[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