80 FR 22468 - Listing Endangered or Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Snake River Fall-Run Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 77 (April 22, 2015)

Page Range		22468-22472
FR Document		2015-09358

We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to delist the Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Snake River fall-run Chinook) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1992. We reviewed the status of the ESU in 2005 and again in 2011 and concluded that the ESU's classification as a threatened species remained appropriate. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We hereby initiate a status review of the Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU to determine whether the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this species.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22468-22472]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09358]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 150211136-5136-01]
RIN 0648-XD769


Listing Endangered or Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on a 
Petition To Delist the Snake River Fall-Run Chinook Salmon 
Evolutionarily Significant Unit

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: 90-Day petition finding, request for information, and 
initiation of status review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), announce a 
90-day finding on a petition to delist the Snake River fall-run Chinook 
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Snake River fall-run Chinook) 
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). The Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU was listed as threatened 
under the ESA in 1992. We reviewed the status of the ESU in 2005 and 
again in 2011 and concluded that the ESU's classification as a 
threatened species remained appropriate. We find that the petition 
presents substantial scientific information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. We hereby initiate a status review 
of the Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU to determine whether the 
petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is 
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information 
pertaining to this species.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2015-0039, by either of the following methods:
    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via 
the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0039.
    2. Click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields.
    3. Enter or attach your comments.

--OR--

     MAIL or Hand Delivery: Submit written comments to: 
Protected Resources Division, West Coast Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean 
Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.

Instructions

    Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or 
individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be 
considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 
by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Holmes Gaar, NMFS West Coast 
Region at (503) 230-5434; or

[[Page 22469]]

Dwayne Meadows, NMFS Office of Protected Resources at (301) 427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU was listed as threatened under 
the ESA in 1992 (57 FR 14658; April 22, 1992). Section 4(c)(2) of the 
ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once 
every 5 years (5-year review). On the basis of such 5-year reviews, we 
determine under section 4(c)(2)(B) whether a species should be delisted 
or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to 
endangered. We conducted 5-year reviews for the Snake River fall-run 
Chinook ESU in 2005 (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005) and again in 2011 (76 
FR 50448; August 15, 2011) and determined that the ESU should remain 
classified as ``threatened.''
    On January 16, 2015, we received a petition from the Chinook 
Futures Coalition to delist the Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU under 
the ESA. Copies of the petition are available upon request (see 
ADDRESSES). Separately, on February 6, 2015, we published a notice of 
initiation of 5-year reviews for 32 species, including Snake River 
fall-run Chinook salmon (80 FR 6695; February 6, 2015).
    Historically, the Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU consisted of 
three large populations: The extant Lower Mainstem Snake River 
population, and two currently extirpated populations (Marsing Reach and 
Salmon Falls) that spawned in the upper mainstem Snake River above the 
current Hells Canyon Dam complex. The listed Snake River fall-run 
Chinook salmon ESU consists of one population, the extant Lower 
Mainstem Snake population, which includes all natural-origin fall-run 
Chinook salmon originating from the mainstem Snake River below Hells 
Canyon Dam (the lowest of three impassable dams that form the Hells 
Canyon Complex), and from the Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, 
Imnaha River, Salmon River, and Clearwater River subbasins. The ESU 
also includes four artificial propagation programs: The Lyons Ferry 
Hatchery Program, Fall Chinook Acclimation Ponds Program, Nez Perce 
Tribal Hatchery Program, and Oxbow Hatchery Program.

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation 
Framework

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 
days of receipt of a petition to remove a species from the list of 
threatened or endangered species, the Secretary of Commerce make a 
finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted, and to promptly publish the finding in the Federal Register 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When we find that substantial scientific or 
commercial information in a petition indicates that the petitioned 
action may be warranted (a ``positive 90-day finding''), we are 
required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species 
concerned, which includes conducting a comprehensive review of the best 
available scientific and commercial information. Within 12 months of 
receiving the petition, we must conclude the review with a finding as 
to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted. Because the 
finding at the 12-month stage is based on a significantly more thorough 
review of the available information, a ``may be warranted'' finding at 
the 90-day stage does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.
    ESA-implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(b) issued jointly by 
NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly ``the 
Services'') define ``substantial information'' in the context of 
reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the 
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe 
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. When 
evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, 
we must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the 
administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any 
common name of the species involved; (2) 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; (3) provides 
information regarding the status of the species over all or a 
significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the 
appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic 
references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or 
letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
    To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list, delist or 
reclassify a species, we evaluate the petitioner's request based upon 
the information in the petition including its references, and the 
information readily available in our files. We do not conduct 
additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties 
outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will 
accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the 
information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted 
scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files 
that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, 
obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information 
that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is 
contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at 
the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable 
person would conclude that it supports the petitioner's assertions. 
Conclusive information indicating that the species may meet the ESA's 
requirements for delisting is not required to make a positive 90-day 
finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone 
negates a positive 90-day finding, if a reasonable person would 
conclude that the lack of information itself suggests a particular 
extinction risk conclusion for the species at issue.
    Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-
governmental organizations, such as the International Union for 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or 
NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk 
classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or 
state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may 
not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. 
For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a 
species' conservation status do ``not constitute a recommendation by 
NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act'' because 
NatureServe assessments ``have different criteria, evidence 
requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of 
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of 
lists should not be expected to coincide'' (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp). Thus, when a petition cites such 
classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the 
classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction 
risk and impacts or threats discussed above.
    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which 
is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, 
any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint

[[Page 22470]]

Services policy (DPS Policy) clarifies the agencies' interpretation of 
the phrase ``distinct population segment'' for the purposes of listing, 
delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; 
February 7, 1996). 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(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 
1532(6) and (20)). For identifying stocks of Pacific salmon for listing 
under the ESA, we use our Policy on Applying the Definition of Species 
under the ESA to Pacific Salmon (ESU Policy) (56 FR 58612; November 20, 
1991). Under this policy, populations of salmon that are substantially 
reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations and that 
represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the 
biological species are considered to be an ESU. In our listing 
determinations for Pacific salmon under the ESA, we have treated an ESU 
as constituting a DPS, and hence a ``species,'' under the ESA.
    NMFS assesses viability for Pacific salmon ESUs based on a common 
set of biological principles described in NMFS' technical memorandum, 
Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily 
Significant Units (McElhany et al. 2000). Viable salmonid populations 
(VSPs) are defined in terms of four population parameters: Abundance, 
population productivity or growth rate, population spatial structure, 
and diversity. Abundance and productivity need to be sufficient to 
provide for population-level persistence in the face of year-to-year 
variations in environmental influences. Spatial structure of 
populations should provide for resilience to the potential impact of 
catastrophic events, and diversity should provide for patterns of 
phenotypic, genotypic, and life history diversity that sustains natural 
production across a range of conditions, allowing for adaptation to 
changing environmental conditions.
    Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine 
whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a 
combination of the following five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors: The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade 
factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 
424.11(c)).
    Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and our implementing regulations 
at 50 CFR 424.11(d), a species may be removed from the list if the 
Secretary of Commerce determines, based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available and after conducting a review of the species' 
status, that the species is no longer threatened or endangered because 
of one or a combination of the section 4(a)(1) factors. Pursuant to our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d), a species may be delisted only if such 
data substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened for one 
or more of the following reasons:
    (1) Extinction. Unless all individuals of the listed species had 
been previously identified and located, and were later found to be 
extirpated from their previous range, a sufficient period of time must 
be allowed before delisting to indicate clearly that the species is 
extinct.
    (2) Recovery. The principal goal of the Services is to return 
listed species to a point at which protection under the ESA is no 
longer required. A species may be delisted on the basis of recovery 
only if the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that 
it is no longer endangered or threatened.
    (3) Original data for classification in error. Subsequent 
investigations may show that the best scientific or commercial data 
available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such 
data, were in error.
    Judicial decisions have clarified the appropriate scope and 
limitations of the Services' review of petitions at the 90-day finding 
stage, in making a determination whether a petitioned action may be 
warranted. As a general matter, these decisions hold that a petition 
need not establish a ``strong likelihood'' or a ``high probability'' 
that a species is or is not either threatened or endangered to support 
a positive 90-day finding.

Application of the Hatchery Listing Policy

    On June 28, 2005, we announced a final policy addressing the role 
of artificially propagated (hatchery produced) Pacific salmon and 
steelhead in listing determinations under the ESA (70 FR 37204; June 
28, 2005) (Hatchery Listing Policy). The Hatchery Listing Policy's 
purpose is to provide direction to NMFS staff for considering hatchery-
origin fish in making listing determinations for Pacific salmon and 
steelhead. Among other things, the Hatchery Listing Policy: (1) 
Establishes criteria for including hatchery stocks in ESUs and DPSs; 
(2) provides direction for considering hatchery fish in extinction risk 
assessments of ESUs and DPSs; and (3) provides that hatchery fish 
determined to be part of an ESU will be included in any listing of the 
ESU.
    The Hatchery Listing Policy also provides that status 
determinations for Pacific salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs will be based 
on the status of the entire ESU or DPS and that in assessing the status 
of an ESU/DPS, NMFS will apply the policy in support of the 
conservation of naturally-spawning salmon and the ecosystems upon which 
they depend, consistent with section 2(b) of the ESA. Finally, the 
Hatchery Listing Policy provides that hatchery fish will be included in 
assessing an ESU's or DPS's status in the context of their 
contributions to conserving natural self-sustaining populations.

Biology of Snake River Fall-Run Chinook Salmon

    Snake River fall-run Chinook spend 1 to 4 years in the Pacific 
Ocean, depending on gender and age at the time of ocean entry. Most 
Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon return for reproduction to the 
lower Columbia River in August and September, and the adults enter the 
Snake River between early September and mid-October. There are 
presently five recognized major spawning areas for Snake River fall-run 
Chinook salmon: The Snake River upper reach (from the Hells Canyon Dam 
complex to the mouth of the Salmon River), the Snake River lower reach 
(from mouth of the Salmon River to Lower Granite dam Reservoir), and 
the lower Grande Ronde, lower Clearwater, and lower Tucannon Rivers. 
Adults spawn in nests (redds) from late October through early December. 
Emergence of young fall-run Chinook from redds typically occurs in the 
following April through early June. Juvenile Snake River fall-run 
Chinook salmon exhibit different early life history timing and growth 
traits in riverine habitat, depending on growth opportunity, which is 
often largely related to water temperature. Relatively warm 
temperatures produce juveniles that migrate seaward as subyearlings in 
May and June, whereas reaches with cooler temperatures produce 
juveniles that grow more slowly, over-winter and migrate seaward as 
yearlings.

Summary of Petition

    The petition contains three parts. Part I asserts that hatchery 
fish must be counted when assessing the status of the ESU and must be 
considered in any

[[Page 22471]]

delisting decision where hatchery fish are part of the ESU, as is the 
case for Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon. The petitioner refers to 
NMFS' Hatchery Listing Policy and points out its requirement that 
status determinations for Pacific salmon ESUs will be based on the 
status of the entire ESU. The petitioner disagrees with NMFS' approach 
used in the most recent Snake River fall-run Chinook 5-year review 
(NMFS 2011) to base viability criteria on natural fish.
    Part II of the petition asserts that Snake River fall-run Chinook 
meet the standards for delisting under the ESA and presents information 
on the ESU's recent status and trends. It asserts that Snake River 
fall-run Chinook have met the four VSP criteria, and consequently that 
the ESU's short-term extinction risk is zero and its long-term 
extinction risk is less than 1 percent. The petitioner asserts that the 
recovery standards articulated in the last 5-year review arbitrarily 
redefined the ESU to exclude hatchery fish. The petitioner also reviews 
the 5-year review's consideration of the VSP parameters of abundance, 
productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. The 5-year review's VSP 
criteria were recommended by the Interior Columbia River Technical 
Recovery Team (ICTRT 2007; Ford et al. 2011). The petitioner asserts 
that Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon have met the abundance and 
productivity criteria set forth in the 2011 5-year review, and the 
petitioner presents abundance and productivity data made available 
since the 2011 5-year review, for the years 2010 through 2014. The 
petitioner cites data sources for updated abundance and productivity 
from the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC 2014), Arnsberg et 
al. (2013, 2014) and a powerpoint presentation given in 2013 by a 
scientist from NMFS' Northwest Fisheries Science Center (Cooney 2013).
    The petitioner asserts that the Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon 
ESU also meets criteria from the 5-year review for spatial distribution 
and diversity. For spatial distribution, the Interior Columbia 
Technical Recovery Team recommended that for the Snake River fall-run 
Chinook ESU to be considered at low extinction risk, there should be 
another population, in addition to the extant Lower Mainstem Snake 
River population. We included that criterion in the 2011 5-year review. 
The petitioner points to redd count data in the Clearwater River from 
Arnsberg et al. (2014) and concludes that the spawning aggregation in 
the Clearwater River satisfies the spatial structure criterion for a 
second population of Snake River fall-run Chinook. The petitioner 
further asserts, however, that establishing another population of Snake 
River fall-run Chinook salmon to lower the risk of extinction is not 
relevant when all other delisting criteria have been met. The 
petitioner disagrees with NMFS' approach to diversity criteria, which 
evaluates diversity within the ESU. The petitioner asserts that Pacific 
salmon are diverse because they are composed of two or more ESUs, and 
that the only means for increasing diversity is to increase the 
abundance of spawners in an ESU. The petitioner points out that this 
increase in abundance has happened for the Snake River fall Chinook 
ESU.
    Part III of the petition evaluates the statutory standards for 
delisting and asserts that the extinction risk of Snake River fall-run 
Chinook is at or approaching zero, and that the delisting standards are 
met individually and collectively. The petitioner also provides an 
evaluation of each of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) listing factors. The 
petitioner concludes that: (1) There is no destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of the Snake River fall-run Chinook habitat or range 
that justifies continued listing; (2) that there is no overutilization 
of Snake River fall-run Chinook; (3) predation and disease are not 
present factors, and predation is less of a factor today than when the 
species was listed; (4) existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate as 
evidenced by the demonstrated increasing numbers of Snake River fall-
run Chinook; and (5) while drought might be a consideration for other 
natural or manmade factors, the operation of the Federal Columbia River 
Power System, the Hells Canyon Dam Complex, and Dworshak Dam ensures 
that sufficient waters will be available for Snake River fall-run 
Chinook in the future.

Petition Analysis and Finding

    As described above, the standard for determining whether a petition 
includes substantial information is whether the amount of information 
presented provides a basis for us to find that it would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition 
may be warranted. We find the analysis of additional data presented and 
referenced in the petition regarding the abundance and productivity of 
Snake River fall-run Chinook since the last status review in 2011 meets 
this standard, and that it presents substantial scientific evidence 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Information Solicited

    As a result of this 90-day finding, we will commence a status 
review of the Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU to determine whether 
delisting the species is warranted. To ensure that our review of Snake 
River fall-run Chinook is informed by the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we are opening a 60-day public comment period 
to solicit information to support our 12-month finding on this 
petition. We note that on February 6, 2015, we announced the initiation 
of 5-year reviews of 32 species, including Snake River fall-run 
Chinook, and requested information that has become available since the 
species' statuses were last updated. In the case of Snake River fall-
run Chinook, the last update was in 2011 (NMFS 2011). We will consider 
all information submitted through that solicitation, as well as 
information submitted in response to this finding and request for 
information, to inform our status review and 12-month finding. There is 
no need to resubmit information that has already been submitted in 
response to our 5-year review solicitation notice. We are opening a 60-
day public comment period to solicit additional information beyond that 
provided for the 5-year review process in response to our finding on 
this petition.
    Specifically, we request new information that has become available 
since the 2011 5-year status review of Snake River fall-run Chinook 
salmon regarding: (1) Population abundance; (2) population 
productivity; (3) changes in species distribution or population spatial 
structure; (4) patterns of phenotypic, genotypic, and life history 
diversity; (5) changes in habitat conditions and associated limiting 
factors and threats; (6) conservation measures that have been 
implemented that benefit the species, including monitoring data 
demonstrating the effectiveness of such measures in addressing 
identified limiting factors or threats; (7) information on the adequacy 
of regulatory mechanisms to conserve the species in the event it were 
delisted; (8) data concerning the status and trends of identified 
limiting factors or threats; (9) information that may affect 
determinations regarding the composition of the ESU; (10) information 
on changes to hatchery programs that may affect determinations 
regarding the ESU membership or contribution to recovery of natural 
populations; (11) information on targeted harvest (commercial, tribal, 
and recreational) and bycatch of the species; and (12) other new 
information, data, or

[[Page 22472]]

corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural 
changes, identification of erroneous information in the previous 
listing determination, and improved analytical methods for evaluating 
extinction risk.
    We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting 
documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of 
pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any 
association, institution, or business that the person represents.

References Cited

    The complete citations for the references used in this document can 
be obtained by contacting NMFS (See ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT) or on our Web page at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/salmon_and_steelhead_listings/chinook/snake_river_fall/snake_river_fall_run_chinook.html.

    Authority:  The authority for this action is the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: April 17, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-09358 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22469

Dwayne Meadows, NMFS Office of from the list of threatened or information from parties outside the
Protected Resources at (301) 427–8403. endangered species, the Secretary of agency to help us in evaluating the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Commerce make a finding on whether petition. We will accept the petitioner’s
that petition presents substantial sources and characterizations of the
Background scientific or commercial information information presented, if they appear to
The Snake River fall-run Chinook indicating that the petitioned action be based on accepted scientific
ESU was listed as threatened under the may be warranted, and to promptly principles, unless we have specific
ESA in 1992 (57 FR 14658; April 22, publish the finding in the Federal information in our files that indicates
1992). Section 4(c)(2) of the ESA Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When the petition’s information is incorrect,
requires that we conduct a review of we find that substantial scientific or unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise
listed species at least once every 5 years commercial information in a petition irrelevant to the requested action.
(5-year review). On the basis of such 5- indicates that the petitioned action may Information that is susceptible to more
year reviews, we determine under be warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day than one interpretation or that is
section 4(c)(2)(B) whether a species finding’’), we are required to promptly contradicted by other available
should be delisted or reclassified from commence a review of the status of the information will not be dismissed at the
endangered to threatened or from species concerned, which includes 90-day finding stage, so long as it is
threatened to endangered. We conducting a comprehensive review of reliable and a reasonable person would
conducted 5-year reviews for the Snake the best available scientific and conclude that it supports the
River fall-run Chinook ESU in 2005 (70 commercial information. Within 12 petitioner’s assertions. Conclusive
FR 37160; June 28, 2005) and again in months of receiving the petition, we information indicating that the species
2011 (76 FR 50448; August 15, 2011) must conclude the review with a finding may meet the ESA’s requirements for
and determined that the ESU should as to whether, in fact, the petitioned delisting is not required to make a
remain classified as ‘‘threatened.’’ action is warranted. Because the finding positive 90-day finding. We will not
On January 16, 2015, we received a at the 12-month stage is based on a conclude that a lack of specific
petition from the Chinook Futures significantly more thorough review of information alone negates a positive 90-
Coalition to delist the Snake River fall- the available information, a ‘‘may be day finding, if a reasonable person
run Chinook ESU under the ESA. warranted’’ finding at the 90-day stage would conclude that the lack of
Copies of the petition are available upon does not prejudge the outcome of the information itself suggests a particular
request (see ADDRESSES). Separately, on status review. extinction risk conclusion for the
February 6, 2015, we published a notice ESA-implementing regulations at 50 species at issue.
of initiation of 5-year reviews for 32 CFR 424.14(b) issued jointly by NMFS Many petitions identify risk
species, including Snake River fall-run and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classifications made by non-
Chinook salmon (80 FR 6695; February (USFWS) (jointly ‘‘the Services’’) define governmental organizations, such as the
6, 2015). ‘‘substantial information’’ in the context International Union for Conservation of
Historically, the Snake River fall-run of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries
Chinook ESU consisted of three large reclassify a species as the amount of Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of
populations: The extant Lower information that would lead a extinction risk for a species. Risk
Mainstem Snake River population, and reasonable person to believe that the classifications by other organizations or
two currently extirpated populations measure proposed in the petition may made under other Federal or state
(Marsing Reach and Salmon Falls) that be warranted. When evaluating whether statutes may be informative, but such
spawned in the upper mainstem Snake substantial information is contained in classification alone may not provide the
River above the current Hells Canyon a petition, we must consider whether rationale for a positive 90-day finding
Dam complex. The listed Snake River the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the under the ESA. For example, as
fall-run Chinook salmon ESU consists of administrative measure recommended explained by NatureServe, their
one population, the extant Lower and gives the scientific and any assessments of a species’ conservation
Mainstem Snake population, which common name of the species involved; status do ‘‘not constitute a
includes all natural-origin fall-run (2) contains detailed narrative recommendation by NatureServe for
Chinook salmon originating from the justification for the recommended listing under the U.S. Endangered
mainstem Snake River below Hells measure, describing, based on available Species Act’’ because NatureServe
Canyon Dam (the lowest of three information, past and present numbers assessments ‘‘have different criteria,
impassable dams that form the Hells and distribution of the species involved evidence requirements, purposes and
Canyon Complex), and from the and any threats faced by the species; (3) taxonomic coverage than government
Tucannon River, Grande Ronde River, provides information regarding the lists of endangered and threatened
Imnaha River, Salmon River, and status of the species over all or a species, and therefore these two types of
Clearwater River subbasins. The ESU significant portion of its range; and (4) lists should not be expected to
also includes four artificial propagation is accompanied by the appropriate coincide’’ (http://www.natureserve.org/
programs: The Lyons Ferry Hatchery supporting documentation in the form prodServices/statusAssessment.jsp).
Program, Fall Chinook Acclimation of bibliographic references, reprints of Thus, when a petition cites such
Ponds Program, Nez Perce Tribal pertinent publications, copies of reports classifications, we will evaluate the
Hatchery Program, and Oxbow Hatchery or letters from authorities, and maps (50 source of information that the
Program. CFR 424.14(b)(2)). classification is based upon in light of
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

To make a 90-day finding on a the standards on extinction risk and
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy petition to list, delist or reclassify a impacts or threats discussed above.
Provisions and Evaluation Framework species, we evaluate the petitioner’s Under the ESA, a listing
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, request based upon the information in determination may address a species,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the petition including its references, and which is defined to also include
requires, to the maximum extent the information readily available in our subspecies and, for any vertebrate
practicable, that within 90 days of files. We do not conduct additional species, any DPS that interbreeds when
receipt of a petition to remove a species research, and we do not solicit mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:23 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1

22470 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Services policy (DPS Policy) clarifies manmade factors affecting the species’ criteria for including hatchery stocks in
the agencies’ interpretation of the existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR ESUs and DPSs; (2) provides direction
phrase ‘‘distinct population segment’’ 424.11(c)). for considering hatchery fish in
for the purposes of listing, delisting, and Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and extinction risk assessments of ESUs and
reclassifying a species under the ESA our implementing regulations at 50 CFR DPSs; and (3) provides that hatchery
(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A 424.11(d), a species may be removed fish determined to be part of an ESU
species, subspecies, or DPS is from the list if the Secretary of will be included in any listing of the
‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of Commerce determines, based on the ESU.
extinction throughout all or a significant best scientific and commercial data The Hatchery Listing Policy also
portion of its range, and ‘‘threatened’’ if available and after conducting a review provides that status determinations for
it is likely to become endangered within of the species’ status, that the species is Pacific salmon ESUs and steelhead
the foreseeable future throughout all or no longer threatened or endangered DPSs will be based on the status of the
a significant portion of its range (ESA because of one or a combination of the entire ESU or DPS and that in assessing
sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 section 4(a)(1) factors. Pursuant to our the status of an ESU/DPS, NMFS will
U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). For identifying regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d), a apply the policy in support of the
stocks of Pacific salmon for listing species may be delisted only if such conservation of naturally-spawning
under the ESA, we use our Policy on data substantiate that it is neither salmon and the ecosystems upon which
Applying the Definition of Species endangered nor threatened for one or they depend, consistent with section
under the ESA to Pacific Salmon (ESU more of the following reasons: 2(b) of the ESA. Finally, the Hatchery
Policy) (56 FR 58612; November 20, (1) Extinction. Unless all individuals Listing Policy provides that hatchery
1991). Under this policy, populations of of the listed species had been previously fish will be included in assessing an
salmon that are substantially identified and located, and were later ESU’s or DPS’s status in the context of
reproductively isolated from other found to be extirpated from their their contributions to conserving natural
conspecific populations and that previous range, a sufficient period of self-sustaining populations.
represent an important component in time must be allowed before delisting to
Biology of Snake River Fall-Run
the evolutionary legacy of the biological indicate clearly that the species is
Chinook Salmon
species are considered to be an ESU. In extinct.
our listing determinations for Pacific (2) Recovery. The principal goal of the Snake River fall-run Chinook spend 1
salmon under the ESA, we have treated Services is to return listed species to a to 4 years in the Pacific Ocean,
an ESU as constituting a DPS, and hence point at which protection under the depending on gender and age at the time
a ‘‘species,’’ under the ESA. ESA is no longer required. A species of ocean entry. Most Snake River fall-
NMFS assesses viability for Pacific may be delisted on the basis of recovery run Chinook salmon return for
salmon ESUs based on a common set of only if the best scientific and reproduction to the lower Columbia
biological principles described in commercial data available indicate that River in August and September, and the
NMFS’ technical memorandum, Viable it is no longer endangered or threatened. adults enter the Snake River between
Salmonid Populations and the Recovery (3) Original data for classification in early September and mid-October.
of Evolutionarily Significant Units error. Subsequent investigations may There are presently five recognized
(McElhany et al. 2000). Viable salmonid show that the best scientific or major spawning areas for Snake River
populations (VSPs) are defined in terms commercial data available when the fall-run Chinook salmon: The Snake
of four population parameters: species was listed, or the interpretation River upper reach (from the Hells
Abundance, population productivity or of such data, were in error. Canyon Dam complex to the mouth of
growth rate, population spatial Judicial decisions have clarified the the Salmon River), the Snake River
structure, and diversity. Abundance and appropriate scope and limitations of the lower reach (from mouth of the Salmon
productivity need to be sufficient to Services’ review of petitions at the 90- River to Lower Granite dam Reservoir),
provide for population-level persistence day finding stage, in making a and the lower Grande Ronde, lower
in the face of year-to-year variations in determination whether a petitioned Clearwater, and lower Tucannon Rivers.
environmental influences. Spatial action may be warranted. As a general Adults spawn in nests (redds) from late
structure of populations should provide matter, these decisions hold that a October through early December.
for resilience to the potential impact of petition need not establish a ‘‘strong Emergence of young fall-run Chinook
catastrophic events, and diversity likelihood’’ or a ‘‘high probability’’ that from redds typically occurs in the
should provide for patterns of a species is or is not either threatened following April through early June.
phenotypic, genotypic, and life history or endangered to support a positive 90- Juvenile Snake River fall-run Chinook
diversity that sustains natural day finding. salmon exhibit different early life
production across a range of conditions, history timing and growth traits in
Application of the Hatchery Listing
allowing for adaptation to changing riverine habitat, depending on growth
Policy
environmental conditions. opportunity, which is often largely
Pursuant to the ESA and our On June 28, 2005, we announced a related to water temperature. Relatively
implementing regulations, we determine final policy addressing the role of warm temperatures produce juveniles
whether species are threatened or artificially propagated (hatchery that migrate seaward as subyearlings in
endangered based on any one or a produced) Pacific salmon and steelhead May and June, whereas reaches with
combination of the following five ESA in listing determinations under the ESA cooler temperatures produce juveniles
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or (70 FR 37204; June 28, 2005) (Hatchery that grow more slowly, over-winter and
threatened destruction, modification, or Listing Policy). The Hatchery Listing migrate seaward as yearlings.
curtailment of habitat or range; Policy’s purpose is to provide direction
overutilization for commercial, to NMFS staff for considering hatchery- Summary of Petition
recreational, scientific, or educational origin fish in making listing The petition contains three parts. Part
purposes; disease or predation; determinations for Pacific salmon and I asserts that hatchery fish must be
inadequacy of existing regulatory steelhead. Among other things, the counted when assessing the status of the
mechanisms; and any other natural or Hatchery Listing Policy: (1) Establishes ESU and must be considered in any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:23 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 22471

delisting decision where hatchery fish Snake River fall-run Chinook. The Information Solicited
are part of the ESU, as is the case for petitioner further asserts, however, that As a result of this 90-day finding, we
Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon. establishing another population of will commence a status review of the
The petitioner refers to NMFS’ Hatchery Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon to Snake River fall-run Chinook ESU to
Listing Policy and points out its lower the risk of extinction is not determine whether delisting the species
requirement that status determinations relevant when all other delisting criteria is warranted. To ensure that our review
for Pacific salmon ESUs will be based have been met. The petitioner disagrees of Snake River fall-run Chinook is
on the status of the entire ESU. The with NMFS’ approach to diversity informed by the best available scientific
petitioner disagrees with NMFS’ criteria, which evaluates diversity and commercial information, we are
approach used in the most recent Snake within the ESU. The petitioner asserts opening a 60-day public comment
River fall-run Chinook 5-year review that Pacific salmon are diverse because period to solicit information to support
(NMFS 2011) to base viability criteria on they are composed of two or more ESUs, our 12-month finding on this petition.
natural fish. We note that on February 6, 2015, we
Part II of the petition asserts that and that the only means for increasing
diversity is to increase the abundance of announced the initiation of 5-year
Snake River fall-run Chinook meet the
spawners in an ESU. The petitioner reviews of 32 species, including Snake
standards for delisting under the ESA
points out that this increase in River fall-run Chinook, and requested
and presents information on the ESU’s
abundance has happened for the Snake information that has become available
recent status and trends. It asserts that
River fall Chinook ESU. since the species’ statuses were last
Snake River fall-run Chinook have met
updated. In the case of Snake River fall-
the four VSP criteria, and consequently Part III of the petition evaluates the run Chinook, the last update was in
that the ESU’s short-term extinction risk statutory standards for delisting and 2011 (NMFS 2011). We will consider all
is zero and its long-term extinction risk asserts that the extinction risk of Snake information submitted through that
is less than 1 percent. The petitioner River fall-run Chinook is at or
asserts that the recovery standards solicitation, as well as information
approaching zero, and that the delisting submitted in response to this finding
articulated in the last 5-year review standards are met individually and
arbitrarily redefined the ESU to exclude and request for information, to inform
collectively. The petitioner also our status review and 12-month finding.
hatchery fish. The petitioner also provides an evaluation of each of the
reviews the 5-year review’s There is no need to resubmit
five ESA section 4(a)(1) listing factors. information that has already been
consideration of the VSP parameters of The petitioner concludes that: (1) There
abundance, productivity, spatial submitted in response to our 5-year
is no destruction, modification, or review solicitation notice. We are
structure, and diversity. The 5-year
curtailment of the Snake River fall-run opening a 60-day public comment
review’s VSP criteria were
recommended by the Interior Columbia Chinook habitat or range that justifies period to solicit additional information
River Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT continued listing; (2) that there is no beyond that provided for the 5-year
2007; Ford et al. 2011). The petitioner overutilization of Snake River fall-run review process in response to our
asserts that Snake River fall-run Chinook; (3) predation and disease are finding on this petition.
Chinook salmon have met the not present factors, and predation is less Specifically, we request new
abundance and productivity criteria set of a factor today than when the species information that has become available
forth in the 2011 5-year review, and the was listed; (4) existing regulatory since the 2011 5-year status review of
petitioner presents abundance and mechanisms are adequate as evidenced Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon
productivity data made available since by the demonstrated increasing numbers regarding: (1) Population abundance; (2)
the 2011 5-year review, for the years of Snake River fall-run Chinook; and (5) population productivity; (3) changes in
2010 through 2014. The petitioner cites while drought might be a consideration species distribution or population
data sources for updated abundance and for other natural or manmade factors, spatial structure; (4) patterns of
productivity from the Pacific Fishery the operation of the Federal Columbia phenotypic, genotypic, and life history
Management Council (PFMC 2014), River Power System, the Hells Canyon diversity; (5) changes in habitat
Arnsberg et al. (2013, 2014) and a Dam Complex, and Dworshak Dam conditions and associated limiting
powerpoint presentation given in 2013 ensures that sufficient waters will be factors and threats; (6) conservation
by a scientist from NMFS’ Northwest available for Snake River fall-run measures that have been implemented
Fisheries Science Center (Cooney 2013). Chinook in the future. that benefit the species, including
The petitioner asserts that the Snake monitoring data demonstrating the
River fall-run Chinook salmon ESU also Petition Analysis and Finding effectiveness of such measures in
meets criteria from the 5-year review for addressing identified limiting factors or
spatial distribution and diversity. For As described above, the standard for threats; (7) information on the adequacy
spatial distribution, the Interior determining whether a petition includes of regulatory mechanisms to conserve
Columbia Technical Recovery Team substantial information is whether the the species in the event it were delisted;
recommended that for the Snake River amount of information presented (8) data concerning the status and trends
fall-run Chinook ESU to be considered provides a basis for us to find that it of identified limiting factors or threats;
at low extinction risk, there should be would lead a reasonable person to (9) information that may affect
another population, in addition to the believe that the measure proposed in the determinations regarding the
extant Lower Mainstem Snake River petition may be warranted. We find the composition of the ESU; (10)
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

population. We included that criterion analysis of additional data presented information on changes to hatchery
in the 2011 5-year review. The and referenced in the petition regarding programs that may affect determinations
petitioner points to redd count data in the abundance and productivity of regarding the ESU membership or
the Clearwater River from Arnsberg et Snake River fall-run Chinook since the contribution to recovery of natural
al. (2014) and concludes that the last status review in 2011 meets this populations; (11) information on
spawning aggregation in the Clearwater standard, and that it presents substantial targeted harvest (commercial, tribal, and
River satisfies the spatial structure scientific evidence indicating that the recreational) and bycatch of the species;
criterion for a second population of petitioned action may be warranted. and (12) other new information, data, or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:23 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1

$22472 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 77 / Wednesday, April 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules corrections including, but not limited association, institution, or business that chinook/snake_river_fall/snake_river_ to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, the person represents. fall_run_chinook.html. identification of erroneous information References Cited Authority: The authority for this action is in the previous listing determination, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as and improved analytical methods for The complete citations for the amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). evaluating extinction risk. references used in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (See Dated: April 17, 2015. We request that all information be ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER Samuel D. Rauch III, accompanied by: (1) Supporting INFORMATION CONTACT) or on our Web Deputy Assistant Administrator for documentation such as maps, page at: http:// Regulatory Programs, National Marine bibliographic references, or reprints of www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/ Fisheries Service. pertinent publications; and (2) the protected_species/salmon_steelhead/ [FR Doc. 2015–09358 Filed 4–21–15; 8:45 am] submitter’s name, address, and any salmon_and_steelhead_listings/ BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:23 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1$

Document Created: 2015-12-16 08:27:44
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 08:27:44

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		90-Day petition finding, request for information, and initiation of status review.
Dates		Comments must be received by June 22, 2015.
Contact		Elizabeth Holmes Gaar, NMFS West Coast Region at (503) 230-5434; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS Office of Protected Resources at (301) 427-8403.
FR Citation		80 FR 22468
RIN Number		0648-XD76
CFR Citation		50 CFR 223 50 CFR 224

80 FR 22468 - Listing Endangered or Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Snake River Fall-Run Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 77 (April 22, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration