Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat: 12-Month Finding on Petition to List the Cherry Point Stock of Pacific Herring as an Endangered or Threatened Species, 33116-33122 [05-11210]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
33116
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Notices
POR and, thus, provides no
countervailable subsidy.
this program were equal to or higher
than the interest rates charged on
comparable commercial loans.
2. Assistance from the Societe de
Recuperation d’Exploitation et de
Developpement Forestiers du Quebec
(Rexfor)
SGF Rexfor, Inc. (Rexfor) is a
corporation all of whose shares are
owned by the Societe Generale de
Financement du Quebec (SGF). SGF is
an industrial and financial holding
company that finances economic
development projects in cooperation
with industrial partners. Rexfor is SGF’s
vehicle for investment in the forest
products industry.
Rexfor receives and analyzes
investment opportunities and
determines whether to become an
investor either through equity or
participative subordinated debentures.
Debentures are used as an investment
vehicle when Rexfor determines that a
project is worthwhile, but is not large
enough to necessitate more complex
equity arrangements. Consistent with
our approach in the underlying
investigation, we have not analyzed
equity investments by Rexfor because
(1) there was no allegation that Rexfor’s
equity investments were inconsistent
with the usual investment practice of
private investors, and (2) there is no
evidence on the record indicating that
Rexfor’s equity investments conferred a
benefit.
Also, consistent with our approach in
the underlying investigation, we
examined whether Rexfor’s participative
subordinated debentures, i.e., loans,
conferred a subsidy. Because assistance
from Rexfor is limited to companies in
the forest products industry, we have
preliminarily determined that this
program is specific under section
771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. The long–term
loans provided by Rexfor qualify as a
financial contribution under section
771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. To determine
whether the single loan outstanding to
a softwood lumber producer during the
POR provided a benefit, we compared
the interest rates on the loan from
Rexfor to the benchmark interest rates as
described in ‘‘Benchmarks for Loans
and Discount Rates.’’ See 771(5)(E)(ii) of
the Act. Using this methodology, we
have preliminarily determined that no
benefit was provided by this loan
because the interest rates charged under
this program were higher than the
interest rates charged on comparable
commercial loans.
On this basis, we have preliminarily
found that the debt forgiveness by
Rexfor did not confer a benefit in the
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:54 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
hearing will be held at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Preliminary Results of Review
Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who
In accordance with 777A(e)(2)(B) of
wish to request a hearing must submit
the Act, we have calculated a single
a written request within 30 days of the
country–wide subsidy rate to be applied publication of this notice in the Federal
to all producers and exporters of the
Register to the Assistant Secretary for
subject merchandise from Canada, other Import Administration, U.S. Department
than those producers that have been
of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street
excluded from this order. This rate is
and Constitution Avenue, NW,
summarized in the table below:
Washington, DC 20230.
Requests for a public hearing should
contain: (1) The party’s name, address,
and telephone number; (2) the number
Producer/Exporter
Net Subsidy Rate
of participants; and, (3) to the extent
practicable, an identification of the
All Producers/Exporters
8.18 percent ad arguments to be raised at the hearing.
valorem
An interested party may make an
affirmative presentation only on
If the final results of this review
arguments included in that party’s case
remain the same as these preliminary
or rebuttal briefs.
results, the Department intends to
This administrative review is issued
instruct CBP to assess countervailing
and published in accordance with
duties as indicated above. The
section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Department also intends to instruct CBP Act.
to collect cash deposits of estimated
Dated: May 31, 2005.
countervailing duties of 8.18 percent of
Susan Kuhbach,
the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
of the subject merchandise from
Administration.
reviewed companies, entered, or
[FR Doc. E5–2884 Filed 6–6–05; 8:45 am]
withdrawn from warehouse, for
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
consumption on or after the date of
publication of the final results of this
review.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Public Comment
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the
Administration
Department will disclose to parties to
the proceeding any calculations
performed in connection with these
preliminary results within five days
after the date of publication of this
notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309,
interested parties may submit written
comments in response to these
preliminary results. Case briefs must be
submitted within 30 days after the date
of publication of this notice, and
rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments
raised in case briefs, must be submitted
no later than seven days after the time
limit for filing case briefs. Parties who
submit argument in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument:
(1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a
brief summary of the argument. Case
and rebuttal briefs must be served on
interested parties in accordance with 19
CFR 351.303(f). Please note that an
interested party may still submit case
and/or rebuttal briefs even though the
party is not going to participate in the
hearing.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310,
we will hold a public hearing, if
requested, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on these
preliminary results. Any requested
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[Docket No. 040511147–5142–02; I.D.
042804B]
Listing Endangered and Threatened
Species and Designating Critical
Habitat: 12–Month Finding on Petition
to List the Cherry Point Stock of
Pacific Herring as an Endangered or
Threatened Species
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) have completed
an updated Endangered Species Act
(ESA) status review of Pacific herring
(Clupea pallasi), inclusive of the Cherry
Point herring stock (Strait of Georgia,
Washington). We initiated this status
review update in response to a petition
received on May 14, 2004, to list the
Cherry Point stock of Pacific herring as
a threatened or endangered species. We
have determined that the Cherry Point
herring stock does not qualify as a
‘‘species’’ for consideration under the
ESA. Based upon the best available
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Notices
scientific and commercial information,
we conclude that the petitioned action
to list the Cherry Point Pacific herring
stock as a threatened or endangered
species is not warranted. We find that
the Cherry Point stock is part of the
previously defined Georgia Basin
distinct population segment (DPS)
composed of inshore Pacific herring
stocks from Puget Sound (Washington)
and the Strait of Georgia (Washington
and British Columbia). We have
determined that the Georgia Basin DPS
of Pacific herring is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and therefore does not warrant
ESA listing at this time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
notice was made on June 1, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The status review update
for Pacific herring and the list of
references cited in this notice are
available upon request from Chief,
NMFS, Protected Resources Division,
1201 NE Lloyd Avenue, Suite 1100,
Portland, OR, 97232. These materials
are also available on the Internet at:
https://www.nwr.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information regarding this notice
contact Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest
Region, (503) 231–2005, or Marta
Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected
Resources, (301) 713–1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy
Considerations
Under the ESA, a listing
determination may address a species,
subspecies, or a DPS of any vertebrate
species which interbreeds when mature
(16 U.S.C. 1532(15)). On February 7,
1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and NMFS adopted a policy to clarify
the agencies’ interpretation of the
phrase ‘‘distinct population segment of
any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife’’ (ESA section 3(15)) for the
purposes of listing, delisting, and
reclassifying a species under the ESA
(51 FR 4722). The joint DPS policy
identified two elements that must be
considered when making DPS
determinations: (1) the discreteness of
the population segment in relation to
the remainder of the species (or
subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2)
the significance of the population
segment to the remainder of the species
(or subspecies) to which it belongs.
Section 3 of the ESA defines an
endangered species as ‘‘any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:54 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
its range,’’ and a threatened species as
one ‘‘which is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ The
statute lists factors that may cause a
species to be threatened or endangered
(ESA section 4(a)(1)): (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.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires
NMFS to make listing determinations
based solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available after
conducting a review of the status of the
species and after taking into account
efforts being made to protect the
species. In making listing
determinations under the ESA we first
determine whether a population or
group of populations constitutes a DPS
(i.e., whether the populations(s) should
be considered a ‘‘species’’ within the
meaning of the ESA), and if so we assess
the level of extinction risk faced by the
DPS and any factors that have led to its
decline. If it is determined that the DPS’
survival is at risk throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, we then
assess efforts being made to protect the
species, determining if these efforts are
adequate to mitigate threats to the
species. Based on the foregoing
information and the factors identified in
ESA section 4(a)(1), we then make a
listing determination of whether the
species is threatened, the species is
endangered, or listing is not warranted.
Life History of Pacific Herring
Pacific herring in the Eastern Pacific
Ocean range from northern Baja
California north to at least the
Mackenzie Delta in the Beaufort Sea.
They are also found in the Russian
Arctic from the Chukchi Sea in the east
to the White Sea in the west, although
the boundary between Atlantic and
Pacific herring is unclear in this region
(Hay et al., 2001b). In the Northwestern
Pacific they are found throughout the
Western Bering Sea, the east coast of
Kamchatka, and the Sea of Okhotsk; on
the east and west coasts of Hokkaido,
Japan; and south and west to the Yellow
Sea off the Korean Peninsula (Haegele
and Schweigert, 1985; Hay et al.,
2001b).
Adult herring in the Eastern Pacific
move inshore during winter and early
spring and reside in holding areas
before moving to adjacent spawning
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33117
grounds (Hay, 1985). Spawning grounds
are typically in sheltered inlets, sounds,
bays, and estuaries (Haegele and
Schweigert, 1985). Pacific herring
usually spawn intertidally or in shallow
subtidal zones, depositing adhesive eggs
over algae, vegetation, or other
substrates (Hay, 1985). The location and
timing of spawning for individual stocks
are generally consistent and predictable
from year to year (Hay et al., 1989;
O’Toole et al., 2000).
Pacific herring spawn timing varies
with latitude, with earlier spawning
(i.e., early-winter) occurring in the more
southern latitudes of the species’ range,
and later spawning (i.e., mid-summer)
occurring toward the northern limit of
the species’ range (Hay, 1985). In Puget
Sound, spawning generally occurs from
January to April, with peak spawning
activity in February and March;
however, Pacific herring at Cherry Point
spawn from late-March to mid-June
(Bargmann, 1998).
Pacific herring larvae drift in ocean
currents after hatching and are abundant
in shallow nearshore waters (Lassuy,
1989; Hay and McCarter, 1997). After 2
to 3 months, larvae metamorphose into
juveniles that form large schools and
remain primarily in nearshore shallowwater areas during the first summer.
After their first summer, juveniles may
disperse to deeper offshore waters to
mature or reside year-round in
nearshore waters (Hay, 1985). For
example, some herring are nonmigratory
or resident and spend their entire life
within Puget Sound and the Strait of
Georgia, while other more migratory
herring spend their summers in the
offshore waters of Washington and
southern British Columbia (Hay et al.,
2001a; Trumble, 1983).
Pacific herring age at first maturity
ranges from age–2 to age–5 (Hay, 1985).
Along the west coast of North America,
populations of Pacific herring exhibit a
latitudinal cline in age at first maturity,
such that herring in southern locations
(i.e., California) mature at an earlier age
and herring in the north (i.e., Bering
Sea) mature at later ages (Hay, 1985). In
Puget Sound, Pacific herring reach
sexual maturity at age–2 to age–4
(Bargmann, 1998). Pacific herring in the
Strait of Georgia and other major
assessment areas in British Columbia
reach sexual maturity at age–3 (Hay and
McCarter, 1999). In general, populations
of Pacific herring also exhibit a
latitudinal cline in mean size-at-age,
such that herring in southern locations
(i.e., California) exhibit small size and
herring in the north (i.e., Bering Sea)
attain a far larger size at a similar age.
Herring may spawn annually for several
years (Hay, 1985), with overall
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
33118
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Notices
fecundity increasing as body size
increases (Ware, 1985; Hay, 1985).
In the state of Washington there are 21
documented spawning stocks: 19 stocks
in Puget Sound (including the Cherry
Point stock and the recently rediscovered Wollochet Bay stock), and
two on the Washington Coast
(Bargmann, 1998; Stout et al., 2001).
The Cherry Point Pacific herring stock
historically spawned along the
Washington coastline from Hale Passage
(between the north end of Bellingham
Bay and the east coast of Lummi Island),
north to Cherry Point, Birch Point, Point
Roberts, and the border with Canada
(Lemberg et al., 1997). Since 1996,
spawning of the Cherry Point stock has
only occurred in the vicinity of Birch
Point and along the Cherry Point Reach.
Spawning at Cherry Point can begin as
early as late-March and end as late as
mid-June, although peak spawning
activity occurs around May 10th
(O’Toole et al., 2000). Spawning at all
other Pacific herring locations in Puget
Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait of
Juan de Fuca normally occurs from lateJanuary through late-April (Trumble,
1983; Lemberg et al., 1997; O’Toole et
al., 2000) with peak spawning starting
the last week of February or the first
week of March (O’Toole et al., 2000).
Since record keeping began in 1928,
British Columbia Pacific herring have
been observed to spawn at over 1,300
locations along the approximately 5,200
km of coastline that is classified as
herring spawning habitat (Hay and
McCarter, 2004). In any given year,
between 450 and 600 km of the British
Columbia coast receives herring spawn.
The Canada Department of Fisheries
and Oceans has identified six stock
assessment regions and 101 sub-areas or
‘‘Herring Sections’’ characterized by
consistent Pacific herring spawning
activity. In general, Pacific herring
spawn from January to May in southern
British Columbia and from mid-January
to June in northern British Columbia
(Taylor, 1964; Hourston, 1980). As at
Cherry Point, Pacific herring in several
Herring Sections in British Columbia
exhibit notably late spawn timing for
their local region (e.g., Skidegate Inlet
[Section 022] and Masset Inlet [Section
011] in the Queen Charlotte Islands
Region and Burke Channel [Section 084]
in the Central Coast Region) (Hay et al.,
1989).
Previous Federal Actions Relating to
Pacific Herring
We completed a status review of
Pacific Herring in 2001 (Stout et al.,
2001). This earlier review was initiated
in response to a petition received in
February 1999 to list 18 species of
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:54 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
marine fishes in Puget Sound, including
Pacific herring. We concluded that the
Pacific herring stocks in Puget Sound do
not constitute a DPS (and therefore do
not qualify as a ‘‘species’’ under the
ESA). We determined that these Puget
Sound herring stocks, including the
Cherry Point stock, belonged to a larger
Georgia Basin Pacific herring DPS
consisting of over 40 inshore stocks
from Puget Sound and the Strait of
Georgia in the United States and Canada
(64 FR 17659; April 3, 2001). We
concluded that the Georgia Basin DPS is
not threatened or endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range (64 FR 17659; April 3, 2001);
however, we did note concern regarding
two herring stocks within the Georgia
Basin DPS (the Cherry Point and
Discovery Bay stocks) that have shown
marked declines in range and
abundance. Although we recognized
that these two declining stocks may be
vulnerable to extirpation, we concluded
that they represent a relatively small
portion of the more than 40 stocks and
assessment areas composing the DPS
and do not confer significant risk to the
DPS throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Summary of Petitions Received
On January 22, 2004, NMFS received
a petition from the Northwest
Ecosystem Alliance, the Center for
Biological Diversity, Ocean Advocates,
People for Puget Sound, Public
Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, Sam Wright, and the
Friends of the San Juans to find that the
Cherry Point (Washington) stock of
Pacific herring qualifies as a DPS and
warrants listing as a threatened or
endangered species under the ESA.
Subsequently, on May 14, 2004, the
same petitioners submitted additional
information including new genetic
information on the stock structure of
Pacific herring in Puget Sound and the
Strait of Georgia (Washington) that had
become available since the initial
petition was received on January 22,
2004. We considered the petitioners’
supplemental submission (in
conjunction with the January 22, 2004,
submission) as a distinct petition
received by the agency on May 14, 2004.
On August 10, 2004, we issued our
finding that the petition received on
January 22, 2004, fails to present
substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted, but
that the petition received on May 14,
2004, does present substantial scientific
and commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be
warranted (69 FR 48455).
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For a summary of the specific
information presented in the two
petitions, the reader is referred to the
above mentioned Federal Register
notice describing the petition findings.
Most significantly, the petition received
on May 14, 2004, presented new genetic
information (Small et al., 2004)
indicating that the Cherry Point herring
stock may be ‘‘discrete’’ and
‘‘significant’’ with respect to the species,
and may thereby qualify as a DPS for
listing consideration under the ESA.
The majority of the information
provided by the petitioners regarding
the viability of the Cherry Point herring
stock was evaluated in our earlier 2001
status review. The Cherry Point herring
stock has declined dramatically over the
last three decades, with the spawning
biomass in 2000 representing a 94
percent decline from historical
observations. The 2001 status review
noted that there was a 50 percent
chance that the Cherry Point stock
would decline to 1 ton or less in 100
years (Stout et al., 2001). The petitioners
also provided additional biomass
information from 2001–2004 for the
period since the 2001 status review.
Updated Status Review of Pacific
Herring
The ESA requires that, as a
consequence of accepting the above
petition, NMFS promptly commence a
review of the species’ status and make
a finding within 12 months after
receiving the petition, whether the
petitioned action is warranted (ESA
Section 4(b)(3)). To ensure that our
review was based on the best available
and most recent scientific information,
we solicited information during a 60–
day public comment period regarding
the DPS structure and extinction risk of,
and efforts being made to protect, the
species (69 FR 48455; August 10, 2004).
We convened a Biological Review
Team (BRT) (an expert panel of
scientists from NMFS’ Northwest and
Alaska Fisheries Science Centers, and
NOAA’s National Ocean Service) to
review the available information and
determine: (1) the DPS structure of
Pacific herring, specifically whether the
Cherry Point herring stock qualifies as a
‘‘species’’ for consideration under the
ESA; and (2) whether the identified
DPS(s) are in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The BRT’s findings
are presented in a January 24, 2005,
memorandum ‘‘Summary of Scientific
Conclusions of the Status of Cherry
Point Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasii)
and Update of the Status of the Georgia
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Notices
Basin Pacific Herring DPS,’’ and are
summarized briefly below.
Determination of ‘‘Species’’
Under the joint DPS policy (51 FR
4722; February 7, 1996) 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 there is a significant
difference in exploitation control,
habitat management or conservation
status. Under the joint DPS policy, 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 cause 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.
The BRT considered several types of
information in evaluating the DPS
structure of Pacific herring, including
whether the Cherry Point herring stock
qualifies for listing consideration as an
independent DPS. Information
considered in evaluating the
discreteness of stocks include: (1)
geographic variability in life-history
characteristics and morphology; (2)
tagging and recapture studies indicating
the level of migration among stocks; and
(3) genetic differentiation among stocks
reflective of marked reproductive
isolation.
Relationship of Stock and DPS Concepts
Pacific herring in the vicinity of
Cherry Point (Washington) are
considered to be a stock for management
purposes in the state of Washington
(Bargmann, 1998). There is no definition
of the term ‘‘stock’’ that is generally
accepted by fisheries biologists (Stout et
al., 2001). The term stock has been used
to refer to: (1) fish spawning in a
particular place or time, separated to a
substantial degree from fish spawning in
a different place or time (Ricker, 1972);
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:54 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
(2) a population sharing a common
environment that is sufficiently discrete
to warrant consideration as a selfperpetuating system that can be
managed separately (Larkin, 1972); (3) a
species group or population of fish that
maintains and sustains itself over time
in a definable area (Booke, 1981); and
(4) an intraspecific group of randomly
mating individuals with temporal or
spatial integrity (Ihssen et al., 1981).
None of these definitions imply that a
fish stock is ecologically, biologically, or
physiologically significant in relation to
the biological species as a whole. Hence,
information establishing a group of fish
as a stock, such as the Cherry Point
stock of Pacific herring, does not
necessarily qualify it as a DPS. A DPS
may be composed of a group of related
stocks, or in some cases (if the evidence
warrants) a single stock, that form(s) a
discrete population and are (is)
significant to the biological species as a
whole.
Pacific Herring as a Metapopulation
A ‘‘metapopulation’’ is an aggregation
of subpopulations linked by migration,
and subject to periodic extinction and
recolonization events (Levins, 1968,
1970). Observations of herring
population structure in the Atlantic and
Pacific are consistent with this
metapopulation concept (McQuinn,
1997; Ware et al., 2000; Ware and
Schweigert, 2001 ,2002; Ware and
Tovey, 2004): (1) local herring stocks are
distributed across spatially fragmented
spawning habitat; (2) local stocks
exhibit partially independent
demographics and dynamics; (3) there is
appreciable straying and gene flow
among local populations; and (4) there
is evidence of disappearance and
recolonization events. Consistent with
the consideration of Pacific herring as a
metapopulation, local spawning stocks
of herring may demonstrate distinctive
demographic patterns and reproductive
isolation over relatively short temporal
scales, yet over longer time periods
regularly exchange low levels of
individuals or experience periodic
waves of dispersal during years of
abundant recruitment.
DPS Determination for the Cherry Point
Stock of Pacific Herring
The BRT concluded that the Cherry
Point stock of Pacific herring was
‘‘discrete’’ under the DPS policy (NMFS,
2005). The BRT determined that the
Cherry Point stock is markedly
separated from other Pacific herring
populations as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors due to: (1) its locally
unique late spawn timing; (2) the locally
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33119
unusual location of its spawning habitat
on an exposed section of coastline; (3)
its consistently large size-at-age and
continued growth after maturation
relative to other local herring stocks;
and (4) its differential accumulation of
toxic compounds relative to other local
herring stocks, indicative of different
rearing or migratory conditions for
Cherry Point herring.
Although the BRT determined that the
Cherry Point stock represents a discrete
population, the BRT concluded that the
stock is not ‘‘significant’’ to the taxon,
and hence does not constitute a DPS
(NMFS, 2005). The BRT noted that: (1)
over the broad geographic range of
Pacific herring, the local distinctiveness
of the Cherry Point stock is not unusual;
(2) the late spawn timing of the Cherry
Point stock is not exceptional for Pacific
herring, as there are other Pacific
herring stocks with similarly
exceptionally late (as well as early)
spawn timing for their local region; (3)
other Pacific herring stocks have
spawning habitats located on exposed
coastlines subject to high-energy wave
action; and (4), given the level of genetic
variability observed within and between
herring stocks, the level of genetic
differentiation exhibited by the Cherry
Point stock was unlikely to indicate a
marked or evolutionarily significant
level of differentiation. Based on this
information, the BRT concluded that the
Cherry Point stock does not satisfy the
applicable DPS criteria for significance:
Cherry Point does not represent a
unique or unusual ecological setting for
Pacific herring; the loss of the Cherry
Point herring stock would not result in
a significant gap in the extensive range
of Pacific herring; and the Cherry Point
stock does not exhibit marked genetic
differentiation relative to other Pacific
herring populations.
Petition Finding
As summarized above, the May 14,
2004, petition submitted by the
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance and copetitioners sought a finding that the
Cherry Point (Washington) stock of
Pacific herring qualifies as a DPS and
warrants listing as a threatened or
endangered species under the ESA. In a
Federal Register notice published on
August 10, 2004 (69 FR 48455), we
published the finding that the petition
presented substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
As described in the preceding section,
we have determined that the Cherry
Point stock of Pacific herring is
‘‘discrete,’’ but is not ‘‘significant’’
under the joint NMFS/U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service DPS policy. Thus, the
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
33120
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Notices
Cherry Point herring stock does not
qualify as a DPS for listing
consideration under the ESA.
Accordingly, we find that the action
sought by the May 14, 2004, Northwest
Ecosystem Alliance et al. petition is not
warranted.
DPS Determination for Pacific Herring
in the Georgia Basin
The BRT considered a number of
alternative DPS configurations for
Pacific herring incorporating the Cherry
Point herring stock, ranging from the
previously identified Georgia Basin DPS
to a DPS encompassing Pacific herring
from San Diego (California) to Sitka
(Alaska). Evidence suggesting a DPS
configuration larger than the Georgia
Basin includes: (1) tagging studies
indicating that straying among herring
stocks occurs at spatial scales exceeding
that of the Georgia Basin; (2)
information indicating relative genetic
homogeneity of Pacific herring stocks in
the Pacific Northwest, Strait of Georgia,
and British Columbia; and (3) evidence
supporting the concept that local
herring stocks are part of a larger Pacific
herring metapopulation.
Notwithstanding this information, the
majority of the BRT favored the
previous delineation of a Georgia Basin
DPS of Pacific herring, finding that the
available information is insufficient to
warrant modification of the previous
DPS delineation (NMFS, 2005). A
variety of evidence supports the finding
that Georgia Basin Pacific herring satisfy
the criteria for discreteness and
significance under the joint DPS policy,
including: the similarity in age
composition of herring stocks in the
Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound
supporting the discreteness of Georgia
Basin Pacific herring, and the ecological
uniqueness of the inshore waters of
Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia
supporting the significance of the
Pacific herring in the Georgia Basin to
the taxon as-a-whole. (For a more
detailed discussion of the information
supporting the delineation of the
Georgia Basin DPS of Pacific herring,
the reader is referred to the Stout et al.,
2001, status review). The BRT
delineated the Georgia Basin DPS as
encompassing spawning stocks of
Pacific herring in the marine waters of
Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and
eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca in the
United States and Canada.
Review of the Species’ Status
The ESA defines an endangered
species as any species in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a threatened
species as any species likely to become
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:54 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Section
4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the
listing determination be based solely on
the best scientific and commercial data
available, after conducting a review of
the status of the species and taking into
account those efforts, if any, being made
to protect such species.
The BRT considered the best available
biological information to assess the level
of extinction risk for the Georgia Basin
DPS of Pacific herring. The BRT
evaluated the DPS’s extinction risk
based on risks to its abundance,
productivity, spatial structure
(including spatial distribution and
connectivity), and diversity. These four
‘‘Viable Salmonid Population’’ (VSP;
McElhany et al., 2000) criteria were
developed to provide a consistent and
logical framework for assessing risks to
populations and DPSs of West Coast
salmon and steelhead. Although
initially developed for application to
salmonid metapopulations, the VSP
criteria are well founded in the
conservation biology literature. Threats
to a species’ long-term persistence are
manifested demographically as risks to
its abundance, productivity, spatial
structure, and productivity. These
demographic risks thus provide the
most direct and robust biological
indicators of extinction risk. The BRT’s
assessment of extinction risk did not
include an evaluation of the likely or
potential contribution of efforts being
made to protect the species, but was
based solely on the available biological
information assuming that present
conditions will continue, and
recognizing that natural demographic
and environmental variability is an
inherent feature of present conditions.
Below we summarize the BRT’s
assessment of demographic risks to the
Georgia Basin DPS’s abundance,
productivity, spatial structure, and
diversity, as well as the BRT’s
extinction risk assessment for the DPS
based on these risks.
Evaluation of Demographic Risks to the
DPS
The majority opinion of the BRT was
that there is very low risk to the
abundance of the Georgia Basin DPS,
concluding that it is unlikely that the
current trends and levels of abundance
contribute significantly to the risk of
extinction for the DPS, either by
themselves or in combination with other
factors. The BRT noted that the overall
abundance of the DPS is at historically
high levels since monitoring began in
the 1930s, in terms of the estimated
biomass (the recent abundance is well
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
over 100,000 metric tons) and numbers
of herring (estimated at more than half
a billion mature herring). However, the
BRT was concerned about the observed
decline in the number of the Cherry
Point herring spawners from an
estimated 24 million fish in 2003 to 14
million fish in 2004.
The majority opinion of the BRT was
that there is low risk to the productivity
of the DPS, concluding that it is
unlikely to contribute significantly to
the risk of extinction for the DPS by
itself, but that there may be concern in
combination with other factors. The
BRT noted that the DPS as a whole is
highly productive with the overall
population trend and growth rate being
highly positive. The BRT observed that
the overall DPS appeared to be in steep
decline in the 1960s. However, some
stocks have exhibited high levels of
productivity conferring resiliency to the
DPS and reflecting an apparent ability to
rebound from past declines. The recent
short-term trend for the overall DPS is
also very positive and recruitment levels
remain high, despite an apparent
increase in adult mortality, possibly due
to predation by seals, disease factors,
and other risk factors.
The BRT’s appraisal of risk to the
spatial structure of the DPS ranged from
very low risk to increasing risk. The
majority opinion of the BRT was that
the DPS faces low risk to its spatial
structure, concluding that it is unlikely
that spatial distribution and
connectivity contribute significantly to
the risk of extinction by themselves, and
that there is some concern that they may
in combination with other factors. The
BRT noted that the DPS remains well
distributed, with no gaps in the
geographic range of spawning within
the DPS. All, or nearly all, of the
historically occupied areas continue to
support spawning, and moderate
migration rates based on tagging
information indicate little loss of
connectivity among stocks within the
DPS. The BRT noted that increasing
trends in the DPS are not uniformly
distributed among stocks or spawning
areas, with the Central and Northeastern
portions of the DPS exhibiting declines.
The BRT was concerned that the bulk of
the spawning distribution and
abundance and productivity in the DPS
has become spatially compacted,
particularly in the northern half of the
DPS. However, the BRT felt that
declining trends in some parts of the
DPS are not a major concern in the
context of a herring metapopulation,
particularly in light of observations of
high connectivity among stocks, and
evidence of disappearance and
subsequent recolonization events in the
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Notices
British Columbia portion of the DPS.
The BRT also felt that the spatial
compaction of the most abundant and
productive spawning stocks may be a
natural phenomenon.
The majority opinion of the BRT was
that there is low risk to the diversity of
the DPS, concluding that it is unlikely
that diversity contributes significantly
to the risk of extinction for the DPS, but
that it may in combination with other
factors. The BRT noted that the DPS
continues to exhibit diversity in spawn
timing and migratory behavior both
within and among spawning stocks.
Although there is limited long-term data
regarding the genetic diversity of the
DPS, the BRT concluded that there has
been no apparent genetic loss as
compared to other marine species. The
BRT noted concern that the life-history
diversity of the DPS has apparently
declined with the compression of
population age structure (a much
smaller proportion of older age classes),
the decline of late-spawning herring
(principally the Cherry Point herring
stock), and an apparent decline in
nonmigratory inlet herring stocks on the
eastern side of the Strait of Georgia. The
BRT was uncertain whether the
migratory/nonmigratory life-history
types are specific to certain populations,
or are present to some degree in most or
all spawning stocks in the Strait of
Georgia and Puget Sound.
Assessment of the Risk of Extinction
Informed by its assessment of
demographic risks to the DPS, and a
consideration of the interactions among
demographic risks, the BRT concluded
that the Georgia Basin DPS of Pacific
herring is not at risk of extinction in all
or a significant portion of its range, nor
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future. The BRT noted that the overall
abundance of the DPS is at historically
high levels, and that the linear extent of
coastline used for spawning has been
increasing. The BRT concluded that the
available information suggests that
spawning stocks in the Georgia Basin
DPS operate as a ‘‘mixed structure’’
metapopulation (Harrison and Taylor,
1997) in which all subpopulations are
connected by migration, but some are
relatively discrete with weaker
demographic linkages to other
subpopulations in the DPS. It is
expected in a viable metapopulation
that some local subpopulations will be
in decline, other subpopulations will be
increasing, and some suitable habitat
patches may be unoccupied.
Accordingly, the observation that some
local stocks are declining (principally
the Cherry Point stock, and the
nonmigratory inlet stocks in the eastern
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:54 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
Strait of Georgia) is not by itself cause
for concern about the long-term viability
of the DPS. Additionally, given the
metapopulation structure of the DPS,
the BRT did not feel that the low
demographic risks (described in the
previous section) collectively represent
a risk to the long-term viability of the
DPS. The few declining stocks represent
a small proportion of the more than 40
stocks and assessment areas that
compose the Georgia Basin DPS.
Evidence of significant migration among
stocks, high levels of gene flow, and
disappearance and subsequent
recolonization events for Georgia Basin
Pacific herring suggest that local
extirpations or stock declines confer
little risk to the overall DPS. The
specific stocks exhibiting decline,
however, appear to exhibit greater
demographic independence on
generational time scales relative to other
stocks within the DPS. It is possible,
given their weaker connectivity with
other spawning stocks in the DPS, that
if these declining stocks were lost,
recolonization might take longer than it
might for a classical metapopulation in
which subpopulations are connected by
higher rates of exchange. Nonetheless,
the BRT did not feel that the current
risks to these declining stocks posed
risks to the DPS as a whole, or to any
significant portion of the DPS.
The BRT considered whether recent
factors have disrupted the function of
the metapopulation such that its longterm viability is compromised. The BRT
concluded that the patterns of
abundance and distribution within the
Georgia Basin DPS appear to be typical
of what is seen in other herring
metapopulations throughout
northwestern North America, including
metapopulations in relatively pristine
areas in southeastern Alaska and British
Columbia. The BRT noted, however,
that if habitat areas were lost or
permanently degraded to the point that
they lacked the potential to support a
spawning subpopulation, this could
seriously impair the function of the
entire metapopulation. The BRT
concluded that the declining Cherry
Point and eastern Strait of Georgia inlet
stocks do not appear to be limited by
habitat factors. The BRT concluded that
the available evidence does not suggest
unusual levels of risk to the DPS as a
whole, nor to any significant portion of
the DPS.
Consideration of ‘‘Significant Portion of
its Range’’
The ESA defines endangered and
threatened species in terms of the level
of extinction risk ‘‘throughout all or a
significant portion of its range’’
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33121
(sections 3(6) and 3(20)). If it is
determined that the defined species is
not in danger of extinction or likely to
become so throughout all of its range,
but there are major geographic areas
where the species is no longer viable,
the statute directs that we must address
whether such areas represent a
significant portion of the species’ range.
As mentioned above, the BRT expressed
concern regarding declines in the
Cherry Point stock and the nonmigratory inlet stocks in the eastern
Strait of Georgia, but concluded that
these stocks do not represent a
significant portion of the Georgia Basin
DPS’s range. The BRT recognized that
the Cherry Point stock is characterized
by late spawn timing, but noted that this
timing represents the tail of the
distribution of run timing for the DPS as
a whole and overlaps with the range of
spawn timing exhibited by other stocks
in the DPS. The BRT noted that the
Cherry Point stock represents only one
of about 40 recognized herring stocks
and management areas within the DPS.
Although at peak abundance (in the
early 1970s) the Cherry Point stock
possibly represented about 11 percent of
the DPS’s total biomass, other
historically large stocks were severely
depressed at the time due to overharvesting and poor recruitment
conditions. Thus, it is speculative to
conclude that the Cherry Point stock
historically represented a substantial
portion of the ESU’s biomass. With
respect to the declining inlet stocks in
the eastern Strait of Georgia, the BRT
concluded that it is unclear whether
their nonmigratory life history
represents a biologically significant
portion of the DPS. Pentilla (1986)
suggested that some proportion of adult
herring in Puget Sound are
nonmigratory as well. The BRT
observed that it is unclear whether the
nonmigratory life-history type is
specific to certain stocks or is present to
some degree in all herring stocks. Based
on the above information, the BRT
concluded that the declining Cherry
Point and eastern Strait of Georgia inlet
herring stocks individually and
collectively do not represent a
significant portion of the Georgia Basin
DPS’s range.
Efforts Being Made to Protect the
Species
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 taking into account
efforts being made to protect a species
(emphasis added). Therefore, in making
listing determinations we first assess the
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
33122
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Notices
defined species’ level of extinction risk,
and identify factors that have led to its
decline. If it is determined that the
species’ survival is at risk, we then
assess existing efforts being made to
protect the species to determine if those
measures ameliorate the risks faced by
the species. As described above, the
BRT concluded that the defined species’
(the Georgia Basin DPS of Pacific
herring) survival is not at risk. It is not
necessary to assess whether protective
efforts reduce risks to a DPS that has
been determined to be viable.
Listing Determination
Informed by NMFS’ findings that: (1)
the spawning stocks of Pacific herring in
the Georgia Basin (including the marine
waters of Puget Sound, the Strait of
Georgia, and eastern Juan de Fuca Strait
in the United States and Canada)
constitute a DPS; and (2) the DPS is not
in danger of extinction or likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, we conclude that
the Georgia Basin DPS of Pacific herring
does not warrant listing as threatened or
endangered under the ESA.
References
Copies of the BRT’s Status Review
Update report, the petition, and related
materials are available on the Internet at
https://www.nwr.noaa.gov, or upon
request (see ADDRESSES section above).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: June 1, 2005.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–11210 Filed 6–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 031005B]
Small Takes of Marine Mammals
Incidental to Specified Activities; Naval
Explosive Ordnance Disposal School
Training Operations at Eglin Air Force
Base, Florida
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of application
and proposed authorization for
incidental harassment of marine
mammals; request for comments and
information.
AGENCY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:54 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request
from Eglin Air Force Base (EAFB) for
the take of small numbers of marine
mammals, by harassment, incidental to
Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal
School (NEODS) Training Operations at
EAFB, Florida. Under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
is requesting comments on its proposal
to authorize the Air Force to take, by
harassment, small numbers of two
species of cetaceans at EAFB beginning
in July 7, 2005.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than July 7, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the
application should be addressed to
Steve Leathery, Chief, Permits,
Conservation, and Education Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910–3225. The mailbox address for
providing e-mail comments on this
action is PR1.031005B@noaa.gov. NMFS
is not responsible for e-mail comments
sent to addresses other than the one
provided here. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 10–megabyte file size.
Comments may also be submitted via
facsimile to (301) 427–2521. A copy of
the application containing a list of
references used in this document may
be obtained by writing to this address,
by telephoning the contact listed here
(SEE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) or online at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/protlres/PR1/
SmalllTake/
smalltakelinfo.htm#applications.
Documents cited in this notice may be
viewed, by appointment, during regular
business hours, at the aforementioned
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolie
Harrison, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext. 166.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and regulations are issued or,
if the taking is limited to harassment,
notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
may be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have no more than a
negligible impact on the species or
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stock(s) for subsistence uses,
and that the permissible methods of
taking and requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such
taking are set forth.
NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as:
an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected
to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
established an expedited process by
which citizens of the United States can
apply for an authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of
marine mammals by harassment. The
National Defense Authorization Act of
2004 (NDAA) (Public Law 108–136)
amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’
in section 18(A) of the MMPA as it
applies to a ‘‘military readiness activity’’
to read as follows:
(i) any act that injures or has the significant
potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A
Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or
is likely to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing
disruption of natural behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration,
surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering, to a point where such behavioral
patterns are abandoned or significantly
altered (Level B Harassment).
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–
day time limit for NMFS review of an
application followed by a 30–day public
notice and comment period on any
proposed authorizations for the
incidental harassment of small numbers
of marine mammals. Within 45 days of
the close of the comment period, NMFS
must either issue or deny issuance of
the authorization.
Summary of Request
On March 11, 2004, NMFS received
an application from EAFB, under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
requesting authorization for the
harassment of small numbers of Atlantic
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) and Atlantic spotted
dolphins (Stenella frontalis) incidental
to NEODS training operations at EAFB,
Florida, in the northern Gulf of Mexico
(GOM). Each of up to six missions per
year would include up to 5 live
detonations of approximately 5–pound
(2.3–kg) net explosive weight charges to
occur in approximately 60–ft (18.3–m)
deep water from one to three nm (1.9 to
5.6 km) off shore. Because this activity
will be a multi-year activity, NMFS also
plans to develop proposed regulations
for NEODS training operations at EAFB.
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33116-33122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11210]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 040511147-5142-02; I.D. 042804B]
Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating
Critical Habitat: 12-Month Finding on Petition to List the Cherry Point
Stock of Pacific Herring as an Endangered or Threatened Species
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) have completed an updated Endangered Species Act
(ESA) status review of Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), inclusive of
the Cherry Point herring stock (Strait of Georgia, Washington). We
initiated this status review update in response to a petition received
on May 14, 2004, to list the Cherry Point stock of Pacific herring as a
threatened or endangered species. We have determined that the Cherry
Point herring stock does not qualify as a ``species'' for consideration
under the ESA. Based upon the best available
[[Page 33117]]
scientific and commercial information, we conclude that the petitioned
action to list the Cherry Point Pacific herring stock as a threatened
or endangered species is not warranted. We find that the Cherry Point
stock is part of the previously defined Georgia Basin distinct
population segment (DPS) composed of inshore Pacific herring stocks
from Puget Sound (Washington) and the Strait of Georgia (Washington and
British Columbia). We have determined that the Georgia Basin DPS of
Pacific herring is not in danger of extinction or likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and therefore does not warrant ESA listing at
this time.
DATES: The finding announced in this notice was made on June 1, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The status review update for Pacific herring and the list of
references cited in this notice are available upon request from Chief,
NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Avenue, Suite 1100,
Portland, OR, 97232. These materials are also available on the Internet
at: https://www.nwr.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this
notice contact Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region, (503) 231-2005,
or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Considerations
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species,
subspecies, or a DPS of any vertebrate species which interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(15)). On February 7, 1996, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and NMFS adopted a policy to clarify the agencies'
interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife'' (ESA section 3(15)) for the
purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the
ESA (51 FR 4722). The joint DPS policy identified two elements that
must be considered when making DPS determinations: (1) the discreteness
of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species
(or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the
population segment to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to
which it belongs.
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as ``any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range,'' and a threatened species as one ``which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' The statute
lists factors that may cause a species to be threatened or endangered
(ESA section 4(a)(1)): (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.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires NMFS to make listing
determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available after conducting a review of the status of the species and
after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species. In
making listing determinations under the ESA we first determine whether
a population or group of populations constitutes a DPS (i.e., whether
the populations(s) should be considered a ``species'' within the
meaning of the ESA), and if so we assess the level of extinction risk
faced by the DPS and any factors that have led to its decline. If it is
determined that the DPS' survival is at risk throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, we then assess efforts being made to
protect the species, determining if these efforts are adequate to
mitigate threats to the species. Based on the foregoing information and
the factors identified in ESA section 4(a)(1), we then make a listing
determination of whether the species is threatened, the species is
endangered, or listing is not warranted.
Life History of Pacific Herring
Pacific herring in the Eastern Pacific Ocean range from northern
Baja California north to at least the Mackenzie Delta in the Beaufort
Sea. They are also found in the Russian Arctic from the Chukchi Sea in
the east to the White Sea in the west, although the boundary between
Atlantic and Pacific herring is unclear in this region (Hay et al.,
2001b). In the Northwestern Pacific they are found throughout the
Western Bering Sea, the east coast of Kamchatka, and the Sea of
Okhotsk; on the east and west coasts of Hokkaido, Japan; and south and
west to the Yellow Sea off the Korean Peninsula (Haegele and
Schweigert, 1985; Hay et al., 2001b).
Adult herring in the Eastern Pacific move inshore during winter and
early spring and reside in holding areas before moving to adjacent
spawning grounds (Hay, 1985). Spawning grounds are typically in
sheltered inlets, sounds, bays, and estuaries (Haegele and Schweigert,
1985). Pacific herring usually spawn intertidally or in shallow
subtidal zones, depositing adhesive eggs over algae, vegetation, or
other substrates (Hay, 1985). The location and timing of spawning for
individual stocks are generally consistent and predictable from year to
year (Hay et al., 1989; O'Toole et al., 2000).
Pacific herring spawn timing varies with latitude, with earlier
spawning (i.e., early-winter) occurring in the more southern latitudes
of the species' range, and later spawning (i.e., mid-summer) occurring
toward the northern limit of the species' range (Hay, 1985). In Puget
Sound, spawning generally occurs from January to April, with peak
spawning activity in February and March; however, Pacific herring at
Cherry Point spawn from late-March to mid-June (Bargmann, 1998).
Pacific herring larvae drift in ocean currents after hatching and
are abundant in shallow nearshore waters (Lassuy, 1989; Hay and
McCarter, 1997). After 2 to 3 months, larvae metamorphose into
juveniles that form large schools and remain primarily in nearshore
shallow-water areas during the first summer. After their first summer,
juveniles may disperse to deeper offshore waters to mature or reside
year-round in nearshore waters (Hay, 1985). For example, some herring
are nonmigratory or resident and spend their entire life within Puget
Sound and the Strait of Georgia, while other more migratory herring
spend their summers in the offshore waters of Washington and southern
British Columbia (Hay et al., 2001a; Trumble, 1983).
Pacific herring age at first maturity ranges from age-2 to age-5
(Hay, 1985). Along the west coast of North America, populations of
Pacific herring exhibit a latitudinal cline in age at first maturity,
such that herring in southern locations (i.e., California) mature at an
earlier age and herring in the north (i.e., Bering Sea) mature at later
ages (Hay, 1985). In Puget Sound, Pacific herring reach sexual maturity
at age-2 to age-4 (Bargmann, 1998). Pacific herring in the Strait of
Georgia and other major assessment areas in British Columbia reach
sexual maturity at age-3 (Hay and McCarter, 1999). In general,
populations of Pacific herring also exhibit a latitudinal cline in mean
size-at-age, such that herring in southern locations (i.e., California)
exhibit small size and herring in the north (i.e., Bering Sea) attain a
far larger size at a similar age. Herring may spawn annually for
several years (Hay, 1985), with overall
[[Page 33118]]
fecundity increasing as body size increases (Ware, 1985; Hay, 1985).
In the state of Washington there are 21 documented spawning stocks:
19 stocks in Puget Sound (including the Cherry Point stock and the
recently re-discovered Wollochet Bay stock), and two on the Washington
Coast (Bargmann, 1998; Stout et al., 2001). The Cherry Point Pacific
herring stock historically spawned along the Washington coastline from
Hale Passage (between the north end of Bellingham Bay and the east
coast of Lummi Island), north to Cherry Point, Birch Point, Point
Roberts, and the border with Canada (Lemberg et al., 1997). Since 1996,
spawning of the Cherry Point stock has only occurred in the vicinity of
Birch Point and along the Cherry Point Reach. Spawning at Cherry Point
can begin as early as late-March and end as late as mid-June, although
peak spawning activity occurs around May 10th (O'Toole et al., 2000).
Spawning at all other Pacific herring locations in Puget Sound, Hood
Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca normally occurs from late-January
through late-April (Trumble, 1983; Lemberg et al., 1997; O'Toole et
al., 2000) with peak spawning starting the last week of February or the
first week of March (O'Toole et al., 2000).
Since record keeping began in 1928, British Columbia Pacific
herring have been observed to spawn at over 1,300 locations along the
approximately 5,200 km of coastline that is classified as herring
spawning habitat (Hay and McCarter, 2004). In any given year, between
450 and 600 km of the British Columbia coast receives herring spawn.
The Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans has identified six stock
assessment regions and 101 sub-areas or ``Herring Sections''
characterized by consistent Pacific herring spawning activity. In
general, Pacific herring spawn from January to May in southern British
Columbia and from mid-January to June in northern British Columbia
(Taylor, 1964; Hourston, 1980). As at Cherry Point, Pacific herring in
several Herring Sections in British Columbia exhibit notably late spawn
timing for their local region (e.g., Skidegate Inlet [Section 022] and
Masset Inlet [Section 011] in the Queen Charlotte Islands Region and
Burke Channel [Section 084] in the Central Coast Region) (Hay et al.,
1989).
Previous Federal Actions Relating to Pacific Herring
We completed a status review of Pacific Herring in 2001 (Stout et
al., 2001). This earlier review was initiated in response to a petition
received in February 1999 to list 18 species of marine fishes in Puget
Sound, including Pacific herring. We concluded that the Pacific herring
stocks in Puget Sound do not constitute a DPS (and therefore do not
qualify as a ``species'' under the ESA). We determined that these Puget
Sound herring stocks, including the Cherry Point stock, belonged to a
larger Georgia Basin Pacific herring DPS consisting of over 40 inshore
stocks from Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia in the United States
and Canada (64 FR 17659; April 3, 2001). We concluded that the Georgia
Basin DPS is not threatened or endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (64 FR 17659; April 3, 2001); however,
we did note concern regarding two herring stocks within the Georgia
Basin DPS (the Cherry Point and Discovery Bay stocks) that have shown
marked declines in range and abundance. Although we recognized that
these two declining stocks may be vulnerable to extirpation, we
concluded that they represent a relatively small portion of the more
than 40 stocks and assessment areas composing the DPS and do not confer
significant risk to the DPS throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
Summary of Petitions Received
On January 22, 2004, NMFS received a petition from the Northwest
Ecosystem Alliance, the Center for Biological Diversity, Ocean
Advocates, People for Puget Sound, Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility, Sam Wright, and the Friends of the San Juans to find
that the Cherry Point (Washington) stock of Pacific herring qualifies
as a DPS and warrants listing as a threatened or endangered species
under the ESA. Subsequently, on May 14, 2004, the same petitioners
submitted additional information including new genetic information on
the stock structure of Pacific herring in Puget Sound and the Strait of
Georgia (Washington) that had become available since the initial
petition was received on January 22, 2004. We considered the
petitioners' supplemental submission (in conjunction with the January
22, 2004, submission) as a distinct petition received by the agency on
May 14, 2004. On August 10, 2004, we issued our finding that the
petition received on January 22, 2004, fails to present substantial
scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted, but that the petition received on May 14,
2004, does present substantial scientific and commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (69 FR 48455).
For a summary of the specific information presented in the two
petitions, the reader is referred to the above mentioned Federal
Register notice describing the petition findings. Most significantly,
the petition received on May 14, 2004, presented new genetic
information (Small et al., 2004) indicating that the Cherry Point
herring stock may be ``discrete'' and ``significant'' with respect to
the species, and may thereby qualify as a DPS for listing consideration
under the ESA. The majority of the information provided by the
petitioners regarding the viability of the Cherry Point herring stock
was evaluated in our earlier 2001 status review. The Cherry Point
herring stock has declined dramatically over the last three decades,
with the spawning biomass in 2000 representing a 94 percent decline
from historical observations. The 2001 status review noted that there
was a 50 percent chance that the Cherry Point stock would decline to 1
ton or less in 100 years (Stout et al., 2001). The petitioners also
provided additional biomass information from 2001-2004 for the period
since the 2001 status review.
Updated Status Review of Pacific Herring
The ESA requires that, as a consequence of accepting the above
petition, NMFS promptly commence a review of the species' status and
make a finding within 12 months after receiving the petition, whether
the petitioned action is warranted (ESA Section 4(b)(3)). To ensure
that our review was based on the best available and most recent
scientific information, we solicited information during a 60-day public
comment period regarding the DPS structure and extinction risk of, and
efforts being made to protect, the species (69 FR 48455; August 10,
2004).
We convened a Biological Review Team (BRT) (an expert panel of
scientists from NMFS' Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Science Centers,
and NOAA's National Ocean Service) to review the available information
and determine: (1) the DPS structure of Pacific herring, specifically
whether the Cherry Point herring stock qualifies as a ``species'' for
consideration under the ESA; and (2) whether the identified DPS(s) are
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The BRT's
findings are presented in a January 24, 2005, memorandum ``Summary of
Scientific Conclusions of the Status of Cherry Point Pacific Herring
(Clupea pallasii) and Update of the Status of the Georgia
[[Page 33119]]
Basin Pacific Herring DPS,'' and are summarized briefly below.
Determination of ``Species''
Under the joint DPS policy (51 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) 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 there is a
significant difference in exploitation control, habitat management or
conservation status. Under the joint DPS policy, 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 cause 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.
The BRT considered several types of information in evaluating the
DPS structure of Pacific herring, including whether the Cherry Point
herring stock qualifies for listing consideration as an independent
DPS. Information considered in evaluating the discreteness of stocks
include: (1) geographic variability in life-history characteristics and
morphology; (2) tagging and recapture studies indicating the level of
migration among stocks; and (3) genetic differentiation among stocks
reflective of marked reproductive isolation.
Relationship of Stock and DPS Concepts
Pacific herring in the vicinity of Cherry Point (Washington) are
considered to be a stock for management purposes in the state of
Washington (Bargmann, 1998). There is no definition of the term
``stock'' that is generally accepted by fisheries biologists (Stout et
al., 2001). The term stock has been used to refer to: (1) fish spawning
in a particular place or time, separated to a substantial degree from
fish spawning in a different place or time (Ricker, 1972); (2) a
population sharing a common environment that is sufficiently discrete
to warrant consideration as a self-perpetuating system that can be
managed separately (Larkin, 1972); (3) a species group or population of
fish that maintains and sustains itself over time in a definable area
(Booke, 1981); and (4) an intraspecific group of randomly mating
individuals with temporal or spatial integrity (Ihssen et al., 1981).
None of these definitions imply that a fish stock is ecologically,
biologically, or physiologically significant in relation to the
biological species as a whole. Hence, information establishing a group
of fish as a stock, such as the Cherry Point stock of Pacific herring,
does not necessarily qualify it as a DPS. A DPS may be composed of a
group of related stocks, or in some cases (if the evidence warrants) a
single stock, that form(s) a discrete population and are (is)
significant to the biological species as a whole.
Pacific Herring as a Metapopulation
A ``metapopulation'' is an aggregation of subpopulations linked by
migration, and subject to periodic extinction and recolonization events
(Levins, 1968, 1970). Observations of herring population structure in
the Atlantic and Pacific are consistent with this metapopulation
concept (McQuinn, 1997; Ware et al., 2000; Ware and Schweigert, 2001
,2002; Ware and Tovey, 2004): (1) local herring stocks are distributed
across spatially fragmented spawning habitat; (2) local stocks exhibit
partially independent demographics and dynamics; (3) there is
appreciable straying and gene flow among local populations; and (4)
there is evidence of disappearance and recolonization events.
Consistent with the consideration of Pacific herring as a
metapopulation, local spawning stocks of herring may demonstrate
distinctive demographic patterns and reproductive isolation over
relatively short temporal scales, yet over longer time periods
regularly exchange low levels of individuals or experience periodic
waves of dispersal during years of abundant recruitment.
DPS Determination for the Cherry Point Stock of Pacific Herring
The BRT concluded that the Cherry Point stock of Pacific herring
was ``discrete'' under the DPS policy (NMFS, 2005). The BRT determined
that the Cherry Point stock is markedly separated from other Pacific
herring populations as a consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors due to: (1) its locally unique late
spawn timing; (2) the locally unusual location of its spawning habitat
on an exposed section of coastline; (3) its consistently large size-at-
age and continued growth after maturation relative to other local
herring stocks; and (4) its differential accumulation of toxic
compounds relative to other local herring stocks, indicative of
different rearing or migratory conditions for Cherry Point herring.
Although the BRT determined that the Cherry Point stock represents
a discrete population, the BRT concluded that the stock is not
``significant'' to the taxon, and hence does not constitute a DPS
(NMFS, 2005). The BRT noted that: (1) over the broad geographic range
of Pacific herring, the local distinctiveness of the Cherry Point stock
is not unusual; (2) the late spawn timing of the Cherry Point stock is
not exceptional for Pacific herring, as there are other Pacific herring
stocks with similarly exceptionally late (as well as early) spawn
timing for their local region; (3) other Pacific herring stocks have
spawning habitats located on exposed coastlines subject to high-energy
wave action; and (4), given the level of genetic variability observed
within and between herring stocks, the level of genetic differentiation
exhibited by the Cherry Point stock was unlikely to indicate a marked
or evolutionarily significant level of differentiation. Based on this
information, the BRT concluded that the Cherry Point stock does not
satisfy the applicable DPS criteria for significance: Cherry Point does
not represent a unique or unusual ecological setting for Pacific
herring; the loss of the Cherry Point herring stock would not result in
a significant gap in the extensive range of Pacific herring; and the
Cherry Point stock does not exhibit marked genetic differentiation
relative to other Pacific herring populations.
Petition Finding
As summarized above, the May 14, 2004, petition submitted by the
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance and co-petitioners sought a finding that
the Cherry Point (Washington) stock of Pacific herring qualifies as a
DPS and warrants listing as a threatened or endangered species under
the ESA. In a Federal Register notice published on August 10, 2004 (69
FR 48455), we published the finding that the petition presented
substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. As described in the preceding
section, we have determined that the Cherry Point stock of Pacific
herring is ``discrete,'' but is not ``significant'' under the joint
NMFS/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service DPS policy. Thus, the
[[Page 33120]]
Cherry Point herring stock does not qualify as a DPS for listing
consideration under the ESA. Accordingly, we find that the action
sought by the May 14, 2004, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance et al.
petition is not warranted.
DPS Determination for Pacific Herring in the Georgia Basin
The BRT considered a number of alternative DPS configurations for
Pacific herring incorporating the Cherry Point herring stock, ranging
from the previously identified Georgia Basin DPS to a DPS encompassing
Pacific herring from San Diego (California) to Sitka (Alaska). Evidence
suggesting a DPS configuration larger than the Georgia Basin includes:
(1) tagging studies indicating that straying among herring stocks
occurs at spatial scales exceeding that of the Georgia Basin; (2)
information indicating relative genetic homogeneity of Pacific herring
stocks in the Pacific Northwest, Strait of Georgia, and British
Columbia; and (3) evidence supporting the concept that local herring
stocks are part of a larger Pacific herring metapopulation.
Notwithstanding this information, the majority of the BRT favored the
previous delineation of a Georgia Basin DPS of Pacific herring, finding
that the available information is insufficient to warrant modification
of the previous DPS delineation (NMFS, 2005). A variety of evidence
supports the finding that Georgia Basin Pacific herring satisfy the
criteria for discreteness and significance under the joint DPS policy,
including: the similarity in age composition of herring stocks in the
Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound supporting the discreteness of
Georgia Basin Pacific herring, and the ecological uniqueness of the
inshore waters of Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia supporting the
significance of the Pacific herring in the Georgia Basin to the taxon
as-a-whole. (For a more detailed discussion of the information
supporting the delineation of the Georgia Basin DPS of Pacific herring,
the reader is referred to the Stout et al., 2001, status review). The
BRT delineated the Georgia Basin DPS as encompassing spawning stocks of
Pacific herring in the marine waters of Puget Sound, the Strait of
Georgia, and eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca in the United States and
Canada.
Review of the Species' Status
The ESA defines an endangered species as any species in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
threatened species as any species likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the
listing determination be based solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status of
the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, being made
to protect such species.
The BRT considered the best available biological information to
assess the level of extinction risk for the Georgia Basin DPS of
Pacific herring. The BRT evaluated the DPS's extinction risk based on
risks to its abundance, productivity, spatial structure (including
spatial distribution and connectivity), and diversity. These four
``Viable Salmonid Population'' (VSP; McElhany et al., 2000) criteria
were developed to provide a consistent and logical framework for
assessing risks to populations and DPSs of West Coast salmon and
steelhead. Although initially developed for application to salmonid
metapopulations, the VSP criteria are well founded in the conservation
biology literature. Threats to a species' long-term persistence are
manifested demographically as risks to its abundance, productivity,
spatial structure, and productivity. These demographic risks thus
provide the most direct and robust biological indicators of extinction
risk. The BRT's assessment of extinction risk did not include an
evaluation of the likely or potential contribution of efforts being
made to protect the species, but was based solely on the available
biological information assuming that present conditions will continue,
and recognizing that natural demographic and environmental variability
is an inherent feature of present conditions. Below we summarize the
BRT's assessment of demographic risks to the Georgia Basin DPS's
abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity, as well as
the BRT's extinction risk assessment for the DPS based on these risks.
Evaluation of Demographic Risks to the DPS
The majority opinion of the BRT was that there is very low risk to
the abundance of the Georgia Basin DPS, concluding that it is unlikely
that the current trends and levels of abundance contribute
significantly to the risk of extinction for the DPS, either by
themselves or in combination with other factors. The BRT noted that the
overall abundance of the DPS is at historically high levels since
monitoring began in the 1930s, in terms of the estimated biomass (the
recent abundance is well over 100,000 metric tons) and numbers of
herring (estimated at more than half a billion mature herring).
However, the BRT was concerned about the observed decline in the number
of the Cherry Point herring spawners from an estimated 24 million fish
in 2003 to 14 million fish in 2004.
The majority opinion of the BRT was that there is low risk to the
productivity of the DPS, concluding that it is unlikely to contribute
significantly to the risk of extinction for the DPS by itself, but that
there may be concern in combination with other factors. The BRT noted
that the DPS as a whole is highly productive with the overall
population trend and growth rate being highly positive. The BRT
observed that the overall DPS appeared to be in steep decline in the
1960s. However, some stocks have exhibited high levels of productivity
conferring resiliency to the DPS and reflecting an apparent ability to
rebound from past declines. The recent short-term trend for the overall
DPS is also very positive and recruitment levels remain high, despite
an apparent increase in adult mortality, possibly due to predation by
seals, disease factors, and other risk factors.
The BRT's appraisal of risk to the spatial structure of the DPS
ranged from very low risk to increasing risk. The majority opinion of
the BRT was that the DPS faces low risk to its spatial structure,
concluding that it is unlikely that spatial distribution and
connectivity contribute significantly to the risk of extinction by
themselves, and that there is some concern that they may in combination
with other factors. The BRT noted that the DPS remains well
distributed, with no gaps in the geographic range of spawning within
the DPS. All, or nearly all, of the historically occupied areas
continue to support spawning, and moderate migration rates based on
tagging information indicate little loss of connectivity among stocks
within the DPS. The BRT noted that increasing trends in the DPS are not
uniformly distributed among stocks or spawning areas, with the Central
and Northeastern portions of the DPS exhibiting declines. The BRT was
concerned that the bulk of the spawning distribution and abundance and
productivity in the DPS has become spatially compacted, particularly in
the northern half of the DPS. However, the BRT felt that declining
trends in some parts of the DPS are not a major concern in the context
of a herring metapopulation, particularly in light of observations of
high connectivity among stocks, and evidence of disappearance and
subsequent recolonization events in the
[[Page 33121]]
British Columbia portion of the DPS. The BRT also felt that the spatial
compaction of the most abundant and productive spawning stocks may be a
natural phenomenon.
The majority opinion of the BRT was that there is low risk to the
diversity of the DPS, concluding that it is unlikely that diversity
contributes significantly to the risk of extinction for the DPS, but
that it may in combination with other factors. The BRT noted that the
DPS continues to exhibit diversity in spawn timing and migratory
behavior both within and among spawning stocks. Although there is
limited long-term data regarding the genetic diversity of the DPS, the
BRT concluded that there has been no apparent genetic loss as compared
to other marine species. The BRT noted concern that the life-history
diversity of the DPS has apparently declined with the compression of
population age structure (a much smaller proportion of older age
classes), the decline of late-spawning herring (principally the Cherry
Point herring stock), and an apparent decline in nonmigratory inlet
herring stocks on the eastern side of the Strait of Georgia. The BRT
was uncertain whether the migratory/nonmigratory life-history types are
specific to certain populations, or are present to some degree in most
or all spawning stocks in the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound.
Assessment of the Risk of Extinction
Informed by its assessment of demographic risks to the DPS, and a
consideration of the interactions among demographic risks, the BRT
concluded that the Georgia Basin DPS of Pacific herring is not at risk
of extinction in all or a significant portion of its range, nor likely
to become so in the foreseeable future. The BRT noted that the overall
abundance of the DPS is at historically high levels, and that the
linear extent of coastline used for spawning has been increasing. The
BRT concluded that the available information suggests that spawning
stocks in the Georgia Basin DPS operate as a ``mixed structure''
metapopulation (Harrison and Taylor, 1997) in which all subpopulations
are connected by migration, but some are relatively discrete with
weaker demographic linkages to other subpopulations in the DPS. It is
expected in a viable metapopulation that some local subpopulations will
be in decline, other subpopulations will be increasing, and some
suitable habitat patches may be unoccupied. Accordingly, the
observation that some local stocks are declining (principally the
Cherry Point stock, and the nonmigratory inlet stocks in the eastern
Strait of Georgia) is not by itself cause for concern about the long-
term viability of the DPS. Additionally, given the metapopulation
structure of the DPS, the BRT did not feel that the low demographic
risks (described in the previous section) collectively represent a risk
to the long-term viability of the DPS. The few declining stocks
represent a small proportion of the more than 40 stocks and assessment
areas that compose the Georgia Basin DPS. Evidence of significant
migration among stocks, high levels of gene flow, and disappearance and
subsequent recolonization events for Georgia Basin Pacific herring
suggest that local extirpations or stock declines confer little risk to
the overall DPS. The specific stocks exhibiting decline, however,
appear to exhibit greater demographic independence on generational time
scales relative to other stocks within the DPS. It is possible, given
their weaker connectivity with other spawning stocks in the DPS, that
if these declining stocks were lost, recolonization might take longer
than it might for a classical metapopulation in which subpopulations
are connected by higher rates of exchange. Nonetheless, the BRT did not
feel that the current risks to these declining stocks posed risks to
the DPS as a whole, or to any significant portion of the DPS.
The BRT considered whether recent factors have disrupted the
function of the metapopulation such that its long-term viability is
compromised. The BRT concluded that the patterns of abundance and
distribution within the Georgia Basin DPS appear to be typical of what
is seen in other herring metapopulations throughout northwestern North
America, including metapopulations in relatively pristine areas in
southeastern Alaska and British Columbia. The BRT noted, however, that
if habitat areas were lost or permanently degraded to the point that
they lacked the potential to support a spawning subpopulation, this
could seriously impair the function of the entire metapopulation. The
BRT concluded that the declining Cherry Point and eastern Strait of
Georgia inlet stocks do not appear to be limited by habitat factors.
The BRT concluded that the available evidence does not suggest unusual
levels of risk to the DPS as a whole, nor to any significant portion of
the DPS.
Consideration of ``Significant Portion of its Range''
The ESA defines endangered and threatened species in terms of the
level of extinction risk ``throughout all or a significant portion of
its range'' (sections 3(6) and 3(20)). If it is determined that the
defined species is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so
throughout all of its range, but there are major geographic areas where
the species is no longer viable, the statute directs that we must
address whether such areas represent a significant portion of the
species' range. As mentioned above, the BRT expressed concern regarding
declines in the Cherry Point stock and the non-migratory inlet stocks
in the eastern Strait of Georgia, but concluded that these stocks do
not represent a significant portion of the Georgia Basin DPS's range.
The BRT recognized that the Cherry Point stock is characterized by late
spawn timing, but noted that this timing represents the tail of the
distribution of run timing for the DPS as a whole and overlaps with the
range of spawn timing exhibited by other stocks in the DPS. The BRT
noted that the Cherry Point stock represents only one of about 40
recognized herring stocks and management areas within the DPS. Although
at peak abundance (in the early 1970s) the Cherry Point stock possibly
represented about 11 percent of the DPS's total biomass, other
historically large stocks were severely depressed at the time due to
over-harvesting and poor recruitment conditions. Thus, it is
speculative to conclude that the Cherry Point stock historically
represented a substantial portion of the ESU's biomass. With respect to
the declining inlet stocks in the eastern Strait of Georgia, the BRT
concluded that it is unclear whether their nonmigratory life history
represents a biologically significant portion of the DPS. Pentilla
(1986) suggested that some proportion of adult herring in Puget Sound
are nonmigratory as well. The BRT observed that it is unclear whether
the nonmigratory life-history type is specific to certain stocks or is
present to some degree in all herring stocks. Based on the above
information, the BRT concluded that the declining Cherry Point and
eastern Strait of Georgia inlet herring stocks individually and
collectively do not represent a significant portion of the Georgia
Basin DPS's range.
Efforts Being Made to Protect the Species
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 taking into account efforts being made
to protect a species (emphasis added). Therefore, in making listing
determinations we first assess the
[[Page 33122]]
defined species' level of extinction risk, and identify factors that
have led to its decline. If it is determined that the species' survival
is at risk, we then assess existing efforts being made to protect the
species to determine if those measures ameliorate the risks faced by
the species. As described above, the BRT concluded that the defined
species' (the Georgia Basin DPS of Pacific herring) survival is not at
risk. It is not necessary to assess whether protective efforts reduce
risks to a DPS that has been determined to be viable.
Listing Determination
Informed by NMFS' findings that: (1) the spawning stocks of Pacific
herring in the Georgia Basin (including the marine waters of Puget
Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and eastern Juan de Fuca Strait in the
United States and Canada) constitute a DPS; and (2) the DPS is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we
conclude that the Georgia Basin DPS of Pacific herring does not warrant
listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
References
Copies of the BRT's Status Review Update report, the petition, and
related materials are available on the Internet at https://
www.nwr.noaa.gov, or upon request (see ADDRESSES section above).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: June 1, 2005.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-11210 Filed 6-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
