[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 12, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13185-13189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4957]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 080229343-8368-01]
RIN 0648-XF87
Listing Endangered and Threatened Species: Notification of
Finding on a Petition to List Pacific Eulachon as an Endangered or
Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of finding; request for information, and
initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13186]]
SUMMARY: On November 8, 2007, we, NMFS, received a petition to list
populations of Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Washington,
Oregon, and California as a threatened or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition presents
substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Accordingly, we will initiate a
status review of the species. To ensure that the status review is
complete and based upon the best available scientific and commercial
information, we solicit information regarding the population structure
and status of Pacific eulachon throughout their range in Alaska,
British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.
DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by May 12, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit data, information, comments, identified by
the code 0648-XF87, addressed to: Chief, NMFS, Protected Resources
Division, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov
Facsimile (fax): 503-230-5441
Mail: 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland,
Oregon, 97232.
Hand delivery: You may hand-deliver written comments to
our office during normal business hours at the street address given
above.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without
change. All personally identifiable information (for example, name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted
in Microsoft Word or Excel, Corel WordPerfect, or Adobe pdf file
formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding
this notice contact Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region, (503) 231-
2005; John Clancy, Southwest Region, (707) 825-5175; or Dwayne Meadows,
NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 08, 2007, NMFS received a petition from the Cowlitz
Indian Tribe to list southern eulachon (populations in Washington,
Oregon, and California) as a threatened or endangered species under the
ESA. Copies of the petition are available from NMFS via the Internet
(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/index.cfm) or by request
(See ADDRESSES section, above).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions
Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains provisions concerning petitions
from interested persons requesting the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) to list species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). Section 4(b)(3)(A) requires that, to the maximum
extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving such a petition, the
Secretary make a finding whether the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted. Joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) ESA implementing regulations define Asubstantial information@
as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50
CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In evaluating a petitioned action, the Secretary
considers whether the petition contains a detailed narrative
justification for the recommended measure, including: past and present
numbers and distribution of the species involved, and any threats faced
by the species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)); and information regarding the
status of the species throughout all or a significant portion of its
range (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)). In addition to the information
presented in a petition, we review other data and publications readily
available to our scientists (i.e., currently within agency files). When
it is found that substantial information is presented in the petition,
we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species concerned. Within 1 year of receipt of the petition, we shall
issue one of the following findings: (1) the petitioned action is not
warranted; (2) the petitioned action is warranted, in which case we
must promptly publish a propped listing determination; or (3) the
petitioned action is warranted but that a proposed listing is precluded
by pending rulemaking for other species.
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species,
subspecies, or a distinct population segment (DPS) of any vertebrate
species which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint
NOAA-USFWS policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase
``distinct population segment'' of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife (ESA section 3(16)) for the purposes of listing, delisting,
and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996) (joint DPS policy). The joint DPS policy established two criteria
that must be met for a population or group of populations to be
considered a DPS: (1) the population segment must be discrete in
relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it
belongs; and (2) the population segment must be significant to the
remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. A
population segment may be considered discrete if it satisfies either
one of the following conditions: (1) it is markedly separated from
other populations of the same biological taxon as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors
(quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is delimited by
international governmental boundaries across which differences exist in
exploitation control, habitat management, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. If a population is determined to be discrete,
the agency must then consider whether it is significant to the taxon to
which it belongs. Considerations in evaluating the significance of a
discrete population include: (1) persistence of the discrete population
in an unusual or unique ecological setting for the taxon; (2) evidence
that the loss of the discrete population segment would result in a
significant gap in the taxon's range; (3) evidence that the discrete
population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of
a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere outside its historical
geographic range; or (4) evidence that the discrete population has
marked genetic differences from other populations of the species.
A species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or
``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). Under section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA, a species can be determined to be threatened or endangered
based on any of the following factors: (1) the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or
[[Page 13187]]
range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors
affecting the species' continuing existence. Listing determinations are
based solely on the best available scientific and commercial data after
taking into account any efforts being made by any state or foreign
nation to protect the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)).
Distribution and Life History of Eulachon
Eulachon (commonly called smelt, candlefish, or hooligan) are
endemic to the eastern Pacific Ocean ranging from northern California
to southwest Alaska and into the southeastern Bering Sea. Eulachon
typically spend 3-5 years in saltwater before returning to freshwater
to spawn from late winter through mid spring. Spawning grounds are
typically in the lower reaches of larger snowmelt-fed rivers (Hay and
McCarter, 2000). In the portion of the species' range that lies south
of the U.S. Canada border, most eulachon production originates in the
Columbia River Basin. Other river basins in the U.S. where eulachon
have been documented include: the Sacramento River, Russian River,
Humboldt Bay and several nearby smaller coastal rivers (e.g., Mad
River), and the Klamath River in California; the Rogue River and Umpqua
Rivers in Oregon; and infrequently in coastal rivers and tributaries to
Puget Sound in Washington (Emmett et al., 1991; Musick et al., 2000).
Within the Columbia River Basin, the major and most consistent spawning
runs occur in the mainstem of the Columbia River (from just upstream of
the estuary, river mile (RM) 25, to immediately downstream of
Bonneville Dam, RM 146) and in the Cowlitz River. Periodic spawning
also occurs in the Grays, Skamokawa, Elochoman, Kalama, Lewis, and
Sandy rivers (tributaries to the Columbia River)(Emmett et al., 1991;
Musick et al., 2000). Throughout the species' range, spawning occurs
consistently in the Klamath River, Columbia and Cowlitz Rivers, and the
Fraser and Nass rivers (British Columbia), and may occur rarely or
intermittently in other coastal river systems from California to Alaska
(Wilson et al., 2004).
Spawning occurs in the lower sections of rivers at temperatures
from 4 to 10 degrees C (Washington, 2001). Spawning occurs over sand or
coarse gravel substrates. Eggs are fertilized in the water column,
sink, and adhere to the river bottom typically in areas of gravel and
coarse sand. Most eulachon adults die after spawning.
Eulachon eggs hatch in 20-40 days. The larvae are carried
downstream and are dispersed by estuarine and ocean currents shortly
after hatching. Juvenile eulachon move from shallow nearshore areas to
mid-depth midshore areas. Typically eulachon spend 3-5 years in
saltwater before returning to freshwater to spawn.
1999 Eulachon Petition
In 1999, Mr. Sam Wright petitioned us under the ESA to add Columbia
River eulachon to the list of federally threatened and endangered
species. Mr. Wright expressed concern regarding marked declines in
eulachon populations in the Columbia River system, and concluded that
Columbia River eulachon populations were at risk of extinction and had
no reasonable expectation of recovering or being replenished by nearby
populations. After reviewing the petition, as well as other information
readily available to us, we concluded that the petition provided
insufficient information regarding the distinctness of eulachon
populations in the Columbia River relative to the other populations in
the species' range. In November 1999 we issued our finding that the
petition did not present substantial scientific information indicating
the petitioned action may be warranted (64 FR 66601; November 29,
1999), and, therefore, no status review was conducted. We acknowledged
there was cause for concern over decline in the eulachon catch in the
Columbia River to an historical low. We noted, however, that the
species' high fecundity and short life span contribute to highly
variable and possibly cyclic run size, and it was therefore unclear
whether the low catch levels at the time of the petition reflected
natural variability in response to variable ocean conditions or an
actual decline in stock status. Although we decided that a status
review was not warranted, we encouraged state and tribal co-managers to
improve their eulachon management and research efforts. In particular,
we underscored the need to evaluate whether current harvest strategies
adequately protect the species and to initiate more accurate eulachon
abundance and life-history surveys.
Analysis of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe's Petition
We reviewed the petition from the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, as well as
other information readily available to our scientists (i.e., currently
within our files), to determine if the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted. Specifically, we evaluated whether: (1) the
species may warrant delineation into one or more DPSs; and (2) the
species, or a putative DPS, may be in danger of extinction or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Information Regarding the DPS Structure of Eulachon
The Cowlitz Indian Tribe's petition seeks delineation of a southern
eulachon DPS extending from the U.S.-Canada border south to include
populations in Washington, Oregon, and California. The petitioner
concludes that the available genetic, meristic, and life-history
information is inconclusive regarding the discreteness of eulachon
populations. However, the petitioner argues that under the DPS policy
eulachon populations in Washington, Oregon, and California are
collectively ``discrete'' from more northerly populations because they
are delimited by an international governmental boundary (i.e., the
U.S.-Canada border between Washington and British Columbia) across
which there is a significant difference in exploitation control,
habitat management, or conservation status. The petitioner notes that
the U.S. and Canada differ in their regulatory control of commercial,
recreational and tribal eulachon harvest, and also differ in their
management of eulachon habitat. The petitioner concluded that there is
no assurance that the U.S. and Canada will coordinate management and
regulatory efforts sufficiently to conserve eulachon and their habitat,
and thus the DPS should be delineated at the border between Washington
and British Columbia. The petitioner argues that the southern eulachon
population segment is also ``significant'' under the DPS policy because
the loss of the discrete population segment would cause a significant
gap in the taxon's range. The petitioner notes that eulachon have
largely disappeared in rivers throughout the southern portion of their
range, and that eulachon in the Columbia River probably represent the
southernmost extant population for the species. The loss of the
Columbia River eulachon population and any dependent coastal spawning
populations could represent the loss of the species throughout its
range in the U.S., as well as the loss of a substantial proportion of
its historical range.
Although the petitioner felt that the available information is
inconclusive, it
[[Page 13188]]
was noted that eulachon may be composed of several smaller DPSs
differentiable on the basis of differences in run timing, meristic, and
genetic characteristics. Initial mitochondrial DNA genetic information
(McLean et al., 1999) and elemental analysis of eulachon otoliths
(Carolsfeld and Hay, 1998) suggested that eulachon did not exhibit
genetic discreteness and represented a panmictic population throughout
the species' range. Other biological data including the number of
vertebrae, size at maturity, fecundity, river-specific spawning times,
and population dynamics indicate that there is substantial local stock
structure (Hart and McHugh, 1944; Hay and McCarter, 2000). These latter
observations are consistent with the hypothesis that there is local
adaptation and genetic differentiation among populations. Recent
microsatellite genetic work (Beacham et al., 2005) appears to confirm
the existence of significant differentiation among populations.
Although the Fraser River, Columbia River mainstem, and the Cowlitz
River spawning populations are genetically distinct from each other,
they are more closely related to one another than to the more northerly
British Columbia populations (Beacham et al., 2005).
After reviewing the information presented in the petition as well
as other information readily available to us (i.e., currently within
NMFS files), we conclude that the Cowlitz Indian Tribe's petition
presents substantial scientific information indicating that eulachon
may warrant delineation into one or more DPSs.
Information Regarding Eulachon Status and Threats
Although eulachon abundance exhibits considerable year-to-year
variability, nearly all spawning runs from California to southeastern
Alaska have declined in the past 20 years, especially since the mid
1990s (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Historically, the Columbia River has
exhibited the largest returns of any spawning population throughout the
species' range. The petitioner notes that from 1938 to 1992, the median
commercial catch of eulachon in the Columbia River was approximately
1.9 million pounds (861,826 kg). From 1993 to 2006, the median catch
had declined to approximately 43,000 pounds, representing a 97.7
percent reduction in catch from the prior period. Although there was an
increasing trend in Columbia River eulachon catch from 2000-2003,
recent catches are extremely low. The preliminary catch data for the
2008 Columbia River eulachon run suggest it may be the second lowest on
record (i.e., since 1938) (WDFW, 2008). The petitioner also presents
catch per unit effort and larval survey data (WDFW and ODFW, 2006) for
the Columbia River and tributaries in Oregon and Washington that
similarly reflect the depressed status of Columbia River eulachon
during the 1990s, a relative increase during 2000 to 2004, and a
decline back to low levels in recent years.
The petitioner also notes that eulachon returns in the Fraser River
and other British Columbia rivers similarly suffered severe declines in
the mid-1990s and, despite increased returns during 2001 to 2003,
presently remain at very low levels (DFO, 2006). Egg and larval surveys
conducted in the Fraser River since 1995 also demonstrate that, despite
the implementation of fishing restrictions in British Columbia, the
stock has not recovered from its mid-1990s collapse and remains at a
very low level. An offshore index of Fraser and Columbia River eulachon
biomass, calculated from eulachon bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery
off the west coast of Vancouver Island, illustrates highly variable
biomass over the time series since 1973, but also reflects stock
declines in the mid-1990s and in recent years (DFO, 2006). With respect
to eulachon populations further south in the species' range, the
petitioner notes that populations in the Klamath River, Mad River,
Redwood Creek, and Sacramento River are likely extirpated or nearly so.
The petitioner describes a number of threats facing eulachon range-
wide, and facing populations in U.S. rivers in particular. The
petitioner organizes this information according to the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA: (A) the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. The following paragraph provides a
brief summary of the information on threats presented in the petition.
The petitioner expresses concern that habitat loss and degradation
threaten eulachon, particularly in the Columbia River basin.
Hydroelctric dams block access to historical eulachon spawning grounds,
and affect the quality of spawning substrates through flow management,
altered delivery of coarse sediments, and siltation. The petitioner
expressed strong concern regarding the siltation of spawning substrates
in the Cowlitz River due to altered flow management and the
accumulation of fine sediments from the Toutle River. The petitioner
believes that efforts to retain and stabilize fine sediments generated
by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens are inadequate. The petitioner
notes that the release of fine sediments from behind a U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers sediment retention structure on the Toutle River has been
negatively correlated with Cowlitz River eulachon returns 3 to 4 years
later. The petitioner also expressed concern that dredging activities
in the Cowlitz and Columbia rivers during the eulachon spawning run may
entrain and kill fish, or otherwise result in decreased spawning
success. The petitioner also noted that eulachon have been shown to
carry high levels of chemical pollutants (US EPA, 2002), and although
it has not been demonstrated that high contaminant loads in eulachon
result in increased mortality or reduced reproductive success, such
effects have been shown in other fish species (Kime, 1995).
The petitioner expressed concern that depressed eulachon
populations are particularly susceptible to overharvest in fisheries
where they are targeted or taken as bycatch. The petitioner concluded
that no evidence suggests that disease currently poses a threat to
eulachon, but noted information presented in the 1999 petition to list
eulachon that suggested that predation by pinnipeds may be substantial.
The petitioner acknowledges that eulachon harvest has been curtailed
significantly in response to population declines, and that were it not
for continued low levels of harvest there would be little or no status
information available for some populations. However, the petitioner
concludes that existing regulatory mechanisms have proven inadequate in
recovering eulachon stocks, and that directed harvest and bycatch may
be important factors limiting the recovery of impacted stocks. The
petitioner underscores the need for further fishery-independent
monitoring and research. Finally, the petitioner concludes that global
climate change is one of the greatest threats facing eulachon,
particularly in the southern portion of its range where ocean warming
trends may be the most pronounced. The petitioner felt that the risks
facing southerly eulachon populations in Washington, Oregon, and
California will be exacerbated by such a deterioration of marine
conditions. These southerly populations, already exhibiting dramatic
declines and impacted by
[[Page 13189]]
other threats (e.g., habitat loss and degradation), might be at risk of
extirpation if unfavorable marine conditions predominated in the
future. The petitioner noted that the Columbia River served as the
single refuge for the species during the Wisconsinan glacial period
(between 10,000 and 15,000 years before present), and that the loss of
the Columbia River and other southerly eulachon populations would
imperil the persistence of the taxon as a whole.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition and other
information readily available in our files, we determine that the
petition presents substantial scientific and commercial information
indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. In accordance with
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50
CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a review of the status of the
species concerned and make a determination within 12 months of
receiving the petition (i.e., by November 8, 2008) whether the
petitioned action is warranted.
Information Solicited
DPS Structure and Extinction Risk
To ensure that the updated status review is complete and based on
the best available and most recent scientific and commercial data, we
solicit information, and comments (see DATES and ADDRESSES) concerning
the status of eulachon. We solicit pertinent information such as: (1)
biological or other relevant data pertinent to determining the DPS
structure of eulachon (e.g., age structure, genetics, migratory
patterns, morphology, physiology); (2) the abundance and biomass, as
well as the spatial and temporal distribution of eulachon; (3) trends
in abundance and distribution; (4) natural and human-influenced factors
that cause variability in survival, distribution, and abundance; and
(5) current or planned activities and their possible impact on eulachon
(e.g., harvest measures and habitat actions).
Efforts Being Made to Protect Eulachon
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make
listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of a
species and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the
species. Therefore, in making its listing determinations, we first
assess the status of the species and identify factors that have led to
the decline. We then assesses conservation measures to determine
whether they ameliorate a species' extinction risk (50 CFR 424.11(f)).
In judging the efficacy of conservation efforts, NMFS considers the
following: the substantive, protective, and conservation elements of
such efforts; the degree of certainty that such efforts will reliably
be implemented and the degree of certainty that such efforts will be
effective in furthering the conservation of the species (68 FR 15100,
March 28, 2003); and the presence of monitoring provisions that track
the effectiveness of recovery efforts, and that inform iterative
refinements to management as information is accrued. In some cases,
conservation efforts may be relatively new or may not have had
sufficient time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases,
provisions of adequate monitoring and funding for conservation efforts
are essential to ensure that the intended conservation benefits are
realized. We also encourage all parties to submit information on
ongoing efforts to protect and conserve eulachon, as well as
information on recently implemented or planned activities and their
likely impact(s).
References
Copies of the petition and related materials are available on the
Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/index.cfm, or
upon request (see ADDRESSES section above).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: March 6, 2008.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8-4957 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S