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

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

nued

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

SUs 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

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

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

wer 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

gon 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

FS

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

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

atch 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

.

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

olation 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

nds 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