Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat: Petition to List Copper and Quillback Rockfishes in Puget Sound (Washington) as Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act, 2863-2866 [E7-943]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2863-2866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 070108002-7002-01; I.D. 122706A]


Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating 
Critical Habitat: Petition to List Copper and Quillback Rockfishes in 
Puget Sound (Washington) as Threatened Species under the Endangered 
Species Act

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

ACTION: Notice of finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have received a petition to list copper rockfish 
(Sebastes caurinus) and quillback rockfish (S. maliger) in Puget Sound 
(Washington) as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned actions may be warranted.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and related materials are available 
on the Internet at https://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Other-Marine-Species/PS-
Marine-Fishes.cfm, or upon request from the Chief, Protected Resources 
Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 
97232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Scott Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest 
Region, (503) 872-2791; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected 
Resources, (301) 713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 18, 2006, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright 
(Olympia, Washington) to list the Puget Sound Distinct Population 
Segments (DPSs) of copper and quillback rockfish as endangered or 
threatened species under the ESA. Copies of this petition are available 
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES, above).

ESA Statutory and Policy Provisions

    Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains provisions concerning petitions 
from interested persons requesting the Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) to list species under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). 
Section 4(b)(3)(A) requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, 
within 90 days after receiving such a petition, the Secretary make a 
finding whether the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted. Our ESA implementing regulations define Asubstantial 
information@ as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable 
person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be 
warranted. In evaluating a petitioned action, the Secretary considers 
whether the petition contains a detailed narrative justification for 
the recommended measure, including: past and present numbers and 
distribution of the species involved, and any threats faced by the 
species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)); and information regarding the status 
of the species throughout all or a significant portion of its range (50 
CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)).
    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, 
subspecies, or a DPS of any vertebrate species which interbreeds when 
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(15)). On February 7, 1996, we and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) adopted a policy to clarify the agencies' 
interpretation of the phrase ``Distinct population segment of any 
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife'' (ESA section 3(15)) for the 
purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the 
ESA (51 FR 4722). The joint DPS policy established two criteria that 
must be met for a population or group of populations to be considered a 
DPS: (1) The population segment must be discrete in relation to the 
remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) 
the population segment must be significant to the remainder of the 
species (or subspecies) to which it belongs.
    A species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
(ESA Sections 3(6) and 3(19), respectively).

Life History of Copper and Quillback Rockfish

    Copper Rockfish - Copper rockfish are found from the Gulf of Alaska 
southward to central Baja California (Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Stein and 
Hassler, 1989; Matthews, 1990a; Love, 1991), including in Puget Sound 
(Buckley and Hueckel, 1985; Quinnel and Schmitt, 1991). Adult copper 
rockfish are found in nearshore waters from the surface to 183 m deep 
(Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Stein and Hassler, 1989). Larval and small 
juvenile copper rockfish are pelagic for several months and are 
frequently found

[[Page 2864]]

in surface waters and shallow habitats (Stein and Hassler, 1989; Love 
et al., 1996). Juveniles use bays as nursery areas (Stein and Hassler, 
1989) and recruit to nearshore benthic habitats (Matthews, 1990b) with 
cobble or rocky substrata. They are often associated with crevices, 
aquatic plants, and kelp holdfasts (Patten, 1973; Love, 1991; Love et 
al., 1996; Buckley, 1997). Adults inhabit natural rocky reefs, 
artificial reefs, and rock piles, are closely associated with submerged 
vegetation (Matthews, 1990c), and exhibit strong site fidelity (Stein 
and Hassler, 1989; Matthews, 1990c; Love, 1991).
    In Puget Sound, copper rockfish males and females become sexually 
mature at three to four years of age (Stein and Hassler, 1989). They 
spawn once a year and, like all Sebastes species, are ovoviviparous 
(i.e., eggs are fertilized internally, eggs develop within the mother 
nourished by an egg-yolk sac, and larvae ``hatch'' internally or 
immediately after they are released). Mating occurs from March to May, 
embryos are mature by April, and larvae are released from April to June 
(DeLacy et al., 1964; Matthews, 1990b). Adults move inshore to release 
their young (Matthews, 1990a), and larvae remain pelagic until they are 
40 to 50 mm long (Stein and Hassler, 1989). Copper rockfish live up to 
55 years (Matthews, 1990b) and can grow to 57 cm length (Eschmeyer et 
al., 1983; Stein and Hassler, 1989).
    Quillback Rockfish - Quillback rockfish are found from the northern 
Channel Islands in southern California (Stout et al., 2001), to the 
Gulf of Alaska (Miller and Lea, 1972), including the Strait of Georgia, 
the San Juan Islands, and Puget Sound (Clemons and Wilby, 1961; Hart, 
1973; Matthews, 1990a; Love, 1991). Adult quillback rockfish are found 
in subtidal waters to depths of 275 m (Hart, 1973; Love, 1991), but 
typically inhabit depths from 41 m to 60 m (Murie et al., 1994; Love, 
1991). Larval and juvenile stages occupy mid-water habitats before they 
recruit to sandy substrata in nearshore waters associated with 
eelgrass, bull kelp beds, natural rocky reefs, and artificial reefs 
((Matthews, 1990b; West et al., 1994). Adults are solitary, exhibit 
site fidelity (Petten, 1973), live at or near the bottom (Miller and 
Lea, 1972; Matthews, 1988; Rosenthal et al., 1988; Love, 1991), and are 
associated with artificial and natural reefs, coarse sand, or pebble 
substrata with flat-bladed kelps (Love, 1991). In Puget Sound, most 
female quillback rockfish become sexually mature at 2 or 3 (Gowan, 
1983). Mating takes place in March, and the larvae are released from 
April to July, with a peak early in the season (Matthews, 1988, 1990b; 
Love, 1991). Female quillback rockfish probably move to non-reef 
habitats to release larvae (Matthews 1988). Quillback rockfish can live 
to be more than 50 years old (Gowan, 1983; Love, 1991), and can grow to 
61 cm (Clemons and Wilby, 1961; Hart, 1973; Love, 1991). April 3,2001, 
we concluded that these DPSs did not warrant listing as a threatened or 
endangered species. Although these DPSs had experienced declines over 
the last 40 years likely due to overharvest, we noted that the 
populations appeared stable over the most recent 5 years, and that 
reductions in the recreational fishery bag limit and the establishment 
of voluntary no-take marine reserves had reduced levels of fishing 
mortality (66 FR 17659).

Analysis of Petition

    We evaluated the information provided and/or cited in Mr. Wright's 
recent petition to determine if it presents substantial scientific and 
commercial information to suggest that the Puget Sound DPSs of copper 
and quillback rockfish may warrant listing under the ESA. Additionally, 
we reviewed other information readily available to our scientists 
(i.e., currently within agency files) to determine whether there is 
general agreement with the information presented in the petition. We 
addressed three questions in our analysis of the petition: (1) Does the 
petition or other information in our files present substantial 
information indicating that the delineated Puget Sound DPSs might 
warrant reconsideration?; (2) Does the petition present substantial 
information indicating that the 2001 extinction risk analyses or 
listing determinations might warrant reconsideration?; and (3) Does the 
petition present substantial information indicating that the DPSs are 
in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered in 
the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a significant 
portion of their ranges? Our Northwest Fisheries Science Center 
evaluated the scientific merits of the petition with respect to these 
three questions, concluding that the petition does not present 
substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be 
warranted, nor that would warrant a reevaluation of the conclusions of 
the 2001 BRT (Varanasi, 2006). Below are our summary and analysis of 
the information presented in the petition, organized according to the 
questions outlined above.

Does the Petition or Other Information in Our Files Present Substantial 
Information Indicating that the Delineated DPSs May Warrant 
Reconsideration?

    With respect to the delineation of Puget Sound DPSs of copper and 
quillback rockfish, the petitioner concludes ``There does not appear 
[to] be any critical flaws in the original assessment or any compelling 
recent information from the past five years that would justify re-
examination of the Puget Sound DPSs previously defined by Stout et al. 
(2001).'' We agree with the petitioner's conclusion. For copper 
rockfish, the 2001 BRT cited genetic data and analyses from Seeb 
(1998), Wimberger (unpublished), and Buonaccorsi (in prep) for genetic 
information relevant to the DPS question. The Buonaccorsi data have 
since been published (Buonaccorsi et al., 2002), and the conclusions 
and analyses in the final publication are consistent with the 
conclusions of the 2001 BRT. We are aware of no new genetic data 
available for copper or quillback rockfish. There is ongoing research 
at the University of Washington to analyze otolith microchemistry in 
quillback rockfish that, when complete, may provide useful data to help 
confirm or refine the 2001 BRT's DPS conclusions for this species.

Does the Petition Present Substantial Information Indicating That the 
2001 Extinction Risk Analyses or Listing Determinations May Warrant 
Reconsideration?

    Criticism of the 2001 BRT Approach - The petitioner criticizes the 
general risk assessment approach used by the 2001 BRT. The petitioner 
contends that the approach relies on subjective and qualitative 
personal opinions and suggests that, with different membership, another 
BRT may have reached different risk conclusions. The risk assessment 
methods employed by the 2001 BRT are the same as those used in NMFS 
status reviews for West Coast species since 1998 including Pacific 
salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), 
Pacific hake (Merluccius productus), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), 
southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca), and North American 
green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). These methods are described in 
detail by Wainwright and Kope (1999).
    The petitioner points out some potential problems with this 
approach of using expert scientific panels to evaluate status 
information that often

[[Page 2865]]

includes incomplete and/or qualitative information. Such data 
limitations necessitate subjective evaluations of risk. The petitioner 
is correct that care must be taken to avoid or minimize the potential 
for status review conclusions to be affected by the composition of a 
given BRT. To minimize the risk of individual biases influencing a 
BRT's risk assessments, we endeavor to convene BRTs composed of several 
members (e.g., the 2001 BRT that reviewed the subject species was 
composed of six expert members) reflecting a diversity of expertise and 
perspectives. Our approach to risk assessment is also designed to apply 
a consistent and transparent methodology that makes use of the best 
available scientific data and analyses, including both quantitative and 
qualitative information. We agree with the petitioner that using a 
variety of appropriate methods to assess extinction risk is prudent, 
and this is the approach we have taken in our status reviews. In the 
subject 2001 status review, the BRT also evaluated extinction risk 
according to the method outlined by Musick et al. (2000). This approach 
is similar to the Wainwright and Kope (1999) method mentioned above, 
but evaluates risk relative to the reproductive potential and 
generation time of the species under consideration. The BRT considered 
the results from both the Wainwright and Kope (1999) and Musick et al. 
(2000) methods in reaching their conclusions that copper and quillback 
rockfish in Puget Sound are ``neither in danger of extinction or likely 
to become so'' (Stout et al., 2001).
    Criticism of the BRT's Consideration of Age Structure and Longevity 
- The petitioner also asserts, quoting extensively from Berkeley et al. 
(2004), that the 2001 BRT did not explicitly account for the 
``truncation'' of the age structure of rockfish populations by 
overfishing, and, consequently, underestimated the extinction risk of 
these rockfish DPSs in Puget Sound. We do not believe that the findings 
of Berkeley et al. (2004), published since the 2001 status review, 
represent substantial information indicating that the 2001 BRT's risk 
assessments warrant re-evaluation, or that the DPSs may be endangered 
or threatened. The following paragraphs explain the information 
considered in reaching this conclusion.
    Berkeley et al. (2004) demonstrated in the laboratory that larvae 
of black rockfish (S. melanops) born of older females survived longer 
in unfed conditions than larvae originating from younger fish. The 
mechanism ostensibly underlying this result is a greater volume of the 
larval energy reserves (i.e., oil globule) at birth, which is strongly 
related to maternal age. The ability of larval fish to survive a period 
of starvation is often critical because of the temporal and spatial 
unpredictability of food resources. The results of Berkeley et al. 
(2004) suggest that older females will produce larvae having greater 
average survival, while younger females will produce progeny with the 
highest larval mortality rates (hereafter we refer to this as the 
``maternal-age effect''). Berkeley et al. (2004) argue that rockfish 
stock collapses may have resulted from an under-appreciation among 
fisheries managers of the maternal-age effect and the potentially 
disproportionate contribution of larger and older females to 
recruitment and maintaining sustainable rockfish populations over the 
long term.
    Directly applying these laboratory findings to the wild populations 
of copper and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound is problematic. 
First, the Berkeley et al. (2004) work did not actually measure 
differences in larval survival in the field. Moreover, even if there is 
a maternal-age effect, its population-level effect on recruitment will 
depend strongly on the population's age structure and age-at-maturity. 
For example, if the population is dominated by younger age classes, the 
survival advantage of larvae produced by older and larger females 
(which are few in number) is overridden by the larger number of females 
in younger age classes despite the relatively higher mortality of their 
progeny. The maternal-age effect may also be diminished depending on 
the age at which females become reproductively mature. In a recent 
study by O'Farrell and Botsford (2006) on black rockfish, researchers 
quantitatively investigated the fisheries implications of the Berkeley 
et al. (2004) maternal-age effect. O'Farrell and Botsford (2006) found 
that, although the youngest females produce progeny with the highest 
level of larval mortality, only a small proportion of the females in 
the youngest age class are sexually mature, and thus the youngest 
females represent a very small proportion of the total reproductive 
potential of the stock. For populations with similar life-history 
traits to the black rockfish, projections of population dynamics would 
be nearly identical whether the maternal-age effect was included 
(O'Farrell and Botsford, 2006). Age-specific abundance data for Puget 
Sound was not available to the 2001 BRT, and at present there are no 
data specifically addressing the importance of the maternal-age effect 
for copper or quillback rockfish. However, given the similarity in 
life-history traits of these species to black rockfish, the subject of 
the O'Farrell and Botsford (2006) study, it seems unlikely that the 
maternal-age effect would alter the conclusions of the 2001 status 
review.
    Criticism of the Consideration of Fishing Impacts - The petitioner 
also criticized the 2001 determinations not to list under the ESA for 
failing to adequately consider adverse genetic impacts from fishing. 
The petitioner notes that fisheries remove the largest and oldest fish 
in the targeted population, and thus may have the effect of selecting 
against those fish that are genetically predisposed to fast growth and 
late maturation. The petitioner asserts that this effect has been 
largely ignored by fisheries managers who allegedly assume that 
exploited populations maintain their inherent rates of productivity. 
The petitioner cites Olsen et al. (2004) and Hutchings (2004), 
suggesting that heavy and continuous fishing pressure, by removing 
fast-growing, late-maturing fish, can select for slower growing 
individuals and result in the permanent loss of genetically based 
traits. We agree that some decrease in the relative abundance of older 
spawners is an unavoidable consequence of fisheries. Although the 2001 
BRT did not explicitly discuss the potential impacts of such a 
decrease, it is implicit in the historical decline observed in the 
overall abundance of the copper and quillback rockfish DPSs. In its 
conclusions, the BRT acknowledged the historical decline and the 
fisheries' likely contribution to that decline. noted that these DPSs 
appeared to be stable over the most recent 5 years preceding the 2001 
status review, indicating that any reduction in the relative abundance 
of older spawners, and any potential genetic impacts, had not resulted 
in persistent declines in recruitment.
    The petitioner also criticizes the management of rockfish fisheries 
by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), in particular 
asserting that WDFW's 2000 regulation reducing the daily bag limit for 
rockfish to one fish is an inadequate measure for conserving Puget 
Sound rockfish stocks. WDFW's rockfish fishing regulations, and their 
impacts as manifested in the status information for the Puget Sound 
copper and quillback rockfish DPSs, were considered in the 2001 status 
review. In addition to the establishment of voluntary no-take marine 
reserves, the 2000 reduction in the recreation fishery bag limit was 
noted in the 2001 determinations not to list as a measure

[[Page 2866]]

that had reduced historical levels of fishery mortality. The petitioner 
further asserts that a 2004 regulation restricting spear and 
recreational fishing for rockfish to periods when fisheries were open 
for lingcod and/or Pacific salmon inadequately limits fishing effort 
and mortality during the open fishing periods. We recognize that the 
petitioner believes that WDFW could enact regulations to further 
protect Puget Sound rockfish stocks. However, the fishing regulations 
the petitioner criticizes represent a reduction in previous fishing 
levels, and do not portend an increasing threat due to fishing for the 
copper and quillback rockfish Puget Sound DPSs.

Does the Petition Present Substantial Information Indicating That the 
DPSs May be Endangered or Threatened?

    The petitioner presents no new data or information regarding the 
abundance, trends, productivity, or distribution for these species. 
With respect to the maternal-age effect discussed above, the petitioner 
presents no substantive evidence that the age composition of these 
stocks has actually been truncated, or that the maternal-age effect is 
an important determinant for copper or quillback rockfish recruitment. 
Similarly, we do not have any new data on hand relevant to assessing 
the status of copper and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound.
    We are aware that WDFW is in the process of compiling new abundance 
data and finalizing a status report for these species. As yet, the new 
data and analyses are not available.

Petition Finding

    After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well 
as information readily available to our scientists, we determine that 
the petition fails to present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating the petitioned actions may be warranted.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    Dated: January 17, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7-943 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S