Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

Petitioner requests that SONCC springrun Chinook salmon be considered as a separate ESU and listed as threatened or endangered. The SONCC Petitioner also requests the designation of critical habitat for SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon concurrent with ESA listing. On March 16, 2021, we published a positive 90-day finding 86 FR 14407 RTID
0648XW032 announcing that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. In our 90-day finding, we also announced the initiation of a status review to determine whether the springrun populations of SONCC Chinook salmon constitute an ESU, and, if so, whether that SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon ESU is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range; and we requested information to inform our status review.
Listing Species Under the ESA
We are responsible for determining whether species under our jurisdiction are threatened or endangered under the ESA 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.. To make this determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms constitutes a species under section 3
of the ESA 16 U.S.C. 1532, and then, if so, consider whether the status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment DPS of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. In 1991, we issued the Policy on Applying the Definition of Species Under the Endangered Species Act to Pacific Salmon ESU Policy; 56 FR
58612; November 20, 1991, which explains that a Pacific salmon population unit will be considered a DPS, and hence a species under the ESA, if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit of the biological species. The two criteria for delineating an ESU are: 1 It is substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units; and 2 it represents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species.
The ESU Policy is used exclusively for delineating distinct population segments of Pacific salmon. A joint NMFSU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS jointly, the Services policy clarifies the Services interpretation of the phrase distinct population segment for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA DPS Policy; 61 FR

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:08 Aug 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

4722; February 7, 1996. In announcing this policy, the Services indicated that the ESU Policy for Pacific salmon was consistent with the DPS Policy and that NMFS would continue to use the ESU
Policy for Pacific salmon.
Section 3 of the ESA further 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. Thus, we interpret an endangered species to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A threatened species, on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently endangered or in the foreseeable future threatened.
Section 4a1 of the ESA also requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened as a result of any of the following five factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence 16 U.S.C. 1533a1AE.
Section 4b1A of the ESA requires us 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 by any state or foreign nation or political subdivision thereof to protect the species. In evaluating the efficacy of formalized domestic conservation efforts that have yet to be implemented or demonstrate effectiveness, we rely on the Services joint Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions PECE; 68 FR 15100;
March 28, 2003.
Status Review As part of our review of the Petitioners requests to delineate the OC
and SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon ESUs and list them as threatened or endangered under the ESA, we formed an expert panel Panel consisting of scientists from NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Southwest
PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

45971

Fisheries Science Center. We asked the Panel to provide: 1 An analysis and review of the Petitioners claims that OC
and SONCC spring-run Chinook salmon populations should be considered ESUs;
and, if any new ESUs were identified, 2 a description of the demographic risks i.e., abundance, productivity, spatial distribution and diversity of the new ESUs. The first task was for the Panel to compile the best available scientific and commercial information relevant to re-evaluating the ESU
structure of the OC and SONCC Chinook salmon ESUs, including information provided by the Petitioners.
Specifically, the NMFS West Coast Region WCR requested the Panel use the criteria in the ESU Policy 56 FR
58612; November 20, 1991 to evaluate whether the OC and/or SONCC springrun Chinook salmon populations should be considered ESUs. If the Panel concluded that one or both of the spring-run Chinook salmon populations should be considered a separate ESU, and the WCR concurred, the Panel would complete the second task of describing the demographic risks, and submit their report on both tasks to the WCR. If the Panel concluded, and WCR
concurred, that there should not be a change in the current ESU structure for either ESU i.e., the spring-run Chinook salmon are part of the current ESU, the Panel would finalize their ESU structure findings and submit a report to the WCR. Under this second scenario, the Panel would not conduct a demographic risk analysis of the OC or SONCC
spring-run Chinook salmon.
In order to complete their ESU
analysis, the Panel considered a variety of scientific information from the literature, unpublished documents, and direct communications with researchers working on the genetics of Chinook salmon, as well as information submitted to NMFS in response to the 90-day findings on the petitions.
Information that was not previously peer-reviewed was formally reviewed by the Panel. The Panel evaluated the information provided by the Petitioners and considered additional factors that may contribute to our understanding of the evolutionary significance of runtiming in Chinook salmon.
The Panels draft report was subjected to independent peer review as required by the Office of Management and Budget OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review M0503;
December 16, 2004. The draft report was peer reviewed by three independent specialists selected from the academic and scientific community, with expertise in the genetic diversity and biology of salmonids. The peer
E:FRFM17AUN1.SGM

17AUN1