[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10857-10876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5403]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223
[Docket No. 080229343-81352-02]
RIN 0648-XF87
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed
Threatened Status for Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month petition finding; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the NMFS, have completed a review of the status of the
Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus; hereafter ``eulachon'') under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in response to a petition submitted by
the Cowlitz Indian Tribe to list eulachon as a threatened or endangered
species. After reviewing the best scientific and commercial information
available, we have determined that the species is comprised of two or
more distinct population segments (DPSs) that qualify as species under
the ESA. Moreover, after evaluating threats facing the species, and
considering efforts being made to protect eulachon, we have determined
that the southern DPS is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We propose to list it
as threatened under the ESA. The southern DPS of eulachon consists of
populations spawning in rivers south of the Nass River in British
Columbia, Canada, to, and including, the Mad River in California.
Within the range of the southern DPS, major production areas or ``core
populations'' for this species include the Columbia and Fraser rivers
and may have historically included the Klamath River. We solicit
information to inform the development of the final listing rule.
Any protective regulations determined to be necessary and advisable
for the conservation of the southern DPS of eulachon under ESA section
4(d) will be proposed in a subsequent Federal Register notice. We
solicit information to inform the development of proposed protective
regulations and designation of critical habitat in the event the DPS is
listed. If the proposed listing is finalized, a recovery plan will also
be prepared and implemented for the southern DPS.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by May 12, 2009. A
public hearing will be held promptly if any person so requests by April
27, 2009. Notice of the location and time of any such hearing will be
published in the Federal Register not less than 15 days before the
hearing is held.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by 0648-XF87 by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Chief, Protected
Resources Division, Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without
change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information. We will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. The
eulachon petition, status review, and other reference materials
regarding this determination can be obtained via the Internet at:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ or by submitting a request to the Assistant
Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Northwest Region,
NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Murray, NMFS, Northwest Region
(503) 231-2378; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources
(301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 16, 1999, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright of
Olympia, Washington, to list and designate critical habitat for
Columbia River populations of eulachon. On November 29, 1999, we
determined that, while the petition indicated that eulachon catches had
recently declined in the Columbia River basin, it did not present
substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted (64 FR 66601). That finding was based on
observations that the species is likely more abundant than commercial
landings indicate and, based on life history attributes (e.g., the
species' high fecundity and short life span) and assumptions from catch
data and anecdotal reports, has a demonstrated ability to rebound from
periods of low abundance. Additionally, the petition did not provide
sufficient information regarding the distinctness of eulachon
populations in the Columbia River relative to the other populations in
the species' range.
On November 8, 2007, we received a petition from the Cowlitz Indian
Tribe requesting that we list the eulachon that spawn south of the
U.S./Washington-Canada border as threatened or endangered under the
ESA. In contrast to our 1999 review, we concluded there was sufficient
information showing that eulachon may warrant delineation into DPSs and
that eulachon in the petitioned portion of the species' range had
substantially declined in abundance. On March 12, 2008, we determined
that the petition presented substantial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted, and we requested information to
assist with a status review to determine if eulachon warranted listing
under the ESA (73 FR 13185).
ESA Statutory Provisions
The ESA defines species to include subspecies or a DPS of any
vertebrate species which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS have adopted a joint
policy describing what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR
4722; February 7, 1996). The joint DPS policy identifies two criteria
for making DPS determinations: (1) the population must be discrete in
relation to the remainder of the taxon (species or subspecies) to which
it belongs; and (2) the population must be significant to the remainder
of the taxon to which it belongs.
A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1)
``it is markedly separated from other populations of the same 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
[[Page 10858]]
governmental boundaries within which differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)''
of the ESA.
If a population segment is found to be discrete under one or both
of the above conditions, its biological and ecological significance to
the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated. This consideration may
include, but is not limited to: (1) ``persistence of the discrete
population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the
taxon; (2) evidence that the loss of the discrete population segment
would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence
that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving
natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historic range; and (4) evidence that
the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations
of the species in its genetic characteristics.''
The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
threatened species as one that is likely to become an endangered
species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532 (6) and (20)). The statute
requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or
threatened because of any of the following factors: the present or
threatened destruction of its habitat, overexploitation, disease or
predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or any
other natural or manmade factors (16 U.S.C. 1533). We are to make this
determination based solely on the best available scientific and
commercial information after conducting a review of the status of the
species and taking into account any efforts being made by states or
foreign governments to protect the species.
Status Review
To conduct the status review, we formed a Biological Review Team
(BRT) comprised of Federal scientists from our Northwest, Southwest,
and Alaska Fisheries Science Centers, the FWS, and the U.S. Forest
Service. We asked the BRT to review the best available scientific and
commercial information to determine whether eulachon warrant
delineation into DPSs, using the criteria in the joint DPS policy. We
then asked the BRT to assess the level of extinction risk facing the
species, describing their confidence that the species is at high risk,
moderate risk, or neither. We described a species with high risk as one
that is at or near a level of abundance, productivity, and/or spatial
structure that places its persistence in question. We described a
species at moderate risk as one that exhibits a trajectory indicating
that it is more likely than not to be at a high level of extinction
risk in the foreseeable future, with the appropriate time horizon
depending on the nature of the threats facing the species and the
species' life history characteristics. In evaluating the extinction
risk, we asked the BRT to describe the threats facing the species,
according to the statutory factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA. The draft report of the BRT deliberations (Gustafson et al., 2008)
(hereafter ``status report'') thoroughly describes eulachon biology and
natural history, and assesses demographic risks, threats, limiting
factors, and overall extinction risk. The key background information
and findings of the draft status report are summarized below.
Biology and Life History of Eulachon
The biology of eulachon is described in detail in the draft status
report and in Willson et al. (2006), and is summarized below. Eulachon
are a member of the osmerid family (smelts), and no subspecies have
been identified. The following section presents biology and life
history information gathered from throughout the range of eulachon,
though much of the research on eulachon has occurred in Alaska and
British Columbia. A later section focuses on information specific to
the southern DPS of eulachon.
Spawning Range
Eulachon (also called Columbia River smelt, candlefish, or
hooligan) are endemic to the northeastern Pacific Ocean, ranging from
northern California to southwest and south-central Alaska and into the
southeastern Bering Sea. In the portion of the species' range that lies
south of the U.S./Washington-Canada border, most eulachon production
originates in the Columbia River Basin (Figure 1). Within the Columbia
River Basin, the major and most consistent spawning runs return to the
mainstem of the Columbia River (from just upstream of the estuary,
river mile (RM) 25, to immediately downstream of Bonneville Dam, RM
146) and in the Cowlitz River. Periodic spawning also occurs in the
Grays, Skamokawa, Elochoman, Kalama, Lewis, and Sandy rivers
(tributaries to the Columbia River) (Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW),
2001). Other river basins in the lower 48 United States where spawning
runs of eulachon have been documented include the Klamath River in
northern California and infrequently in some, but not all, coastal
rivers
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
[[Page 10859]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13MR09.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
in northern California, Oregon and Washington (Emmett et al., 1991,
Willson et al., 2006). Major production areas in Canada are the Fraser
and Nass rivers (Willson et al., 2006). Numerous other river systems in
central British Columbia and Alaska have consistent yearly runs of
eulachon and historically supported significant levels of harvest
(Willson et al., 2006; Gustafson et al., 2008). Many sources note that
runs occasionally occur in many other rivers and streams, although
these tend to be erratic, appearing in some years but not others, and
appearing only rarely in some river systems (Hay and McCarter, 2000;
Willson et al., 2006).
Spawning Behavior
Eulachon typically spend 3-5 years in saltwater before returning to
fresh water to spawn from late winter through early summer. Spawning
grounds are typically in the lower reaches of larger rivers fed by
snowmelt (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Spawning typically occurs at night.
Willson et al. (2006) concluded that the age distribution of eulachon
in a spawning run probably varies among rivers and also varies between
sexes in some years, and among years in the same river system. Males
typically outnumber females by 2:1 or more. Spawning occurs at
temperatures from 4[deg] to 10[deg] C in the Columbia River and
tributaries (ODFW and WDFW, 2001) and from 0[deg] to 2[deg] C in the
Nass River (Langer et al., 1977) over sand, coarse gravel, or detrital
substrates. The sexes must synchronize their activities closely, unlike
some
[[Page 10860]]
other group spawners such as herring, because eulachon sperm remain
viable for only a short time, perhaps only minutes (Hay and McCarter,
2000). Some researchers report that males lie next to, beside, or on
top of females in riffles (Lewis et al., 2002). Langer et al. (1977)
report that males congregate upstream of groups of females, releasing
milt simultaneously, and females lay eggs as the milt drifts over them.
Eggs are fertilized in the water column, sink, and adhere to the river
bottom typically in areas of gravel and coarse sand. Most eulachon
adults die after spawning.
In many rivers, spawning is limited to the part of the river that
is influenced by tides (Lewis et al., 2002), but some exceptions exist.
In the Berners Bay system of Alaska, the greatest abundance of eulachon
was observed in tidally-influenced reaches, but some fish ascended well
beyond the tidal influence (Willson et al., 2006). Eulachon once
ascended more than 160 km in the Columbia River system. There is some
evidence that water velocity greater than 0.4 m/s begins to limit the
upstream movements of eulachon (Lewis et al., 2002).
Entry into the spawning rivers appears to be related to water
temperature and the occurrence of high tides (Ricker et al., 1954;
Smith and Saalfeld, 1955; Spangler, 2002). Spawning occurs in January,
February, and March in the Columbia River, and April and May in the
Fraser River. Eulachon runs in central and northern British Columbia
typically occur in late February and March or late March and early
April. Attempts to characterize eulachon run timing are complicated
further by marked annual variation in timing. Willson et al. (2006)
give several examples of spawning run timing varying by a month or more
in rivers in British Columbia and Alaska.
Although spawning generally occurs at temperatures from 4[deg] to
7[deg] C in the Cowlitz River (Smith and Saalfeld, 1955), peak eulachon
runs occurred at noticeably colder temperatures (between 0[deg] and
2[deg] C) in the Nass River. The Nass River run is also earlier than
the eulachon run that occurs at warmer temperatures in the Fraser River
(Langer et al., 1977).
Early Life History and Maturation
Eulachon eggs are approximately 1 mm in diameter, averaging about
43 mg in weight; however, in the Fraser River population egg weight
varied from 10 mg in fish measuring 120 mm in length to almost 30 mg in
fish of 180-190 mm standard length (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Eggs are
enclosed in a double membrane; after fertilization in the water, the
outer membrane breaks and turns inside out, creating a sticky stalk
which helps anchor the eggs to sand grains and small gravel (Hart and
McHugh, 1944; Hay and McCarter, 2000). Eulachon eggs hatch in 20-40
days, with incubation time dependent on water temperature. Shortly
after hatching, the larvae are carried downstream and dispersed by
estuarine and ocean currents. Similar to salmon, juvenile eulachon are
thought to imprint on the chemical signature of their natal (birth)
river basins. However, juvenile eulachon spend less time in freshwater
environments than do juvenile salmon, and researchers believe that this
short freshwater residence time may cause returning eulachon to stray
more from their birth spawning sites than salmon (Hay and McCarter,
2000).
After leaving estuarine rearing areas, juvenile eulachon move from
shallow nearshore areas to deeper areas over the continental shelf.
Larvae and young juveniles become widely distributed in coastal waters,
with fish found mostly at depths up to 15 m (Hay and McCarter, 2000)
but sometimes as deep as 182 m (Barraclough, 1964). There is currently
little information available about eulachon movements in nearshore
marine areas and the open ocean. Willson et al. (2006) summarized the
results of surveys showing concentrations of pre-spawning adult
eulachon off Vancouver Island, in the Bering Sea, in the Gulf of
Alaska, in Prince William Sound, and in the Coastal Fjords of Southeast
Alaska. The amount of eulachon bycatch in the pink shrimp fishery seems
to indicate that the distribution of these organisms overlap in the
ocean.
Prey
Eulachon feed on zooplankton, chiefly eating crustaceans such as
copepods and euphausiids, including Thysanoessa spp. (Barraclough,
1964; Hay and McCarter, 2000), unidentified malacostracans (Sturdevant
et al., 1999), and cumaceans (Smith and Saalfeld, 1955). Eulachon
larvae and post-larvae eat phytoplankton, copepods, copepod eggs,
mysids, barnacle larvae, worm larvae, and eulachon larvae (WDFW and
ODFW, 2001). Adults and juveniles commonly forage at moderate depths
(15 to 182 m) in inshore waters (Hay and McCarter, 2000).
Predators
Eulachon are very high in lipids, and, due to their availability
during spawning runs, they are an important part of the Pacific coastal
food web. They have numerous avian predators such as harlequin ducks,
pigeon guillemots, common murres, mergansers, cormorants, gulls, and
eagles. Marine mammals such as baleen whales, orcas, dolphins,
pinnipeds, and beluga whales are known to feed on eulachon. During
spawning runs, bears and wolves have been observed consuming eulachon.
Fishes that prey on eulachon include white sturgeon, spiny dogfish,
sablefish, salmon sharks, arrowtooth flounder, salmon, Dolly Varden,
Pacific halibut, and Pacific cod. In particular, eulachon and their
eggs seem to provide a significant food source for white sturgeon in
the Columbia and Fraser Rivers.
Age and Length
It is difficult to compare eulachon body lengths among reports
because researchers have used different length measures (i.e.,
standard, fork, and total length) and these must be standardized for
across-population comparisons (Buchheister and Wilson, 2005). As
expected, both length and body mass increase with age. Eulachon on the
Twentymile River averaged about 180-200 mm and 40-58 g at age 2, to
220-225 mm and 80-90 g at age 5. At age 3, the most common age of
spawners, fork length averaged about 200-215 mm and body mass averaged
about 60-65 g (estimated from Spangler, 2002). For the Fraser River
population, fork-length distribution was as follows: age 0+ fish were
about 20-50 mm, age 1+ about 50-80 mm, age 2+ about 75-105 mm, age 3+
about 105-135 mm, and age 4+ about 135-160 mm (estimated by Willson et
al., 2006, from Barraclough, 1964). Eulachon in the Kemano, Kitimat,
Nass, Stikine, and Columbia rivers have similar distributions of size-
at-age, but the increase in size-at-age is small for both sexes (10 mm
from age 3 to 4 and 4 mm from age 4 to 5; Lewis et al., 2002).
DPS Delineation
Evidence that the BRT found informative for determining whether
southern populations of eulachon may be discrete from northern
populations of eulachon included differences in: spawning
characteristics; size- and age-at-maturity of eulachon between northern
and southern rivers in the species' range; ecological features of both
the oceanic and freshwater environments occupied by eulachon; and
genetic characteristics.
Spawning Characteristics
Eulachon generally spawn in rivers that are glacier-or snowmelt-fed
and have a pronounced peak freshet in spring. Some researchers
hypothesize that the rapid flushing of eggs and
[[Page 10861]]
larvae out of the spawning river reach by these freshets may result in
eulachon imprinting and homing to the larger local estuary rather than
to individual spawning rivers (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Thus, the
estuary has been invoked as the likely geographic population unit for
eulachon (Hay and McCarter, 2000; Hay and Beacham, 2005).
Variation in spawn timing among rivers has also been cited as
indicative of local adaptation in eulachon (Hay and McCarter, 2000),
although the wide overlap in spawn timing among rivers makes it
difficult to discern distinctive patterns in this trait. These
differences in spawn timing result in some populations spawning when
water temperatures are as low as 0-2[deg] C, and sometimes under ice
(e.g., in the Nass River; Langer et al., 1977), whereas other
populations experience spawning temperatures of from 4-7[deg] C (e.g.,
in the Cowlitz River; (Smith and Saalfield, 1955)). In general,
eulachon spawn earlier in southern portions of their range than in
rivers to the north. River-entry and spawning begin as early as
December and January in the Columbia River Basin and as late as June in
central Alaska. However, eulachon have been known to spawn as early as
January in rivers of the Copper River Delta of Alaska and as late as
May in northern California. The general spawn timing pattern is
reversed along the coast of British Columbia where the earliest
spawning occurs in the Nass River in the far north in February to early
March, and the latest spawning occurs in the Fraser River in April and
May in the far south.
Size and Age-at-Maturity
Coastwide, there appears to be an increase in both mean length and
weight of eulachon at maturity with an increase in latitude. Mean
eulachon fork length and weight at maturity range from about 215 mm and
70 g in the Twentymile River in Alaska to 175 mm and 37 g in the
Columbia River. This pattern is typical of many vertebrate
poikilotherms (i.e., cold-blooded animals), for which higher rearing
temperatures result in reduced size at a given stage of development
(Lindsey, 1966; Atkinson, 1994; Stout et al., 2001a).
Age determination of eulachon has been difficult to validate and
estimates of age based on otolith increments may not be accurate
(Ricker et al. 1954, Hay and McCarter 2000). Most studies based on
otolith increments conclude that some eulachon spawn at age-2 through
age-5, but most spawn at age-2, age-3 or age-4 (Barraclough, 1964;
Langer et al., 1977; Hay and McCarter, 2000; Willson et al., 2006).
Recently, Clarke et al. (2007) developed a method to estimate eulachon
age at spawning from analysis of variations in barium and calcium in
the otoliths. This study indicated that age structure of spawners in
the southern areas may be limited to one or at most two year classes
(Clarke et al., 2007). According to Clarke et al. (2007), the number of
peaks in the Barium to Calcium ratio observed in eulachon otoliths
increased with increasing latitude, suggesting that the age at maturity
is older for northern populations.
Ecological Boundaries
The fidelity with which eulachon return to their natal river,
estuary, or inlet implies some association between a specific
population and its freshwater and/or estuarine environment. Differences
in life-history strategies among eulachon populations may have arisen,
in part, in response to selective pressures of different freshwater/
estuarine environments. If the boundaries of distinct freshwater or
estuarine habitats coincide with differences in life histories, it
would suggest a certain degree of local adaptation. The BRT looked at
the characteristics of the terrestrial and marine environments occupied
by eulachon to assist in evaluating potential DPS structure.
The BRT used the Environmental Protection Agency ecoregion
designations (Omernik, 1987) to evaluate potential eulachon DPS
structure based on freshwater distribution. These ecoregions have been
used in past ESA status reviews and recovery plans to identify DPSs and
population structure of Pacific salmon and other marine fishes (e.g.,
Good et al., 2005). The historical distribution of eulachon in
Washington, Oregon, and California corresponds closely with the Coastal
Range Ecoregion as defined in Omernik (1987). Extending from the
Olympic Peninsula through the Coast Range proper and down to the
Klamath Mountains and the San Francisco Bay area, this region is
influenced by medium to high rainfall levels because of the interaction
between marine weather systems and the mountainous nature of the
region. Topographically, the region averages about 500 m in elevation,
with mountain tops under 1,200 m in elevation. The region is heavily
forested, primarily with Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and western red
cedar. Streams occupied by eulachon within this region generally follow
two distinct annual flow patterns: (1) Streams draining coastal
watersheds, where winter rain storms are common, have high flow periods
coinciding with these storms; (2) streams draining more interior areas,
such as the Columbia and Cowlitz Rivers, have a distinct spring freshet
period coinciding with snow melt. Eulachon production is highest in
these latter systems.
The BRT also used Environment Canada's (2008) established system of
ecozones and ecoregions to help assess eulachon DPS boundaries in
Canada. Their ``Ecozones'' are approximately the same size as the
ecoregions defined by Omernik (1987), while their ecoregions are
considerably smaller. All rivers that support regular runs of eulachon
in British Columbia are within the Pacific Maritime Ecozone, which
consists of 14 ecoregions. The Lower Mainland, Pacific Ranges, and
Coastal Gap ecoregions contain rivers supporting regular runs of
eulachon as defined in Hay and McCarter (2000) and Hay (2002). The
Lower Mainland Ecoregion is dominated by the Fraser River and includes
the Fraser River valley. Mean annual precipitation in the Fraser River
Valley ranges from 200 cm in the Cascade foothills to 85 cm at the
river's mouth. Mean summer and winter air temperatures in this region
are 15[deg] C and 3.5[deg] C, respectively. Douglas fir dominates
native forest stands while other common tree species include red alder,
Pacific madrone, western red cedar and western hemlock. The Pacific
Ranges Ecoregion extends from the southern extent of the steeply
sloping irregular Coast Mountains at the US border to Bella Coola in
the north. These mountains range from sea level to as high as 4000 m.
Many rivers in this region originate in expansive ice-fields, and
numerous glaciers extend into the lowlands. Mean summer and winter air
temperatures in this region are 13.5[deg] C and -1[deg] C,
respectively. Mean annual precipitation in this ecoregion ranges from
340 cm at high elevations to 150 cm at sea level. The coastal forest
zone is dominated by stands of western red cedar, western hemlock, and
Pacific silver fir; and by Douglas fir and western hemlock in drier
sites. The Coastal Gap Ecoregion extends from Dean Channel north to the
border between British Columbia and Alaska and is bounded by the taller
Pacific Ranges to the south and the Boundary Ranges to the north. The
low-relief mountains in this ecoregion consist of the Kitimat Ranges,
which rarely reach higher than 2400 m. Mean summer and winter air
temperatures in this region are 13[deg] C and -0.5[deg] C,
respectively. This ecoregion has the highest mean annual
[[Page 10862]]
precipitation in British Columbia, ranging from 200 cm on the coast to
over 450 cm at high elevations. Forests are dominated by western red
cedar, yellow cedar, and western hemlock. Some Sitka spruce and shore
pine are also present with red alder being common on disturbed sites.
The Nass Basin Ecoregion contains two rivers, the Nass and the
Skeena, which also support regular runs of eulachon. The Nass Basin
Ecoregion lies between the interior and coastal portions of the Coast
Mountains in west-central British Columbia and is an area of low-relief
composed of folded Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments that is almost
encircled by mountains. Mean summer and winter air temperatures in this
region are 11.5[deg] C and -9.5[deg] C, respectively. Mean annual
precipitation ranges up to 250 cm at higher elevations to 150 cm in the
lowlands. The moist montane zone is dominated by western red cedar and
western hemlock, whereas forests in the subalpine zone contain
subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, and Engelmann spruce.
The BRT also looked at ecological features of the ocean environment
to evaluate potential eulachon DPS structure. Ware and McFarlane (1989)
built upon previous descriptions of oceanic domains in the northeast
Pacific Ocean by Dodimead et al. (1963) and Thomson (1981) to identify
three principal fish production domains in the range of eulachon: (1) a
Southern Coastal Upwelling Domain, (2) a Northern Coastal Downwelling
Domain, and (3) a Central Subarctic Domain (the Alaskan Gyre). The
boundary between the Coastal Upwelling Domain and Coastal Downwelling
Domain occurs where the eastward flowing Subarctic Current (also called
the North Pacific Current) bifurcates to form the north-flowing Alaska
Current and the south-flowing California Current. This occurs in the
vicinity of a Transitional Zone between the northern tip of Vancouver
Island and the northern extent of the Queen Charlotte Islands (an
archipelago off the northwest coast of British Columbia, Canada, just
south of the Nass River outlet).
Similarly, Longhurst (2006) identifies an Alaska Downwelling
Coastal Province and a California Current Province within the Pacific
Coastal Biome in his delineation of ocean zones. Within Longhurst's
(2006) Pacific Coastal Biome, ocean distribution of eulachon spans the
Alaska Downwelling Coastal Province and the northern portion of the
California Current Province. Longhurst (2006) also places the boundary
between the Alaska Coastal Downwelling Province and the California
Current Province where the eastward flowing Subarctic Current (also
called the North Pacific Current) bifurcates.
Different modes of physical forcing and nutrient enrichment
characterize these provinces. Eulachon occupying these different
provinces likely experience different ocean conditions and selective
pressures. In the Alaska Coastal Downwelling province, large amounts of
precipitation and runoff from melting glaciers along the mountainous
Alaskan coast provide the majority of freshwater input. In summer and
fall, when runoff is at a maximum, waters in the fjord-like coastline
and in this area are usually highly stratified in both temperature and
salinity. Following the spring phytoplankton bloom, stratification in
the top layers of the water column limits nutrient availability and
leads to subsequent nutrient depletion. Occasional wind events lead to
temporary local upwelling of nutrients and subsequent phytoplankton
blooms. In general, water temperatures are lower in this province than
the more southerly California Current Province.
In the California Current Province, seasonal wind driven upwelling
is a dominate feature of this province. This process carries nutrients
onshore where they are upwelled along the coast, leading to high
primary production that lasts through much of the spring and summer.
Nearshore upwelling also results in higher salinities and lower
temperatures compared to offshore locations.
These two provinces are also characterized by distinct plankton
communities: a boreal community in the Alaska Downwelling Province and
a temperate community in the California Current Province. Food
availability for eulachon differs in type and seasonal availability
between provinces. It is likely that food availability highly
influences eulachon behaviors such as seasonal movements.
Genetics
The analysis of the geographical distribution of genetic variation
is a powerful method for identifying discrete populations. In addition,
such analysis can sometimes be used to estimate historical dispersals,
equilibrium levels of migration (gene flow), and past isolation.
Commonly used molecular genetic markers include protein variants
(allozymes), microsatellite loci (variable numbers of short tandem
repeats in nuclear DNA), and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
The BRT reviewed three published genetic studies to consider
evidence of population structure in eulachon. One of these studies
(McLean et al., 1999) used restriction fragment length polymorphism
analysis to examine variation in mtDNA. Mitochondrial DNA studies are
generally most useful for detecting deep divergence patterns of
population structure, and may not be very powerful for detecting
structure among closely related populations. The other studies (McLean
and Taylor, 2001; Kaukinen et al., 2004; Beacham et al., 2005) analyzed
microsatellite loci. Microsatellite DNA markers can potentially detect
population structure on finer spatial and temporal scales than can
other DNA or protein markers because of higher levels of polymorphism
(diversity) found in microsatellite DNA (reflecting a high mutation
rate).
McLean et al. (1999) examined mtDNA variation in 285 eulachon
samples collected at 11 freshwater sites ranging from the Columbia
River to Cook Inlet, Alaska, and also from 29 ocean-caught fish
captured in the Bering Sea. They concluded that, overall, there was
little genetic differentiation among eulachon collected from distinct
freshwater locations throughout the eulachon range. The pattern of
eulachon mtDNA variation does not indicate the existence of any highly
divergent populations and is consistent with the hypothesis that
eulachon dispersed from a single glacial formation and retreat event.
However, McLean et al. (1999) did note an association of geographic
distance with genetic differentiation among eulachon populations, and
suggested this represented an emerging population subdivision
throughout the range of the species.
In a later study, McLean and Taylor (2001) used five microsatellite
loci to examine variation in the same set of populations as McLean et
al. (1999). The populations in the Columbia and Cowlitz rivers were
represented by 2 years of samples with a total sample size of 60 fish
from each river. However, several populations were represented by very
few samples, including just five fish from the three rivers in Gardner
Canal and just 10 fish from the Fraser River. Results from a
hierarchical analysis of molecular variance test were similar to those
of the McLean et al. (1999) mtDNA study, with 0.85 percent of variation
occurring among large regions and 3.75 percent among populations within
regions. In contrast to the mtDNA analysis however, genetic distances
among populations using these five microsatellite loci were not
correlated with geographic distances. Overall, McLean and Taylor (2001)
[[Page 10863]]
concluded that their microsatellite DNA results were mostly consistent
with the mtDNA findings of McLean et al. (1999) and that both studies
indicated that eulachon have some degree of population structure.
The most extensive genetic study of eulachon, in terms of sample
size and number of loci examined, is that of Beacham et al. (2005).
Beacham et al. (2005) examined microsatellite DNA variation in eulachon
collected at 9 sites ranging from the Columbia River to Cook Inlet,
Alaska, using the 14 loci developed in an earlier study by Kaukinen et
al. (2004). Sample sizes per site ranged from 74 fish from the Columbia
River to 421 from the Fraser River. Samples collected in multiple years
were analyzed from populations in the Bella Coola and Kemano rivers (2
years of sampling) and also in the Nass River (3 years of sampling).
Beacham et al. (2005) observed much greater microsatellite DNA
diversity within populations than that reported by McLean and Taylor
(2001), and all loci were highly polymorphic in all of the sampled
populations. Significant genetic differentiation was observed among all
comparisons of the nine populations in the study. A cluster analysis of
genetic distances showed genetic affinities among the populations in
the Fraser, Columbia, and Cowlitz rivers and also among the Kemano,
Klinaklini, and Bella Coola rivers along the central British Columbia
coast. In particular, there was evidence of a genetic discontinuity
north of the Fraser River, with Fraser and Columbia/Cowlitz samples
being approximately 3-6 times more divergent from samples further to
the north than they were to each other. Similar to the mtDNA study of
McLean et al. (1999), the authors also found that genetic
differentiation among populations was correlated with geographic
distances.
Beacham et al. (2005) found stronger evidence of population
structure than the earlier genetic studies, and concluded that their
results indicated that management of eulachon would be appropriately
based at the level of the river drainage. In particular, the
microsatellite DNA analysis showed that populations of eulachon in
different rivers are genetically differentiated from each other at
statistically significant levels. The authors suggested that the
pattern of eulachon differentiation was similar to that typically found
in marine fish, which is less than that observed in most salmon
species.
Although Beacham et al. (2005) found clear evidence of genetic
structure among eulachon populations, the authors also noted that
important questions remained unresolved. The most important one in
terms of identifying DPSs for eulachon is the relationship between
temporal and geographic patterns of genetic variation. In particular,
Beacham et al. (2005) found that year-to-year genetic variation within
three British Columbia coastal river systems was similar to the level
of variation among the rivers, which suggests that patterns among
rivers may not be temporally stable. However, in the comparisons
involving the Columbia River samples, the variation between the
Columbia samples and one north-of-Fraser sample from the same year was
approximately 5 times greater than a comparison within the Columbia
from 2 different years.
When all genetic studies are considered, the BRT found modest
genetic structure within eulachon, with the most obvious genetic break
appearing to occur in southern British Columbia north of the Fraser
River. This break indicates a degree of reproductive isolation between
northern and southern populations, suggesting the two population
segments are discrete.
DPS Conclusions of the BRT
Based on the foregoing, the BRT identified six possible DPS
configurations or scenarios that could include eulachon that spawn in
Washington, Oregon, and California rivers (i.e., the petitioned
region). The geographic boundaries of possible DPSs considered in this
evaluation were: (1) the entire biological species is the ``ESA
species'' (i.e., there is no DPS structure within the species); (2) a
DPS boundary near the Yakutat Forelands in Alaska such that eulachon in
Southeast Alaska through Northern California consist of one DPS and
eulachon further north and west consist of one or more additional
DPS(s); (3) a DPS boundary just south of the Nass River/Dixon Entrance
in British Columbia such that eulachon from south of the Nass River
through Northern California consist of one DPS and eulachon from the
Nass River and further north and west consist of one or more additional
DPS(s); (4) a DPS boundary north of the Fraser River such that eulachon
from the Fraser River through Northern California consist of one DPS
and eulachon from the Fraser River and further north and west consist
of one or more additional DPS(s); (5) a DPS boundary south of the
Fraser River such that eulachon south of the US-Canada border consist
of one DPS and eulachon from the Fraser River and further north and
west consist of one or more additional DPS(s); (6) multiple DPSs of
eulachon in Washington, Oregon and California and one or more
additional DPSs throughout the remainder of the species' range.
Because of the paucity of quantitative population data, the BRT
used structured decision making to guide its determination of DPS
structure and boundaries. To allow for expressions of the level of
uncertainty in identifying the boundaries of a discrete eulachon
population, the BRT adopted a ``likelihood point'' method, often
referred to as the ``FEMAT'' method because it is a variation of a
method used by scientific teams evaluating management options under the
Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Ecosystem Management and Assessment Team,
1993). In this approach, each BRT member distributed 10 ``likelihood
points'' amongst these six DPS scenarios. This approach has been widely
used by NMFS BRTs in previous DPS determinations (e.g., Pacific Salmon,
Southern Resident Killer Whale). The BRT did not attempt to divide the
entire species into DPSs, but rather focused on evaluating whether a
DPS could be identified that contains eulachon that spawn in
Washington, Oregon, and California, as discussed in the listing
petition.
Scenario 1 (no DPS structure) received about 12 percent of the
total likelihood points. Scenarios 2 (one DPS inclusive of eulachon in
Southeast Alaska to Northern California) and 5 (one DPS south of the
Fraser River) received no support by the BRT. There was also very
little BRT support for multiple DPSs of eulachon in the conterminous
United States; only 4 percent of the likelihood points were placed in
scenario 6. All remaining likelihood points (84 percent) were
distributed among scenarios supporting a DPS at a level larger than the
petitioned unit of Washington, Oregon, and California but smaller than
the entire biological species. Scenario 3 (one DPS south of the Nass
River/Dixon Entrance) received over 57 percent of the total likelihood
points. Scenario 4 (one DPS inclusive of eulachon in the Fraser River
through California) received significant support with over 27 percent
of all points placed in this scenario.
After reviewing these results, it was the majority opinion of the
BRT that eulachon from Washington, Oregon, and California are not
discrete from eulachon north of the U.S.-Canada boundary (as
petitioned), but that eulachon south of the Nass River are discrete
from eulachon in the Nass River and northward (Figure 1). This opinion
is based on the evidence indicating that eulachon occurring in this
area are discrete from eulachon occurring north
[[Page 10864]]
of this area based on differences in spawning temperatures; length- and
weight-at-maturity; ecological features of both the oceanic and
freshwater environments occupied by eulachon; and the genetic results
(particularly of Beacham et al. 2005).
This BRT determined the discrete population segment is significant
to the species as a whole because it constitutes over half of the
geographic range of the entire species' distribution and includes at
least two of the major production areas (Columbia and Fraser rivers)
for the entire species. Therefore, the loss of this DPS would result in
a significant reduction in the species' overall distribution.
During the status review, the BRT did not evaluate potential DPS
structure of eulachon populations occurring north of the Nass River.
The BRT found, however, that northern populations are discrete from
southern populations. We conclude that this discrete northern
population segment (from the Nass River (inclusive) to Bristol Bay,
Alaska) would also be significant to the taxon because it comprises a
substantial portion of the range of the species and because the Alaska
Downwelling Coastal Province (described above) represents a unique
ecological setting for the taxon. We have not considered whether this
northern population segment of eulachon might be further subdivided
into more than one DPS. We refer to the DPS south of the Nass River as
the southern DPS.
Extinction Risk Assessment
Information Reviewed
The BRT considered several types of information while evaluating
the status of the southern DPS of eulachon. The available data types
and their respective strengths and weaknesses are discussed in detail
in the draft status report. Fishery-independent scientific assessments
of the total number or biomass of spawning eulachon were only available
for the Fraser River and from several other British Columbia rivers. In
some areas, the only data available on eulachon abundance are derived
from commercial or subsistence fisheries landings. Commercial landings
were available from the Klamath, Columbia, Umpqua, Fraser, Kitimat, and
Skeena rivers. Data from Canadian First Nations subsistence fisheries
landings were available for the Fraser River and several other British
Columbia coastal rivers. Recreational fisheries for eulachon have been
poorly documented, even though the recreational catch may have been
equal to the commercial catch on many rivers with eulachon runs. Some
data are available for Fraser River recreational catches and the BRT
considered this information. The BRT recognized that inferring
population status from commercial, subsistence, or recreational fishery
data can be problematic and considered this when drawing conclusions
from fishery-dependant data.
Numerous ethnographic studies emphasize the nutritional and
cultural importance of eulachon to coastal Indian tribes and First
Nations. The BRT examined ethnographic sources that describe historical
distributions and relative abundance of eulachon fisheries within the
boundaries of the DPS. Many of the statements in these sources as to
the historical distribution and abundance of eulachon consisted of
traditional ecological knowledge or were anecdotal in nature. The BRT
also examined a variety of both primary anecdotal sources (e.g.,
accounts of early explorers, surveyors, fur trappers, and settlers; and
newspaper articles) and secondary anecdotal sources (e.g., agency
fisheries reports and journal articles that cite personal
communications) that describe historical distributions and relative
abundance of eulachon within the boundaries of the DPS.
Absolute Numbers
The absolute number of individuals in a population is important in
assessing two aspects of extinction risk. For small populations that
are stable or increasing, population size can be an indicator of
whether the population can sustain itself into the future in the face
of environmental fluctuations and small-population stochasticity. In
addition to total numbers, the spatial and temporal distribution of
adults is important in assessing risk to a species or DPS. At a
minimum, adults need to be in the same place at the same time for
reproduction to occur.
Several aspects of eulachon biology indicate that large
aggregations of adult eulachon are necessary for maintenance of normal
reproductive output. Eulachon are a short-lived, high-fecundity, high-
mortality forage fish, and such species typically have large population
sizes. Research from other marine fishes (Sadovy, 2001) suggests that
there is likely a biological requirement for a critical threshold
density of eulachon during spawning to ensure adequate synchronization
of spawning, mate choice, gonadal sterol levels, and fertilization
success. Since eulachon sperm may remain viable for only a short time,
perhaps only minutes, sexes must synchronize spawning activities
closely, unlike other fish such as Pacific herring (Hay and McCarter,
2000; Willson et al., 2006). In most samples of spawning eulachon,
males greatly outnumber females (although many factors may contribute
to these observations) (Willson et al. 2006), and in some instances
congregations of males have been observed simultaneously spawning
upstream of females that laid eggs as milt drifted downstream (Langer
et al., 1977).
In addition, the genetically effective population size of eulachon
may be much lower than the census size. Effective size is important
because it determines the rate of inbreeding and the rate at which a
population loses genetic variation. In marine species, under conditions
of high fecundity and high mortality associated with pelagic larval
development, local environmental conditions may lead to random
``sweepstake recruitment'' events where only a small minority of
spawning individuals contribute to subsequent generations (Hedgecock,
1994), and this effect appears to be more pronounced in larger
populations (Hauser and Carvalho, 2008).
Historical Abundance and Carrying Capacity
Knowing the relationship of present abundance to present carrying
capacity is important for evaluating the health of populations; but the
fact that a population is near its current carrying capacity does not
necessarily signify full health. A population near carrying capacity
implies that short-term management may not be able to increase fish
abundance.
The relationship of current abundance and habitat capacity to
historical levels is another important consideration in evaluating
risk. Knowledge of historical population conditions provides a
perspective for understanding the conditions under which present
populations evolved. Historical abundance also provides the basis for
scaling long-term trends in populations. Comparison of present and past
habitat capacity can also indicate long-term population trends and
problems of population fragmentation. For eulachon, current and
historical abundance data and information was available in the form of
spawner biomass and/or total spawner counts, offshore juvenile eulachon
biomass estimates, mean eulachon larval density, catch-per-unit-effort,
commercial/recreational/subsistence fisheries landings, ethnographic
studies, and anecdotal qualitative information.
[[Page 10865]]
Trends in Abundance
Short- and long-term trends in abundance are a primary indicator of
risk. Trends may be calculated from a variety of quantitative data,
which are discussed in detail in specific sections below.
Interpretation of trends in terms of population sustainability is
difficult for a variety of reasons: First, eulachon are harvested in
fisheries, and shifting harvest goals or market conditions directly
affect trends in spawning abundance and catch. Second, environmental
fluctuations on short timescales affect trend estimates, especially for
shorter trends and relatively short-lived species like eulachon.
Recent Events
A variety of factors, both natural and human-induced, affect the
degree of risk facing eulachon populations. Because of time lags in
these effects and variability in populations, recent changes in any of
these factors may affect current risk without any apparent change in
available population statistics. Thus, consideration of these effects
must go beyond examination of recent abundance and trends. Yet
forecasting future effects is rarely straightforward and usually
involves qualitative evaluations based on informed professional
judgment. Events affecting populations may include natural changes in
the environment or human-induced changes, either beneficial or
detrimental.
It is generally accepted that important shifts in ocean-atmosphere
conditions occurred about 1977 and again in 1998 that affected North
Pacific marine ecosystems. Several studies have described decadal-scale
oscillations in North Pacific climatic and oceanic conditions (Mantua
and Hare, 2002). These changes have been associated with recruitment
patterns of several groundfish species and Pacific herring (McFarlane
et al., 2000). Increases in eulachon in the Columbia, Fraser, and
Klinaklini rivers in 2001-2002 may be largely a result of the more
favorable ocean conditions for eulachon survival during the transition
from larvae to juvenile when these broods entered the ocean in 1998-
2000.
At this time, we do not know whether recent shifts in climate/ocean
conditions represent a long-term shift in conditions that will continue
affecting populations into the future or short-term environmental
fluctuations that can be expected to be reversed in the near future.
Although recent conditions appear to be within the range of historic
conditions under which eulachon populations have evolved, the risks
associated with poor climate conditions may be exacerbated by human
influence on these populations (Lawson, 1993).
Distribution and Abundance
Historically important spawning areas for eulachon south of the
Nass River include the Klamath, Columbia, and Fraser Rivers, and
numerous coastal rivers in British Columbia (Willson et al. 2006).
Klamath and other Northern California Rivers
There has been no long-term monitoring program targeting eulachon
in California, making the assessment of historical abundance and
abundance trends difficult (Gustafson et al., 2008). Ethnographic
studies, pioneer diaries, interviews with local fishers, personal
observations and communications from managers, and newspaper accounts
are therefore the best scientific and commercial information available
that provide documentation of eulachon occurrence in the Klamath River
and other rivers on the Northern California coast.
Hubbs (1925) and Schultz and DeLacy (1935), leading ichthyologists
of their day, described the Klamath River in Northern California as the
southern limit of the range of eulachon. More recent compilations state
that large spawning aggregations of eulachon were reported to have once
regularly occurred in the Klamath River (Fry 1979, Moyle et al., 1995;
Larson and Belchik 1998; Moyle 2002; Hamilton et al., 2005) and on
occasion in the Mad River (Moyle et al., 1995; Moyle 2002) and Redwood
Creek (Redwood Creek is located south of the Klamath River near the
town of Orick, California) (Moyle et al., 1995). In addition, Moyle et
al. (1995) and Moyle (2002) stated that small numbers of eulachon have
been reported from the Smith River (the Smith River is located just
south of the Oregon/California border). California Department of Fish
and Game's ``Status Report on Living Marine Resources'' document
(Sweetnam et al., 2001) stated that ``The principal spawning run [of
eulachon] in California is in the Klamath River, but runs have also
been recorded in the Mad and Smith Rivers and Redwood Creek.''
Eulachon have been occasionally reported from other freshwater
streams of California. Jennings (1996) reported observations of adult
eulachon in creeks tributary to Humboldt Bay, California in May of
1977. Although Minckley et al. (1986) indicate that eulachon were
native to the Sacramento River and drainages within the south
California Coastal to Baja California region, no verifying references
or actual observations for these assertions were given. Recently,
Vincik and Titus (2007) reported on the capture of a single mature male
eulachon in a screw trap at RM 142 on the Sacramento River.
The California Academy of Sciences (CAS) ichthyology collection
database lists eulachon specimens collected from the Klamath River in
February 1916 and March 1947 and 1963, and in Redwood Creek in February
1955 (see CAS online collections database at http://research.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/collection/index.asp). A
search of available online digital newspaper resources revealed an
early account of eulachon in the Klamath River in a newspaper account
in 1879 and runs large enough to be noted in local newspaper accounts
occurred in the Klamath River in February 1919, March 1968, and April
1963 and 1969; in Redwood Creek in April 1963 and 1967; and in the Mad
River in April 1963 (see draft BRT report Appendix B). An early memoir
by a traveler surveying timber resources on the Klamath River reported
eulachon being harvested (15-20 pounds in a single dipnet haul) by
Yurok tribal members in the early 1890s (Pearsall, 1928).
Eulachon were of great cultural and subsistence importance to the
Yurok Tribe on the Lower Klamath River (Trihey and Associates, 1996)
and the Yurok People consider eulachon to be a Tribal Trust Species
(Trihey and Associates, 1996; Larson and Belchik, 1998). Eulachon once
supported popular recreational fisheries in Northern California rivers,
but were never commercially important in California. The only reported
commercial catch of eulachon in Northern California occurred in 1963
when a combined total of 25 metric tons (56,000 lbs) was landed from
the Klamath River, the Mad River, and Redwood Creek (Odemar, 1964).
Larson and Belchik (1998), report that eulachon have not been of
commercial importance in the Klamath and are totally unstudied as to
their run strengths.
Larson and Belchik (1998) also reported that according to accounts
of Yurok Tribal elders, the last noticeable runs of eulachon were
observed in the Klamath River in 1988 and 1989 by Tribal fishers. Most
fishers interviewed perceived a decline in the mid to late 1970s, while
about a fifth thought it was in the 1980s. A minority of those
interviewed noticed declines in the 1950s and 1960s. Larson and Belchik
(1998) further stated that ``in December 1988 and May 1989, a total of
44 eulachon were identified in outmigrant
[[Page 10866]]
salmonid seining operations in and above the Klamath River estuary
(CDFG unpublished seining data)'' and that only a single eulachon
specimen (in 1996) was positively identified between 1991 and 1998 on
the Klamath River. As detailed in Larson and Belchik (1998), the Yurok
Tribal Fisheries Program spent over 119 hours of staff time from 5
February to 6 May 1996 sampling for eulachon in the lower Klamath River
at five different sites, where eulachon had been noted in the past,
without encountering a single eulachon. However, one eulachon was
captured by a Yurok Tribal member near the mouth of the Klamath River
in 1996 (Larson and Belchik, 1998). Sweetnam et al. (2001) stated that
``In recent years, eulachon numbers seem to have declined drastically;
so they are now rare or absent from the Mad River and Redwood Creek and
scarce in the Klamath River.'' They also stated that, ``the eulachon
and its fishery have been largely ignored in the past'' in California.
Sweetnam et al., 2001 suggest the perceived lack of eulachon in the
Klamath River, currently and in the recent past, represents a low point
in a natural cycle, though they also admit that the declines may be due
to human activities. In January 2007, six eulachon were reportedly
caught by tribal fishermen on the Klamath River (Dave Hillemeier, Yurok
Tribe, pers. comm.).
The BRT discussed several possible interpretations of the available
information. In particular, the BRT discussed the possibility that,
historically, runs of eulachon in the Klamath River were episodic and
perhaps only occasionally large enough to be noticed. This
interpretation, however, is inconsistent with the numerous anecdotal
but independent reports of regular large runs. The BRT also considered
the possibility that eulachon still occur in low but viable numbers in
Northern California rivers but are not frequently observed because of
the absence of a formal monitoring program, or that some eulachon may
spawn in estuarine environments and are therefore not observed in the
riverine environment. These interpretations are inconsistent with the
following facts: state and tribal biologists are monitoring rivers
where eulachon were historically reported but are not regularly finding
eulachon; sizable spawning runs of eulachon attract large numbers of
predators, which are readily observable and were historically well-
reported (see above); and eulachon are not known to spawn in estuaries
in large numbers.
After considering these possible interpretations of the available
information, the BRT concluded that the explanation most consistent
with the evidence is that Klamath River eulachon runs used to be
regular and large enough to be readily noticeable and now are
intermittent, small, and sporadic. In particular, various accounts
written by California Department of Fish and Game personnel (Fry, 1979;
Sweetnam et al., 2001; CDFG, 2008), Yurok Tribal Fisheries Department
personnel (Larson and Belchik, 1998), the National Resource Council's
Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River
Basin (NRC, 2004), and available academic literature (Moyle et al.,
1995; Moyle, 2002; Hamilton et al., 2005) describe accounts of the past
occurrence of eulachon in the Klamath River and their subsequent
decline. Based on the available information, the BRT was unable to
estimate the historical abundance of eulachon in northern California,
but found no reason to discount the veracity of these anecdotal
sources, which span a period of approximately 100 years and are
consistent in their description of noticeable runs of eulachon having
once ascended the Klamath River.
Likewise, although the BRT was concerned about the absence of a
contemporary monitoring program for eulachon, the available information
strongly indicated that noticeable runs of eulachon are not currently
spawning in Klamath River or other northern California rivers. In
particular, the BRT thought it likely that if eulachon were returning
in any substantial numbers it would be reported by local residents or
those engaged in recreation, research, or management on rivers in
Northern California. The BRT noted that large eulachon runs tend to
attract the attention of fishers, and the previous runs on the Klamath
River were readily noticeable (e.g., ``the fish moved up in huge
swarms, followed by large flocks of feeding seabirds'' (Moyle, 2002)).
The BRT therefore concluded that the available information was most
reasonably interpreted as indicating that noticeable, regularly
returning runs of eulachon used to be present in the Klamath River, but
have been rare or sporadic for a period of several decades.
Although the BRT was reasonably confident that eulachon have
declined substantially in Northern California, it is also clear that
they have not been totally absent from this area in recent years. In
particular, recent reports from Yurok Tribal fisheries biologists of a
few eulachon being caught incidentally in other fisheries on the
Klamath in 2007 indicates eulachon still enter the Klamath River on
occasion in low numbers. We agree that the BRT's conclusions regarding
eulachon presence and declines in the Klamath and other Northern
California rivers are the most persuasive interpretation of the best
available scientific and commercial information.
Columbia River
The Columbia River and its tributaries support the largest known
eulachon run. Although direct estimates of adult spawning stock
abundance are unavailable, records of commercial fishery landings begin
in 1888 and continue as a nearly uninterrupted data set to the present
time (Gustafson et al., 2008). A large recreational dipnet fishery for
which catch records are not maintained has taken place during the same
time as the commercial fishery (WDFW and ODFW, 2001).
Although commercial eulachon landings do not provide a quantitative
measure of spawning stock abundance, since they can be driven by market
and environmental conditions as well as population abundance, the WDFW
and ODFW Joint Columbia River Management Staff (JCRMS, 2007) has
concluded that ``they do provide a useful measure of the relative
annual run strength.'' In particular, State fisheries managers of
Columbia River eulachon use commercial landings to judge whether
population trends are upward, neutral, or downward (JCRMS, 2007). In
their report, the BRT agreed with this use of commercial landings data.
The Columbia River, estimated to have historically represented
fully half of the taxon's abundance, experienced a sudden decline in
its commercial eulachon fishery landings in 1993-1994 (ODFW and WDFW,
2001; JCRMS, 2007). Commercial catch levels were consistently high
(usually greater than 500 metric tons and often greater than 1,000
metric tons) for the three quarters of a century from about 1915 to
1992. In 1993, the catches declined greatly to 233 metric tons and
declined further to an average of less than 40 metric tons between 1994
and 2000. From 2001 to 2004, the catches increased to an average of 266
metric tons, before falling to an average of less than 5 metric tons
from 2005 to 2008 (JCRMS, 2007). Some of this pattern is due to fishery
restrictions, which were in turn put in place due to sharp declines in
apparent abundance. Persistent low returns and landings of eulachon in
the Columbia River from 1993 to 2000 prompted the States of Oregon and
Washington to adopt a Joint State Eulachon Management Plan in 2001 that
provides
[[Page 10867]]
for restricted harvest management when parental run strength, juvenile
production, and ocean productivity indicate a poor return is likely
(WDFW and ODFW, 2001). The fishery has operated at the most
conservative level allowed for in the Joint State Eulachon Management
Plan since 2005 owing to the low level of returns during this time
period (JCRMS, 2005; 2006; 2007). Based on these data and the
interpretation of them described above, the BRT concluded that
available catch and effort information indicate an abrupt decline in
eulachon abundance in the early 1990's, with no evidence that the
population has returned to its former level since then.
Fraser River
As in the Columbia River, a long-term data set for commercial
landings dating back into the 1880s exists for the Fraser River in
British Columbia. Between 1941 and 1996 commercial landings averaged
about 83 metric tons, but ranged as high as 421 metric tons (Hay and
McCarter, 2000). For much of this period the commercial fishery
landings are not a good indicator of relative abundance, since landings
were largely driven by market demand (Moody, 2008). Following a similar
pattern to that of the Columbia River, eulachon abundance began to
decline in 1993 to the point where the fishery was closed in 1997. This
closure was also partially due to what the Canadian DFO perceived to be
a lack of ability to control the fishery under the existing regulations
(Hay et al., 2002). Since then only minor commercial landings have been
allowed in only two of the last ten years (2002 and 2004) (DFO, 2006).
Due to poor returns, recreational and First Nation subsistence
fisheries have also been suspended on the Fraser River since 2005.
In 1996, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
began to estimate spawning stock abundance, independent of the fishery
landings, using mean egg and larval plankton density and river
discharge rates (gathered throughout a seven week outmigrant period at
five locations) in combination with known relative fecundity (egg
production per gram of female) and sex ratio. Over the three-generation
time of approximately 10 years, the overall biomass of the Fraser River
eulachon population has undergone a 92.5 percent decline (1998, 134
metric tons; 2008, 10 metric tons). The most recent population
assessment of Fraser River eulachon by Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO, 2007) stated that ``despite limited directed fisheries in recent
years, the Fraser River eulachon population remains at a precariously
low level and has failed to recover from its collapse.'' Subsequent to
this statement, spawner biomass for the 2008 eulachon run in the Fraser
River was estimated at 10 metric tons (see draft BRT report citing data
at http://www-sci.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/herring/herspawn/pages/river1_e.htm), which equates to a maximum escapement of approximately 300,000
fish.
Coastal British Columbia Rivers
Other coastal rivers and inlets in British Columbia south of the
Nass River with historically consistent eulachon runs include rivers in
Knight (Klinaklini River), Kingcome (Kingcome River), and Rivers
(Wannock, Chuckwalla, and Kilbella rivers) inlets; rivers flowing into
Dean (Bella Coola, Dean, and Kimsquit rivers) and Douglas (Kitimat and
Kildala rivers) channels; rivers flowing into Gardner Canal (Kemano,
Kowesas, and Kitlope rivers); and the Skeena River (Hay and McCarter,
2000; Willson et al., 2006). Spawner biomass (pounds or metric tons)
and/or total spawner counts (numbers of adult fish) are available for
the Klinaklini River (1995), Kingcome River (1997), Wannock/Kilbella
rivers (2005-2006), Bella-Coola River (2001-2004), Kitimat River (1993-
1996, 1998-2005), and Skeena River (1997). Many of these coastal rivers
also have a long history of anecdotal reports of eulachon runs or
sporadic records of First Nations' harvest. Some areas, such as the
Kingcome and Knight Inlet, have spawning stock abundance estimates for
a single year but no trends can be determined from these single data
points. The BRT concluded that available catch records, the extensive
ethnographic literature, and anecdotal information all indicate that
eulachon were probably present in larger annual runs in the past and
that current run sizes of eulachon appear inconsistent with the
historic level of eulachon oil or ``grease'' production, which is
extensively documented in the ethnographic literature (Macnair, 1971;
Codere, 1990).
Hay and McCarter (2000) reported that annual runs of eulachon
return on a regular basis to the Wannock, Chuckwalla, and Kilbella
rivers in Rivers Inlet on the Central Coast of British Columbia. The
spawning stock biomass of eulachon in Rivers Inlet was estimated using
scientific survey methods in 2005 and 2006. In 2005, an estimated 2,700
adults returned to the Wannock River, based on the capture of only
eleven adults during spawner abundance surveys (Burrows, 2005 as cited
in Moody, 2008). An additional three adult eulachon were taken on the
Kilbella River in 2005 (Burrows, 2005, as cited in Moody, 2008). Moody
(2008) stated that this adult spawner survey was repeated in 2006 and
although no adults were captured, an estimated 23,000 adult spawners
returned. Some limited information is available for First Nation
harvest in the 1960s and 1970s; Moody (2008) reported that catches were
1.81, 2.27, and 4.54 metric tons, in 1967, 1968, and 1971,
respectively. The BRT determined that available recent estimates of
spawning stock abundance, catch records, ethnographic literature
(Hilton, 1990), and anecdotal information indicate that Rivers Inlet
eulachon were present in larger annual runs in the past.
The Bella Coola, Dean, and Kimsquit rivers in Dean Channel support
regular eulachon runs (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Moody (2007) reports
relative abundance estimates, based on egg and larval surveys similar
to those used on the Fraser River, for the Bella Coola River in 2001
(0.039 metric tons), 2002 (0045-0.050 metric tons), 2003 (.016 metric
tons), and 2004 (0.0072 metric tons). Nuxalk First Nation subsistence
fishery landings of eulachon from the Bella Coola River show an average
catch of 18 metric tons between 1948 and 1984, with a low of 0.3 metric
tons in 1960 and a high of nearly 70 metric tons in 1954, based on data
available in Hay (2002). These data suggest that recent (2001-2004)
spawner biomass in Bella Coola River is approximately two orders of
magnitude less than the average First Nations eulachon landings were
between 1948 and 1984. According to Moody (2007), it has been nine
years since the last First Nations fishery occurred on the Bella Coola
River.
The BRT concluded that that available spawning stock biomass data
collected since 2001, catch records, extensive ethnographic literature,
and anecdotal information indicates that Bella Coola River and Dean
Channel eulachon in general were present in much larger annual runs in
the past. In addition, the present run sizes of eulachon appear
inconsistent with the historic level of grease production that is
extensively documented in the ethnographic literature on the Nuxalk
First Nations Peoples (Kennedy and Bouchard, 1990; Moody, 2008).
The Kitimat and Kildala rivers in Douglas Channel support regular
eulachon runs (Hay and McCarter, 2000). Spawning stock biomass of
eulachon in the Kitimat River was estimated using scientific survey
methods in 1993 and First Nations fisheries landings are available for
[[Page 10868]]
1969-1972. Between 1969 and 1972, First Nations fisheries landings of
eulachon ranged from 27.2 to 81.6 metric tons (Moody, 2008). The First
Nations eulachon fishery reportedly came to an end in 1972 as pollution
by industrial (pulp mill) and municipal effluent discharges made the
eulachon unpalatable (Pederson et al., 1995; Moody, 2008). Pederson et
al. (1995) estimated a total spawning biomass in the Kitimat River of
22.6 metric tons or about 514,000 individual eulachon in 1993.
According to Moody (2008), catch-per-unit-effort of eulachon on the
Kitimat River, as presented in EcoMetrix (2006), declined from 50-60
fish per 24 hour gill net set in 1994-1996 to less than 2 eulachon per
gill net set since 1998. According to EcoMetrix (2006, as cited in
Moody, 2008), abundance of eulachon from 1994 to 1996 ranged between
527,000 and 440,000 individual spawners, and from 1998 to 2005 ranged
between 13,600 and less than 1,000. Based on anecdotal information,
Moody (2008) stated that the last strong run returned to the Kitimat
River in 1991 and runs from 1992-1996 were estimated at half the size
of 1991. The BRT concluded that given this information, Kitimat River,
and Douglas Channel eulachon in general, were present in larger annual
runs in the past and that present run size estimates of eulachon appear
inconsistent with the historic level of grease production extensively
documented in the ethnographic literature (Hamori-Torok, 1990).
The Kemano, Kowesas, and Kitlope rivers in Gardner Canal support
regular runs of eulachon with the Kemano River being the primary
production area. First Nations fisheries landings on the Kemano River
are available for 1969-1973 and 1988-2007 (Moody, 2008). Rio Tinto
Alcan operates a hydroelectric generation facility on the Kemano River
and, as part of an environmental management plan, has funded monitoring
of eulachon since 1988 (Lewis et al., 2002). From 1988 to 1998,
landings ranged from 20.6 to 93.0 metric tons (average of 57 metric
tons)(Lewis et al., 2002; Moody, 2008). However, according to Moody
(2008), no run occurred in 1999. First Nations landings in the Kemano
River were low from 2000 to 2002, but improved to between 60 and 80
metric tons in 2003 and 2004 (ALCAN, 2005; Moody, 2008); however,
anecdotal information indicate that eulachon returns were not detected
in the Kemano River in either 2005 or 2006 (ALCAN, 2006, 2007;
EcoMetrix, 2006, as cited in Moody, 2008). Catch-per-unit-effort data
showed similar trends to the First Nation fishery landings, with a
sharp drop from about 2.5 metric tons per set in 1998 to less than 0.5
metric tons per set from 1999-2002, a rebound to between 0.5 and 1
metric tons per set in 2003-2004, and no fish caught in 2005-2007
(Lewis et al., 2002; Moody, 2008)
The BRT concluded that available catch-per-unit-effort data
collected since 1988, First Nations catch records, extensive
ethnographic literature, and anecdotal information indicates that
Kemano River, and Gardner Canal eulachon in general, were present in
larger annual runs in the past and that present run sizes of eulachon
appear inconsistent with the historic level of grease production that
is well documented for this region in the ethnographic literature
(Hamori-Torok, 1990).
The Skeena River and its tributaries have supported eulachon runs
(Moody, 2008), but they reportedly were small, of short duration, and
difficult to harvest because of the large size of the mainstem Skeena
River (Stoffels, 2001; Moody, 2008). Lewis (1997) estimated the total
spawning stock abundance of the Skeena River eulachon at only 3.0
metric tons in 1997. A small commercial eulachon fishery operated
between 1924 and 1946 (landings ranged from 15.4 metric tons in 1924 to
0.9 metric tons in 1935) (Moody, 2008). However, total landings records
(both commercial and subsistence) were as high as 100 metric tons at
one time and averaged 27.5 metric tons from 1900-1941 (Canada
Department of Marine and Fisheries, Annual Report, Fisheries (1900-
1916); and Statistics Canada, Fisheries Statistics of Canada (1917-
1941)). It is likely that demands of the local market have driven
subsistence and past commercial fisheries statistics on the Skeena
River, thus the BRT did not believe these data were a good index of
abundance. Moody (2008) reported anecdotal information indicating that
very few Skeena River eulachon were observed between 1997 and 1999, a
good run occurred in 2005, and virtually no eulachon were observed in
2006 (Moody, 2008). Although unable to draw strong conclusions, the BRT
concluded that available catch records and anecdotal information
indicate that Skeena River eulachon were present in larger annual runs
in the past that at one time supported a fishery. Although the current
status of this population is unknown, the BRT concluded that anecdotal
information indicates declines in abundance have occurred.
Demographic Risk Summary
Eulachon in the southern DPS were assessed according to the four
viability criteria of abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial
structure (including connectivity). These four parameters are universal
indicators of species' viability, and individually and collectively
function as reasonable predictors of extinction risk (McElhany et al.,
2000) that have been used extensively in extinction risk analysis for
endangered species.
Abundance
The BRT was concerned that although eulachon are a relatively
poorly monitored species, almost all of the available information
indicates that the southern DPS of eulachon has experienced an abrupt
decline in abundance throughout its range. The BRT was particularly
concerned that two large spawning populations, in the Columbia and
Fraser Rivers, have both declined to what appear to be historically low
levels. The BRT was also concerned that there is very little monitoring
data available for Northern California eulachon, but determined that
the available information suggests that eulachon in Northern California
experienced an abrupt decline several decades ago. The BRT was
concerned that recent attempts to estimate actual spawner abundance in
some rivers in B.C. that are known to have supported significant First
Nations fisheries in the past have resulted in very low estimates of
spawning stock.
In addition, the BRT was concerned that the current abundance of
the many individual populations within the DPS may be sufficiently low
to be an additional risk factor, even for populations (such as the
Columbia and Fraser) where the absolute population size seems large
compared to many other at-risk fish populations. Of relevance to this
issue are recent reviews of extinction risk in marine fishes
illustrating that forage fish are not immune to risk of extirpation at
the population scale (Dulvy et al., 2003; Reynolds et al., 2005).
Hutchings (2000; 2001a; 2001b) and others (Dulvy et al., 2003; Mace and
Hudson, 1999; Hutchings and Reynolds, 2004) cite empirical analyses
indicating that marine fishes likely have similar extinction
probabilities to those of non-marine taxa. In evaluating this issue,
the BRT concluded that eulachon (and other similar forage fishes) (see
Dulvy et al., 2004) may be at significant risk at population sizes that
are a fraction of their historical levels but are still large compared
to what would be considered
[[Page 10869]]
normal for other ESA listed species. The BRT believe that high eulachon
minimum viable population sizes are necessary to: (1) ensure a critical
threshold density of adult eulachon are available during breeding
events for maintenance of normal reproductive processes, (2) produce
enough offspring to counteract high in-river egg and larval mortality
and planktonic larval mortality in the ocean, and (3) produce enough
offspring to buffer against the variability of local environmental
conditions which may lead to random ``sweepstake recruitment'' events
where only a small minority of spawning individuals contribute to
subsequent generations. In species with a life history pattern like
eulachon, the genetically effective population size can be several
orders of magnitude lower than the census size (Hedgecock, 1994; ICES,
2004). Based on the best available information summarized above, the
minimum viable census sizes for spawning populations may therefore be
on the order of 50,000 to 500,000 (Dulvy et al., 2004). The BRT was
concerned that in a number of sub-areas of the DPS (Klamath, Fraser
River, Bella Coola River, Rivers Inlet, etc.) population sizes of
eulachon are below what would be considered minimum viable population
sizes for highly fecund, broadcast-spawning species.
Productivity
The BRT noted that variable year-class strength in marine fishes
with pelagic larvae is dependent on survival of larvae prior to
recruitment and is driven by match-mismatch of larvae and their
planktonic food supply (Hjort, 1914; Lasker, 1975; Sinclair and
Tremblay, 1984), oceanographic transport mechanisms (Parrish et al.,
1981), variable environmental ocean conditions (Shepherd et al., 1984;
McFarlane et al., 2000), and predation (Bailey and Houde, 1989). If
time of spawning does not coincide with river conditions conducive to
successful fertilization and egg survival, and to the appearance of
larval prey species in the oceanic environment, the result would be
high rates of environmentally-driven egg and larval mortality. The BRT
was concerned that there is evidence that climate change is leading to
relatively rapid changes in both oceanic and freshwater environmental
conditions that eulachon are unable to tolerate. Eulachon are basically
a cold-water species and are adapted to feed on a northern suite of
copepods in the ocean during the critical transition period from larvae
to juvenile and much of their recent recruitment failure may be traced
to mortality during this critical period. Recent studies show a shift
in the suite of copepod species available to eulachon toward a more
southerly species assemblage (Mackas et al., 2001; 2007; Hooff and
Peterson, 2006), contributing to a mismatch between eulachon life
history and prey species. It is also likely that pelagic fish with
their shorter life cycles may be less resilient to long-term climatic
changes than longer-lived demersal species.
The ability of the Columbia River eulachon population to respond
rapidly to the good ocean conditions of the late 1999-early 2002 period
illustrates the species' resiliency, which the BRT viewed as providing
the species with a buffer against future environmental perturbations.
The productivity potential or intrinsic rate of increase of eulachon
(Musick et al., 2000), as indicated by life history characteristics
such as low age-at-maturity, small body size, and planktonic larvae,
was recognized by the BRT as likely conferring eulachon with some
resilience to extinction as they retain the ability to rapidly respond
to favorable ocean conditions.
Diversity
In terms of threats related to diversity, the BRT was concerned
that not only are eulachon semelparous (spawn once and die) but if
recent estimates of age structure in eulachon are correct (Clarke et
al., 2007), then spawning adults-particularly in southern areas such as
the Columbia and Fraser rivers-may be limited to a single age class,
which likely increases their vulnerability to perturbations and
provides less of a buffer against year-class failure than species such
as herring that spawn repeatedly and have variable ages at maturity.
The BRT was also concerned about the apparently very low abundance of
the Klamath River sub-population, which might be expected to have
unique adaptations to conditions at the southernmost extent of the
range, and about the potential loss of biocomplexity in Fraser River
eulachon due to contraction of spawning locations, as documented by
Higgins et al. (1987).
The BRT noted some positive signs including observations that
eulachon continue to display variation in spawn timing, age-at-
maturity, and spawning locations, and a high degree of biocomplexity
(i.e., many spawning locations and spawn-timing variation) in the
Columbia River, which may buffer this population from freshwater
environmental perturbations.
Spatial Structure
The BRT also had concerns about risks related to spatial structure
and distribution. In particular, because the major spawning populations
within the DPS appear to have declined substantially, the BRT was
concerned that if some formerly significant populations, such as the
Klamath River, become extirpated, there would be less opportunity for
successful re-colonization. In addition, the apparent decline of
populations in Northern California may result in contraction of the
southern portion of the DPS's range. The BRT also noted that several
populations that used to support significant First Nations fisheries on
the British Columbia coast have declined to very low levels (e.g.,
Bella Coola River and Wannock River). Positive signs for spatial
structure and connectivity noted by the BRT include considerations that
eulachon appear to have the potential to re-colonize some areas, given
their apparent ability to stray from the natal spawning area, at least
within rivers sharing the same estuary. In addition, the perceived
historical spatial structure of the DPS, with the possible exception of
the Klamath River, remains intact.
The BRT noted several recent events that appear likely to impact
eulachon. Global patterns suggest the long-term trend is for a warmer,
less productive ocean regime in the California Current and the
Transitional Pacific. The recent decline in abundance or relative
abundance of eulachon in many systems coupled with the probable
disruption of metapopulation structure may make it more difficult for
eulachon to adapt to warming ocean conditions. In addition, warming
conditions have allowed both Pacific hake (Phillips et al., 2007) and
Pacific sardine (Emmett et al., 2005) to expand their distributions to
the north, increasing predation on eulachon by Pacific hake, and
competition for food resources with both species. However, cold ocean
conditions in 2008 suggest that this may have been a good year for
eulachon recruitment. The BRT concluded that the net effects of these
recent positive and negative events are likely to be negative.
BRT Extinction Risk Assessment Conclusion
The BRT was asked to use three categories of risk to describe the
species' status - ``high risk'' of extinction; ``moderate risk'' of
extinction; or ``not at risk'' of extinction. To allow individuals to
express uncertainty in determining the overall level of extinction risk
facing the species, the BRT adopted the ``likelihood point'' method
referred to
[[Page 10870]]
previously. The BRT's scores for overall risk to the southern DPS of
eulachon, throughout all of its range, were heavily weighted to
``moderate risk,'' with this category receiving 60 percent of the
likelihood points. The ``high risk'' category received 32 percent of
the likelihood points, and the ``not at risk'' category received 8
percent of the points.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Southern DPS of Eulachon
As described above, Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and NMFS's
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) state that we must determine
whether a species is endangered or threatened because of any one or a
combination of the following factors: (1) the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 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 man-made
factors affecting its continued existence. According to the BRT, the
primary factors responsible for the decline of the southern DPS of
eulachon are the destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat
and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The following
discussion briefly summarizes the BRT's findings regarding threats to
the eulachon southern DPS. More details can be found in the draft BRT
report (Gustafson et al., 2008). For analytical purposes, the BRT
identified and ranked threats for the four primary populations of this
DPS: mainland British Columbia Rivers south of the Nass River, Fraser
River, Columbia River, and Klamath River.
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
its Habitat or Range
The BRT identified changes in ocean conditions due to climate
change as the most significant threat to eulachon and their habitats.
They ranked this as the most significant threat to all of the DPS
populations. Marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitat in the Pacific
Northwest has been influenced by climate change over the past 50-100
years, and this change is expected to continue into the future. Average
annual Northwest air temperatures have increased by approximately 1oC
since 1900, or about 50 percent more than the global average warming
over the same period (see ISAB, 2007 for a recent review). The latest
climate models project a warming of 0.1 to 0.6oC per decade over the
next century (ISAB, 2007). Analyses of temperature trends for the U.S.
part of the Pacific Northwest (Mote et al., 1999); the maritime
portions of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (Mote, 2003a); and
the Puget Sound-Georgia Basin region (Mote, 2003b) have shown that air
temperature increased 0.8 C, 0.9 C, and 1.5 C, in these respective
regions during the twentieth century. Warming in each of these areas
was substantially greater than the global average of 0.6 C (Mote,
2003b). This change in surface temperature has already modified, and is
likely to continue to modify, freshwater, estuarine, and marine
habitats of eulachon.
Climate change is likely to have significant effects on the large
river systems that are essential to eulachon production. Ferrari et al.
(2007) predict that the Fraser River will increase in temperature over
the next century in all summer months with a maximum increase in August
temperatures of 0.14oC per decade. Peak flows in the Fraser River may
also shift during this timeframe (Morrison et al., 2002), potentially
altering the timing of freshets that coincide with eulachon spawning.
It is uncertain whether eulachon would adjust spawn timing to account
for shifts in peak flows. In the Columbia River, climate change is
likely to result in decreased snowpack, increased peak flows, decreased
base flow, and increased water temperatures (ISAB, 2007). As with the
Fraser River, peak flows in the Columbia and its tributaries are likely
to shift, possibly decoupling eulachon spawning and spring freshets.
Climate change could cause problems for the eulachon spawning in
the other areas throughout the range of this DPS. In British Columbia,
many of the coastal systems that support eulachon are fed by glaciers.
The size of these glaciers and other glaciers at mid-latitude areas
around the world has been decreasing (Meier et al., 2003; Barry, 2005).
It is uncertain what effect reduction in glacier size might have on the
hydrology of these systems, but in most cases a shift in peak stream
flow timing would occur. Mote (2003) reports that anticipated
reductions in snowpack in the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound area are likely
to alter hydrologic patterns, possibly reducing peak and/or base stream
flows. Again, shifting stream flow patterns may cause problems for
eulachon spawning.
Changes in the marine environment due to climate change are also
likely to affect eulachon. Eulachon generally inhabit cool to cold
ocean waters and feed on cold water assemblages of copepods and other
marine invertebrates (Willson et al., 2006). The consequences for
Pacific zooplankton communities of warming trends in the high to mid-
latitudes could be substantial, but their magnitude and trajectory are
not yet known (Mackas et al., 2007). Increases in ocean temperatures
off the coast of the Pacific Northwest could alter the abundance and
composition of copepod communities, thus reducing the amount of food
available for eulachon, particularly larvae. Zamon and Welch (2005)
reported these types of rapid shifts in zooplankton communities in the
Northeast Pacific during recent El Nino-La Nina events. Warming ocean
conditions may also lead to a general reduction in eulachon forage. For
instance, Roemmich and McGowan (1995) noted an 80 percent reduction of
macrozooplankton biomass off Southern California between 1951 and 1993.
Warming ocean temperatures could also facilitate the northward
expansion of warm-water eulachon predators and competitors for food
resources, such as Pacific hake (Rexstad and Pikitch, 1986; McFarlane
et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2007).
Changes in the freshwater and marine environment due to climate
change are likely to cause adverse effects on eulachon abundance,
productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity. There is still a
great deal of uncertainty associated with predicting specific changes
in timing, location, and magnitude of future climate change. It is also
likely that the intensity of climate change effects on eulachon will
vary by geographic area.
The BRT identified dams and water diversions as moderate threats to
eulachon in the Columbia and Klamath Rivers where hydropower generation
and flood control are major activities, and a low to moderate risk for
eulachon in the Fraser and mainland British Columbia rivers where dams
are less common. Dams can slow or block eulachon migration. Dams and
water divisions alter the natural hydrograph of river systems, in many
cases reducing the magnitude of spring freshets with which eulachon
have evolved. Dams can also impede or alter bedload movement, changing
the composition of river substrates important to spawning eulachon.
Water quality degradation is common in some areas occupied by
southern DPS eulachon. In the Columbia and Klamath systems, large-scale
impoundment of water has increased water temperatures, potentially
altering the water temperature during eulachon spawning periods (NMFS,
2008). Numerous chemical contaminants are also present in freshwater
systems where eulachon
[[Page 10871]]
spawn, but the exact effect these compounds may have on spawning and
egg development is unknown (NMFS, 2008).
The BRT identified dredging as a low to moderate threat to eulachon
in the Fraser and Columbia Rivers and a low severity threat for
eulachon in mainland British Columbia rivers as less dredging for
commercial shipping occurs in these areas. Dredging during eulachon
spawning would be particularly detrimental, as eggs associated with
benthic substrates are likely to be destroyed.
Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or Educational
Purposes
Commercial harvest of eulachon in the Columbia and Fraser rivers
was identified as a low to moderate threat. Current harvest levels are
orders of magnitude lower than historic harvest levels, and a
relatively small number of vessels operate in this fishery. No
significant commercial fishing for eulachon occurs in the Klamath or
British Columbia rivers north of the Fraser. The BRT ranked
recreational and Tribal/First Nations harvest of eulachon as a very low
to low severity threat to eulachon in all four DPS populations. It is
likely that these harvests have a negligible effect on population
abundance.
Commercial Fisheries
In Oregon, commercial fishing for eulachon is allowed in the
Pacific Ocean, Columbia River, Sandy River, and Umpqua River. In the
Pacific Ocean, eulachon can be harvested year-round using any method
otherwise authorized to harvest food fish in the open ocean. In the
Sandy River, commercial fishing with dip nets is allowed in a small
portion of the lower river downstream from the U.S. Route 30 Alternate
bridge at Troutdale Oregon, year-round, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.
The last large harvest of eulachon in the Sandy River occurred in 1985
(304,500 lb (138 metric tons)), with a moderate harvest occurring in
2003 (23,000 lb (10 metric tons)) (John North, ODFW, pers. comm.). In
the Umpqua River, commercial fishing for eulachon is allowed year-round
and 24 hours a day with dip nets and gill nets not more than 600 ft
(183 m) in length and of a mesh size no more than 2 inches (51 mm).
Those areas of the Umpqua River not closed to commercial fishing for
shad (upstream from approximately river mile 21 (34 km)) are open for
commercial eulachon fishing. However, commercial fishing for eulachon
has not occurred for many years in the Umpqua River (John North, ODFW,
pers. comm.). In the mainstem Columbia River, permissible commercial
gear includes gill nets with a mesh size of no more than 2 inches (51
mm), dip nets having a bag frame no more than 36 inches (91 cm) in
diameter, and small trawl nets (Oregon Administrative Rule 635-004-
0075). In the past several years, the Columbia River commercial fishery
has been open 7 days a week in December and 2 days a week from January
1-March 31. Commercial fishing in the Columbia River is now managed
according to the joint ODFW and WDFW management plan for eulachon (ODFW
and WDFW, 2001). Under this plan, three eulachon harvest levels can be
authorized based on the strength of the prior years' parental run,
resultant juvenile production estimates, and ocean productivity
indices. Current effort in the Columbia River mainstem fishery is
typically low (less than 10 vessels) (John North, ODFW, pers. comm.).
In Washington, year-round commercial fishing for eulachon is
allowed in the Columbia and Cowlitz rivers. In the Columbia River,
commercial fishing for eulachon is permitted during 9 hour periods on
Mondays and Thursdays. In the Cowlitz River, commercial fishing is
allowed for 6 hour periods on Sunday and Wednesday nights. The Canadian
DFO did not authorize any commercial fishing for eulachon in 2008 due
to low abundance. Historically, commercial fishing for eulachon
occurred at low levels in the Fraser River (as compared to the Columbia
River). DFO has only allowed a commercial harvest of eulachon in the
Fraser River twice since 1997 (DFO, 2008).
Recreational Fishing
The states of Oregon and Washington have altered sport fishing
regulations in the past due to declining eulachon abundance (WDFW and
ODFW, 2001). During the eulachon run, the ODFW allows recreational
fishers to capture 25 lb (11 kg) per day of eulachon, using a dip net.
Each fisher must have his or her own container; the first 25 lbs (11
kg) of fish captured may be retained. No angling license is required to
harvest eulachon in Oregon. The WDFW currently allows harvest of
eulachon by dip netting on the Cowlitz River, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on
Saturdays from January 1st-March 31st. The daily limit on the Cowlitz
River is 10 lb (4.5 kg) per person per day. In Washington, the mainstem
Columbia River is open for eulachon harvest 24 hours per day, 7 days
per week during the eulachon run, and the daily limit is 25 lb (11 kg)
per person per day. Washington and Oregon developed a joint eulachon
management plan in 2001 (WDFW and ODFW, 2001). The two states plan to
continue authorizing eulachon sport fishing at various levels depending
on predicted yearly eulachon abundance. Under the strictest proposed
regulations, harvest would be limited to less than 10 percent of the
run. If run sizes increase beyond current levels, the states would
consider allowing additional harvest, but these more liberal harvest
rates have not been specifically identified. In the State of
California, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) currently
allows licensed recreational fishers to dipnet up to 25 lb (11 kg) of
eulachon per day per person year-round (CDFG, 2008). However, in
practice, little to no fishing is taking place because so few fish
return each year. In 2008, the Canadian DFO did not authorize any
recreational fishing for eulachon due to low abundance. In general,
interest in recreational fishing for eulachon has decreased
significantly due to the difficulty of harvesting these fish at their
currently low abundance.
Tribal Subsistence Fishing
In the past, eulachon were an important food source for many Native
American tribes and Canadian First Nations from northern California to
Alaska. In more recent history, tribal members in the United States
harvest eulachon under recreational fishing regulations. The Canadian
DFO typically authorizes a small subsistence fishery for First Nation
members, primarily in the Fraser River. Historically, members of the
Yurok Tribe harvested eulachon in the Klamath River in California for
subsistence purposes. The Yurok Tribe does not have a fishery
management plan for eulachon at this time, and eulachon abundance
levels on the Klamath are too low to support a fishery.
Disease or Predation
The BRT identified disease as a low risk to all four DPS
populations of eulachon. Although Willson et al. (2006) identify common
parasites of eulachon, the BRT did not present any information
indicating that disease was a significant problem for this DPS.
Predation primarily from marine mammals, fishes, and birds was
identified as a moderate threat to eulachon in the Fraser River and
mainland British Columbia rivers and a low severity threat to eulachon
in the Columbia and Klamath where there are fewer predators. Large
numbers of predators commonly congregate at
[[Page 10872]]
eulachon spawning runs (Willson et al., 2006). Eulachon rely on high
abundance and synchronized spawn timing to ensure that adequate numbers
of male and female fish escape predators and reproduce successfully. At
low eulachon abundance, predation at historic levels may jeopardize
population viability.
The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Bycatch
The BRT identified bycatch of eulachon in commercial fisheries as a
moderate threat to all four populations. In the past, protection of
forage fishes has not been a priority when developing ways to reduce
shrimp fishing bycatch. Eulachon are particularly vulnerable to capture
in shrimp fisheries in the United States and Canada as the marine areas
occupied by shrimp and eulachon often overlap. In Oregon, the bycatch
of various species of smelt (including eulachon) has been as high as 28
percent of the total catch of shrimp by weight (Hannah and Jones,
2007). In Canada, bycatch of eulachon in shrimp fisheries has been
significant enough to cause the Canadian Department of Fisheries and
Oceans to close the fishery in some years (DFO, 2008).
In 2000, we declared canary rockfish overfished, as recommended by
the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. In response, the states of
Oregon, Washington, and California enacted regulations to reduce canary
rockfish bycatch that require bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) on trawl
gear used in the ocean shrimp fishery. The BRDs were successful in
reducing bycatch of all finfish species (Hannah and Jones, 2007). In
Oregon, these devices have been shown to reduce the smelt (including
eulachon) bycatch to between 0.25 and 1.69 percent of the total catch
weight (Hannah and Jones, 2007).
The DFO sets bycatch limits for the Canadian shrimp fishery and the
shrimp trawl industry in Canada adopted 100 percent use of BRDs in
2000. The DFO will implement further management actions if estimated
eulachon bycatch meets or exceeds the identified level. Management
actions that may be taken include: closure of the shrimp trawl fishery,
closure of certain areas to shrimp trawling, or restricting trawling to
beam trawlers, which have been found to have a lower impact on eulachon
than otter trawlers.
Little is known about the degree of injury and mortality eulachon
experience as they pass through BRDs. Suuronen et al. (1996a; 1996b)
found that herring passing through mesh and rigid trawl net sorting
devices (similar to BRDs) often die (mortality estimates ranging from
30-100 percent depending on herring size and season caught). Although
eulachon bycatch rates in shrimp fisheries have declined significantly,
it is not certain what percent of eulachon traveling through BRDs
survive.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Natural events such as volcanic eruptions may cause significant
local declines in eulachon abundance by causing catastrophic debris
flows in rivers and drastically increasing fine sediments in benthic
substrates. After the eruption of Mt. Helens in 1980, the Army Corps of
Engineers constructed a sediment retention structure on the Toutle
River. This structure was placed to prevent debris avalanches resulting
from the eruption from moving downstream and causing navigation
problems. Although the structure is designed to reduce the level of
fine sediment traveling down the Toutle and into the Cowlitz River,
there is some concern (as mentioned in the 2007 petition to list
eulachon) that water released from the structure in the spring may
contain high sediment levels that adversely affect eulachon spawning.
Efforts Being Made to Protect Southern DPS Eulachon
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce to
take into account efforts being made to protect a species that has been
petitioned for listing. Accordingly, we assessed conservation measures
being taken to protect eulachon to determine whether they ameliorate
this species' extinction risk (50 CFR 424.11(f)). In judging the
efficacy of conservation efforts that have yet to be implemented or to
show effectiveness, we consider 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 of the species; and the presence of monitoring provisions
that track the effectiveness of recovery efforts, and that inform
iterative refinements to management as information is accrued (68 FR
15100; March 28, 2003).
Although no efforts specific to eulachon are currently being made
to protect freshwater habitat in the United States, this species
indirectly benefits from several Federal, state, and tribal regulatory
and voluntary aquatic habitat improvement programs aimed at other
species. Based on the available information on eulachon biology, the
physical habitat features most likely to be important to eulachon
reproduction in fresh water are water quantity, water quality
(especially temperature), free passage, and substrate condition.
Federal programs carried out under legislation such as the Federal
Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 help to ensure that water quality is
maintained or improved and that discharge of fill material into rivers
and streams is regulated. Several sections of this law, such as section
404 (discharge of fill into wetlands), section 402 (discharge of
pollutants into water bodies), and section 404(d) (designation of water
quality limited streams and rivers) regulate activities that might
degrade eulachon habitat. Although programs carried out under the CWA
are well funded and enforcement of this law occurs, it is unlikely that
programs are sufficient to fully protect eulachon habitat. Despite the
existence and enforcement of this law, a significant percent of stream
reaches in the range of Pacific eulachon do not meet current water
quality standards.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits placement of any
structure in any navigable waterway of the United States without
approval from the Army Corps of Engineers. Most or all freshwater
eulachon habitat in the United States is considered to be navigable,
and it is not expected that any additional major obstructions (i.e.,
dams) to eulachon migration would be authorized within their range in
this area. Smaller structures such as weirs and fish traps intended for
fishery management may be placed in some tributaries of the Columbia
River (see: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/Hatcheries/Mitchell-Act-EIS.cfm and NMFS, 2004; for more information).
In Canada, dredging is not allowed in the Fraser River during early
March to June to protect spawning eulachon. We are not aware of any
other specific measures taken to protect eulachon freshwater habitat in
Canada.
State regulatory programs that protect eulachon habitat include
wetland/waterway fill-removal programs such as those administered by
the Oregon Department of State Lands and the Washington Department of
Ecology. Similar to the Federal CWA, these programs regulate filling of
wetlands and discharge of fill material that might adversely affect
eulachon spawning habitats. In addition, the State of California
protects water quality and associated beneficial uses through
administration of the Porter-Cologne
[[Page 10873]]
Act, (similar to the Federal CWA), and implementation of CDFG 1602
regulations. In general, the described regulatory programs within these
three states are aimed at protecting the important functions of
riverine and wetland ecology, such as maintaining a properly
functioning riparian plant community, storing groundwater, and
preserving floodplain roughness. They are also aimed at reducing the
discharge of fine sediments that might alter or degrade eulachon
spawning substrates. It is thus reasonable to conclude that these laws
will provide some protection to eulachon habitat.
The range of eulachon in the Pacific Northwest and California
largely or completely overlaps with the range of several ESA-listed
stocks of salmon and steelhead and green sturgeon. Although the habitat
requirements of these fishes differ somewhat from eulachon, habitat
protection generally focuses on the maintenance of aquatic habitat
forming processes expected to benefit eulachon. In particular, the
numerous ESA section 7 consultations carried out on Federal activities
throughout the range of eulachon provide a level of habitat protection.
The protective efforts for salmon and steelhead are described in detail
in our proposed listing determinations for 27 species of West Coast
salmon and steelhead (69 FR 33102; June 14, 2004). Efforts to protect
green sturgeon are described in our proposed listing determination for
this species (70 FR 17386; April 6, 2005).
The development and operation of the Federal Columbia River Power
System (FCRPS) and Bureau of Reclamation irrigation projects in the
Columbia River basin have altered the hydrology of this river system.
We have worked with the Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power
Administration, and Bureau of Reclamation to develop mitigation
measures to minimize the adverse effects of these projects on ESA-
listed salmon and steelhead. On May 5, 2008, we issued final biological
opinions on the operation of the FCRPS and Upper Snake River Irrigation
Projects. The planned mitigation measures, including additional spring
water spill and predator control programs, will benefit eulachon as
well. Since eulachon are known to be plentiful in systems with a strong
spring freshet, spilling additional water in the spring to increase
survival of juvenile salmon and steelhead is likely to move the
hydrograph of the Columbia River to a state more similar to that under
which eulachon evolved. The Northern Pikeminnow Sport Reward Fishery
should reduce predation levels in the Columbia River on all small
fishes, including eulachon.
Throughout the eulachon's range in Oregon, Washington, and
California, an array of Federal, state, tribal, and local entities
carry out aquatic habitat restoration programs. These programs are
generally intended to benefit other fish species such as salmon,
steelhead, trout, etc. Eulachon also benefit from improvements in water
quality and physical habitat attributes resulting from these projects.
Although these programs are too numerous to list individually, some of
the larger programs include the Bonneville Power Administration's
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, the Pacific Coast Salmon
Recovery Fund, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, and the Oregon
Watershed Enhancement Board. The Federal land managers, U.S. Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service also
carry out aquatic restoration projects in some watersheds where
eulachon migrate and spawn. These agencies have been conducting
restoration projects in these areas for many years and projects located
in the lower reaches of rivers (where eulachon spawn) are likely to
provide some benefit to eulachon habitat.
Marine waters of the United States are managed by state and Federal
Governments. At this time, we do not know enough about eulachon use of
near shore ocean habitats to determine the degree to which existing
marine habitat management benefits eulachon.
Proposed Determination
Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that the listing determination
be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available,
after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking
into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign
nation to protect and conserve the species. We have reviewed the
petition, the report of the BRT (Gustafson et al., 2008), co-manager
comments, and other available published and unpublished information,
and we have consulted with species experts and other individuals
familiar with eulachon.
Based on this review, we conclude that eulachon populations
spawning from the Skeena River in British Columbia south to the Mad
River in Northern California meet the discreteness and significance
criteria for a DPS (Gustafson et al., 2008). Eulachon occurring in this
area are discrete from eulachon occurring north of this area based on
differences in spawning temperatures; length- and weight-at-maturity in
the species' range; ecological features of both the oceanic and
freshwater environments occupied by eulachon; and genetic
characteristics. This group of fish is significant to the species as a
whole because it constitutes over half of the geographic range of the
entire species' distribution and includes two of the known major
production areas (Columbia and Fraser rivers) and a third area that may
have been historically a major production area (Klamath River).
Although eulachon are currently rarely seen in the Klamath River,
sampling in 2007 confirmed they are still present there in small
numbers. The loss of this group of fish would create a significant
reduction in the species' overall distribution.
Ongoing efforts to protect Pacific salmonids, as described in the
previous section, are likely to also benefit Pacific eulachon habitat.
Taken together, however, these efforts do not comprehensively address
the threats to eulachon from climate change and bycatch in the shrimp
fishery.
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
including the draft BRT report, we propose that the southern DPS of
eulachon is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to
become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Factors supporting a conclusion that the DPS is not presently in danger
of extinction include: (1) two core spawning areas have sufficient
numbers of eulachon to maintain spawning, at least at low levels; (2)
as observed in the past (2001-2003), a reversion to favorable
environmental ocean conditions could result in a rebound in abundance;
and (3) the species likely strays at a moderate-to-high rate, so that
in the presence of favorable environmental conditions re-building of
depressed populations may occur.
Factors supporting a conclusion that the DPS is likely to become in
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future include: (1) abundance
in all surveyed populations, and in the two remaining core populations,
is low and declining; and (2) the available information suggests that
eulachon in Northern California experienced an abrupt decline several
decades ago, and although still present at very low numbers, it is
unknown if these represent a viable self-sustaining population, and (3)
eulachon require minimum population sizes to achieve successful
reproduction.
In sum, future declines in population abundance may occur as a
result of climate change and continued bycatch in the shrimp fishery.
These threats
[[Page 10874]]
indicate that the southern DPS of eulachon is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future. Therefore, NMFS proposes to list
the southern DPS of eulachon as threatened.
Take Prohibitions and Protective Regulations
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or
indirectly affect endangered species. These 9(a) prohibitions apply to
all individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S.
jurisdiction. In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d)
requires the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations necessary and
appropriate for the conservation of the species. We have flexibility
under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations based on the needs
of, and threats to, the species. The 4(d) protective regulations may
prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts
which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered
species. We will evaluate protective regulations pursuant to section
4(d) for the southern DPS of eulachon and propose any considered
necessary and advisable for conservation of the species in future
rulemaking. In order to inform our consideration of appropriate
protective regulations for southern DPS eulachon, we seek information
from the public on the threats to this species and possible measures
for its conservation.
Other Protections
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and NMFS/FWS regulations require Federal
agencies to confer with us on actions likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of species proposed for listing or that result in
the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
If a proposed species is ultimately listed, Federal agencies must
consult on any action they authorize, fund, or carry out if those
actions may affect the listed species or its critical habitat. Examples
of Federal actions that may affect the southern DPS of eulachon
include: water diversions, hydropower operations, discharge of
pollution from point sources, non-point source pollution, contaminated
waste disposal, dredging, water quality standards, fishery management
practices, and a variety of land management practices such as
development, logging, and transportation management.
Peer Review
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing
minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public
disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public
participation. The OMB Bulletin, implemented under the Information
Quality Act (Public Law 106-554), is intended to enhance the quality
and credibility of the Federal government's scientific information, and
applies to influential or highly influential scientific information
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our requirements
under the OMB Bulletin, we are obtaining independent peer review of the
draft status review report, which supports this proposal to list the
southern DPS of eulachon as threatened; all peer reviewer comments will
be addressed prior to dissemination of the final report and publication
of the final rule.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA as: ``(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 1533
of this title, on which are found those physical or biological features
(I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may
require special management considerations or protection; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of 1533 of this
title, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)).
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to
bring the species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no
longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA
requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, critical
habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)). Designations of critical habitat must be
based on the best scientific data available and must take into
consideration the economic, national security, and other relevant
impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Once critical habitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires
Federal agencies to ensure that they do not fund, authorize, or carry
out any actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify that
habitat. This requirement is in addition to the section 7 requirement
that Federal agencies ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the
continued existence of listed species.
We are currently compiling information to prepare a critical
habitat proposal for the southern DPS of eulachon, and in this document
are seeking public input and information to assist in gathering and
analyzing the best available scientific data to support a critical
habitat designation. We will continue to meet with co-managers and
other stakeholders to review this information and the overall
designation process. We will then initiate rulemaking with the
publication of a proposed designation of critical habitat in the
Federal Register, opening a period for public comment and the
opportunity for public hearings.
Joint NMFS/FWS regulations for listing endangered and threatened
species and designating critical habitat at 50 CFR 424.12(2)(b) state
that the agency ``shall consider those physical and biological features
that are essential to the conservation of a given species and that may
require special management considerations or protection.'' Pursuant to
the regulations, such requirements include, but are not limited to the
following: (1) space for individual and population growth, and for
normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4)
sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or
seed dispersal; and generally; (5) habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and
ecological distributions of a species. The regulations also state that
the agency shall focus on the principal biological or physical
constituent elements within the specific areas considered for
designation. These primary constitutent elements may include, but are
not limited to: spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or
dryland, water quality or quantity, geological formation, vegetation
type, tide, and specific soil types.
In accordance with the Secretarial Order on American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act, we will coordinate with federally recognized American
Indian Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis to determine how to
make critical habitat assessments in areas that may impact Tribal trust
resources. In accordance with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.13, we will
consult as appropriate with affected states, interested persons and
organizations, other affected Federal agencies, and, in cooperation
with the Secretary of State, with the country or countries in which the
species concerned are normally found or whose
[[Page 10875]]
citizens harvest such species from the high seas.
Public Comments Solicited
To ensure that the final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and effective as possible, we solicit comments and
suggestions from the public, other governmental agencies, the
Government of Canada, the scientific community, industry, environmental
groups, and any other interested parties. Comments are encouraged on
this proposal (See DATES and ADDRESSES). Specifically, we are
interested in information regarding: (1) eulachon spawning habitat
within the range of the southern DPS that was present in the past, but
may have been lost over time; (2) biological or other relevant data
concerning any threats to the southern DPS of eulachon; (3) the range,
distribution, and abundance of the southern DPS of eulachon; (4)
current or planned activities within the range of the southern DPS of
eulachon and their possible impact on this DPS; (5) recent observations
or sampling of eulachon in Northern California rivers including but not
limited to the Klamath River, Mad River, and Redwood Creek; and (6)
efforts being made to protect the southern DPS of eulachon.
Critical Habitat
We also request quantitative evaluations describing the quality and
extent of freshwater and marine habitats for juvenile and adult
eulachon as well as information on areas that may qualify as critical
habitat for the proposed southern DPS. Specific areas that include the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
DPS, where such features may require special management considerations
or protection, should be identified. We also solicit biological and
economic information relevant to making a critical habitat designation
for the southern DPS of eulachon. Although the range of this DPS
extends into Canada, ESA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h)
specify that critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign
countries or in other areas outside of United States jurisdiction.
Therefore, we request information only on potential areas of critical
habitat within the United States or waters within U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to consider the
``economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant
impact,'' of designating a particular area as critical habitat. For
this, section 4(b)(2) authorizes the Secretary to exclude from a
critical habitat designation those particular areas where the Secretary
finds that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
designation, unless excluding that area will result in extinction of
the species. We seek information regarding the conservation benefits of
designating areas in the Columbia River and its tributaries, the
Klamath River, other coastal rivers in Washington, Oregon and
California, and marine areas, as critical habitat. We also seek
information on the economic benefit of excluding areas from the
critical habitat designation, and the economic benefits of including an
area as part of the critical habitat designation. In keeping with the
guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (2000; 2003),
we seek information that would allow us to monetize these effects to
the extent possible, as well as information on qualitative impacts to
economic values. We also seek information on impacts to national
security and any other relevant impacts of designating critical habitat
in these areas.
Data reviewed may include, but are not limited to: (1) scientific
or commercial publications, (2) administrative reports, maps or other
graphic materials, information received from experts, and (3) comments
from interested parties. Comments and data particularly are sought
concerning: (1) maps and specific information describing the amount,
distribution, and use type (e.g., spawning, rearing, or migration) of
eulachon habitat (both freshwater and marine), as well as any
additional information on occupied and unoccupied habitat areas; (2)
the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be
critical habitat as provided by sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the
ESA; (3) information regarding the benefits of designating particular
areas as critical habitat; (4) current or planned activities in the
areas that might be proposed for designation and their possible
impacts; (5) any foreseeable economic or other potential impacts
resulting from designation, and in particular, any impacts on small
entities; (6) whether specific unoccupied areas (e.g., areas where
eulachon have been extirpated) may be essential to provide additional
habitat areas for the conservation of this DPS; and (7) potential peer
reviewers for a proposed critical habitat designation, including
persons with biological and economic expertise relevant to the species,
region, and designation of critical habitat. We seek information
regarding critical habitat for the southern DPS of eulachon as soon as
possible, but by no later than May 12, 2009.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES section).
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F. 2d 825 (6th Cir.
1981), we have concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to
the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6).
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork
Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process.
In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Federalism
In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to
provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual State
and Federal interest, this proposed rule will be given to the relevant
state agencies in each state in which the species is believed to occur,
and those states will be invited to comment on this proposal. We have
conferred with the states of Washington, Oregon, and California in the
course of assessing the status of the southern DPS of eulachon, and
considered, among other things, Federal, state and local conservation
measures. As we proceed, we intend to continue engaging in informal and
formal contacts with the states, and other affected local or regional
entities, giving careful consideration to all written and oral comments
received.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
[[Page 10876]]
Dated: March 6, 2009.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, Sec. 223.201-202
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
Sec. 223.206(d)(9) et seq.
2. In Sec. 223.102, paragraph (c) is revised by adding and
reserving paragraphs (c)(25) and (c)(26) and adding a new paragraph
(c)(27) to read as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
(c) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species\1\
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Where Listed Citation(s) for listing Citation(s) for critical
Common name Scientific name determination(s) habitat designation(s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(27) eulachon - southern DPS Thaleichthys California, Oregon, [INSERT FR CITATION & DATE [INSERT FR CITATION & DATE
pacificus Washington, and WHEN PUBLISHED AS A FINAL WHEN PUBLISHED AS A FINAL
British Columbia. RULE] RULE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E9-5403 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S