Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Endangered, Threatened, and Not Warranted Status for Distinct Population Segments of Rockfish in Puget Sound, 18516-18542 [E9-9354]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 77 (Thursday, April 23, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18516-18542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 080229341-9330-02]
RIN 0648-XF89


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed 
Endangered, Threatened, and Not Warranted Status for Distinct 
Population Segments of Rockfish in Puget Sound

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 Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
status reviews for five species of rockfish (Sebastes spp.) occurring 
in Puget Sound, Washington, in response to a petition submitted by Mr. 
Sam Wright of Olympia, Washington, to list these species in Puget Sound 
as threatened or endangered species. We reviewed best available 
scientific and commercial information on the status of these five 
stocks and considered whether they are in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges, or are likely 
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of their ranges. For bocaccio (S. paucispinis), we 
have determined that the members of this species in the Georgia Basin 
are a distinct population segment (DPS) and are endangered throughout 
all of their range. We propose to list this bocaccio DPS as endangered. 
We have determined that yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus) and canary 
rockfish (S. pinniger) in the Georgia Basin are DPSs and are likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of their 
range. We propose to list the Georgia Basin DPSs of yelloweye and 
canary rockfish as threatened. We determined that populations of 
greenstriped rockfish (S. elongatus) and redstripe rockfish (S. 
proriger) occurring in Puget Sound Proper are DPSs but are not in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their 
ranges or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We find that 
listing the greenstriped rockfish Puget Sound Proper DPS and the 
redstripe rockfish Puget Sound Proper DPS is not warranted at this 
time.
    Any protective regulations determined to be necessary and

[[Page 18517]]

advisable for the conservation of threatened yelloweye and canary 
rockfish under ESA section 4(d) would be proposed in a subsequent 
Federal Register notice. We solicit information to inform these listing 
determinations and the development of proposed protective regulations 
and designation of critical habitat in the event these species are 
listed.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by June 22, 2009. A 
public hearing will be held promptly if any person so requests by June 
8, 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 by any of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://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 https://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 
rockfish petition, draft status report, and other reference materials 
regarding this determination can be obtained via the Internet at: 
https://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 April 9, 2007, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright of 
Olympia, Washington, to list stocks of bocaccio, canary rockfish, 
yelloweye rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, and redstripe rockfish in 
Puget Sound as endangered or threatened species under the ESA and to 
designate critical habitat. We declined to initiate a review of the 
species' status under the ESA, finding that the petition failed to 
present substantial scientific or commercial information to suggest 
that the petitioned actions may be warranted (72 FR 56986; October 5, 
2007). On October 29, 2007, we received a letter from Sam Wright 
presenting information that was not included in the April 2007 
petition, and requesting that we reconsider our October 5, 2007, 
decision not to initiate a review of the species' status. We considered 
the supplemental information provided in the letter and the information 
submitted previously in the April 2007 petition as a new petition to 
list these species and to designate critical habitat. The supplemental 
information included additional details on the life histories of 
bocaccio and greenstriped rockfish supporting the case that individuals 
of these species occurring in Puget Sound may be unique. There was also 
additional information on recreational harvest indicating significant 
declines of rockfish abundance. On March 17, 2008, we provided notice 
of our determination that the petition presented substantial scientific 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted and 
requested information to assist with a status review to determine if 
these five species of rockfish in Puget Sound warranted listing under 
the ESA (73 FR 14195). Copies of the April and October 2007 petitions 
and our October 2007 and March 2008 petition findings are available 
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES, above).

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy 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); 
50 CFR 424.02 (k)). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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 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 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. The steps we follow in implementing this statutory 
scheme are to review the status of the species, analyze the threats 
facing the species, assess whether certain protective efforts mitigate 
these threats, and then make our best determination about the species' 
future persistence.

Status Review

    To assist in the status review, we formed a Biological Review Team 
(BRT) comprised of Federal scientists from our Northwest and Southwest 
Fisheries Science Centers. We also requested

[[Page 18518]]

technical information and comments from State and Tribal co-managers in 
Washington, as well as from scientists and individuals having research 
or management expertise pertaining to rockfishes in the Pacific 
Northwest. We asked the BRT to review the best available scientific and 
commercial information, including the technical information and 
comments from co-managers, scientists and others, first to determine 
whether the five species of rockfish warrant delineation into one or 
more DPSs, using the criteria in the joint DPS policy. We then asked 
the BRT to assess the level of extinction risk facing any DPSs they 
identified, describing their confidence that the species is at high 
risk, moderate risk, or not at risk of extinction. 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. 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 BRT used structured decision making to guide its consideration 
of the questions presented. To allow for expressions of the level of 
uncertainty, the BRT adopted a ``likelihood point'' method. Each BRT 
member distributed 10 ``likelihood points'' among DPS scenarios and 
risk categories. This approach has been widely used by NMFS BRTs in 
previous DPS determinations (e.g., Pacific Salmon, Southern Resident 
Killer Whale). The BRT presented its findings in a draft status review 
report (hereafter ``draft status report'') for the five species of 
rockfish (Drake et al., 2008). Information from the draft status report 
and findings of the BRT inform our proposed determinations.

Distribution and Life-History Traits of Rockfishes

    Rockfishes are a diverse group of marine fishes (about 102 species 
worldwide and at least 72 species in the northeastern Pacific (Kendall, 
1991)) and as a group are among the most common of bottom and mid-water 
dwelling fish on the Pacific coast of North America (Love et al., 
2002). Adult rockfish can be the most abundant fish in various coastal 
benthic habitats, such as kelp forests, rocky reefs, and rocky outcrops 
in submarine canyons at depths greater than 300 m (980 feet) 
(Yoklavich, 1998). The life history of rockfishes is different than 
that of most other bony fishes. Whereas most bony fishes fertilize 
their eggs externally, fertilization and embryo development in 
rockfishes is internal, and female rockfish give birth to live larval 
young. Larvae are found in surface waters and may be distributed over a 
wide area extending several hundred miles offshore (Love et al., 2002). 
Larvae and small juvenile rockfish may remain in open waters for 
several months. The dispersal potential for larvae varies by species 
depending on the length of time larvae remain in the pelagic 
environment (i.e., ''pelagic larval duration'') and the fecundity of 
females (i.e., the more larval propagules a species produces, the 
greater the potential that some larvae will be transported long 
distances). Dispersal potential may also be influenced by the behavior 
of pre-settlement fish. For example, diel, tidal, or vertical migration 
can affect dispersal.
     Larval rockfish feed on diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and 
cladocerans, and juveniles consume copepods and euphausiids of all life 
stages (Sumida and Moster, 1984). Survival and subsequent recruitment 
of young rockfishes exhibit considerable interannual variability 
(Ralston and Howard, 1995). Juveniles and subadults may be more common 
than adults in shallow water and are associated with rocky reefs, kelp 
canopies, and artificial structures such as piers and oil platforms 
(Love et al., 2002). Adults generally move into deeper water as they 
increase in size and age (Garrison and Miller, 1982; Love, 1996), and 
many species exhibit strong site fidelity to rocky bottoms and outcrops 
(Yoklavich et al., 2000).
    Adults eat bottom and mid-water dwelling invertebrates and small 
fishes, including other species of rockfish associated with kelp beds, 
rocky reefs, pinnacles, and sharp drop-offs (Love, 1996; Sumida and 
Moser, 1984). Many species of rockfishes are slow-growing, long-lived 
(50 140 years; Archibald et al., 1981), and late maturing (6 12 yrs; 
Wyllie-Echeverria, 1987).

Environmental History and Features of Puget Sound

    Puget Sound is a fjord-like estuary located in northwest Washington 
State and covers an area of about 2,330 km\2\ (900 sq miles), including 
4,000 km (2500 miles) of shoreline. Puget Sound is part of a larger 
inland system, the Georgia Basin, situated between southern Vancouver 
Island and the mainland coasts of Washington State and British 
Columbia. This extensive system is a series of interconnected basins 
separated by shallow sills. Puget Sound can be subdivided into five 
major basins: (1) North Puget Sound, (2) Main Basin, (3) Whidbey Basin, 
(4) South Puget Sound, and (5) Hood Canal. In this Notice, we use the 
term ``Puget Sound'' or ``greater Puget Sound'' to refer to these five 
basins. Each of the basins differs in features such as temperature 
regimes, water residence and circulation, biological conditions, depth 
profiles and contours, processes, species, and habitats (Drake et al., 
2008). We use the term ``Puget Sound Proper'' in this Notice to refer 
to all of these basins except North Puget Sound (Figure 1).

[[Page 18519]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23AP09.000

    In the Puget Sound system, net seaward outflow in the upper portion 
of the water column is driven by winter rainfall and summer snowmelt, 
and net landward inflow of high salinity ocean water occurs in the 
deeper portion of the water column (Masson, 2002; Thomson, 1994). 
Shallow sills within Puget Sound substantially reduce the flushing rate 
of freshwater, sediments, nutrients, contaminants, and many organisms. 
Concentrations of nutrients (i.e., nitrates and phosphates) are 
consistently high throughout most of the greater Puget Sound, largely 
due to the flux of oceanic water into the basin (Harrison et al., 1994) 
and input of nutrients from freshwater runoff (Embrey and Inkpen, 
1998).
    Coastal areas within Puget Sound generally are characterized by 
high levels of rainfall and river discharge in the winter, while inland 
mountains are characterized by heavy snowfall in the winter and high 
snowmelt in late spring and early summer. Puget Sound's shorelines 
range from rocky sea cliffs to coastal bluffs and river deltas. Most of 
Puget Sound's shorelines are coastal bluffs, which are composed of 
erodable gravel, sand, and clay deposited by glaciers over 15,000 years 
ago (Downing, 1983; Shipman, 2004). Extensive development of coastal 
bluffs along the Sound has led to the widespread use of engineered 
structures designed to protect upland properties, railroads, and roads. 
These modifications have increased rapidly since the 1970s, with 
demonstrated negative impacts on the health of the ecosystem (Thom et 
al., 1994).
    Characteristics of the physical habitat such as depth, substrate, 
wave exposure, salinity, and gradient largely determine the plants and 
animals that can use particular areas of Puget Sound and the entire 
Georgia Basin. Eight major nearshore habitats have been characterized 
and quantified: rocky reefs, kelp beds, mixed sediment intertidal 
beaches, saltmarsh, tide flats, subtidal soft sediments, eelgrass beds, 
and open water/pelagic habitats (Dethier, 1990; Levings and Thom, 1994; 
NMFS, 2007). The shallow nearshore areas of Puget Sound contain 
eelgrass and seaweed habitats that support many marine fish and 
invertebrate populations at some time during their life cycle. Kelp 
beds and eelgrass meadows cover the largest area; floating kelps are 
found primarily over hard substrate along the Strait of Juan de Fuca 
and San Juan Islands, whereas eelgrass beds are estimated to cover 200 
km\2\ (77 mi\2\) throughout Puget Sound, with the exception of South 
Sound (Nearshore Habitat Program, 2001; Mumford, 2007). Other major 
habitats include subaerial and intertidal wetlands (176 km\2\)(68 
mi\2\), and mudflats and sandflats (246 km\2\)(95 mi\2\). In pelagic 
areas, the euphotic zone (zone that receives enough light for 
photosynthesis) extends to about 20 m (66 feet) depth in the relatively 
clear regions of North Puget Sound, and to 10 m (33 feet) depth in the 
more turbid waters of the South Sound basin. Most of the bottom of 
Puget Sound is comprised of soft sediments, ranging from coarse sands 
to fine silts and clays. Rocky reefs, composed of bedrock or a

[[Page 18520]]

mixture of boulder and cobble substrates, are often characterized by 
strong currents and tidal action and support benthic suspension feeders 
and multiple species of fish, including several species of rockfish 
(Sebastes spp.). Approximately 95 percent of the rocky reef habitat in 
greater Puget Sound is located in North Puget Sound (Palsson et al., 
2008).
    The human population in the greater Puget Sound region has 
increased rapidly over the last 2 decades. In 2005, the area housed 
approximately 4.4 million people, a 25 percent increase from 1991. 
According to the State Office of Management, the population is expected 
to grow to 4.7 to 6.1 million residents by 2025 (OFM, 2005).
    Freshwater, marine, nearshore, and upland habitats throughout the 
greater Puget Sound region have been affected by a variety of human 
activities, including agriculture, heavy industry, timber harvest, and 
the development of sea ports and residential property (Sound Science, 
2007).

Environmental History and Features of the Strait of Georgia

    The Strait of Georgia is that portion of the Georgia Basin that 
lies in Canada (Figure 1). The coastal drainage of the Strait of 
Georgia is bounded to the west and south by the Olympic and Vancouver 
Island mountains and to the north and east by the Cascade and Coast 
mountains. At sea level, the Strait has a mild maritime climate and is 
dryer than other parts of the coast because of the rain shadow effect 
of the Olympic and Vancouver Island mountains.
    The Strait of Georgia has a mean depth of 156 m (420 m maximum) and 
is bounded by narrow passages (Johnstone Strait and Cordero Channel to 
the north and Haro and Rosario straits to the south) and shallow 
submerged sills (minimum depth of 68 m (223 feet) to the north and 90 m 
(295 feet) to the south). The Strait of Georgia covers an area of 
approximately 6,800 km\2\ (2625 sq miles)(Thomson, 1994), is 
approximately 220 km (137 miles) long, and varies from 18.5 to 55 km 
(12 to 34 miles) in width (Tully and Dodimead, 1957; Waldichuck, 1957). 
Both southern and northern approaches to the Strait of Georgia are 
through a maze of islands and channels, the San Juan and Gulf islands 
to the south and a series of islands to the north that extend for 240 
km (149 miles) to Queen Charlotte Strait (Tully and Dodimead, 1957). 
Both northern channels (Johnstone Strait and Cordero Channel) are from 
1.5 to 3 km (0.9 to 1.9 miles) wide and are effectively two-way tidal 
falls, in which currents of 22-28 km/hr (12-15 knots) occur at peak 
flood (Tully and Dodimead, 1957).
    Freshwater inflows are dominated by the Fraser River, which 
accounts for roughly 80 percent of the freshwater entering the Strait 
of Georgia. Fraser River run-off and that of other large rivers on the 
mainland side of the Strait are driven by snow and glacier melt, and 
their peak discharge period is generally in June and July. Discharges 
from rivers that drain into the Strait of Georgia off Vancouver Island 
(such as the Chemainus, Cowichan, Campbell, and Puntledge rivers) peak 
during periods of intense precipitation, generally in November 
(Waldichuck, 1957).
    Circulation in the Strait of Georgia occurs in a general counter-
clockwise direction (Waldichuck, 1957). Tides, winds, and freshwater 
run-off are the primary forces for mixing, water exchange, and 
circulation. Tidal flow enters the Strait of Georgia predominantly from 
the south, creating vigorous mixing in the narrow, shallow straits and 
passes of the Strait of Georgia. The upper, brackish water layer in the 
Strait of Georgia is influenced by large freshwater run-off, and 
salinity in this layer varies from 5 to 25 practical salinity units 
(psu). Deep, high-salinity (33.5 to 34 psu), oceanic water enters the 
Strait of Georgia from the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The surface 
outflowing and deep inflowing water layers mix in the vicinity of the 
sills, creating the deep bottom layer in the Strait of Georgia. The 
basic circulation pattern in the southern Strait of Georgia is a 
southerly outflow of low-salinity surface water through the Rosario and 
Haro Straits (Crean et al., 1988), with the northerly inflow of high 
salinity oceanic water from the Strait of Juan de Fuca at the lowest 
depths.
    Marine habitat present in the Strait of Georgia includes two of the 
same types present in Puget Sound (kelp beds and eel grass beds) and 
five new habitat types. Total area of each habitat type is: estuarine 
marshes (3.82 km\2\ (1.47 mi\2\)), sandflats (90.4 km\2\ (34.9 mi\2\)), 
mudflats (155.1 km\2\ (59.9 mi\2\), rock-gravel 93.4 km\2\ (36.1 
mi\2\)), kelp beds (313.8 km\2\ (121.2 mi\2\), eel grass beds (659 
km\2\ (254 mi\2\)), and intertidal algae (93.4 km\2\ (36.1 mi\2\)) 
(Levings and Thom, 1994).
    Although much of the land draining into the Strait of Georgia is 
sparsely populated, the densely populated cities of Vancouver and 
Victoria are located here. Environment Canada (2005) reports that the 
population of the Georgia Basin has doubled between 1970 and 2005. As 
in Puget Sound, human development of the area has caused ecosystem 
stress, including degraded water quality and loss of marsh and eel 
grass habitat (Transboundary Georgia Basin-Puget Sound Environmental 
Indicators Working Group, 2002). Filling, diking, water quality 
changes, and watershed modification have led to decreases in the amount 
of all habitat types (Levings and Thom, 1994).

Life History, Biology, and Status of the Petitioned Species

    The life history, biology, and status of the petitioned species, 
summarized below, are described in detail in the draft status report 
(Drake et al., 2008) and Palsson et al. (2008).
Bocaccio
    Bocaccio range from Punta Blanca, Baja California, to the Gulf of 
Alaska off Krozoff and Kodiak Islands, Alaska (Chen, 1971; Miller and 
Lea, 1972). Within this range, they are most common from Oregon to 
northern Baja California (Love et al., 2002). Bocaccio are elongate, 
laterally compressed fish with very large mouths (Love et al., 2002). 
Their appearance often varies among individuals, with several common 
color variations. They are most frequently found between 50 and 250 m 
(160 and 820 feet) depth, but may be found as deep as 475 m (1,560 
feet) (Orr et al., 2000).
    Copulation and fertilization occur in the fall, generally between 
August and November. Bocaccio larvae have relatively high dispersal 
potential, with a pelagic larval duration of approximately 155 days 
(Shanks and Eckert, 2005) and fecundity ranging from 20,000 to over 2 
million eggs, considerably more than many other rockfish species (Love 
et al., 2002). Larvae and pelagic juveniles tend to be found close to 
the surface, occasionally associated with drifting kelp mats. Most 
bocaccio remain pelagic for 3.5 months prior to settling to shallow 
areas, although some may remain pelagic as long as 5.5 months. Several 
weeks after settlement, fish move to deeper waters in the range of 18 
30 m (60 100 feet) where they are found on rocky reefs (Carr, 1983; 
Feder, 1974; Johnson, 2006; Love, 2008). Adults inhabit waters from 12 
478 m (40 1570 feet) depth but are most common at depths of 50-250 m 
(Feder, 1974; Love, 2002). While generally associated with hard 
substrata, adults do wander into mud flats. Bocaccio are also typically 
found well off the bottom (as much as 30 m (98 feet)) (Love et al., 
2002). Approximately 50 percent of adults mature in 4 to 6 years (MBC, 
1987).
    Large adult bocaccio have more movement potential than smaller, 
more

[[Page 18521]]

sedentary species of rockfishes, but their occurrence in the Georgia 
Basin seems to be limited to certain areas. Bocaccio made up 8 9 
percent of the Puget Sound recreational catch in the late-1970s 
(Palsson et al., 2008), with the majority of fish caught in the areas 
around Point Defiance and the Tacoma Narrows in the South basin. 
Bocaccio have always been rare in the North Puget Sound surveys of the 
recreational shery (Drake et al., 2008). In the Strait of Georgia, 
bocaccio have been documented in some inlets, but records are sparse, 
isolated, and often based on anecdotal reports (COSEWIC, 2002). 
Although the relationship between bocaccio habitat preference and 
distribution in the Georgia Basin is not fully understood, the 
available information indicates that they are frequently found in areas 
lacking hard substrate. This may be due to their pelagic behavior 
(willingness to occupy areas higher in the water column) or 
availability of prey items.
    Adults are difficult to age, but are suspected to live as long as 
54 years (Drake et al., 2008). Bocaccio have low productivity because 
successful recruitment requires rare climatic and oceanic conditions. 
Tolimeri and Levin (2005) estimate that these conditions occur only 
about 15 percent of the time.
    Bocaccio larvae are planktivores that feed on larval krill, 
diatoms, and dinoflagellates. Pelagic juveniles are opportunistic 
feeders, taking fish larvae, copepods, krill, and other prey. Larger 
juveniles and adults are primarily piscivores, eating other rockfishes, 
hake, sablefish, anchovies, lanternfishes, and squid. Chinook salmon, 
terns, and harbor seals are known predators of smaller bocaccio (Love 
et al. 2002). The main predators of adult bocaccio are marine mammals 
(COSEWIC, 2002).
Yelloweye Rockfish
    Yelloweye rockfish range from northern Baja California to the 
Aleutian Islands, Alaska, but are most common from central California 
northward to the Gulf of Alaska (Clemens and Wilby, 1961; Eschmeyer et 
al., 1983; Hart, 1973; Love, 1996). They are among the largest of the 
rockfishes, up to 11 kg (25 pounds), and easily recognizable by their 
bright yellow eyes and red-orange color (Love et al., 2002). Yelloweye 
rockfish occur in waters 25 to 475 m (80 to 1,560 feet) deep (Orr et 
al., 2000), but are most commonly found between 91 to 180 m (300 to 590 
feet) depth (Love et al., 2002). Yelloweye rockfish are among the 
longest lived of rockfishes, living up to at least 118 years (Love, 
1996; Love et al., 2002; O'Connell and Funk, 1987). Yelloweye rockfish 
juveniles settle primarily in shallow, high relief zones, crevices, and 
sponge gardens (Love et al., 1991; Richards et al., 1985). As they grow 
and move to deeper waters, adults continue to associate with rocky, 
high relief areas (Carlson and Straty, 1981; Love et al., 1991; 
O'Connell and Carlisle, 1993; Richards et al., 1985). Yelloweye 
rockfish can be found infrequently in aggregations, but are generally 
solitary, demersal residents with small home ranges (Coombs 1979; 
DeMott, 1983; Love et al., 2002).
    Yelloweye rockfish are less frequently observed in South Puget 
Sound than North Puget Sound (Miller and Borton, 1980), likely due to 
the larger amount of rocky habitat in North Puget Sound. Yelloweye 
rockfish are distributed throughout the Strait of Georgia in northern 
Georgia Basin including areas around the Canadian Gulf Islands and the 
numerous inlets along the British Columbia coast (Yamanaka et al., 
2006). Their distribution in these areas most frequently coincides with 
high relief, complex rocky habitats (Yamanaka et al. 2006).
    Approximately 50 percent of adults are mature by 41 cm (16 inches) 
total length (about 6 years) (Love, 1996). Yelloweye rockfish store 
sperm for several months until fertilization occurs, commonly between 
the months of September and April, though fertilized individuals may be 
found in most months of the year, depending on where they are observed 
(Wyllie- Echeverria, 1987). Fertilization periods tend to get later as 
one moves from south to north in their range (DeLacy et al., 1964; 
Hitz, 1962; Lea et al., 1999; O'Connell 1987; Westrheim, 1975). 
Estimates of pelagic larval duration are not available for yelloweye 
rockfish, though we expect that it would be similar to or lower than 
that for bocaccio or canary rockfish (116 155 days; Varanasi, 2007). 
Fecundity ranges from 1.2 to 2.7 million eggs, considerably more than 
many other rockfish species (Love et al., 2002). In Puget Sound, 
yelloweye rockfish are believed to fertilize eggs during the winter to 
summer months, giving birth early spring to late summer (Washington et 
al., 1978). Although yelloweye rockfish are generally thought to spawn 
once a year (MacGregor, 1970), a study in Puget Sound offered evidence 
of at least two spawning periods per year (Washington et al., 1978).
    Yelloweye rockfish are opportunistic feeders, targeting different 
food sources during different phases of their life history, with the 
early life stages having typical rockfish diets as described for 
bocaccio above. Because adult yelloweye attain such large sizes, they 
are able to handle much larger prey, including smaller yelloweye, and 
are preyed upon less frequently (Rosenthal et al., 1982). Typical prey 
of adult yelloweye rockfishes include sand lance, gadids, flatfishes, 
shrimps, crabs, and gastropods (Love et al., 2002; Yamanaka et al., 
2006). Predators of yelloweye rockfish include salmon and orcas (Ford 
et al., 1998; Love et al., 2002).
Canary Rockfish
    Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett, Baja California, and 
the Western Gulf of Alaska (Boehlert, 1980; Mecklenburg et al., 2002). 
Within this range, canary rockfish are most common off the coast of 
central Oregon (Richardson and Laroche, 1979). Adults are primarily 
orange with a pale grey or white background (Love et al., 2002). Canary 
rockfish primarily inhabit waters 50 to 250 m (160 to 820 feet) deep 
(Orr et al., 2000), but may be found up to 425 m (1,400 feet) depth 
(Boehlert, 1980). They can live to be 84 years old (Drake et al., 
2008). Canary rockfish were once considered fairly common in the 
greater Puget Sound area (Holmberg, 1967).
    Female canary rockfish produce between 260,000 and 1.9 million eggs 
per year with larger females producing more eggs. Along the Pacific 
Coast, the relationship between egg production and female size does not 
seem to vary with geography (Gunderson, 1980; Love, 2002). Canary 
rockfish larvae have relatively high dispersal potential, with a 
pelagic larval duration of approximately 116 days (Shanks and Eckert, 
2005). Fertilization occurs as early as September off central 
California (Lea, 1999) but peaks in December (Phillips, 1960; Wyllie-
Echeverria, 1987), and parturition (birth) occurs between January and 
April and peaks in April (Phillips, 1960). Off the Oregon and 
Washington coasts, parturition occurs between September and March, with 
peaks in December and January (Barss, 1989; Wyllie Echeverria, 1987). 
In British Columbia, parturition occurs slightly later with the peak in 
February (Hart, 1973; Westrheim, 1975). Canary rockfish spawn once per 
year (Guillemot, 1985).
    Female canary rockfish grow larger and more quickly than do males 
(Lenarz, 1991; STAT, 1999), and growth does not vary with latitude 
(Boehlert, 1980). A 58-cm (23-inch) long female is approximately 20 
years of age; a male of the same age is about 53 cm (21 inches). Fish 
tend to move to deeper water as they grow larger (Vetter, 1997). While 
canary rockfish appear to be generally sedentary (Miller, 1973), 
tagging studies have shown that some individuals move up to 700 km (435 
miles) over several

[[Page 18522]]

years (Lea, 1999; Love, 2002). Canary rockfish larvae are planktivores, 
feeding primarily on nauplii (crustacean larvae), other invertebrate 
eggs, and copepods (Moser, 1991; Love, 2002). Juveniles are 
zooplanktivores, feeding on crustaceans such as harpacticoids (an order 
of copepods), barnacle cyprids (final larval stage), and euphasiid eggs 
and larvae. Predators of juvenile canary rockfish include other fishes, 
especially rockfishes, lingcod, cabezon and salmon, as well as birds 
and porpoises (Ainley, 1981; Love, 1991; Miller, 1973; Morejohn, 1978; 
Roberts, 1979). Adult canary rockfish are planktivores/carnivores, 
consuming euphasiids and other crustaceans and small fishes (Cailliet, 
2000; Love, 2002). Predators of adult canary rockfish include yelloweye 
rockfish, lingcod, salmon, sharks, dolphins, seals (Antonelis Jr., 
1980; Merkel, 1957; Morejohn, 1978; Rosenthal, 1982), and possibly 
river otters (Stevens, 1983).
    Miller and Borton (1980) describe canary rockfish as being 
associated with the various rocky and coarse habitats that occur 
throughout the basins of Puget Sound. The Committee on the Status of 
Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (2007) reports that canary 
rockfish are broadly distributed throughout the Strait of Georgia.
Greenstriped Rockfish
    Greenstriped rockfish range from Cedros Island, Baja California, to 
Green Island in the Gulf of Alaska. Within this range, greenstriped 
rockfish are common between British Columbia and Punta Colnett in 
northern Baja California (Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Hart, 1973; Love et 
al., 2002). They are slim fish, with a distinctive color, and are 
unlikely to be mistaken for other rockfishes (Love et al., 2002). 
Greenstriped rockfish is a deep-water species that can inhabit waters 
from 52 to 828 m (170 to 2,715 feet) in depth, but is most common 
between 100 and 250 m (330 and 820 feet) depth (Orr et al., 2000). They 
are solitary fish, most often found resting on the bottom (Love et al., 
2002). Male greenstriped rockfish can live to approximately 37 years of 
age, and females to approximately 28 years of age (Love et al., 1990).
    Greenstriped rockfish females store sperm for several months until 
fertilization occurs, commonly between the months of February and May 
in areas north of California (O'Connell and Carlisle, 1993). Fertilized 
individuals are found earlier in more southerly areas (Lea et al., 
1999). Greenstriped rockfish are generally believed to spawn once a 
year (Shaw and Gunderson, 2006), but some evidence of multiple 
spawnings has been reported (Love et al., 1990). Larvae are extruded at 
about 5 mm (0.2 inch) length (Matarese et al., 1989) and remain pelagic 
for up to 2 months (Moser and Boehlert, 1991); settling at around 30 mm 
(1.2 inches) length (Johnson et al., 1997). Individual greenstriped 
rockfish of both sexes start to mature at 150 mm (6 inches) length and 
5 years of age, with 50 percent maturity occurring at 230 mm (9 inches) 
and 7-10 years (Shaw and Gunderson, 2006; Wyllie Echeverria, 1987). 
Females produce 11,000 to 300,000 eggs annually.
    Greenstriped rockfish are active and opportunistic feeders, 
targeting different food sources during different phases of their life 
history. Larvae are diurnal, with nauplii, eggs, and copepods 
representing important food sources (Moser and Boehlert, 1991; Sumida 
et al., 1985). Greenstriped rockfish adults are generally considered to 
be residential and may feed nocturnally, consuming bigger crustaceans, 
fishes, and cephalopods during those times (Allen, 1982). Juveniles are 
preyed upon by birds, nearshore fishes, salmon, and porpoises (Ainley 
et al., 1993; Love et al., 1991; Morejohn et al., 1978). Adults have 
been recovered in the stomachs of sharks, porpoises, salmon, seals, and 
possibly river otters (Antonelis Jr. and Fiscus, 1980; Merkel, 1957; 
Morejohn et al., 1978).
    Greenstriped rockfish are distributed throughout Puget Sound, often 
associated with sand and coarse substrate (Miller and Borton, 1980; 
Palsson et al., 2008). Palsson et al. (2008) report that greenstriped 
rockfish are occasionally caught in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca. 
Greenstriped rockfish are occasionally reported from North Puget Sound, 
but the low occurrence of reports may be due to the difficulty in 
surveying the rocky habitats of this area by conventional trawl 
sampling. COSEWIC has not undertaken a greenstriped rockfish status 
review in Canada.
Redstripe Rockfish
    Redstripe rockfish occur from southern Baja California to the 
Bering Sea, Alaska (Hart, 1973; Love et al., 2002). They are a 
streamlined fish with a red, pink, or tan color (Love et al., 2002). 
Redstripe rockfish have been reported between 12 and 425 m (39 and 
1,400 feet) in depth, but 95 percent occur between 150 and 275 m (490 
and 900 feet) (Love et al., 2002).
    Redstripe rockfish may reach 55 years of age (Munk, 2001). They are 
most commonly found on a variety of substrates, from hard, high-relief 
reefs to sand-cobble interfaces. Juveniles settle to the bottom of 
sand-cobble substrates (Moser and Boehlert, 1991) and move as adults 
onto deeper rocky reefs and low-relief rubble bottoms. Redstripe 
rockfish can be found alone or in aggregations, usually near the sea-
floor bottom (Love et al., 2002b).
    Estimates of pelagic larval duration and fecundity with which to 
infer dispersal potential are not available for redstripe rockfish, 
though we expect that larval duration would be similar to or slightly 
lower than that for bocaccio or canary rockfish (116 155 days; 
Varanasi, 2007). Approximately 50 percent of adults mature at 28 to 29 
cm (11 to 11.5 inches) total length (Garrison and Miller, 1982). 
Redstripe rockfish females store sperm for several months until 
fertilization. Fertilization occurs between the months of April and May 
in areas north of California (O'Connell, 1987; Shaw, 1999; Wyllie-
Echeverria, 1987). Larvae are extruded after a typical gestation period 
of a couple of months, peaking in July for British Columbia (Westrheim, 
1975) and in June for Oregon (Shaw, 1999; Wyllie-Echeverria, 1987). 
Redstripe rockfish spawn once per year (Shaw, 1999). Larvae are 
extruded at about 5.4 mm length (0.2 inches) (Matarese et al., 1989) 
and remain pelagic for up to 2 months (Moser and Boehlert, 1991). 
Recorded size at first maturity for redstripe rockfish is 210 to 220 mm 
(8.2 to 8.6 inches) length (Shaw, 1999). Size at 50 percent maturity 
was recorded in the 1970s to be 280 and 290 mm (11.0 and 11.4 inches) 
(Westrheim, 1975) for males and females, respectively, differing from 
samples collected in the 1990s (243 and 262 mm (9.5 and 10.0 inches)) 
for males and females (about 7 years old), respectively (Shaw, 1999). 
It is not known whether this represents changes in size at maturity 
over time or differential representation of individuals that 
geographically mature at larger sizes.
    Redstripe rockfish are active and opportunistic feeders, and show 
feeding habits similar to the greenstriped rockfish. Larvae are 
diurnal, with nauplii, eggs, and copepods representing important food 
sources (Moser and Boehlert, 1991; Sumida et al., 1985). Juveniles are 
diurnal zooplanktivores and feed mainly on calanoid copepods and 
barnacle cyprids (Allen, 1982; Gaines and Roughgarden, 1987; Love et 
al., 1991). Adults may also feed nocturnally, consuming bigger 
crustaceans, fishes, and cephalopods (Allen, 1982). Juvenile redstripe 
rockfish are preyed upon by birds, nearshore fishes, salmon, and 
porpoises (Ainley et al., 1993; Love et al., 1991; Morejohn et al. 
1978). Redstripe

[[Page 18523]]

rockfish adults have been recovered in the stomachs of sharks, 
porpoises, salmon, seals, and possibly river otters (Antonelis Jr. and 
Fiscus, 1980; Merkel, 1957; Morejohn et al., 1978).
    Redstripe rockfish are associated with a wide range of rocky and 
coarse habitats in a broad range of depths throughout most basins of 
Puget Sound (Palsson et al., 2008). Palsson et al. (2008) report that 
redstripe rockfish are commonly caught during trawl surveys in the 
central Strait of Juan de Fuca, channels of the San Juan Archipelago, 
in the central Strait of Georgia, and in Admiralty Inlet. COSEWIC has 
not undertaken a redstripe rockfish status review in Canada.

DPS Consideration

    As described above, under the DPS policy a population segment is 
considered a DPS if it is both discrete from other populations within 
its taxon and significant to its taxon. The population segment may be 
considered discrete if 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 
differences may provide powerful direct evidence of this separation, 
because the presence of distinct genetic traits indicates that a 
population segment may be reproductively isolated. In addition to 
genetic information, various aspects of a population segment's biology, 
life history, and habitat may provide evidence of discreteness. For 
example, populations of a sedentary species may have limited 
reproductive exchange with other populations, and populations occupying 
habitat that is physically isolating may have little reproductive 
exchange with other isolated populations. This reproductive isolation 
over time may result in discreteness. For example, Yamanaka et al. 
(2006) concluded that for yelloweye rockfish, there are at least two 
distinct populations with limited genetic exchange occupying coastal 
North American waters between southeast Alaska and Oregon. The authors 
identified one population occupying the entire Pacific Coast and an 
inland population occupying the Strait of Georgia and possibly other 
inland marine waters including the Queen Charlotte Strait and Puget 
Sound.
    There is limited direct genetic information comparing coastal 
populations of the petitioned rockfish species to populations within 
the Georgia Basin. In addition to that limited information, where 
available, we considered several lines of evidence to inform the 
consideration of discreteness of population segments within the Georgia 
Basin. These included genetic information from coastal populations of 
the petitioned species and the degree to which such information 
indicates stock structure among coastal populations; genetic 
information comparing Georgia Basin and coastal populations of other 
west coast rockfish species with life histories similar to the 
petitioned species; life-history traits of the petitioned species that 
could lead to reproductive isolation, and thus discreteness, of Georgia 
Basin populations (such as live-bearing of young, internal 
fertilization, short-pelagic larval stages, and fidelity to habitat); 
and characteristics of the species' habitat that could lead to physical 
isolation and thus discreteness of Georgia Basin populations (such as 
discontinuity of rocky habitats, bathymetric barriers, and current 
patterns and physical barriers that limit exchange of coastal and 
inland waters). The discussion below describes evidence of discreteness 
that may be relevant to any of the five rockfish species. The later 
discussion of individual species describes the considerations relevant 
to the discreteness of each individual species.
    As described above under the DPS policy, in addition to being 
discrete, a population segment must also be significant to qualify as a 
DPS. The discussion of the policy above describes four characteristics 
that may make a discrete population segment significant. In the case of 
the petitioned rockfish species, the most relevant of these 
characteristics is the persistence of the discrete population segment 
in a unique ecological setting. The discussion below describes evidence 
of significance that may be relevant to any of the five rockfish 
species. The later discussion of individual species describes any 
additional considerations relevant to the significance of each 
individual species.
DPS Considerations Relevant to Discreteness of All Petitioned Species
    Because there is little direct genetic information on the 
discreteness of most of the petitioned species in Puget Sound or the 
Georgia Basin, we considered genetic information on other rockfish 
species in Puget Sound and Georgia Basin with life histories similar to 
the petitioned species. In particular, NMFS' 2001 status review of 
copper, quillback, and brown rockfish (Stout et al., 2001) concluded 
that there were DPSs of these rockfish in Puget Sound Proper based on 
genetic information. For copper rockfish, allozyme and DNA data from 
Seeb (1998) showed no particular genetic divergence for Puget Sound 
Proper specimens, but microsatellite data from Wimberger (in prep.) and 
Buonaccorsi et al. (2002) showed large differences between populations 
from within Puget Sound Proper and populations found outside Puget 
Sound Proper. Wimberger sampled copper rockfish from California, 
British Columbia, the San Juan Islands, the Canadian Gulf Islands, 
Admiralty Inlet, Central Puget Sound, and Hood Canal (the latter three 
populations are found within Puget Sound Proper). Wimberger found 
significant divergence between both Central Puget Sound and Admiralty 
Inlet populations, and all populations found outside of Puget Sound 
Proper. Equal divergence was found among Puget Sound Proper populations 
compared with San Juan, Gulf Island, and coastal populations as well.
    Buonaccorsi et al. (2002) used a different set of microsatellite 
loci to compare populations of copper rockfish from Puget Sound Proper, 
Canadian Gulf Islands, Queen Charlotte Islands, and coastal California. 
They also found highly significant divergence among all sampling sites, 
indicating a clear divergence between populations within Puget Sound 
Proper and the Canadian Gulf Islands (in the Strait of Georgia). 
Buonaccorsi et al. (2002) also identified unique alleles in Puget Sound 
Proper, further evidence for isolation of Puget Sound Proper 
populations from other neighboring regions.
    In addition to genetic information, Stout et al. (2001) pointed out 
that copper rockfish are live-bearing and have internal fertilization, 
a short pelagic larval stage, and high habitat fidelity. Copper 
rockfish are also considered to be non-migratory (Buonaccorsi et al., 
2002). All of these traits, combined with the physical isolation of 
Puget Sound Proper, could lead to reproductive isolation of copper 
rockfish in Puget Sound Proper.
    For quillback rockfish, Seeb (1998) sampled four sites within Puget 
Sound Proper, one in the San Juan Islands (in the North Basin of Puget 
Sound), and coastal sites from California, Washington, and Alaska. Like 
copper rockfish, quillback rockfish are sedentary and show high 
fidelity to their home sites (Love et al., 2002). Both allozyme and 
RFLP analyses indicated large differences in allele frequencies between 
Puget Sound Proper and the San Juan Islands. When the Puget Sound 
Proper samples were removed from the analysis, however, no significant 
divergence was found among the remaining populations (suggesting 
reproductive exchange among populations in California, Washington,

[[Page 18524]]

Alaska, and the San Juan Islands, but reproductive isolation of the 
Puget Sound proper population). Wimberger (in prep.) found significant 
differences in microsatellite allele frequencies between Puget Sound 
Proper and the San Juan Islands. The San Juan Island population was 
more similar to Sitka, Alaska, than it was to Puget Sound Proper.
    Brown rockfish have a distribution that is very different from 
copper and quillback rockfishes, as they are found in Puget Sound 
Proper but only rarely occur in North Puget Sound, Georgia Basin, or 
the Washington and Oregon coastline (Stout et al., 2001). Genetic data 
support a divergence between Puget Sound Proper and California 
populations (Seeb, 1998). Buonaccorsi et al. (2002) sampled three sites 
within Puget Sound Proper, and compared them to coastal populations 
ranging from California to Mexico. They found significant divergence 
among the populations, and even between two of the Puget Sound Proper 
populations. Tagging studies indicate that juveniles and subadults may 
have relatively small home ranges (Love et al., 2002). Puget Sound 
Proper populations exhibited extremely low genetic divergence compared 
to coastal samples, which suggested to the authors a potential founder 
effect combined with reproductive isolation, and/or a low effective 
population size.
    In addition to genetic information for copper, quillback, and brown 
rockfish, there is genetic information available regarding some of the 
petitioned species that can help inform consideration of DPS structure 
of the other petitioned species. For the petitioned species, there is 
genetic information for yelloweye rockfish (Yamanaka et al., 2006 and 
R. Withler (unpublished data as cited in Drake et al., 2008)) 
indicating genetic differences between fish from inland marine waters 
(Queen Charlotte Strait and Georgia Basin) and the outer coast.
    In addition to genetic information that is available for some 
rockfish species in the Georgia Basin, there are physical features of 
the Georgia Basin that affect all rockfish species in similar ways, 
potentially contributing to reproductive isolation and thus 
discreteness. The waters of the Georgia Basin are isolated from coastal 
waters by land masses (the Olympic Peninsula and Vancouver Island); 
underwater sills limit the movement of water, sediment, and bottom-
dwelling species such as rockfish; and internal currents limit the 
exchange of water between the Basin and coastal areas. These geographic 
features tend to contain the dispersal of larval fish and the migration 
of adult fish within the Basin, and even within smaller areas within 
the Basin, such as Puget Sound Proper.
    When the available genetic information was considered in concert 
with the ecological features of Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin and 
the life histories of the petitioned rockfishes, the BRT drew two 
general conclusions. First, the petitioned rockfishes in the inland 
marine waters (Puget Sound and the greater Georgia Basin) are likely to 
be reproductively isolated and genetically distinct from rockfish from 
the rest of the Pacific Coast. Second, and consistent with the findings 
of Stout et al. (2001), the more sedentary rockfishes are likely to be 
further reproductively isolated within Puget Sound Proper (the area 
that was the focus of the original listing petition). The more mobile 
rockfish are likely to be reproductively isolated within the Georgia 
Basin, but are not likely to be reproductively isolated within Puget 
Sound Proper.
DPS Considerations Relevant to Significance of All Petitioned Species
    As described above in more detail, all five of the petitioned 
rockfish species occupy marine waters from California to Alaska, 
including coastal waters and the inland waters of the Georgia Basin. 
Throughout this range, the Georgia Basin is unique, for several 
reasons. The waters of the Georgia Basin are less saline than coastal 
waters because of the quantity of fresh water flowing into the Basin, 
particularly from the Fraser River. The greater amount of fresh water 
also results in stratification of water by salinity in the Georgia 
Basin to a greater extent than in coastal waters. Land masses and 
shallow sills limit the movement of deep-dwelling fish among subbasins 
within the Georgia Basin, as well as the movement of sediments and 
nutrients to a much greater extent than in coastal waters. In addition, 
the inland waters of the Georgia Basin are protected by the land 
features of the Olympic Peninsula and Vancouver Island, and by numerous 
islands within the Basin, which interrupts waves and currents and 
results in a less energetic environment than the coast. These features 
make the ecological setting of the Georgia Basin region substantially 
different than other regions in the range of these rockfish species.
    While the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca and North Puget Sound 
are relatively wide bodies of water with numerous islands, Puget Sound 
Proper is composed of narrow basins separated by shallow sills. The 
geographic and bathymetric features that constrain rockfish movement in 
the Georgia Basin are even more pronounced in Puget Sound Proper. The 
presence of rocky habitat is very limited in Puget Sound Proper, with 
most bottom substrates comprised of soft sediments, ranging from coarse 
sands to fine silts and clay. Rockfish in Puget Sound Proper are either 
limited to the small amount of rocky habitat or, like bocaccio, 
greenstriped rockfish, and redstripe rockfish, make use of habitat with 
softer bottom substrates.

DPS Conclusions by Species

Bocaccio
    In 2002, our Southwest Fisheries Science Center conducted a status 
review for bocaccio (MacCall and He, 2002), focusing on a Southern DPS 
occupying the coastal area from the Oregon/California border to 
approximately 322 km (200 miles) south of the Mexico/U.S. border. The 
status review concluded that at least two DPSs of bocaccio were present 
off the coast of the Western United States and Mexico, the Southern DPS 
and at least one additional DPS (the Northern) to the north. The 
authors (MacCall and He, 2002) did not consider whether inland stocks 
of bocaccio in the northern portion of this species range might be 
separate DPSs or what their extinction risk might be, because only the 
southern DPS was the subject of an ESA petition at that time. That 
review resulted in a determination that listing of the southern DPS of 
bocaccio was not warranted.
    No published studies have compared genetic characteristics of 
bocaccio from Puget Sound and outer coastal areas, but there have been 
several studies of genetic variation in bocaccio along the outer coast. 
Wishard et al. (1980) examined allozyme variation in nine coastal 
sampling locations ranging from Baja California to southern Oregon, 
with sample sizes ranging from 12 to over 100 individuals per locality. 
They found two highly polymorphic loci and three others with low levels 
of variation. They found overlapping confidence intervals for allele 
frequencies across sampling locations and no evidence for population 
differentiation. More recently, Matala et al. (2004) examined genetic 
variation in bocaccio at seven microsatellite loci in samples from 
eight locations from Baja California to British Columbia, including 
both sides of Point Conception. Samples were adults, except in the 
Santa Barbara channel where age-0 fish were taken. The results indicate 
that coastal bocaccio are not a single breeding population. A large-
scale pattern of isolation by distance was not observed in the data. 
However,

[[Page 18525]]

using a series of comparisons of smaller, geographically contiguous 
subsets of samples, the authors found some evidence that geographically 
proximate samples tended to be more similar genetically. The authors 
suggested that these results might best be explained by the interacting 
effects of oceanographic patterns and the species' life history, both 
of which result in some exchange between populations in close 
proximity, but limit exchange over larger distances.
    Some aspects of bocaccio life history indicate that populations in 
the Georgia Basin might not be discrete from coastal populations, in 
particular the ability of adult bocaccio to move over long distances 
and the modest levels of differentiation among coastal populations 
described above. For this reason, and because of the lack of direct 
genetic information comparing inland and coastal populations, the BRT 
considered it possible that Georgia Basin populations are not discrete 
from coastal populations, that their presence in the Georgia Basin 
might be the result of a rare recruitment/migration event from coastal 
stocks. If that were the case, bocaccio age structure in the Basin 
would be dominated by a single year class. However, available size 
frequency data provide evidence that there are multiple year classes 
spread out over the available time series (MacCall, 2008). In addition, 
coastal bocaccio are dominated by a strong 1999 year class, but 
bocaccio in the Georgia Basin are not, providing further evidence 
against a hypothesis of a single population with frequent reproductive 
exchange.
    The BRT concluded that the best available scientific information 
instead suggests that bocaccio populations in the Georgia Basin are 
discrete from coastal populations. Information supporting this 
conclusion includes the presence of multiple year classes within the 
Georgia Basin (indicating that bocaccio in the Basin are an 
independently reproducing entity and not the result of a rare 
recruitment/migration event from coastal stocks); the lack of a strong 
1999 year class in the Georgia Basin, compared to coastal populations 
which do have a strong 1999 year class (suggesting separate recruitment 
regimes acting on Georgia Basin populations compared to coastal 
populations and also suggesting demographic independence); and the 
presence of large sexually mature individuals (suggesting the capacity 
for independent reproduction).
    Inferences from the genetic evidence for discreteness of copper, 
quillback, brown, and yelloweye rockfish in the Georgia Basin also 
supports a conclusion that bocaccio in the Georgia Basin are discrete 
from coastal populations. Similarities in life histories between 
bocaccio and the four species for which we do have genetic information 
include: live-bearing of young, pelagic larval and juvenile stages, and 
eventual settlement to benthic habitats as fish reach adulthood. All of 
these species also consume similar prey items and spend at least some 
time in association with coarse substrates.
    For the above reasons, the BRT concluded that the weight of the 
evidence supports the existence of a discrete population segment of 
bocaccio in the Georgia Basin more than it supports the existence of a 
single coastal/Georgia Basin population.
    The BRT concluded there was no available information to support a 
conclusion that population segments of bocaccio within the Georgia 
Basin are discrete from one another. The factors supporting a 
conclusion that there are not discrete population segments of bocaccio 
within the Georgia Basin include the apparent similarity in age 
structure across the Basin, the fact that mature reproductive age 
adults have been found throughout the Basin, the fact that suitable 
habitat is spread throughout the Basin in a pattern that would allow 
movement of adults within the Basin, and the fact that bocaccio adults 
are able to move over relatively long distances (i.e., relative to 
other rockfish species). Because of this species potential for movement 
and wide habitat availability throughout Georgia Basin, the BRT did not 
feel that the evidence of within Georgia Basin genetic differences for 
copper, quillback, and brown rockfishes discussed above was relevant to 
bocaccio.
    Under the DPS policy, having concluded that there is likely a 
discrete population segment of Georgia Basin bocaccio we must next 
consider whether the discrete population segment is significant to the 
species to which it belongs. As described above, the Georgia Basin is a 
unique ecological setting for all west coast rockfish. In addition, 
unlike coastal bocaccio, which are most frequently found in association 
with rocks and boulder fields, bocaccio in the Georgia Basin have been 
frequently found in areas with sand and mud substrate. We therefore 
conclude that the discrete population segment of boccacio in the 
Georgia Basin is also significant and thus a DPS (Figure 1).
    In its previous status review, described above, NMFS identified two 
DPSs of coastal bocaccio (MacCall and He, 2002). The Georgia Basin 
bocaccio DPS identified in this draft status review would represent a 
third bocaccio DPS, distinct from both the southern and northern 
coastal DPSs identified in the previous review.
Yelloweye Rockfish
    No published studies have compared genetic characteristics of 
yelloweye rockfish from Puget Sound and outer coastal areas. A Canadian 
study (Yamanaka et al., 2006) using nine microsatellite loci in 
yelloweye rockfish collected from Oregon to southeast Alaska found 
small allele frequency differences among all the coastal samples; 
however, three samples from the inside waters of the Strait of Georgia 
and Queen Charlotte Strait had significantly reduced levels of genetic 
variability and formed a distinctive genetic cluster. The authors 
suggested that these results imply restricted gene flow between inland 
and coastal populations and a lower effective size for populations 
within the Strait of Georgia. Subsequently, samples taken in 2005 2007 
from waters between Vancouver Island and Mainland British Columbia have 
been screened at the same nine polymorphic microsatellite loci (R. 
Withler, personal communication, July 2008). Preliminary analysis of 
these new samples shows that these patterns remain consistent: all the 
samples from inland waters form a coherent genetic cluster, and inside-
outside comparisons typically yield much higher values of genetic 
differentiation than do comparisons of two coastal samples or two 
inland samples. In the north, there appears to be a fairly sharp 
transition between inland and coastal forms in the vicinity of the 
Gordon Channel. Whether a similar pattern occurs in the south is not 
known, as no samples from Puget Sound have been analyzed and only a 
single fish was collected from the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 
Nevertheless, these results suggest that yelloweye rockfish from the 
rest of the Georgia Basin are also likely to be genetically 
differentiated from the coastal population.
    Several other lines of evidence support a conclusion that yelloweye 
rockfish in the Georgia Basin are discrete from coastal populations of 
yelloweye rockfish. Two aspects of the life history of yelloweye 
rockfish discussed earlier favor genetic and potentially demographic 
isolation from coastal populations. First, as both adults and 
juveniles, yelloweye rockfish are tightly associated with rocky 
substrata (or invertebrate prey associated with hard substrate). Such 
substr