[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33064-33068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15065]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 150902810-7646-01]
RIN 0648-XE167
Listing Endangered or Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Winter-Run Puget Sound Chum Salmon in the
Nisqually River System and Chambers Creek as a Threatened or Endangered
Evolutionarily Significant Unit Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-Day finding on a petition to list the
winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in the Nisqually
River system and Chambers Creek as a threatened or endangered
evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing.
We find that the petition and information in our files do not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
winter-run chum salmon from the Nisqually River system and Chambers
Creek qualify as an ESU under the ESA. As such, we find that the
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the winter-run chum salmon in the Nisqually
River system and Chambers Creek are a ``species'' eligible for listing
under the ESA.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the petition and other materials are
available on the NMFS West Coast Region Web site at
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rule, NMFS West Coast Region, at
[email protected], (503) 230-5424; or Maggie Miller, NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, at [email protected], (301) 427-8457.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 29, 2015, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright
(Olympia, Washington) to list the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon
(Oncorhynchus keta) in the Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek as
a threatened or endangered ESU under the ESA and to
[[Page 33065]]
designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. The
petitioner asserts that (1) the designation of these two winter-run
chum salmon populations as an ESU is justified because these
populations are the only known winter-run chum salmon populations in
the world, (2) a diverging trend in abundance between the Chambers
Creek population and the fall-run chum salmon populations in southern
Puget Sound renders the Nisqually River population as the only viable
winter-run population and justifies an ESA listing of the petitioner's
proposed ESU as threatened or endangered, and (3) NMFS's ``Status
Review of Chum Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California (NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-32)'' (Johnson et al. 1997) did not
address ``global warming'' or ``climate change.'' Copies of the
petition are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, Policy Provisions, and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90
days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or
endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).
When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information
in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a
``positive 90-day finding''), we are required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species concerned during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and
commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a
finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted
within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day
stage, a ``may be warranted'' finding does not prejudge the outcome of
the status review.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species,
any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). To identify the proper taxonomic unit for
consideration in a salmon listing determination, we apply our Policy on
Applying the Definition of Species under the ESA to Pacific Salmon (ESU
Policy) (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). Under this policy,
populations of salmon substantially reproductively isolated from other
conspecific populations and representing an important component in the
evolutionary legacy of the biological species are considered to be an
ESU. In our listing determinations for Pacific salmon under the ESA, we
have treated an ESU as constituting a DPS, and hence a ``species,''
under the ESA. A species, subspecies, or ESU is ``endangered'' if it is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and
(20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we
determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one
or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade
factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR
424.11(c)).
At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioners' request
based upon the information in the petition including its references and
the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct
additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties
outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will
accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the
information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific
principles, unless we have specific information in our files that
indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable,
obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information
that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is
contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at
the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable
person would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other
words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's
requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day
finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone
necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a reasonable person would
conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may
be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we
evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the subject species may be either
threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. ESA-implementing
regulations issued jointly by NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(50 CFR 424.14(i)) define ``substantial information'' in the context of
reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as
credible scientific information in support of the petition's claims
such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review
would conclude that the revision proposed in the petition may be
warranted. Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of
credible scientific information will not be considered ``substantial
information.'' The ``substantial scientific or commercial information''
standard must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we
have made on the listing status of the species that is the subject of
the petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review
of, the listing status of that species (whether in response to a
petition or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition
received thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species
to determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial
scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the
petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where
the prior review resulted in a final agency action, a petitioned action
generally would not be considered to present substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that the action may be warranted
unless the petition provides new information not previously considered.
In evaluating the petition, we first evaluate whether the
information presented in the petition, along with the information
readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity
constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we
evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an
extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in
information expressly discussing the species' status and
[[Page 33066]]
trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the
species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors
pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g.,
population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age
structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat
integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of
identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We
then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and
the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to
the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these
factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species
to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad
statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification
of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We
look for information indicating that not only is the particular species
exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a
negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that
negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by such organizations or made under other Federal or
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone will
not alone provide sufficient basis for a positive 90-day finding under
the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of
a species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/pdf/NatureServeStatusAssessmentsListing-Dec%202008.pdf).
Additionally, species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not
equivalent; data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and
treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, when
a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of
information that the classification is based upon in light of the
standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
Previous Reviews of Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Chum Salmon Under the
ESA
On March 14, 1994, NMFS was petitioned by the Professional
Resources Organization--Salmon (PRO--Salmon) to list Washington's Hood
Canal, Discovery Bay, and Sequim Bay summer-run chum salmon
(Oncorhynchus keta) as threatened or endangered species under the ESA
(PRO--Salmon 1994). A second petition, received April 4, 1994, from the
``Save Allison Springs'' Citizens Committee (1994), requested listing
of fall chum salmon found in the following southern Puget Sound streams
or bays: Allison Springs, McLane Creek, tributaries of McLane Creek
(Swift Creek and Beatty Creek), Perry Creek, and the southern section
of Mud Bay/Eld Inlet. A third petition, received by NMFS on May 20,
1994, was submitted by Trout Unlimited (1994) and requested listing the
Hood Canal summer chum. As the result of these three petitions, NMFS
assembled a Biological Review Team (BRT) and initiated an ESA status
review of all chum salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, and
California. In December 1997, the status review was published as
Johnson et al. (1997). In the status review, the BRT identified four
ESUs--the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU, Hood Canal summer-run ESU,
Pacific Coast ESU, and Columbia River ESU. The winter-run chum salmon
populations in the Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek were
identified as part of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU. Despite
these populations being one of the more genetically distinct
populations in Puget Sound, the BRT (1) did not consider those
differences distinct enough to warrant designating them as a separate
ESU and (2) determined that these populations, along with the summer-
run Puget Sound populations, reflected patterns of diversity within a
large and complex ESU. The BRT determined that the Puget Sound/Strait
of Georgia chum salmon ESU was not presently at risk of extinction nor
was it likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The BRT found that the (1)
the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia chum salmon ESU's abundance was at or
near the historical annual run levels of over one million fish, (2) the
majority of the populations had stable or increasing population trends,
and (3) all populations with statistically significant trends were
increasing. The Pacific Coast chum salmon ESU, with its large
geographic area and considerable diversity, was also not considered
warranted for ESA listing. The BRT, however, determined that the Hood
Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU and Columbia River chum salmon ESU are
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future if present
conditions continue. NMFS listed these ESUs as threatened species under
the ESA on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14507).
Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files
As mentioned above, in analyzing the request of the petitioner, we
first evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along
with information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Because the petition specifically requests listing of an ESU,
we evaluate whether the information indicates that the petitioned
entities, the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon in the Nisqually River
system and Chambers Creek, constitute an ESU pursuant to our ESU
Policy.
When identifying an ESU, our ESU Policy (56 FR 58612; November 20,
1991) stipulates two elements that must be considered: (1) It must be
substantially reproductively isolated from other nonspecific population
units, and (2) it must represent an important component in the
evolutionary legacy of the species. In terms of reproductive isolation,
the ESU Policy states that reproductive isolation does not have to be
absolute, but it must be strong enough to permit evolutionarily
important differences to accrue in different population units. Insights
into the extent of reproductive isolation can be provided by movements
of tagged fish, recolonization rates of other populations, measurements
of genetic differences between population, and evaluations of the
efficacy of natural barriers. In terms of evolutionary legacy of the
species, that criterion would be met if the population contributed
substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a
whole. To make that determination, the following questions are
relevant: Is the population genetically distinct from other conspecific
populations (genetic component)? Does the population occupy unusual or
distinctive habitat (ecological component)? Does the population show
evidence of unusual or distinctive adaptation to its environment (life-
history component)?
In evaluating this petition, we looked for information to suggest
that the
[[Page 33067]]
petitioned entities, the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon in the
Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek populations, may qualify as
an ESU under both the reproductive isolation and evolutionary legacy of
the species criteria of our ESU Policy. Our evaluation is discussed
below.
Qualification of the Winter-Run Puget Sound Chum Salmon in the
Nisqually River System and Chambers Creek as an ESU
The petitioner asserts that (1) the designation of these two
winter-run chum salmon populations as an ESU is justified because they
are the only known winter-run chum salmon populations in the world, (2)
a diverging trend in abundance between the Chambers Creek population
and the fall-run chum salmon populations in southern Puget Sound
renders the Nisqually River population as the only viable winter-run
population and justifies an ESA listing of the petitioner's proposed
ESU as threatened or endangered, and (3) Johnson et al. (1997) did not
address ``global warming'' or ``climate change.'' To make the argument
for identifying these two populations as an ESU, the petitioner relies
almost exclusively on information from Johnson et al. (1997). The only
other information that the petitioner presents is abundance data for
the Chambers Creek (1968 through 2008) and Nisqually River (1968
through 2013) winter-run chum salmon populations. To direct our
decision, we will first analyze the petition's assertion that these two
winter-run chum salmon populations are a separate ESU; and if we
determine that to be true, we will then analyze the other two
assertions described above.
As stated previously, NMFS received three petitions in 1994 to list
several populations of chum salmon in Puget Sound. In response to these
petitions and to address general concerns about the species, NMFS
assembled a BRT to conduct a status review of chum salmon to identify
the ESUs and determine their statuses throughout the Pacific Northwest.
The findings were published as Johnson et al. (1997). Based upon
genetic, ecological, and life-history components, the BRT was able to
analyze and group West Coast chum salmon populations into four
different chum salmon ESUs. For these ESUs, the BRT analyzed the
following available information.
For the genetic component, the BRT analyzed the genetic variability
at 39 polymorphic loci in 153 samples collected from 105 locations in
southern British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon (Phelps et al. 1994;
Johnson et al. 1997). Seventy-two of those 105 locations were from
Puget Sound including the Chambers Creek and Nisqually River winter-run
populations. From that analysis, the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de
Fuca summer-run chum salmon were determined to be genetically distinct
from the other Puget Sound populations and were described as the Hood
Canal summer-run ESU. Genetically, the remaining Puget Sound and Hood
Canal locations were clustered together with the winter-run chum salmon
as genetic outliers most closely related to the fall-run Hood Canal and
northern Puget Sound populations. Additional samples and analysis
(Phelps 1995) resulted in three distinct clusters of samples: (1)
Summer-run chum salmon of Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca; (2)
Puget Sound fall-run and southern Puget Sound winter- and summer-run
chum salmon; and (3) Strait of Juan de Fuca, coastal Washington, and
Oregon fall-run chum salmon (Johnson et al. 1997). Recently, Waples
(2015) analyzed genetic diversity and population structure from 174
chum salmon individuals at 10 Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia locations--
including one Hood Canal summer-run ESU location (Hamma Hamma River),
the Nisqually River winter-run location, and eight other Puget Sound/
Strait of Georgia locations. In a FST matrix and
phylogenetic tree analysis, the Hamma Hamma River location was most
genetically diverse followed by the Nisqually River winter-run. A
principle component analysis (PCA) evaluating the genetic relationships
between the individuals from all 10 locations showed that the Hamma
Hamma River location was the most genetically distinct with the other
nine locations clustered together (including the Nisqually River
winter-run). In response to this current petition, NMFS's Northwest
Fishery Science Center (NWFSC) examined the available data concerning
the winter-run chum salmon from the Nisqually River system and Chambers
Creek. An analysis of these data (J. Hard, Supervisory Research Fishery
Biologist, NWFSC, email September 2, 2015) confirmed the earlier
conclusions from Johnson et al. (1997) that ``the winter-run fish
cluster closely with fall-run fish in Puget Sound and Hood Canal'' and
that ``there is no clear genetic evidence to support the idea that the
winter-run chum salmon in Puget Sound are substantially reproductively
isolated from other chum salmon populations in southern Puget Sound.''
In examining the ecological component, neither the Nisqually River
nor Chambers Creek watersheds are isolated geographically or
reproductively from other chum salmon populations in southern Puget
Sound; therefore, it does not qualify as an ESU. While there is no need
to determine whether this cluster represents an important component in
the evolutionary legacy of the species (2nd criterion of the ESU
Policy), we include this information in order to be thorough. Both the
Nisqually River and Chambers Creek watersheds have supported both
summer- and fall-run chum salmon in the past, along with winter-run
chum salmon (Johnson et al. 1997), so there is nothing unique
preventing these watersheds from supporting multiple chum salmon runs.
No additional ecological information was provided by the petitioner nor
found in our files.
For the life history component, Johnson et al. (1997) stated that
``the distinctiveness of the winter-run populations was not sufficient
to designate these populations as a separate ESU. Rather, the team
concluded that these populations, along with the summer-run populations
in southern Puget Sound, reflect patterns of diversity within a
relatively large and complex ESU.'' No additional life history
information was provided by the petitioner nor found in our files;
therefore, we find the conclusions in Johnson et al. (1997) remain
valid. We conclude that the winter-run cluster does not represent an
important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species.
After reviewing the genetic, ecological, and life history
components of these two winter-run chum salmon populations, we have
concluded that these populations are not distinct from the other
populations within the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU and do not
meet our criteria for identification as a separate ESU. Therefore,
based upon the information from the petitioner and the data found in
our files, we conclude that these populations are not a separate ESU
and do not qualify for listing under the ESA.
Other Information Provided by the Petitioner
The petitioner also provided additional information on abundance
for the two winter-run chum salmon populations and climate change.
Since we determined that these two winter-run chum salmon populations
do not qualify as an ESU, these two items were not analyzed.
[[Page 33068]]
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well
as information readily available in our files, and based on the above
analysis, we conclude that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action of identifying the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon
(Oncorhynchus keta) in the Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek as
an ESU may be warranted. As such, we find that the petition does not
present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon in the Nisqually River
system and Chambers Creek populations are ``species'' eligible for
listing under the ESA.
References Cited
The complete citations for the references used in this document can
be obtained by contacting NMFS (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or
on our Web site at: www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 13, 2017.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-15065 Filed 7-18-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P