Proposed Rule2021-27931
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Sunflower Sea Star as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 27, 2021
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the sunflower sea star (Pycnopodia helianthoides) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrent with the listing. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a status review of the species to determine whether listing under the ESA is warranted. To ensure this status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73230-73233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27931]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 211217-0264; RTID 0648-XR120]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List the Sunflower Sea Star as Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: 90-Day petition finding, request for information, and
initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the
sunflower sea star (Pycnopodia helianthoides) as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate
critical habitat concurrent with the listing. We find that the petition
presents substantial scientific information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating a
status review of the species to determine whether listing under the ESA
is warranted. To ensure this status review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this
species.
DATES: Scientific and commercial information pertinent to the
petitioned action must be received by February 25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA- NMFS-NOAA-NMFS-2021-0130 by the following method:
<bullet> Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and enter NOAA-NMFS-NOAA-NMFS-2021-0130 in the
Search box. Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required
fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Interested persons may obtain a copy of the petition online at the
NMFS website: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/petitions-awaiting-90-day-findings">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/petitions-awaiting-90-day-findings</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dayv Lowry, NMFS West Coast Region,
Protected Resources Division, (253) 317-1764, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c98da8bfa0ade785a6bebbb089a7a6a8a8e7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f0b491869994debc9f878289b09e9f9191de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 18, 2021, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list the sunflower sea star (Pycnopodia
helianthoides) as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA and
to designate critical habitat concurrent with the listing. The petition
asserts that the sunflower sea star is threatened by all five ESA
section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational
purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. The petition is available online
(see ADDRESSES).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and 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 shall make a finding on whether
that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and promptly
publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)).
If NMFS finds 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 data. 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 best available information, as compared
to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a ``positive 90-
day'' 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)). A species, subspecies, or DPS 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 (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
[[Page 73231]]
combination of the following five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C.
1533(a)(1); 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)) define ``substantial
scientific or commercial information'' in the context of reviewing a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as credible
scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's
claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific
review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be
warranted. Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of
credible scientific or commercial information will not be considered
substantial information. In reaching the 90-day finding on the
petition, we considered the information described in sections 50 CFR
424.14(c), (d), and (g).
Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted depends in part on the degree to which the
petition includes the following types of information: (1) Information
on current population status and trends and estimates of current
population sizes and distributions, both in captivity and the wild, if
available; (2) identification of the factors under section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA that may affect the species and where these factors are acting
upon the species; (3) whether, and to what extent, any or all of the
factors alone or in combination identified in section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA may cause the species to be an endangered species or threatened
species (i.e., the species is currently in danger of extinction or is
likely to become so within the foreseeable future), and, if so, how
high in magnitude and how imminent the threats to the species and its
habitat are; (4) information on adequacy of regulatory protections and
effectiveness of conservation activities by States, as well as other
parties, that have been initiated or that are ongoing, that may protect
the species or its habitat; and (5) a complete, balanced representation
of the relevant facts, including information that may contradict claims
in the petition. See 50 CFR 424.14(d).
If the petitioner provides supplemental information before the
initial finding is made and states that it is part of the petition, the
new information, along with the previously submitted information, is
treated as a new petition that supersedes the original petition, and
the statutory timeframes will begin when such supplemental information
is received. See 50 CFR 424.14(g).
We may also consider information readily available at the time the
determination is made. We are not required to consider any supporting
materials cited by the petitioner if the petitioner does not provide
electronic or hard copies, to the extent permitted by U.S. copyright
law, or appropriate excerpts or quotations from those materials (e.g.,
publications, maps, reports, letters from authorities). See 50 CFR
424.14(c)(6) and (h)(1)(ii).
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
(50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii)). 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--such as a
final listing determination, a 90-day not-substantial finding, or a 12-
month not-warranted finding--a petition will generally not be
considered to present substantial scientific and commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted unless the
petition provides new information or analysis not previously
considered. See 50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(iii).
At the 90-day finding stage, 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 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 conducting an impartial scientific
review 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
conducting an impartial scientific review 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 first
evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, alongside
information readily available in our files, indicates that the
petitioned entity constitutes a ``species'' eligible for listing under
the ESA. Next, if we conclude the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information suggesting that the petitioned
entity may constitute a species, we evaluate whether the information
indicates that the species may face an extinction risk such that
listing, delisting, or reclassification may be warranted; this may be
indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and
trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the
species. We evaluate whether the petition presents 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 whether the petition presents
information suggesting potential links between these demographic risks
and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1) of
the ESA.
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
[[Page 73232]]
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. We then assess the potential
significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by
nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or
State statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may
not provide the rationale 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'' (<a href="https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories">https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/DataTypes/ConservationStatusCategories</a>). 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.
Distribution, Habitat, and Life History
The sunflower sea star occurs throughout intertidal and subtidal
coastal waters of the Northeast Pacific Ocean from the Aleutian
Islands, Alaska, to at least the Southern California Bight, and is
present on a wide variety of substrate types (Britton-Simmons et al.
2012, Gravem et al. 2021). Individuals may also occupy waters off the
west coast of the Baja Peninsula southward to the vicinity of San
Ignacio Lagoon, though data from this region are sparse (Gravem et al.
2021). While most abundant in waters less than 25 meters (m) deep,
sunflower sea stars can be found at considerably lower densities as
deep at 300 m (Gravem et al. 2021).
Sunflower sea stars are broadcast spawners that require close
proximity to mates for successful fertilization (Morris et al. 1980,
Lambert 2000, Lundquist and Botsford 2004, Hodin et al. 2021). While it
is unclear whether individuals aggregate to spawn, documentation of
seasonal, patchy distribution suggests this may be the case (Mauzey et
al. 1968, Gravem et al. 2021). Though reproductive seasonality is
largely undocumented, localized studies have documented breeding from
December through June (Feder and Christiensen 1966, Morris et al. 1980,
Gravem et al. 2021), and broad geographic variation linked with water
temperature and other environmental factors is likely.
Fertilization of eggs is followed by a free-floating larval period
of 50-146 days (Strathmann 1978, Gravem et al. 2021), during which
considerable wind- and current-driven dispersion may occur. Individuals
then settle and metamorphose into juveniles, which continue to feed and
grow. Though age at first maturity remains unknown for the sunflower
sea star, the well-studied ochre star Pisaster ochraceus, another large
predatory sea star that shares habitat, diet, and reproductive strategy
with the sunflower sea star, first reproduces at age 5 (Menge 1975). As
is common for a broad diversity of marine species, it is also likely
that sunflower sea star fecundity increases with size (Gravem et al.
2021). Sea star size is strongly affected by environmental factors such
as temperature and food availability (Sebens 1987, Gooding et al.
2009), making size a poor indicator of age, but estimates suggest that
maximum age could be as high as 68 years, but is more typically ~15
years in the wild (Gravem et al. 2021).
Status and Population Trends
There is no single, systematically collected data set that provides
population size or long-term trend data for sunflower sea stars
throughout their range. A recent compilation by the IUCN of localized
data sets spanning from the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, to Baja
California, Mexico, compared regional trends to evaluate range-wide
status (Gravem et al. 2021; Hamilton et al. 2021). While considerable
variability was apparent in many locations, since 2000 nearly all data
sets considered indicate substantial regional declines in average
density, with some declines exceeding 90 percent. From 2013-17, an
outbreak of sea star wasting syndrome (SSWS) contributed to precipitous
population declines in several areas, with impacts progressing
sequentially from south to north (Gravem et al. 2021). Data were not
collected evenly over time and space, however, making some estimates of
decline less reliable than others. Additionally, most data were
collected from shallow, nearshore areas such that deep-water abundance
could only be estimated for the whole of the range rather than on a
regional level. As noted above, most sunflower sea stars occupy waters
less than 25 m deep, minimizing the relevance of this shortcoming in
regionalized data collection. Bearing these caveats in mind,
researchers estimated that global sunflower sea star population size
declined by 90.6 percent from 2013-17 due to SSWS (Gravem et al. 2021),
and minimal recovery has been noted since (Hamilton et al. 2021). Not
only has population size decreased, but area of occupancy has also
declined by an estimated 57.6 percent since the SSWS outbreak, and
sunflower sea stars have not been detected in several surveys where
they were once common components of the catch (Gravem et al. 2021).
In sum, while data on abundance and trends are incomplete and
likely span only one generation time for the species, the information
presented in the petition indicates that sunflower sea star populations
have declined throughout the species' range, with especially steep
declines from 2013-17.
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors
The petitioners assert that P. helianthoides is endangered or
threatened because of all five of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms to address identified threats; and
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence,
including climate change. Information in the petition and information
that was readily available in our files indicate that the primary
threat facing the species is disease, specifically SSWS. We briefly
reiterate the evidence for each of the five factors, as presented in
the petition, below.
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range
The petitioner asserts that the SSWS outbreak that occurred from
2013-17 resulted in an estimated 57.6 percent decline in area of
occupancy throughout the sunflower sea star's known range (Gravem et
al. 2021), representing substantial range curtailment. This includes
evidence for local extirpation of the species in some regions, such as
along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, California, and Mexico.
The
[[Page 73233]]
petition also notes that shoreline armoring, coastal development,
erosion, pollution, shipping, harmful algal blooms, and invasive
species all represent habitat stressors in the nearshore environments
preferred by sunflower sea stars. While there is substantial variation
in the intensity and interactivity of these stressors across the range
of the sunflower sea star, urbanized estuaries like San Francisco Bay
and the Salish Sea are likely to be especially heavily impacted. Given
that these urbanized areas historically contained substantial
populations, the overall impact on sunflower sea stars may be
substantial.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or Educational
Purposes
Sunflower sea stars are not specifically targeted in any commercial
fisheries, but are a component of bycatch in several pot, trap, trawl,
and seine fisheries. Removing individuals from such gear may lead to
injury or mortality. Recreational harvest is also permitted in Alaska,
Oregon, California, and Mexico, although it is banned in Washington.
Dried sunflower sea stars are also sold as curios and for home
decoration. While direct loss of sunflower sea stars by these methods,
in total, is believed to be low, the petition contends that even small
effects could exacerbate the effects of low population size.
Disease or Predation
The petitioners assert that the species is endangered or threatened
primarily because of population declines caused by SSWS. As discussed
above in Status and Population Trends, SSWS has caused an estimated
population decline of over 90 percent on a range-wide basis and local
extirpation in some regions. The high lethality and broad-scale losses
of sea stars due to SSWS may substantially impede access to mates,
resulting in reduced population viability and resilience, and
increasing extinction risk (Gravem et al. 2021).
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioner notes two broad areas in which existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address threats to the species: The
control/prevention of SSWS and other diseases; and the regulation of
greenhouse gas emission and climate change impacts, especially warming
ocean temperatures, which may exacerbate disease outbreaks. The
petition notes that status reviews for other species have acknowledged
that there are no effective mechanisms to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions on the national or international level.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors
The petitioners assert that climate change, sea level rise, and
ocean acidification all represent range-wide threats to the continued
existence of the sunflower sea star, according to the petition. Sea
level rise may lead to increased shoreline armoring and loss of
habitat, while increased sea surface temperature can exacerbate disease
outbreaks. Ocean acidification affects sunflower sea star prey
viability in the Northeast Pacific Ocean, causing physiological stress
for a variety of bivalves and other organisms that rely on calcium
deposition to create protective shells (Bednarsek et al. 2021).
Increased acidity also directly inhibits growth and development of
larval and juvenile sea stars, as well as affecting metabolic rate,
energy demand, and arm regeneration rate in adults.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the petition, the literature cited in the petition,
and other information readily available in our files, we conclude the
petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that
the petitioned action to list P. helianthoides as a threatened or
endangered species may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50
CFR 424.14(h)(2)), we will commence a status review to determine
whether the sunflower sea star is in danger of extinction throughout
all of a significant portion of its range, or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, within 12
months of the receipt of the petition (August 18, 2022), we will make a
finding as to whether listing the sunflower sea star as an endangered
or threatened species is warranted. If listing is warranted, we will
publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing
and publishing a final rule.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting comments and
information from interested parties on the status of the sunflower sea
star. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following
areas:
(1) Historical and current abundance and population trends of P.
helianthoides at all available geographic scales throughout its range;
(2) Historical and current distribution and population structure of
P. helianthoides;
(3) Historical and current condition of habitat for P.
helianthoides;
(4) Historical and current data on bycatch and retention of P.
helianthoides in commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries
worldwide;
(5) Data on trade of P. helianthoides, including dried specimens
sold as curios;
(6) Historical and current impacts of SSWS on P. helianthoides at
all available geographic scales throughout its range;
(7) The effects of other known or potential threats to P.
helianthoides over the short-term or long-term; and
(8) Management, regulatory, or conservation programs that may be
relevant for P. helianthoides, including mitigation measures related to
any known or potential threats to the species throughout its range.
We request that all data and information be accompanied by
supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications. Please send any comments in
accordance with the instructions provided in the ADDRESSES section
above. We will base our findings on a review of the best available
scientific and commercial information available, including all
information received during the public comment period.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: December 20, 2021.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-27931 Filed 12-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 27, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.