Proposed Rule2024-11381
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Gulf of Alaska Chinook Salmon 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
May 24, 2024
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), or any evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) that may exist in the petitioned area, as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrent with the listing. We find that the petition, viewed in the context of information readily available in our files, presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are commencing a review of the status of Gulf of Alaska Chinook salmon to determine whether listing under the ESA is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species from any interested party.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 102 (Friday, May 24, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45815-45818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-11381]
[[Page 45815]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 240520-0140; RTID 0648-XR135]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List Gulf of Alaska Chinook Salmon 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 Gulf
of Alaska (GOA) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), or any
evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) that may exist in the petitioned
area, as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrent with the
listing. We find that the petition, viewed in the context of
information readily available in our files, presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted. Therefore, we are commencing a review of the
status of Gulf of Alaska Chinook salmon to determine whether listing
under the ESA is warranted. To ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information
regarding this species from any interested party.
DATES: Scientific and commercial data pertinent to the petitioned
action must be received by July 23, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit data and information relevant to our review
of the status of GOA Chinook salmon, identified by ``Gulf of Alaska
Chinook salmon Petition'' or by the docket number, NOAA-NMFS-2024-0042,
by any of the following methods:
<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-2024-0042 in the Search box.
Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
<bullet> Mail: Submit written comments to Anne Marie Eich,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska
Region NMFS, Attn. Susan Meyer. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668,
Juneau, AK 99802.
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="https://www.regulations.gov">https://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).
The petition is available on the NMFS website at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/endangered-species-conservation/candidate-species-under-endangered-species-act">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/endangered-species-conservation/candidate-species-under-endangered-species-act</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Scheurer, NMFS Alaska Region,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e445b42474b005d4d464b5b5c4b5c6e40414f4f00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d1708111418530e1e1518080f180f3d13121c1c531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>, (907) 586-7111; or Heather Austin, NMFS Office
of Protected Resources, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#442c2125302c21366a253137302d2a042a2b25256a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a424f4b5e424f58044b5f595e43446a44454b4b044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>, (301) 427-8422.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 11, 2024, we received a petition from the Wild Fish
Conservancy (petitioner) to delineate and list one or more ESUs of
Chinook salmon in southern Alaska--which the petition states
``encompasses all Chinook populations that enter the marine environment
of the Gulf of Alaska''--as threatened or endangered under the ESA, and
to designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. The
petition indicates that this ``includes all populations on the southern
side of the Aleutian Peninsula, Cook Inlet, and the coast of Alaska
south of Cook Inlet to the southern end of the Alaska/British Columbia
border.'' The petition asserts that GOA Chinook salmon are threatened
by all of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: (1) the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms to address identified threats; and (5)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)). 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 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)).
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 information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a
finding as to whether 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
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)). In 1991, NMFS issued the Policy on Applying the
Definition of Species Under the Endangered Species Act to Pacific
Salmon (ESU Policy; 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). Under this policy,
a Pacific salmon population is considered a DPS, and hence a
``species'' under the ESA, if it represents an ``evolutionarily
significant unit'' of the biological species. The two criteria for
delineating an ESU are (1) it is substantially reproductively isolated
from other conspecific populations; and (2) it represents an important
component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. NMFS has not yet
used the ESU Policy to define ESUs of Chinook salmon in the petitioned
area of Alaska.
In 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
(together, ``the Services'') adopted a joint policy that clarifies the
Services' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment''
for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species
[[Page 45816]]
under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). In announcing this
policy, the Services indicated that the ESU Policy for Pacific salmon
was consistent with the DPS Policy and that NMFS would continue to use
the ESU Policy for Pacific salmon.
A species, subspecies, DPS, 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 five section 4(a)(1) factors noted above.
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (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 initial (90-day) finding on the
petition, we will consider the information included in the petition as
required by sections 50 CFR 424.14(c), (d), and (g) (if applicable).
Our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted will depend 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).
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).
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 evaluate 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 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, in light of
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 may face an extinction risk such that listing 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 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) 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 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 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 not necessarily the
[[Page 45817]]
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.
Chinook Salmon Species Description
The following species description is summarized primarily from
Groot and Margolis (1991). Chinook salmon (also called ``king'' salmon)
are the largest species of the Pacific salmon. Like all species in the
genus Oncorhynchus, Chinook salmon are anadromous (meaning they are
born in freshwater, migrate to saltwater to feed and grow, and return
to freshwater to reproduce or ``spawn'') and semelparous (meaning they
die after spawning once). Chinook salmon naturally range throughout the
North Pacific Ocean from northern Hokkaido to the Anadyr River on the
Asian coast and from central California to Kotzebue Sound, Alaska, on
the North American coast.
Within their general anadromous life history, Chinook exhibit
remarkable variation within populations and across their range. Chinook
salmon are typically 3 or 4 years old when they return to spawn;
however, age at sexual maturity ranges from 2 to 7 years. Two
behavioral forms predominate within the Chinook salmon life history.
``Stream type'' populations spend one or more years as juveniles in
freshwater before migrating to the sea, often making extensive ocean
migrations, and return to their natal river in spring or summer to
spawn. ``Ocean type'' Chinook salmon migrate to sea during their first
year, often within months of hatching, spend most of their marine phase
in coastal waters, and return to their natal rivers in the fall to
spawn. In Alaska, most Chinook salmon demonstrate the stream type
behavioral form, except for a few ocean type populations in rivers of
southern Southeast Alaska near the United States border with Canada.
Evaluation of the Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS's
Files
The petitioners request that NMFS delineate and list one or more
ESUs of Chinook salmon in southern Alaska as threatened or endangered
under the ESA, and designate critical habitat concurrently with the
listing. The petition indicates that this ``includes all populations on
the southern side of the Aleutian Peninsula, Cook Inlet, and the coast
of Alaska south of Cook Inlet to the southern end of the Alaska/British
Columbia border.'' We interpret the petitioner's request as asking NMFS
to consider populations of Chinook salmon on the southern side of the
Alaska Peninsula, including Kodiak Island, Cook Inlet, Prince William
Sound, and the GOA coastline and inside waters of Southeast Alaska to
the United States/Canada border at approximately 54[deg]45' N latitude.
The petition is accompanied by literature citations and electronic
copies of supporting material, including published scientific
literature and unpublished reports.
In the sections that follow, we provide a synopsis of the
assertions made in the petition for the population status and trends
and each of the factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA,
followed by our analysis and conclusions that support the 90-day
finding.
Population Status and Trends
The petition asserts that since at least 2007, all populations of
GOA Chinook salmon have experienced significant declines in abundance
compared to levels exhibited in the previous two or more decades. The
petition provides as evidence examples of missed escapement goals for
some stocks. Additionally, the petition asserts that size and age at
maturity have been decreasing across most populations for more than two
decades. The petition notes that seven stocks have action plans
developed in response to their designations by the State of Alaska as
stocks of management concern.
Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors for GOA Chinook Salmon
The petition asserts that GOA Chinook salmon is experiencing
threats under each of the categories listed below and under section
4(a)(1) of the ESA.
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
The petition asserts that GOA Chinook salmon habitat is degraded by
clear-cut logging, erosion and sedimentation, elevated stream
temperatures, habitat fragmentation, chemical run-off, road building,
fish passage barriers, and mining.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition asserts that overharvest by directed commercial
fisheries and bycatch in other commercial fisheries threatens the
continued existence of GOA Chinook salmon and cites missed escapement
goals in recent years to support this assertion. The petition asserts
that reduced recreational harvest in 2021 relative to harvest levels in
2005 and 2006 indicates overharvest by the recreational sector.
Disease or Predation
The petition asserts that diseases originating in hatcheries (e.g.,
furunculosis, piscine reovirus, bacterial gill and kidney disease) have
been transmitted to wild populations, driving mortality of all life
stages of GOA Chinook salmon.
The petition asserts that predation pressure on adult GOA Chinook
salmon is increasing as a result of growing populations of killer
whales (Orcinus orca), and that humpback whales (Megaptera
novaeangliae) may be learning to target hatchery releases of Chinook
salmon in Southeast Alaska.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition asserts that Federal regulatory mechanisms such as the
National Environmental Policy Act, ESA, National Forest Management Act,
and Clean Water Act are failing to provide adequate protection to GOA
Chinook salmon. The petition broadly states that the State of Alaska's
management of salmon fisheries has been inadequate and that the state
has not implemented sufficient corrective actions to address missed
escapement goals.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The petition asserts that artificial propagation of pink salmon
increases competition for prey with wild Chinook salmon and has led to
decreased rates of growth and survival of Chinook salmon.
The petition asserts that changes in patterns of ocean productivity
combined with climate change may be threatening GOA Chinook salmon.
The petition lists numerous potential effects of climate change to
freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats, and assumes that nearly all
will have negative effects on GOA Chinook salmon.
Petition Finding
We have reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the
petition, and other literature and information available in our files.
We identified numerous factual errors, omissions, incomplete
references, and unsupported assertions and conclusions within the
petition. For example, the petition only presents escapement data
through 2021, but in 2022 and 2023, some GOA Chinook salmon populations
have shown improvements toward meeting their escapement goals. The
petition also makes vague references to threats from
[[Page 45818]]
logging, road building, mining, overharvest, and competition from
hatchery salmon without providing specific examples. Nonetheless, we
find that some of the information in the petition, in particular the
missed escapement goals in recent years for many stocks in the
petitioned area, and evidence of decreasing size and age at maturity,
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the petitioned action
may be warranted. Additionally, it is likely that more than one ESU
exists within the petitioned area and, without knowing the boundaries
of those ESUs, it is challenging to assess the status and trends of
subpopulations. In light of this uncertainty and the low statutory
standard at the 90-day stage, we conclude that the petitioned action
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 GOA Chinook salmon
constitute one or more ESUs, and if so, whether any such ESU of GOA
Chinook salmon is in danger of extinction (endangered) throughout all
or a significant portion of its range, or is likely to become so within
the foreseeable future (threatened). The petition stated that
``overharvest'' should be considered as a factor for listing under the
ESA. Potential overharvest of some populations of Chinook salmon and
missed escapement targets are not necessarily sufficient to indicate
that the species may warrant listing under the ESA. Our status review
will examine recent harvest levels and escapement targets along with
all of the best available information on the status of the species and
potential threats. As required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, within
12 months of the receipt of the petition, we will make a finding as to
whether listing any GOA Chinook salmon ESU 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 our status review is informed by the best available
scientific and commercial data, we are opening a 60-day public comment
period to solicit information on GOA Chinook salmon. We request
information from the public, government agencies, Alaska Native
organizations, the scientific community, industry, conservation groups,
fishing groups, or any other interested parties concerning the current
and/or historical status of GOA Chinook salmon. Specifically, we
request information regarding:
(1) species abundance;
(2) species freshwater and saltwater productivity;
(3) species distribution or population spatial structure;
(4) patterns of phenotypic, genotypic, and life history diversity;
(5) habitat conditions and associated limiting factors and threats;
(6) information on the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
whether protections are being implemented, and whether they are proving
effective in conserving the species;
(7) data concerning the status and trends of identified limiting
factors or threats to population persistence;
(8) information on targeted harvest (commercial and non-commercial)
and bycatch of the species;
(9) information to evaluate the ESU factors, specifically,
<bullet> whether any populations are substantially reproductively
isolated from other conspecific populations; and
<bullet> whether any population represents an important component
in the evolutionary legacy of the species;
(10) other new information, data, or corrections including, but not
limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes; and
(11) information concerning the impacts of environmental
variability and climate change on survival, growth, age, fecundity,
recruitment, distribution, and/or extinction risk.
Please send any comments in accordance with the instructions
provided in the ADDRESSES section above. We request that all
information be accompanied by: (1) supporting documentation such as
maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications;
and (2) the submitter's name, and any association, institution, or
business that the person represents. We will base our findings on a
review of the best scientific and commercial data available, including
relevant 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: May 20, 2024.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-11381 Filed 5-23-24; 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 May 24, 2024.
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.