Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 14253

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of Public Hearing

and Reopening of Comment Period on

Proposed Endangered Status for Four

Plants From Vernal Pools and Mesic

Areas in Northern California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed Rule; notice of public

hearing and reopening of comment

period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service), pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),

provides notice that a public hearing

will be held on the proposed

endangered status for Lasthenia

conjugens (Contra Costa goldfields),

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora

(few-flowered navarretia), Navarretia

leucocephala ssp. plieantha (manyflowered navarretia), and Parvisedum

leiocarpum (Lake County stonecrop). In

addition, the Service has reopened the

comment period. All parties are invited

to submit comments on this proposal.

DATES: The public hearing will be held

from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on

Thursday, April 6, 1995, in Napa,

California. The public comment period

now closes April 28, 1995. Any

comments received by the closing date

will be considered in the final decision

on this proposal.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will

held at the Napa Valley Marriott Hotel,

3425 Solano Avenue, Napa, California.

Written comments and materials

concerning this proposal may be

submitted at the hearing or may be sent

directly to Field Supervisor, Sacramento

Field Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room

E–1803, Sacramento, California 95825–

1846. Comments and materials received

will be available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Betty Warne (see ADDRESSES section) or

at 916/979–2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Lasthenia conjugens (Contra Costa

goldfields), Navarretia leucocephala

ssp. pauciflora (few-flowered

navarretia), Navarretia leucocephala

ssp. plieantha (many-flowered

navarretia), and Parvisedum leiocarpum

(Lake County stonecrop) grow in vernal

pools and mesic grasslands and are

found variously in Lake, Napa, Solano,

and Sonoma Counties. The three

remaining populations of Lake County

stonecrop occur on private lands in

Lake County. The seven remaining

populations of Contra Costa goldfields

occur in Napa and Solano Counties. The

five remaining populations of fewflowered navarretia occur in Napa and

Lake Counties. The seven remaining

populations of many-flowered

navarretia occur in Lake and Sonoma

counties.

These four vernal pool plants

proposed for listing are imperiled by

one or more of the following;

commercial, residential, and

agricultural development, hydrological

changes in vernal pool and swale

habitats, trampling by livestock, road

widening, inadequate regulatory

protection mechanisms, random

stochastic events, off- highway vehicle

use, feral pigs, and horseback riding. As

a result of the immediate threats against

these plant populations, the Service is

proposing to list these four species as

endangered to afford them protection of

the Act.

On December 19, 1994, the Service

published a proposed rule on proposed

endangered status for Lasthenia

conjugens, Navarretia leucocephala ssp.

pauciflora, Navarretia leucocephala ssp.

plieantha, and Parvisedum leiocarpum

(59 FR 65311). Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the

Act requires that a public hearing be

held if one is requested within 45 days

of the publication of the proposed rule

in the Federal Register. Public hearing

requests were received within the

allotted time period from Michael

Delbar, Executive Director, Lake County

Farm Bureau, Lakeport, California and

from Daniel Macon, Director Industry

Affairs, California Cattlemen’s

Association, Sacramento, California. As

a result, the Service has scheduled a

public hearing on April 6, 1995, at Napa

Valley Marriott Hotel, 3425 Solano

Avenue, Napa, California.

Anyone wishing to make statements

for the record should bring a written

copy of their statements to the hearing.

Oral statements may be limited in

length if the number of parties present

at the hearing necessitates such a

limitation. Oral and written comments

receive equal consideration. The Service

places no limits to the length of written

comments or materials presented at the

hearing or mailed to the Service. Legal

notices announcing the date, time, and

location of the hearing are being

published in newspapers concurrently

with this Federal Register notice.

The comment period on the proposal

was to close on February 17, 1995. To

accommodate the hearing, the public

comment period is reopened upon

publication of this notice. Written

comments may now be submitted until

April 28, 1995, to the Service office in

the ADDRESSES section.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Dated: March 9, 1995.

William F. Shake,

Acting Regional Director, Region 1 U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 95–6470 Filed 3–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[Docket No. 941084–4284; I.D. 080894C]

50 CFR Part 227

Endangered and Threatened Species;

Proposed Threatened Status for

Southern Oregon and Northern

California Steelhead

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing a proposed

rule to list natural steelhead

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) populations

(progeny of naturally-spawning fish)

occurring between Cape Blanco, OR,

and the Klamath River Basin, in Oregon

and California (inclusive; hereinafter

referred to as the Klamath Mountains

Province) as threatened under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).

NMFS has determined that Klamath

Mountains Province steelhead

populations constitute a ‘‘species’’ as

interpreted under the ESA. Should the

proposed listing be made final,

protective regulations under the ESA

would be put into effect and a recovery

program would be implemented.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 15, 1995. Requests for a public

hearing must be received by May 1,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed

rule, requests for public hearings, and

requests for supporting documents

should be sent to the Environmental and

Technical Services Division, NMFS,

Northwest Region, 911 NE. 11th

Avenue, Suite 620, Portland, OR 97232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Garth Griffin, 503–230–5430; R. Craig

Wingert, 310–980–4021; or Marta

Nammack, 301/713–2322.
14254 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petition Background

On May 5, 1992, NMFS received a

petition from the Oregon Natural

Resources Council, the Siskiyou

Regional Education Project, Federation

of Fly Fishers, Kalmiopsis Audubon

Society, Siskiyou Audubon Society,

Klamath/Siskiyou Coalition,

Headwaters, The Wilderness Society,

North Coast Environmental Center, The

Sierra Club - Oregon Chapter, and the

National Wildlife Federation, to list

indigenous, naturally-spawning Illinois

River winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus

mykiss) and to designate critical habitat

under the ESA. After publishing a

document that a listing may be

warranted (57 FR 33939, July 31, 1992),

and soliciting information about the

status of this population, the NMFS

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Biological Review Team (BRT)

completed a status review (Busby et al.

1993) that was summarized in a May 20,

1993, publication (58 FR 29390). The

BRT concluded that the Illinois River

winter steelhead did not represent a

‘‘species’’ under the ESA (see 56 FR

58612, November 20, 1991), and

therefore, a proposal to list Illinois River

winter steelhead under the ESA was not

warranted. However, NMFS recognized

that this population was part of a larger

Evolutionarily Significant Unit ((ESU);

see Consideration as a ‘‘Species’’ Under

the ESA, below), whose extent had not

yet been determined, but whose status

may warrant listing because of declining

trends in steelhead abundance in

several southern Oregon streams. An

expanded status review was initiated

(58 FR 29390, May 20, 1993) to identify

ESU(s) within California, Oregon, and

Washington, and to determine whether

any identified ESU(s) warrant listing

under the ESA. NMFS received an

additional petition to list Deer Creek

summer steelhead, and found that

listing of this population may be

warranted (58 FR 68108, December 23,

1993). In response to a petition from the

Oregon Natural Resources Council and

15 co-petitioners, February 16, 1994,

NMFS later announced that the status

review of steelhead was further

expanded to include Idaho populations

(59 FR 27527, May 27, 1994).

Biological Background

The BRT has completed biological

evaluations associated with the

determination of the geographic

boundaries of the ESU that includes the

Illinois River winter steelhead and

whether the ESU warrants listing as

endangered or threatened under the

ESA. The BRT has prepared an

administrative report detailing the

conclusions of their status review

(Northwest Fisheries Science Center

BRT 1994). A summary of this report

follows. A more complete discussion of

the subject, including additional

references, will be available upon

request in the near future (see

ADDRESSES).

The name steelhead refers to the

anadromous form of the rainbow trout.

Recently, the scientific name for the

biological species that includes both

steelhead and rainbow trout was

changed from Salmo gairdneri to

Oncorhynchus mykiss. This change

reflects a belief that all trouts from

western North America share a common

lineage with Pacific salmon. The present

endemic distribution of steelhead

extends from the Kamchatka Peninsula,

Asia, east and south, along the Pacific

coast of North America, to Malibu Creek

in southern California.

Steelhead exhibit a wide variety of

life history strategies. In general,

steelhead migrate to the sea after

spending 2 years in fresh water and then

spend 2 years in the ocean prior to

returning to fresh water to spawn.

Variations of this pattern are common.

Some spawners survive and return to

the ocean for 1 or more years between

spawning migrations. Some steelhead

return to fresh water after only a few

months at sea and are termed ‘‘halfpounders,’’ having attained the

approximate size that inspired this term.

Half-pounders generally spend the

winter in fresh water and then return to

sea for several months before returning

to fresh water to spawn.

Steelhead exhibit several spawning

migration strategies. ‘‘Summer-run

steelhead’’ enter fresh water between

May and October, and begin their

spawning migration in a sexually

immature state. After several months in

fresh water, summer steelhead mature

and spawn. ‘‘Winter-run steelhead’’

enter fresh water between November

and April with well-developed gonads.

In drainages with populations of both

summer- and winter-run steelhead,

there may or may not be temporal or

spatial separation of spawning.

Consideration as a ‘‘Species’’ Under the

ESA

To qualify for listing as a threatened

or endangered species, the identified

populations of steelhead must be a

‘‘species’’ under the ESA. The ESA

defines a ‘‘species’’ to include any

‘‘distinct population segment of any

species of vertebrate . . . which

interbreeds when mature.’’ NMFS

published a policy (56 FR 58612,

November 20, 1991) describing how the

agency will apply the ESA definition of

‘‘species’’ to Pacific salmonid species,

including steelhead. This policy

provides that a salmonid population

will be considered distinct, and hence a

species under the ESA, if it represents

an ESU of the biological species. The

population must satisfy two criteria to

be considered an ESU: (1) It must be

reproductively isolated from other

conspecific population units, and (2) it

must represent an important component

in the evolutionary legacy of the

biological species. The first criterion,

reproductive isolation, need not be

absolute, but must be strong enough to

permit evolutionarily important

differences to develop in different

population units. The second criterion

would be met if the population

contributed substantially to the

ecological/genetic diversity of the

species as a whole. Guidance on the

application of this policy is contained in

‘‘Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.)

and the Definition of Species under the

Endangered Species Act,’’ which is

available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

Reproductive Isolation

For this criterion, NMFS considered

available information on the geographic

extent and reproductive strategies (e.g.,

run timing) of the ESU containing the

Illinois River winter steelhead. In

general, steelhead are believed to have

strong tendencies to home to their natal

streams, but there are few studies

directly relevant to the area under

consideration. There is evidence that

some adult steelhead move between the

Klamath, Rogue, and Smith Rivers.

However, it is not clear whether this

wandering results in spawning within

non-natal streams.

Available genetic information

indicates that there is a genetic

discontinuity (or at least a transition)

between steelhead from coastal streams

in southern and northern Oregon.

Although the discontinuity/transition

appears to be in the vicinity of Cape

Blanco, the resolution of genetic

sampling does not allow for precise

definition of this boundary.

Several genetic samples from northern

California steelhead were considered

during this status review. Samples from

the Klamath River and the Trinity River

(a tributary to the Klamath River) do not

differ substantially from steelhead

populations to the north. However,

there are large genetic differences

between samples from the Klamath

River Basin and those taken from rivers

to the south. The differences between

steelhead from these two areas are

stronger than those between southern
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 14255

and northern Oregon steelhead

populations.

Within the area bounded by Cape

Blanco and the Klamath River Basin,

there is evidence of genetic

heterogeneity, suggesting a reasonable

degree of reproductive isolation

between individual populations.

However, the genetic structuring has no

clear geographic pattern that would

allow identification of major subgroups

within this area.

In addition to summer- and winterrun steelhead, there are populations

sometimes referred to as fall-run

steelhead in the Klamath River Basin.

Disagreement exists as to whether these

fall-run steelhead should be considered

summer-run, winter-run, or a separate

entity. During this status review, NMFS

considered fall-run steelhead from the

Klamath River Basin to be part of the

summer run.

Because most summer-run steelhead

populations in the Klamath Mountains

Province are substantially depressed

and difficult to sample, genetic studies

during the expanded status review

focused on winter-run steelhead.

However, other genetic studies that

considered both winter and summer

steelhead from other areas have failed to

find consistent genetic differences

between run-types within individual

regions (Allendorf 1975; Utter and

Allendorf 1977; Chilcote et al. 1980;

Schreck et al. 1986; Reisenbichler and

Phelps 1989; Reisenbichler et al. 1992).

Therefore, NMFS concludes that all

runs of steelhead within the Klamath

Mountains Province should be

considered part of the same ESU.

Patterns of ocean migration of salmon

and steelhead may reflect reproductive

isolation of spawning populations.

Chinook salmon populations from south

of Cape Blanco are generally considered

south-migrating (e.g., to ocean areas off

southern Oregon and California),

whereas stocks from north of Cape

Blanco are considered north-migrating.

Other studies suggest that coho salmon

and steelhead from south of Cape

Blanco may not be highly migratory,

remaining instead in the highly

productive oceanic waters off southern

Oregon and northern California (Pearcy

et al. 1990; Pearcy 1992).

NMFS is not aware of any direct

evidence about the relationship between

the anadromous and nonanadromous

life history forms of O. mykiss within

the Klamath Mountains Province.

Although it has been reported that these

two life history forms within a

geographic area may be more genetically

similar to each other than either is to the

same form from outside the area, other

studies have found evidence for

reproductive isolation between

anadromous and nonanadromous O.

mykiss. NMFS’ policy contained in

‘‘Pacific Salmon and the Definition of

Species under the ESA’’ states that

anadromous and nonanadromous forms

should be considered separately if they

are reproductively isolated.

Reproductive isolation, as previously

noted, is a question of degree. NMFS

has determined that, until specific

information regarding these two life

history forms within the Klamath

Mountains Province becomes available,

nonanadromous fish will not be

considered part of the ESU. This

determination may be reconsidered if

information demonstrating that the two

forms share a common gene pool

becomes available.

Ecological/Genetic Diversity

Several types of physical and

biological information were considered

during evaluation of the contribution of

Klamath Mountains Province steelhead

to ecological/genetic diversity,

including: (1) Physical environment, (2)

zoogeography, and (3) life history

characteristics. The Klamath Mountains

Geological Province extends from the

vicinity of Cape Blanco in the north to

the Klamath River Basin (inclusive) in

the south. Ecologically, the province

includes areas that are warmer and drier

than coastal regions to the north and

south; interior valleys receive less

precipitation than any other Pacific

Northwest location west of the Cascade

Mountain Range. The nearshore ocean

environment in this region is strongly

affected by seasonal upwelling, which

extends southward from Cape Blanco,

with some local variations as far south

as 33°N. lat.

Zoogeographic studies of freshwater

fishes have consistently identified

differences in fish assemblages between

the Rogue River Basin and streams to

the north. Also, similarities have been

noted between freshwater fish

communities in the Klamath and Rogue

River basins. For marine fishes, Cape

Mendocino in California has been

identified as an important southern

limit of many northern species.

The occurrence of the half-pounder

life history form of steelhead appears to

be restricted to southern Oregon and

northern California, identified in the

Rogue, Klamath, Eel, and Mad rivers. It

is likely that expression of this life

history strategy is due to a combination

of distinctive genetic and environmental

factors.

ESU Determination

Several lines of evidence suggest that

Cape Blanco is the northern boundary

and the Klamath River Basin forms the

southern boundary of the ESU that

contains the Illinois River winter

steelhead. Genetic and ocean

distribution data suggest that there is

substantial reproductive isolation

between steelhead populations from

north and south of Cape Blanco. Cape

Blanco is also an approximate northern

boundary for the Klamath Mountains

Province, an area of intense upwelling

in the ocean, the range of the halfpounder life history, and the KlamathRogue freshwater zoogeographic zone.

Although Cape Mendocino in California

is a natural landmark associated with

changes in ocean currents, and also

represents the approximate southern

limit of the half-pounder life history, the

Klamath River Basin forms the southern

boundary of the Klamath Mountains

Province and the Klamath-Rogue

freshwater fish zoogeographic zone.

Furthermore, genetic data show a sharp

discontinuity between steelhead

populations from the Klamath River

Basin and those farther south. Based on

available information, the BRT

concluded that the geographic range of

the ESU containing the Illinois River

winter steelhead extends from the

vicinity of Cape Blanco in southern

Oregon to the Klamath River Basin

(inclusive) in northern California (see

Figure 1).

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
14256 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 14257

Although diversity in run-timing is an

important life history characteristic of

steelhead within this ESU, and this

diversity may be in part genetically

based, there is little direct information

about the degree of reproductive

isolation between identified runs within

the Klamath Mountains Province.

Furthermore, previous genetic studies

have failed to find consistent genetic

differences between run-types within

individual regions, and suggest that

summer- and winter-run steelhead are

not independent, monophyletic groups

over broad geographic regions. Based on

available evidence, the BRT concluded

that all steelhead runs (those termed

summer-, fall-, and winter-run) within

the identified geographic boundaries

should be considered together as one

ESU, and therefore a species, as defined

under the ESA.

Status of the Klamath Mountains

Province ESU

NMFS uses a number of factors that

should be considered in evaluating the

level of risk faced by an ESU, including:

(1) Absolute numbers of fish and their

spatial and temporal distribution, (2)

current abundance in relation to

historical abundance and current

carrying capacity of the habitat, (3)

trends in abundance, (4) natural and

human-influenced factors that cause

variability in survival and abundance,

(5) possible threats to genetic integrity

(e.g., from strays or outplants from

hatchery programs), and (6) recent

events (e.g., a drought or changes in

harvest management) that have

predictable short-term consequences for

abundance of the ESU.

During consideration of the ESU

status, the BRT evaluated both

qualitative and quantitative information.

Recent qualitative analyses of the status

of steelhead stocks within the Klamath

Mountains Province have been

conducted by agencies and conservation

groups (Nehlsen et al. 1991; Nickelson

et al. 1992; U.S. Forest Service 1993a,b;

McEwan and Jackson 1994). Most

winter steelhead stocks in the region are

considered to be depressed and/or

declining. Of the exceptions (those from

the Rogue, Winchuck, Smith, and

subbasins of the Klamath and Trinity

Rivers), most are heavily influenced by

hatchery production. Only the Smith

River appears to have healthy and

largely natural production of winter-run

steelhead in this region. The best

assessment of any summer steelhead

stock in this region is depressed, and

most were considered to be at moderate

to high risk of extinction.

Quantitative evaluations included

comparisons of current and historic

abundance of steelhead. Because

historical abundance information for the

Klamath Mountains Province ESU is

largely anecdotal, coastwide abundance

trends provide a larger perspective for

this review. Rough estimates of total

coastwide steelhead abundance made in

1972 and 1987 suggested significant

declines (Sheppard 1972, Light 1987).

However, by all accounts, there has

been significant replacement of natural

production with hatchery fish. Over a

large region (British Columbia,

Washington, and Oregon), steelhead

stocks (both natural and hatchery) have

exhibited recent decreases in survival

that may be due, in part, to climate and

ocean production.

Historical abundance information for

the Klamath Mountains Province ESU is

largely anecdotal. Within this area,

time-series data are available for most

populations only since 1970. The BRT

compiled and analyzed available

information to provide summary

statistics of spawning abundance. Not

all summary statistics were available for

all populations.

NMFS policy, as stated in ‘‘Pacific

Salmon and the Definition of ‘‘Species’’

under the ESA,’’ focuses on viability of

natural populations, and notes that an

ESU is not healthy unless a viable

population exists in the natural habitat.

The BRT attempted to distinguish

between naturally produced fish and

hatchery produced fish. Total

abundance (including hatchery

populations) varies widely among

populations within the proposed ESU,

with several populations having run

sizes of 10,000 or more fish. The heavily

hatchery-influenced summer-run

steelhead population from the Klamath

River may total 100,000 or more fish. At

the other extreme, a number of

populations have less than 1,000

spawners per year.

Estimates of percent annual change in

run size indicate that most of the

steelhead populations in the Klamath

Mountains Province are in significant

decline, even with hatchery production

included. The BRT considered that this

assessment may be influenced by the

recent coastwide decreases in steelhead

survival (due to climate and ocean

conditions). However, excluding recent

years from the trend analysis did not

substantially change overall conclusions

for the stocks considered here.

Natural steelhead production was

roughly indexed using natural return

ratios. This index is an estimate of the

ratio of naturally produced spawners in

one generation to total spawners (both

hatchery and naturally produced) in the

previous generation. Natural production

of all winter-, summer-, and fall-run

steelhead within the Klamath

Mountains Province appears to be below

replacement for all populations for

which the BRT had sufficient

quantitative information. Considering

the qualitative assessments, there is

little reason to believe that other

populations are in better condition

(with the exception of the Smith River

winter-run steelhead). Based on angler

catch data, Illinois River winter

steelhead (the natural population in

southern Oregon with the least hatchery

influence) have declined at an average

rate of about 10 percent annually for the

last 20 years. With this analysis, the

BRT was unable to demonstrate that any

steelhead populations in the Klamath

Mountains Province are naturally selfsustaining.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 2(a) of the ESA states that

various species of fish, wildlife, and

plants in the United States have been

rendered extinct as a consequence of

economic growth and development

untempered by adequate concern and

conservation. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA

and the listing regulations (50 CFR part

424) set forth procedures for listing

species. NMFS must determine, through

the regulatory process, if a species is

endangered or threatened based upon

any one or a combination of the

following factors: (1) The present or

threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)

overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or education

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4)

inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms; or (5) other natural or

human-made factors affecting its

continued existence.

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range

Logging, mining, agricultural

activities (e.g., livestock grazing), and

water withdrawals have likely

contributed to the decline of steelhead

populations within the Klamath

Mountains Province ESU. Removal of

trees within the riparian zone of streams

in the Klamath Mountains Province has

resulted in increased summer water

temperatures and has eliminated the

potential for trees to fall into streams.

Large woody material in streams can

provide cover, shade, and create pools;

these habitat features are required by

juvenile steelhead. Logging activities,

and the associated road networks, can

result in soil erosion and sedimentation

of streams. Livestock grazing can

eliminate streamside vegetation and
14258 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules

prevent riparian species from growing to

maturity, resulting in shallow, warm

streams that are not suitable for juvenile

and adult steelhead. Water withdrawals

reduce stream flow, sometimes during

critical periods, and can contribute to

high water temperature problems.

In the Klamath and Rogue River

Basins, dams without fish passage

facilities have decreased the amount of

habitat available for steelhead, and may

have contributed to the decrease in

Klamath Mountains Province steelhead

populations. There are also fish passage

concerns regarding dams with

inadequate fish passage facilities.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Education

Purposes

Klamath Mountains Province

steelhead are not currently targeted for

commercial harvest, and scientific and

educational programs have had little or

no impact on Klamath Mountains

Province steelhead populations.

However, steelhead are popular

gamefish throughout the Pacific

Northwest and, in some locations,

recreational fishing may contribute to

the general decline of steelhead

populations. Also, poaching may pose

an additional threat to some depressed

populations of adult steelhead.

Summer-run steelhead are particularly

susceptible to poaching activity because

of holding/resting behavior in deep

pools.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease is not believed to be a major

factor contributing to the decline of

steelhead populations in the Klamath

Mountains Province. Declines in some

summer steelhead populations are

reportedly due, in part, to predation by

marine mammals (Nehlsen et al. 1991).

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory

Mechanisms

Early mechanisms regulating local

mining and timber harvest activities in

the Klamath Mountains Province clearly

were inadequate. Early mining practices

were particularly destructive in portions

of the Rogue and Trinity River (a

tributary of the Klamath River)

watersheds. Although most of these

particularly destructive mining and

timber harvest activities no longer

occur, land management activities still

contribute to adverse habitat

modifications.

The continued decline of Klamath

Mountains Province steelhead suggests

that management plans and practices

followed by the U.S. Forest Service

(USFS), Bureau of Land Management

(BLM), Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, and California Department of

Fish and Game have not provided

adequate protection for this species. A

Federal interagency cooperative

program, the Record of Decision for

Amendments to USFS and BLM

Planning Documents Within the Range

of the Spotted Owl (the Forest Plan,

April 1994), has recently been

implemented to provide a coordinated

land management direction for the lands

administered by USFS and BLM within

the range of the northern spotted owl,

which includes the Klamath Mountains

Province. While the extent of protection

provided by the Forest Plan is not yet

known, its region-wide management

direction will amend existing

management plans, including Forest

Plans, Regional Guides, Timber Sale

Plans, and Resource Management Plans

for lands within the range of the

northern spotted owl. As part of the

Forest Plan, implementation of the

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS)

may help reverse the trend of aquatic

ecosystem degradation and contribute

toward fish habitat recovery.

Coordination between the Federal land

management agencies and NMFS, the

Environmental Protection Agency, and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

should ensure that the ACS objectives

are achieved.

Steelhead are popular gamefish

throughout the Pacific Northwest and,

in some locations, recreational fishing

may contribute to the general decline of

Klamath Mountains Province steelhead

populations. Existing harvest

regulations may not be adequate to

protect a substantial portion of the

Klamath Mountains Province’s juvenile

and adult steelhead populations from

overutilization by recreational anglers.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting its Continued Existence

Drought conditions may contribute to

reduced Klamath Mountains Province

steelhead production. In general,

drought conditions have existed in

southern Oregon since 1977.

Unusually warm ocean surface

temperatures and associated changes in

coastal currents and upwelling, known

as El Nin ̃ o conditions, have occurred in

recent years and resulted in ecosystem

alterations such as reductions in

primary and secondary productivity and

changes in prey and predator species

distributions. Based on fish distribution,

El Nin ̃o conditions may affect

individual salmonid populations

differently. For example, during El Nin ̃o

conditions, chinook salmon stocks that

rear in ocean areas south of Vancouver

Island generally survive at a lower rate

than chinook salmon stocks that inhabit

northerly ocean areas (Johnson 1988).

As there is some evidence that steelhead

originating from south of Cape Blanco

rarely migrate north of Cape Blanco,

Klamath Mountains Province steelhead

populations may be particularly

susceptible to the adverse affects of El

Nin ̃ o conditions.

Artificial propagation has, in some

cases, impacted Klamath Mountains

Province steelhead populations.

Potential problems associated with

hatchery programs include genetic

impacts on indigenous wild

populations, difficulty in determination

of wild run status due to incomplete

marking of hatchery releases, and

replacement (rather than

supplementation) of wild stocks through

continued annual introductions of

steelhead.

Proposed Determination

The ESA defines an endangered

species as any species in danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range, and a threatened

species as any species likely to become

an endangered species within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range. Section

4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the

listing determination be based solely on

the best scientific and commercial data

available, after conducting a review of

the status of the species and after taking

into account those efforts, if any, being

made to protect such species.

Based on its assessment of the best

scientific and commercial information

available, NMFS determines that all

Klamath Mountains Province steelhead

populations (i.e., summer-, fall-, and

winter-run) constitute an ESU and,

therefore, a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA.

Estimates of percent annual change in

run size indicate that most of the

steelhead populations in the Klamath

Mountains Province are in significant

decline. Although trends in abundance

of most steelhead populations within

the ESU have been downward, absolute

abundance of steelhead in several

streams within the proposed ESU

remains fairly high; thus the BRT

concluded that the ESU as a whole

cannot be considered to be endangered

at this time. However, available

information indicates that Klamath

Mountains Province steelhead

populations are not self-sustaining. If

present trends continue, there is a

significant probability that the ESU will

become endangered. Therefore, NMFS

proposes to list all Klamath Mountains

Province natural steelhead (progeny of

naturally-spawning fish) as threatened.

Prior to development of a final rule,

NMFS will continue to consider the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 14259

status of steelhead populations within

the Klamath Mountains Province and

determine which, if any, hatchery

populations are essential for recovery of

listed steelhead.

Proposed Protective Regulations and

Measures

In addition to the proposed listing,

NMFS proposes to adopt protective

measures, pursuant to section 4(d) of the

ESA, to prohibit, with respect to

Klamath Mountains Province natural

steelhead, taking, interstate commerce,

import and export, and the other

prohibitions pursuant to section 9 of the

ESA applicable to endangered species,

with the exceptions provided by section

10 of the ESA.

NMFS recognizes that protective

regulations and recovery programs for

Klamath Mountains Province steelhead

will need to be developed in the context

of conserving aquatic ecosystem health,

and intends that Federal lands and

Federal activities bear as much of the

burden as possible for conserving listed

populations. However, steelhead habitat

within this ESU occurs and can be

affected by activities on state, tribal and

private land. Non-Federal landowners

are encouraged to assess the impacts of

their actions on potentially threatened

steelhead and to participate in the

formulation of watershed partnerships

that promote conservation in

accordance with ecosystem principles.

NMFS will seek the advice and

assistance of Federal and non-Federal

jurisdictions, including tribal and

county governments, private

organizations and affected individuals

in recovery plan development and

implementation.

NMFS will identify, to the extent

known at the time of a final rule,

specific activities that will not be

considered likely to result in adverse

impacts to listed Klamath Mountains

Province steelhead. NMFS is soliciting

recommendations as to what activities

should be so identified, as well as terms

and conditions for specific types of land

or water use activities that would avoid

adverse impacts to listed steelhead. The

activities, as modified by the

recommended terms and conditions,

should promote the conservation of

Klamath Mountains Province steelhead.

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as threatened or

endangered under the ESA included

prohibitions on taking, recovery actions,

and Federal agency consultation

requirements. Recognition through

listing promotes conservation actions by

Federal and state agencies and private

groups and individuals.

Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires

that Federal agencies confer with NMFS

on any actions likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a species

proposed for listing and on actions

resulting in destruction or adverse

modification of proposed critical

habitat. ‘‘Conference’’ is defined at 50

CFR 402.02 to mean ‘‘a process which

involves informal discussions between a

Federal agency and the Service . . .

regarding the impact of an action on

proposed species or proposed critical

habitat and recommendations to

minimize or avoid the adverse effects.’’

For listed species, section 7(a)(2)

requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or

conduct are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a listed species

or to destroy or adversely modify its

critical habitat. If a Federal action may

adversely affect a listed species or its

critical habitat, the responsible Federal

agency must enter into formal

consultation with NMFS. Non-Federal

entities requesting the incidental take of

listed species must develop a

conservation plan associated with their

proposed action. Prior to issuance of an

incidental take permit, NMFS must

review the conservation plan and

determine that the proposed action will

not appreciably reduce the likelihood of

the survival and recovery of the species

in the wild (see 50 CFR 222.22).

Examples of Federal actions that may

be affected by this proposal include, but

are not limited to, various Federal land

management agency activities (e.g.,

actions associated with timber harvest,

mining, and grazing), U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers (COE) Clean Water Act

section 404 permitting activities,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

licenses for non-Federal development

and operation of hydropower,

commercial fishery management under

a regional fishery management council,

and hatchery operations authorized,

carried out, or funded by a Federal

agency.

Measures that could be implemented

to help protect and conserve the species

include, but are not limited to:

1. All water diversions could have

adequate headgate and staff gauge

structures installed to control and

monitor water usage accurately. Water

rights should be enforced to prevent

irrigators from exceeding the amount of

water to which they are legally entitled.

2. All irrigation diversions affecting

downstream migrating Klamath

Mountains Province steelhead could be

screened. A thorough review of the

impact of irrigation diversions on

steelhead could be conducted.

3. Artificial propagation could be

conducted in a manner minimizing

impacts upon native populations of

steelhead.

4. Efforts could be made to ensure that

adult passage facilities at dams

effectively pass migrating salmon

upstream.

5. Evaluation of existing recreational

harvest regulations could identify any

changes necessary in light of the

Klamath Mountains Province steelhead

status.

Some or all of these measures, as well

as other measures not enumerated here,

may be required to be undertaken

through the section 7 consultation or

section 10 permitting processes. NMFS

will also consider these and additional

measures in developing a recovery plan

pursuant to section 4(f).

NMFS encourages non-Federal

landowners to assess the impacts of

their actions on potentially threatened

or endangered salmonids. In particular,

NMFS encourages the formulation of

watershed partnerships to promote

conservation in accordance with

ecosystem principles. These

partnerships will be successful only if

all watershed stakeholders (i.e., state,

tribal, and local governments,

landowner representatives, and Federal

and non-Federal biologists) participate

and share the goal of restoring steelhead

to the watersheds. To assist with such

efforts, NMFS, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, with

technical assistance from the Natural

Resources Conservation Service, have

contracted a study to provide technical

guidance and training to agency staff.

This guidance is intended to produce a

technical foundation and informational

support base for fostering development

of conservation plans pursuant to

section 10 of the ESA and cooperative

agreements with the states of

Washington, Oregon, and California,

pursuant to section 6 of the ESA.

Furthermore, NMFS intends to enlist

non-Federal jurisdictions, including

tribal and county governments, private

organizations and affected individuals,

in recovery plan development and

implementation.

Critical Habitat

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires

that, to the extent prudent and

determinable, critical habitat be

designated concurrently with the listing

of a species. While NMFS has

completed its analysis of the biological

status of Klamath Mountains Province

steelhead, it has not completed the

analysis necessary for designating

critical habitat. Therefore, to avoid
14260 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules

delaying this listing proposal, NMFS

will propose critical habitat in a

separate rulemaking.

Public Comments Solicited

To ensure that the final action

resulting from this proposal will be as

accurate and as effective as possible,

NMFS is soliciting comments and

suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, and any

other interested parties (see DATES and

ADDRESSES) regarding the stock

composition and abundance of all

steelhead stocks within the Klamath

Mountains Province. NMFS is also

requesting information identifying

specific areas that qualify as critical

habitat for Klamath Mountains Province

steelhead and the economic costs and

benefits of additional requirements of

management measures likely to result

from designating critical habitat.

Information about the relationship

between existing hatchery populations

and natural populations within the ESU,

and the relationship between

anadromous and nonanadromous

populations of O. mykiss within the

ESU, is also of great interest.

NMFS is also requesting suggestions

for specific regulations under section

4(d) of the ESA that could apply to

Klamath Mountains Province steelhead.

Suggested regulations should address

activities, plans, or guidelines that,

despite their potential to result in the

incidental take of listed fish, will

ultimately promote the conservation of

this ESU.

NMFS will review all public

comments and any additional

information regarding the status of the

proposed ESU, and, as required under

the ESA, intends to complete a final rule

within one year of this proposed rule.

The availability of new information may

cause NMFS to re-assess the status of

this ESU. The final decision on this

proposal will take into consideration the

comments and any additional

information received by NMFS, and

may differ from this proposed rule.

Classification

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in

section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the

information that may be considered

when assessing species for listing. Based

on this limitation of criteria for a listing

decision and the opinion in Pacific

Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d

825 (6th Cir., 1981), NMFS has

categorically excluded all ESA listing

actions from environmental assessment

requirements of National Environmental

Policy Act (48 FR 4413, February 6,

1984).

This proposed rule is exempt from

review under E.O. 12866.

References

Allendorf, F.W. 1975. Genetic

Variability in a Species Possessing

Extensive Gene Duplication: Genetic

Interpretation of Duplicate Loci and

Examination of Genetic Variation in

Populations of Rainbow Trout. Ph.D.

Dissertation, Univ. Washington, Seattle,

98 p.

Busby, P.J., O.W. Johnson, T.C.

Wainwright, F.W. Waknitz, and R.S.

Waples. 1993. Status Review for

Oregon’s Illinois River Winter

Steelhead. NOAA Technical

Memorandum. NMFS–NWFSC–10.

Chilcote, M. N., B. A. Crawford, and

S. A. Leider. 1980. A Genetic

Comparison of Sympatric Populations of

Summer and Winter Steelheads. Trans.

Am. Fish. Soc. 109:203–208.

Johnson, S.L. 1988. The Effects of the

1983 El Nin ̃ o on Oregon’s Coho

(Oncorhynchus kisutch), and Chinook

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Salmon.

Fisheries Research. 6:105–123.

Light, J.T. 1987. Coastwide

Abundance of North American

Steelhead Trout. (Document Submitted

to the Annual Meeting of the INPFC,

1987.) Fisheries Research Institute

Report FRI–UW–8710. Univ.

Washington, Seattle, WA. 18 p.

McEwan, D., and Jackson, T. A. 1994.

Steelhead Management Plan for

California. California Department Fish

and Game. (Available Environmental

and Technical Services Division, NMFS,

911 N.E. 11th Ave., Room 620, Portland,

OR 97232.)

Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A.

Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific Salmon at

the Crossroads: Stocks at Risk from

California, Oregon, Idaho, and

Washington. Fisheries 16(2):4–21.

Nickelson, T.E., J.W. Nicholas, A.M.

McGie, R.B. Lindsay, D.L. Bottom, R.J.

Kaiser, and S.E. Jacobs. 1992. Status of

Anadromous Salmonids in Oregon

Coastal Basins. Unpubl. manuscr., 83 p.,

Research and Development Section,

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW), Corvallis, and Ocean Salmon

Management, ODFW, Newport, OR.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Biological Review Team (BRT). 1994.

May 2 Administrative Report:

Conclusions of the Northwest Science

Center’s Status Review of Southern

Oregon/Northern California Steelhead.

13 p.

Pearcy, W.G. 1992. Ocean Ecology of

North Pacific Salmonids. University of

Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 179 p.

Pearcy, W.G., R.D. Brodeur, and J.P.

Fisher. 1990. Distribution and Biology

of Juvenile Cutthroat Trout

Oncorhynchus clarki clarki and

Steelhead O. mykiss in Coastal Waters

of Oregon and Washington. Fish. Bull.,

U.S. 88(4):697–711.

Reisenbichler, R.R., J.D. McIntyre,

M.F. Solazzi, and S.W. Landino. 1992.

Genetic Variation in Steelhead of

Oregon and Northern California. Trans.

Am. Fish. Soc. 121:158–169.

Reisenbichler, R.R., and S.R. Phelps.

1989. Genetic Variation in Steelhead

(Salmo gairdneri) from the North Coast

of Washington. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

46:66–73.

Schreck, C.B., H.W. Li, R.C. Hjort, and

C.S. Sharpe. 1986. Stock Identification

of Columbia River Chinook Salmon and

Steelhead Trout. Final Report to

Bonneville Power Administration,

Contract DE–A179–83BP13499, Project

83–451, 184 p. (Available Bonneville

Power Administration, P.O. Box 351,

Portland, OR 97208.)

Sheppard, D. 1972. The Present Status

of the Steelhead Trout Stocks Along the

Pacific Coast. In D.H. Rosenberg (editor),

A Review of the Oceanography and

Renewable Resources of the Northern

Gulf of Alaska, p. 519–556. IMS Report

R72–23, Sea Grant Report 73–3. Institute

of Marine Science, University of Alaska,

Fairbanks, AK.

United States Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USFS).

1993a. Letter to ESA Administrative

Record for coastal steelhead from Hugh

Black. Letter Dated July 19, 1993, 2 p.

and Enclosures. (Available

Environmental and Technical Services

Division, NMFS, 911 NE. 11th Ave.,

Room 620, Portland, OR 97232.)

United States Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USFS).

1993b. Letter to ESA Administrative

Record for Coastal Steelhead from Hugh

Black. Letter Dated August 4, 1993, 2 p.

and Enclosures. (Available

Environmental and Technical Services

Division, NMFS, 911 NE. 11th Ave.,

Room 620, Portland, OR 97232.)

Utter, F.M., and F.W. Allendorf. 1977.

Determination of the Breeding Structure

of Steelhead Populations through Gene

Frequency Analysis. In T.J. Hassler and

R.R. VanKirk (editors), Proceedings of

the Genetic Implications of Steelhead

Management Symposium, May 20–21,

1977, Arcata, CA, p. 44–54. Special

Report 77–1. Calif. Coop. Fish. Res.

Unit.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 227

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Marine mammals,

Transportation.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 14261

Dated: March 10, 1995.

Gary Matlock,

Program Management Officer, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 227 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 227—THREATENED FISH AND

WILDLIFE

1. The authority citation for part 227

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

2. In § 227.4, a new paragraph (g) is

added to read as follows:

§ 227.4 Enumeration of threatened

species.

* * * * *

(g) Klamath Mountains Province

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

[FR Doc. 95–6459 Filed 3–10–95; 4:47 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

50 CFR Part 649

[Docket No. 950224059–5059–01; I.D.

011195C]

RIN 0648–AH36

American Lobster Fishery; Framework

Adjustment 2

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes measures

contained in Framework Adjustment 2

to the American Lobster Fishery

Management Plan (FMP). This

framework adjustment would change

the eligibility requirements for lobster

limited access permits to address

potentially unequal standards for lobster

fishers who reside in different states.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

must be received on or before March 30,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

rule, Framework Adjustment 2, or

supporting documents should be sent to

Jon Rittgers, Acting Regional Director,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the

outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments on

Lobster Framework 2.’’

Copies of Amendment 5 to the FMP,

including the regulatory impact review

(RIR), initial regulatory flexibility

analysis (IRFA), and final supplemental

environmental impact statement (FSEIS)

are available from Douglas Marshall,

Executive Director, New England

Fishery Management Council, 5

Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906–1097.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

H. Jones, Fishery Policy Analyst, 508–

281–9273.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Currently, eligibility for a Federal

lobster limited access permit can be

established with a vessel’s or a person’s

state permit history (59 FR 31938, June

21, 1994). Because the various states

have not had uniform permitting

systems, potentially unequal eligibility

criteria were inadvertently created for

lobster fishers who reside in different

states.

To qualify for a limited access

American lobster permit, which may be

issued only to a vessel, the vessel or

vessel owner must have been issued a

Federal American lobster permit, or a

federally endorsed state lobster permit,

and must have landed American lobster

prior to March 25, 1991. Because this

rule would change the qualification

criteria for obtaining a limited access

American lobster permit for 1995, it

would also change the dates by which

vessel owners are required to obtain

permits. In states with Federal

endorsement programs, such as Maine,

fishers who did not own a lobster vessel

could use their state permit to qualify

for a Federal limited access permit;

however, in other states lacking a

Federal lobster permit endorsement

program, such as Rhode Island, fishers

who did not own a lobster vessel and

thus had no state permit could not

qualify for a Federal limited access

permit. For example, a person serving as

a crew member in Maine could

potentially qualify for a Federal limited

access permit, whereas a person

employed in the same job on a lobster

boat licensed by Rhode Island could not

be eligible. Such a result could violate

the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et

seq., which prohibits, among other

things, discrimination between

residents of different states.

This proposed action would eliminate

the potentially unequal eligibility

criteria for lobster fishers residing or

fishing in different states. In order to

obtain a Federal limited access lobster

permit, all permit applicants who base

their eligibility on a federally endorsed

state license would be required to

demonstrate that they owned a boat and

used it to land lobsters during the

qualification period. These applicants

would be required to show proof of

ownership of a fishing vessel and of

having landed lobsters from that vessel

prior to March 25, 1991.

Sections of the current regulations

dealing with transferability of permit

eligibility are written from the

perspective of Federal permits issued to

vessels. As a result, the regulations are

not directly applicable to the transfer of

eligibility based on federally endorsed

state lobster permits that are issued to

individuals. To be consistent with the

transferability of eligibility associated

with federally permitted vessels, this

rule proposes regulatory language at

§ 649.4(b)(1)(i)(B)(2) and (b)(3)(ii) to

clarify that eligibility based on a

federally endorsed state lobster permit

can be transferred with the sale of a

vessel after March 25, 1991, if the intent

to transfer such rights is verified by

credible written evidence.

This adjustment is proposed through

the framework process (§ 649.43) and is

within the scope of analyses contained

in Amendment 5 and the FSEIS.

Supplemental rationale and analyses of

expected biological effects, economic

impacts, impacts on employment, and

safety concerns are contained within the

supporting documents for Framework

Adjustment 2 (see ADDRESSES).

The New England Fishery

Management Council (Council) followed

the framework procedure codified in 50

CFR part 649, subpart C, when making

adjustments to the FMP, by developing

and analyzing the actions at two

Council meetings, on September 21–22

and October 28–29, 1994. However,

because this action was initiated at the

first of these meetings without adequate

notice to the public, the Council

recommended that NMFS publish the

measures contained in Framework

Adjustment 2 as a proposed rule to

ensure that the public is afforded

sufficient prior notice and an

opportunity for comment.

In accordance with the regulations,

public comments on the framework

adjustment were solicited by the

Council during its September 21–22 and

October 28–29, 1994, meetings. No

comments were received on the

proposed adjustment.

This rule also proposes several minor

modifications to §§ 649.4(p) and (q) to

ease the public’s administrative burden

and to conform the requirement to the

Council’s recommendation.

Classification

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of E.O. 12866.

The Assistant General Counsel for

Legislation and Regulation, Department

of Commerce has certified to the Chief