[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 212 (Thursday, October 31, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56211-56213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27888]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 227
[I.D. 012595A]
Endangered and Threatened Species; Notice of Six-Month Extension
on the Final Determination on Whether to List the Oregon Coast and
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant
Units (ESUs) of Coho Salmon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of extension of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that substantial scientific disagreement
exists regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to NMFS'
proposed determination that two Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs)
of coho salmon in Oregon and northern California warrant listing as
threatened species. Consequently, NMFS extends the deadline for a final
listing determination for the Oregon Coast and the Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast ESUs for 6 additional months to solicit,
collect, and analyze additional information that will enable NMFS to
make the final listing determination based on the best available data.
DATES: The new deadline for final action on the proposed listing of the
Oregon Coast and the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs of
coho salmon is April 25, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Environmental and Technical Services 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 Marta Nammack, 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 25, 1995, NMFS published a proposed rule to list three ESUs
of naturally-reproducing coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon
and California as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA) (60 FR 38011). The ESUs proposed for listing occur in three
coastal areas: (1) The Oregon coast from the Columbia River south to
Cape Blanco in southern Oregon (Oregon Coast ESU), (2) the southern
Oregon/northern California coasts from Cape Blanco to Punta Gorda in
northern California (Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU),
and (3) the central California coast from Punta Gorda to the San
Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz, including San Francisco Bay (Central
California Coast ESU). During a coastwide status review, NMFS found
substantial population declines in each of the three coho salmon ESUs
proposed as threatened.
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) Make final
the proposed listing; (2) withdraw the proposed listing; or (3) extend
the 1-year period for not more than 6 months. On July 23, 1996, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California upheld
NMFS' proposal of October 25, 1996, as the end of the 1-year work
period allowed for making one of these determinations on the three ESUs
of coastal coho salmon. This proposal took into consideration the 3-
month funding moratorium in early 1996 on NMFS' listing actions.
Therefore, by October 25, 1996, NMFS must take one of the three actions
outlined above.
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 Sec. 424.17(a)(1)(iv)). After considering
comments and information received in response to the proposed rule,
NMFS determines that substantial scientific disagreements exist
regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data relevant to final
listing determinations for the Oregon Coast ESU and the Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU. These scientific disagreements
concern the data needed to determine the status of these species, the
threats to their continued existence, and the efficacy of recent local,
state, and Federal conservation measures. Therefore, NMFS extends the
final listing determination deadline for the Oregon Coast and Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs for 6 months to solicit, collect,
and analyze additional data.
While NMFS concludes that a 6-month extension is warranted for the
Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California ESUs, NMFS
believes that such an extension is not warranted for the Central
California Coast Coho Salmon ESU. For NMFS' determination on the
Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU, see the Central California
Coast Coho Salmon ESU listing notice in the Rules and Regulations
section of this Federal Register.
Points of Substantial Scientific Disagreement
Comments received from peer reviewers, as well as knowledgeable
scientists from state fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and the
private sector, dispute the sufficiency and accuracy of data employed
by NMFS in its proposed listing of the Oregon Coast and Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs of coastal coho salmon. The
primary areas of dispute concern data relevant to risk assessment and
NMFS' evaluation of existing protective measures. The following section
briefly discusses the types of data subject to substantial scientific
disagreement.
Risk Assessment
Risk assessment involves the collection and analysis of data on the
status of coastal coho and the threats presented by various human
activities and natural occurrences. In its coastwide status review,
NMFS assessed the status of coho salmon and identified the principal
threats to coastal coho as habitat loss, adverse ocean conditions,
hatchery practices, and harvest.
In the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast
ESUs, substantial scientific disagreement exists regarding the
sufficiency of data used to assess the risks faced by coastal coho. For
example, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and a peer
reviewer criticize NMFS' assessment of these ESUs for relying on
insufficient data. These scientists argue that NMFS failed to consider
the same types of data for Oregon and Washington coastal coho salmon.
This difference, they argue, biased NMFS' risk analysis toward finding
a relatively higher risk for Oregon ESUs. ODFW argues that the Olympic
Peninsula ESU (located in Washington) faces the same risks as the
[[Page 56212]]
Oregon ESUs, yet NMFS did not propose the Olympic Peninsula ESU for
listing.
ODFW contends that NMFS overstated the depressed condition of
Oregon coastal coho salmon leading NMFS to incorrectly conclude that
listing is warranted. In the draft Coastal Salmon Restoration
Initiative (CSRI) submitted to NMFS on August 20, 1996, ODFW scientists
proposed population abundance listing thresholds that are inconsistent
with NMFS' assessment that Oregon coho salmon are threatened.
In an attempt to define the risk of extinction faced by coho in the
Oregon Coast ESU, ODFW has begun an effort to develop three different
population simulation models. The results of these models could have
direct bearing on NMFS' final listing determinations. These models
apply different approaches and assumptions, and, to date, the models
have produced inconsistent results. The third model, under development
by a recognized expert in conservation biology, includes genetic data
not analyzed in the first two models.
Equally relevant to both the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/
Northern California Coast ESUs, several scientists claim that NMFS
relied on insufficient data in determining the effects of natural
environmental variability and population cycles. This, the commenters
believe, led NMFS to overstate the risk associated with low population
numbers.
Some commenters argue that NMFS did not use sufficient data to
properly assess significant risk factors facing coastal coho salmon.
For example, ODFW and a peer reviewer contend that NMFS overstated the
adverse effects of hatchery fish by failing to consider data relevant
to factors that mitigate the risk posed by hatchery stocks. These three
factors include: (1) The temporal separation in spawning between wild
and hatchery runs; (2) the reduced reproductive success of naturally-
spawning hatchery fish; and (3) the limited geographic scope of
significant hatchery straying. ODFW argues that by not using these
data, NMFS based its determination on insufficient data.
With respect to the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU,
both the States of Oregon and California have expressed disagreement
with NMFS' assessment of risks facing coho in this region. As described
above, the State of Oregon and a peer reviewer disagree with the
sufficiency and adequacy of data used by NMFS in assessing Oregon coho
populations in this ESU. In a letter to NMFS dated September 27, 1996,
the California Resources Agency expressed similar disagreement. The
Resources Agency adopted ODFW's criticisms in whole and argued that
they applied equally in California, thus expressing disagreement
regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of data used to conduct risk
assessments for the California portion of the Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast ESU. Moreover, the data on California coho
populations, particularly in small streams in northern California, are
limited. The State of California provided NMFS with additional
information from private landowners that was consistent with NMFS'
recent observations. The State believes the information it provided,
and information now being collected, will indicate that coho are more
abundant and widespread than currently thought.
Efficacy of Conservation Measures
Sections 4(a)(1)(D) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA require NMFS to
consider the likely effect of existing regulatory mechanisms and state
efforts to protect the species in making listing determinations. In its
proposed rule, NMFS concluded that, at present, existing measures were
not sufficient to offset population declines.
Regarding the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California
Coast ESUs, several reviewers disagree with this assessment and believe
that NMFS should give more weight to existing or recently implemented
conservation measures. For example, ODFW and the Oregon Department of
Forestry contend that recent conservation measures will substantially
improve habitat conditions for coho salmon populations. NMFS believes
that more data are needed to properly evaluate measures regarding road
erosion, stream habitat assessment, and stream fish surveys. The
California Resources Agency asserts that NMFS needs to more carefully
consider all available scientific evidence, including existing
regulatory mechanisms such as state forest practice rules. Also, ODFW
states that recent changes in ocean harvest management have drastically
reduced total fishing mortality and will provide substantial protection
in future years.
The Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESU presents unique
problems in evaluating existing conservation measures, given that this
ESU includes land in both states. An added level of consideration
results from the mix of state jurisdictions and regulatory authorities.
Not only must NMFS assess the protective measures provided by each
regulatory program, but each program's relative importance to the ESU.
For example, while Oregon has recently established a wider range of
conservation efforts, California has initiated forest practice changes
protective of coho. NMFS must consider the differences in these
programs and weigh their overall benefit for coho salmon. As stated
above, however, both states contest NMFS' current evaluation of their
respective conservation programs. Therefore, more time is required both
to resolve these disagreements and conduct a thorough analysis of the
relative benefits of state conservation efforts in this ESU.
Prospects for Resolving Existing Disagreements
Several efforts are underway that have prospects for resolving
scientific disagreement on the accuracy and sufficiency of data
relevant to listing the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern
California Coast ESUs. NMFS recently requested additional information
on the proposed and candidate ESUs from the States of Washington,
California, and Oregon. NMFS recently received data from the State of
California and expects the submission of additional data (including
population modeling results) from the State of Oregon when it completes
its CSRI. NMFS expects that all new information will be submitted and
under review by late 1996.
On November 13 through 15, 1996, NMFS will conduct a scientific
workshop to solicit information and develop and evaluate approaches to
risk assessment for Pacific salmon. This workshop will feature twelve
scientists with expertise in various aspects of extinction risk
analysis. The panelists will provide written summaries of their
presentations to NMFS at the time of the workshop. Further, an editor
will compile a written report of the workshop, with publication
expected by the end of January 1997. Information obtained from this
workshop should produce results that are highly relevant to coho salmon
listing determinations, in particular, how to interpret limited and
conflicting data and how best to make species/ESU risk assessments.
The State of Oregon has requested independent review of the CSRI
plan by scientists with Oregon State University and other peer
reviewers. By the spring of 1997, the State is expected to provide its
completed CSRI to NMFS for its review. In addition, the State of
California may have a similar draft prepared next year. NMFS expects
these plans to contain detailed summaries and assessments of
conservation measures which benefit coho salmon in the respective
states. During the period of
[[Page 56213]]
this 6-month extension, NMFS will assess more complete versions of
these plans, work with the states to resolve scientific disagreements
surrounding the adequacy of the plans, and seek a scientific basis for
determining whether these conservation measures will substantially
reduce the risks faced by one or both of these coho salmon ESUs
proposed for listing.
Determination
The scientific disagreements about data and information identified
above are substantial and may alter NMFS' assessment of the status of
the Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho
salmon ESUs. In light of these disagreements and the fact that more
data are forthcoming on conservation planning and risk assessment, NMFS
extends the final determination deadline on the Oregon Coast and
Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast ESUs of coastal coho salmon
for 6 additional months, until April 25, 1997. During this period, NMFS
will collect and analyze new information aimed at resolving these
disagreements. If new information or analyses indicate that listing of
one or more ESUs of west coast coho salmon is not warranted, NMFS will
withdraw or modify the proposed rule accordingly.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: October 24, 1996.
Gary C. Matlock,
Acting Assistant Administator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-27888 Filed 10-25-96; 5:05 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
