![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat: Petitions to List the Cherry Point Stock of Pacific Herring as an Endangered or Threatened Species
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 10, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 48455-48460]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au04-44]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 040511147-4147-01; I.D. 042804B]
Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating
Critical Habitat: Petitions 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 findings; request for information; and initiation of
status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS received a petition on January 22, 2004, to list the
Cherry Point (Puget Sound, Washington) stock of Pacific herring (Clupea
pallasi) as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). NMFS finds that the January 22, 2004, petition fails
to present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted. On May 14, 2004, the same
petitioners submitted additional scientific information, including
information regarding the stock structure of the Cherry Point and other
Pacific Northwest herring stocks. NMFS considers the petitioners'
supplemental submission (in conjunction with the original January 22,
2004, submission) as a distinct petition received by the agency on May
14, 2004. NMFS finds that the supplemental May 14, 2004, petition does
present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted. Accordingly, NMFS is
initiating a status review of the species. To ensure that the status
review is complete and based upon the best available scientific and
commercial information, NMFS is soliciting information regarding: the
population structure and viability of nearshore stocks of Pacific
herring in Puget Sound (Washington) and the Strait of Georgia
(Washington and British Columbia); efforts being made to protect the
species; and potential peer reviewers.
DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by October 12, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 040511147-
4147-01, by any of the following methods:
? E-mail: herring.nwr@.noaa.gov. Include Docket No.
040511147-4147-01 in the subject line of the message.
? Agency Web Site: http://ocio.nmfs.noaa.gov/ibrm-ssi/
index.shtml. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments
at: http://ocio.nmfs.noaa.gov/ibrm-ssi/process.shtml.
? Mail: Submit written comments and information to Chief,
NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500,
Portland, Oregon, 97232-2737. You may hand-deliver written comments to
our office during normal business hours at the street address given
above.
? Hand Delivery/Courier: NMFS, Protected Resources Division,
525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, Oregon, 97232-2737.
? Fax: 503-230-5435
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
On January 22, 2004, NMFS received a petition (hereafter referred
to as ``the January 22nd 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 Distinct
Population Segment (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
NMFS' receipt of the January 22nd petition. Upon receipt of the
supplemental information, NMFS had not made its 90-day finding on the
January 22nd petition. NMFS is treating the supplemental submission, in
conjunction with the information already submitted by the same
petitioners on January 22, 2004, as a new petition received by the
agency on May 14, 2004 (hereafter referred to as the ``May 14th
petition''). Copies of the two petitions are available from NMFS (See
ADDRESSES section, above, and ``References'' section, below).
ESA Statutory and Policy Provisions
Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains provisions concerning petitions
from interested persons requesting the
[[Page 48456]]
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to list species under the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). Section 4(b)(3)(A) requires that, to the maximum
extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving such a petition, the
Secretary make a finding whether the petition presents substantial
scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted. NMFS' ESA implementing regulations define
``substantial information'' as the amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the
petition may be warranted. In evaluating a petitioned action, the
Secretary considers several factors, including whether the petition
contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure,
describing, based on available information, past and present numbers
and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the
species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)). In addition, the Secretary considers
whether the petition provides information regarding the status of the
species over all or a significant portion of its range (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)(iii)).
For the subject January 22\nd\ and May 14\th\ petitions, NMFS
evaluated whether the information provided and cited therein meets the
ESA's standard for ``substantial information.'' The agency also
reviewed other information readily available to NMFS scientists (i.e.,
currently within agency files) to determine whether there is general
agreement with the information presented in the petitions. NMFS further
consulted with co-manager Pacific herring experts from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and from Washington tribes
including the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, the Lummi Indian
Nation, the Suquamish Tribe, and the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission.
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.
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 population include: persistence of the
discrete population in an unusual or unique ecological setting for the
taxon; evidence that the loss of the discrete population segment would
cause a significant gap in the taxon's range; 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 evidence that the discrete population
segment has marked genetic differences from other populations of the
species.
A species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and
``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(ESA Sections 3(6) and 3(19), respectively).
Life History of Pacific Herring
Pacific herring in the Eastern Pacific Ocean range from northern
Baja California north to Cape Bathurst in the Beaufort Sea (Hart, 1973;
Lassuy, 1989). They are also found in Arctic waters from Coronation
Gulf, to the Chukchi Sea, and the Russian Arctic. In the Western
Pacific they are found from Toyama Bay, Japan, west to Korea and the
Yellow Sea (Haegele and Schweigert, 1985; Wang, 1986).
Pacific herring adults 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 in shallow subtidal zones, depositing adhesive
eggs over algae, vegetation, or other substrates (Emmett et al., 1991).
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).
Herring spawning time varies with latitude, with earlier spawning
times (e.g., early winter) occurring in the more southern latitudes of
the species' range, and later spawning times (e.g., mid-summer)
occurring toward the north of the species' range (Hay, 1985). In Puget
Sound, spawning generally occurs from January to April, with peak
spawning activity in February and March (Bargmann, 1998).
Pacific herring larvae drift in the 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 which form large schools and remain primarily in inshore
waters during their first summer. Juveniles usually stay in nearshore
shallow-water areas until fall. After their first summer, juveniles may
disperse to deeper offshore waters to mature (Stocker and Kronlund,
1985), or reside year-round nearshore or in estuaries prior to spawning
(Hay, 1985). For example, in Puget Sound some herring stocks spend
their entire life residing within Puget Sound, while other stocks are
migratory and occur during summer in the coastal areas off Washington
and southern British Columbia (Trumble, 1983). The age at first
maturity is generally 2 to 5 years (Hay, 1985), with lengths ranging
from 13 to 26 cm (Garrison and Miller, 1982; Emmett et al., 1991). In
Puget Sound, Pacific herring reach sexual maturity at age-2 to age-4
(Bargmann, 1998), while stocks in the Strait of Georgia and other major
Pacific herring assessment areas in British Columbia reach sexual
maturity at age-3 (Hay and McCarter, 1999). Herring may spawn annually
for several years (Bargmann, 2001), with fecundity increasing as their
body size increases (Hart, 1973).
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 Woolochet Bay stock), and two on the Washington
Coast (Bargmann, 1998; Koenings, 2000). The Cherry Point herring stock
spawns along the coastline from the north end of Bellingham Bay and
Lummi Island (Washington), north to Point Roberts (Canada) (Lemberg et
al., 1997). The Cherry Point stock exhibits later spawning time (late
March to early June) than other Puget Sound stocks (January to late
April) (Lemberg et al., 1997), but
[[Page 48457]]
similar to some locations in British Columbia (Stout et al., 2001).
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 all fisheries biologists (Stout
et al., 2001). The term stock has been used to refer to: fish spawning
in a particular place or time, separated to a substantial degree from
fish spawning in a different place or time (Ricker, 1972); 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); a species group or population of fish that
maintains and sustains itself over time in a definable area (Booke,
1981); and, 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.
2001 Pacific Herring Status Review
NMFS completed a status review of Pacific Herring in 2001 (Stout et
al., 2001). NMFS initiated this review in response to a petition
received in February 1999 to list 18 species of marine fishes in Puget
Sound, including Pacific herring. NMFS concluded that the Pacific
herring stocks in Puget Sound do not constitute a DPS, and thereby do
not qualify as a ``species'' under the ESA. NMFS found that these
stocks, including the Cherry Point herring stock, belonged to a larger
Georgia Basin Pacific herring DPS consisting of inshore stocks from
Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia (64 FR 17659; April 3, 2001). The
stocks within the Georgia Basin DPS exhibit consistent spawning times
and locations. There is considerable evidence of straying by adults and
juveniles (Hay et al., 1999), resulting in little genetic
differentiation among stocks. NMFS noted that several herring stocks
within the Georgia Basin DPS (including the Cherry Point stock) have
shown marked declines in range and abundance, and are classified as
``depressed'' or ``critical'' by the state of Washington (Bargmann,
1998). However, NMFS concluded that the Georgia Basin Pacific herring
DPS is not threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (64 FR 17659; April 3, 2001).
Analysis of the Petitions
NMFS evaluated the petitions to determine if they present
substantial scientific and commercial information to suggest that the
Cherry Point herring stock may qualify as a DPS, and, if so, that such
a DPS may be threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. NMFS was especially interested in information
that was not considered in the Stout et al. (2001) Pacific herring
status review. Essential considerations in evaluating the petitions
included whether they present substantial information indicating: (1)
the discreteness of the Cherry Point herring stock; (2) the
significance of the Cherry Point herring stock; and, if these first two
were satisfied, (3) the risk to the survival of a putative Cherry Point
Pacific herring DPS throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Upon receipt of the January 22\nd\ petition, scientists at NMFS'
Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) evaluated the information
contained therein, as well as other information available to the
agency. Additionally, NMFS consulted with co-manager Pacific herring
experts from the WDFW and Washington tribes. The NWFSC presented its
review of the January 22\nd\ petition in a March 30, 2004, memorandum
(NMFS, 2004a). Upon receipt of the May 14\th\ petition, the NWFSC
evaluated the information contained therein, in conjunction with the
material previously submitted in the January 22nd petition. This latter
review is presented in a July 19, 2004 memorandum (NMFS, 2004b). NMFS'
analysis of the petitions is summarized below, and organized with
respect to the discreteness, significance, and survival risk of the
Cherry Point Pacific herring stock.
January 22nd Petition
Discreteness of the Population Segment
Genetic Information NMFS' 2001 determination of a Georgia Basin
Pacific herring DPS considered, in part, genetic analyses of protein
variants called ``allozymes'' (Utter, 1972; Utter et al., 1974; Grant,
1979, 1981; Grant and Utter, 1984). Allozyme variation in Pacific
herring indicates genetic differentiation over relatively large
geographic areas, such as among herring in Asia, the East Bering Sea,
the Gulf of Alaska, and the Eastern North Pacific (Grant and Utter,
1984). The January 22\nd\ petition presents genetic information that
the petitioners contend suggest that the Cherry Point herring stock is
discrete under the joint DPS policy. The January 22\nd\ petition
presents new genetic information from the Canadian Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (Beacham et al., 2001, 2002) addressing the Cherry
Point stock and stocks in British Columbia.
Beacham et al. (2001), using microsatellite DNA analyses, compared
levels of genetic distance among 65 herring samples from Southeast
Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington. Microsatellite DNA markers,
such as those used in Beacham et al. (2001), can potentially detect
stock structure on finer spatial and temporal scales than can other DNA
or protein markers (Stout et al., 2001). Beacham et al. (2001) found no
genetic differentiation among samples from the five British Columbia
herring management stocks. However, a few samples, including the sample
from Cherry Point, exhibited statistically significant allele frequency
differences at some microsatellite loci compared to other samples in
the study. The petitioners conclude in the January 22\nd\ petition, on
the basis of the Beacham et al. (2001) study, that Cherry Point herring
are genetically discrete compared to other herring stocks.
NMFS does not agree with the interpretation of Beacham et al.
(2001) presented in the January 22\nd\ petition. The study lacks the
necessary spatial and temporal coverage of samples to draw any firm
conclusions regarding the discreteness of the Cherry Point stock.
First, the study focused on the stock structure of herring in British
Columbia. The Cherry Point sample analyzed in this study was the only
sample from herring stocks in Washington State and Puget Sound; hence
the study design does not inform considerations of population structure
within the Puget Sound, Washington portion of the Georgia Basin DPS.
Second, although Beacham et al. (2001) did indeed find statistically
significant differentiation between the (single) Cherry Point sample
and the geographically closest Canadian sampling sites, a single sample
does not provide persuasive evidence of population discreteness. The
authors noted that the result may be a sampling artifact. The
individual Strait of Georgia samples were collected over several years
from 1997-2000, while the Cherry Point sample was collected in 2000.
The authors
[[Page 48458]]
cautioned that it is premature to reach conclusions about population
structure given the samples analyzed; additional samples are needed to
evaluate whether differentiation among sites is stable over time. For
genetic differences to signify substantial reproductive isolation among
populations, rather than annual variation or sampling error,
differences among putative populations over time must generally be
larger than the temporal variation within populations (Beacham et al.,
2001; Waples, 1998).
An updated version of the Beacham et al., (2001) study has included
additional sampling locations, and has added additional temporal
samples at several locations (Beacham et al., 2002). However, as in the
Beacham et al. (2001) study, only a single May 2000 Cherry Point sample
is included in the analysis. Without samples collected in multiple
years it is impossible to analyze the temporal stability of genetic
differences found between the single Cherry Point sample and British
Columbia samples collected in other years (Beacham et al., 2002).
Although NMFS is very supportive of ongoing genetic research on the
stock structure of Pacific herring, such as the research of Beacham et
al. (2001, 2002) and others, the new genetic information included in
the January 22\nd\ petition does not present substantial information to
suggest that the Cherry Point stock is discrete, or that NMFS' 2001
determination of a Georgia Basin Pacific Herring DPS otherwise needs to
be re-examined (NMFS, 2004a).
Physiological Information - The January 22\nd\ petition presents
new physiological information to suggest that the Cherry Point stock is
discrete under the joint DPS policy. Gao et al. (2001) analyzed the
composition of herring otoliths (small calcium carbonate structures
found in the heads of all bony fishes that function in fish hearing and
balance) among three stocks in Puget Sound. The ratios of stable
isotopes of oxygen and carbon vary naturally in the marine environment,
predominantly due to temperature and salinity. Otoliths deposit daily
growth increments, incorporating the stable isotopic composition of the
surrounding environment. Fish that rear in environments with distinct
isotopic signatures can be distinguished by analyzing the isotopic
composition of their otoliths. Gao et al. (2001) compared the isotopic
ratios of otolith nuclei (representing the isotopic composition during
the first 6 months of growth) among spawning adult herring from Cherry
Point and two locations in south Puget Sound. Gao et al. (2001) found a
statistically significant difference in isotopic composition between
the Cherry Point samples and the samples from the two south Puget Sound
locations. Their findings suggest that Cherry Point herring are a
separate stock, consistent with the findings of Bargmann (1998) and
Lemberg et al. (1997). However, some of the Cherry Point samples in Gao
et al. (2001) exhibited isotopic ratios characteristic of the south
Puget Sound samples. This observation suggests that some herring adults
that reared elsewhere in Puget Sound may have strayed to the Cherry
Point vicinity to spawn, or that water conditions characteristic of the
south Puget Sound locations may also occur in the vicinity of Cherry
Point. In NMFS' 2001 status review, considerable evidence of straying
by adults and juveniles among stocks differing in spawning time and
location argued for the delineation of the larger Georgia Basin DPS.
NMFS concludes that the findings of Gao et al. (2001) are consistent
with its 2001 DPS finding (NMFS, 2004a). While the stable isotope
analysis may provide useful insights to early rearing conditions and
stock structure, they do not provide substantial information regarding
the physiological discreteness of the Cherry Point stock.
Behavioral and Ecological Information - In the January 22\nd\
petition the petitioners also discuss distinct patterns in spawning
time and location (Lemberg et al., 1997), and parasitic communities
(O'Toole et al., 2000; Trumble, 1983; Hershberger, 2002) in Cherry
Point herring relative to other stocks. These patterns, however, were
discussed in detail in NMFS' 2001 status review (Stout et al., 2001) in
identifying the Georgia Basin Pacific herring DPS. As noted in the
``Relationship of Stock and DPS Concepts'' section above, patterns that
establish a group of fish as a stock do not necessarily indicate that
it is a DPS.
The January 22\nd\ petition fails to present substantial
information relevant to the discreteness of the Cherry Point stock
(NMFS, 2004a).
Significance of the Population Segment
With respect to the considerations for significance articulated in
the DPS policy, the petitioners assert in the January 22\nd\ petition
that the Cherry Point herring stock is significant to the taxon to
which it belongs because it: exhibits marked differences in genetic
characteristics from other populations; and occupies a unique
ecological setting for the taxon. Except for the study by Beacham et
al. (2001) discussed above, the January 22\nd\ petition does not
present any information pertaining to the potential genetic
significance of the Cherry Point stock to Pacific herring that was not
considered in NMFS' 2001 status review. For the reasons set forth above
(in the ``Discreteness - Genetic Information'' section), the Beacham et
al. (2001, 2002) studies do not indicate that the Cherry Point stock
exhibits marked differences in genetic characteristics, or is otherwise
significant to the taxon to which it belongs. In the 2001 status review
NMFS concluded that the Cherry Point herring stock does not represent a
unique ecological setting for Pacific herring, as similar environmental
conditions exist for several herring populations in British Columbia
(Stout et al., 2001). The January 22\nd\ petition fails to present
substantial information pertaining to the significance of the Cherry
Point ecological setting with respect to the species (NMFS, 2004a).
Survival Risk
Since the January 22\nd\ petition does not present substantial
information to suggest that the Cherry Point stock may warrant
delineation as a separate DPS (NMFS, 2004a), it is unnecessary to
consider survival risk in evaluating whether the petitioned action may
be warranted.
Finding on January 22\nd\ Petition
After reviewing the information contained in the January 22\nd\
petition, as well as information readily available to NMFS scientists,
NMFS determines that it fails to present substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be
warranted for the Cherry Point stock of Pacific herring.
May 14th Petition
Discreteness of the Population Segment
The May 14\th\ petition presents additional new genetic information
from WDFW (Small et al., 2004) addressing the relatedness of the Cherry
Point and other herring stocks in Puget Sound. Small et al. (2004)
describe microsatellite DNA variation within and among 16 samples of
Pacific herring, including 12 samples from Puget Sound, 4 of which were
samples from the Cherry Point stock from different years. Similar to
the Beacham et al. (2001, 2002) studies (described above under the
January 22\nd\ petition), the Small et al. (2004) study found low
levels of genetic differentiation among samples. However, the four
Cherry Point samples were consistently differentiated from other Puget
Sound samples, providing some evidence for potential population
discreteness. The new information
[[Page 48459]]
presented in the May 14\th\ petition, in combination with the
information presented in the January 22\nd\ petition (e.g., the Beacham
et al. 2001, 2002 studies), represents substantial information
pertaining to the discreteness of the Cherry Point stock of Pacific
herring (NMFS, 2004b).
The results of Small et al. (2004) need to be reconciled with other
studies (not presented in the petitions but currently within agency
files) that seem to indicate that the Cherry Point stock is not
discrete. Three recent studies evaluating the distribution patterns of
Pacific herring, using an extensive herring tagging database for
British Columbia, do not appear to point to the discreteness of the
Cherry Point stock (Hay et al., 2001; Hay and McKinnell, 2002; Ware and
Schweigert, 2001). Additionally, two other studies (Markiewicz et al.,
2001; Landis et al., 2004) provide some evidence of episodic
immigration into the Cherry Point stock from other stocks in years of
high abundance, although the data are subject to alternative
interpretations. These studies suggesting that the Cherry Point herring
stock may be part of a larger metapopulation need to be reconciled with
the genetic differentiation described by Small et al. (2004).
Significance of the Population Segment
Under the joint DPS policy, a discrete population segment may be
significant to the taxon to which it belongs if there is evidence that
it differs markedly from other populations its genetic characteristics
(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The new genetic information presented
in the May 14th petition (i.e., Small et al., 2004) presents
substantial information indicating that the Cherry Point Pacific
herring stock may be significant with respect to the species.
Survival Risk
The majority of the information in the January 22\nd\ petition and
the May 14\th\ petition regarding the abundance, trends, and survival
risk of the Cherry Point stock was evaluated in NMFS' 2001 status
review. The petitions provide additional information regarding spawner
biomass estimates for 2001-2004 for the period since the status review.
The petitioners note that 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 a decline of this magnitude meets an
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) criterion for ``vulnerable'' species considered to be
facing a high risk of extinction in the wild (Stout et al., 2001).
Additionally, a quantitative analysis of trends in Cherry Point herring
biomass indicated that, at the time of the 2001 status review, there
was a 50 percent chance that the Cherry Point stock would decline to
one ton or less in 100 years (Stout et al., 2001). Although the Cherry
Point stock has more than doubled in spawner biomass over the past 4
years and is at its highest level since 1996, the spawner biomass is at
half the level set by WDFW (Bargmann, 2001) as necessary for the stock
to maintain itself and provide harvest (although a stock below optimal
harvest levels is not necessarily in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future). Given that the May 14\th\
petition presents substantial information that the Cherry Point stock
may warrant delineation as a separate DPS (see May 14\th\ petition
``Discreteness'' and ``Significance'' sections, above), the information
previously reviewed in 2001 (Stout et al., 2001) and reiterated in the
petitions represents substantial information indicating that a putative
Cherry Point DPS may be threatened or endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (NMFS, 2004b).
Finding on May 14\th\ Petition
After reviewing the information contained in the petitions
regarding the Cherry Point stock of Pacific herring, consulting with
co-manager herring experts, and reviewing information readily available
to NMFS scientists, NMFS determines that the May 14th petition presents
substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. In accordance with section
4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)), NMFS will commence a review of the status of the species
concerned and make a determination of whether the petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months of receiving the May 14th petition.
Listing Factors and Basis for Determination
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species can be determined to be
threatened or endangered based on any of the following factors: (1) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a
species' habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or
predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5)
other natural or manmade factors affecting the species continued
existence. Listing determinations are based solely on the best
available scientific and commercial data after taking into account any
efforts being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the
species.
Information Solicited
DPS Structure and Extinction Risk of Pacific Herring
To ensure that the updated status review is complete and based on
the best available and most recent scientific and commercial data, NMFS
is soliciting information and comments (see DATES and ADDRESSES)
concerning the Georgia Basin DPS of Pacific herring, inclusive of the
Cherry Point herring stock. NMFS is soliciting information on inshore
herring stocks from Puget Sound (Washington) and the Strait of Georgia
(Washington and British Columbia) such as: (1) biological or other data
relevant to determining the DPS structure of Pacific herring in Puget
Sound and the Strait of Georgia (e.g., age structure, genetics,
migratory patterns, morphology, physiology); (2) the abundance and
biomass, as well as the spatial and temporal distribution of herring
stocks in Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia; (3) trends in
abundance and distribution; (4) natural and human-influenced factors
that cause variability in survival, distribution, and abundance; and
(5) current or planned activities and their possible impact on Pacific
herring (e.g., harvest measures and habitat actions). NMFS is
particularly interested in such information for the period since the
2001 status review of Pacific herring.
Efforts Being Made to Protect Pacific Herring
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make
listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of a
species and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the
species. Therefore, in making its listing determinations, NMFS first
assesses the status of the species and identifies factors that have led
to the decline. NMFS then assesses conservation measures to determine
whether they ameliorate a species' extinction risk (50 CFR 424.11(f)).
In judging the efficacy of conservation efforts, NMFS considers the
following: the substantive, protective, and conservation elements of
such efforts; the degree of certainty that such efforts will reliably
be implemented; the degree of certainty that such efforts will be
effective in furthering the conservation
[[Page 48460]]
of the species; and the presence of monitoring provisions to determine
effectiveness of recovery efforts and that permit adaptive management
(68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). In some cases, conservation efforts may
be relatively new or may not have had sufficient time to demonstrate
their biological benefit. In such cases, provisions of adequate
monitoring and funding for conservation efforts are essential to ensure
that the intended conservation benefits are realized. NMFS encourages
all parties to submit information on ongoing efforts to protect and
conserve Pacific herring in Washington and British Columbia, as well as
information on recently implemented or planned activities (i.e., since
the 2001 status review) and their likely impact(s).
Identification of Peer Reviewers
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, published a series of policies regarding listings under the
ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR
34270). The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure that listings
are based on the best scientific and commercial data available. If NMFS
determines that listing is warranted, the agency will solicit the
expert opinions of at least three qualified specialists, concurrent
with the public comment period following the publication of a proposed
rule. In advance of any such determination, NMFS is soliciting the
names and affiliations of potential independent peer reviewers from the
academic and scientific community, Native American tribal groups,
federal and state agencies, and the private sector.
References
Copies of the petition and related materials are available on the
Internet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmonesa/herring/
reference.html, or upon request (see ADDRESSES section above).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: August 4, 2004.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 04-18254 Filed 8-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S