon portion
of the Klamath Mountains Province ESUs. The results of these models
could have direct bearing on NMFS' final listing determinations. Having
received these models in June 1997, NMFS has not had time to fully
evaluate them or their usefulness.
ODFW also contended that NMFS overstated the adverse effects of
hatchery fish by not considering time series data that reflect recent
reductions in hatchery production. ODFW argued that, by not using more
updated data sets, NMFS based its proposed listing determinations in
the Lower Columbia River, Oregon Coast and Oregon portions of the
Klamath Mountains Province ESUs on insufficient data. Since the data
ODFW used to estimate the proportion of hatchery steelhead in the ESUs
is new, NMFS needs more time to evaluate the merits of this
information.
In the Northern California Coast ESU, comments from a peer reviewer
presented new information on the relationship between hatchery and wild
steelhead stocks in California, as well as on the genetic differences
between summer and winter steelhead in the Eel River, California. This
new information may affect NMFS' determination and has not yet been
fully analyzed.
ESU Boundary Definitions
Two points of scientific disagreement may affect ESU boundaries.
One area of disagreement concerns NMFS's treatment of diverse life
history forms within the individual ESUs, specifically the relationship
between winter and summer steelhead in the same river basins. Comments
focused on NMFS's use of primarily genetic data in making its
determination to combine winter and summer steelhead into a single ESU.
The commenters argued that not all relevant life history
characteristics are apparent through an analysis of discrete genetic
markers. Another point of disagreement concerns whether there is
significant reproductive isolation between winter and summer steelhead
to warrant their designation as separate ESUs. Resolving these
disagreements may affect ESU boundaries. NMFS has recently obtained new
samples of winter and summer steelhead from ODFW, and will be
collecting additional information over the next few months.
The scientific disagreement concerning California's Central Valley
ESU is of a similar nature. Disagreements have arisen concerning the
boundaries of the ESU, and whether the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers contain distinct populations of steelhead. NMFS expects to
complete its analysis of new genetic samples of steelhead from
California's Central Valley received from CDFG so that it can address
questions concerning ESU configurations within the Central Valley. In
combination with the genetic data, NMFS will conduct a more rigorous
evaluation of habitat and ecological characteristics throughout the ESU
to determine if a finer-scale subdivision of California's Central
Valley ESU is warranted.
Prospects for Resolving Existing Disagreements
Several efforts are underway that may resolve scientific
disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to
these listings. NMFS has undertaken an intensive effort to analyze the
recently received data on the proposed ESUs from the States of
Washington, Oregon, and California, as well as from peer reviewers.
This work will include evaluating the ODFW models, analyzing population
abundance trends where new data are available, and examining new
genetic data relative to the relationship between winter and summer
steelhead and between hatchery and wild fish.
For California's Central Valley ESU, NMFS will receive and analyze
additional genetic samples as well as rigorously evaluate ecological
characteristics to determine if further subdivision of this ESU is
warranted.
Determination
The scientific disagreements about data and analysis discussed
above are substantial and may alter NMFS' assessment of the status of
the Lower Columbia River, Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountains Province,
Northern California Coast, and California's Central Valley steelhead
ESUs. In light of these disagreements and the fact that more data are
forthcoming on risk assessment and ESU boundaries, NMFS extends the
final determination deadline for steelhead in the Lower Columbia River,
Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountains Province, Northern California Coast,
and California's Central Valley ESUs for 6 months, until February 9,
1998. During this period, NMFS will collect and analyze new information
aimed at resolving these disagreements. New information or analyses may
indicate that changing the proposed status of one or more of these ESUs
of west coast steelhead are warranted, and NMFS will either finalize,
withdraw, or modify the proposed rule accordingly.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: August 11, 1997.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-21660 Filed 8-13-97; 9:14 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F