Endangered and Threatened Species; Removal of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segment of Canary Rockfish From the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species and Removal of Designated Critical Habitat, and Update and Amendment to the Listing Descriptions for the Yelloweye Rockfish DPS and Bocaccio DPS, 7711-7731 [2017-00559]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Estimated Total Hour Burden: 23,304
hours; the total number of new
respondents is 60.
Estimated Total Hour Burden Cost:
$798,395 for gathering information
required to support an application,
which may include preparation of an
Eagle Conservation Plan (ECP). This
amount includes 650 hours for
preconstruction monitoring surveys of
eagle use of the project site and 700
hours of postconstruction monitoring
for each respondent. Preparation of the
application, which may include
preparation of an ECP, will take
approximately 200 hours per
respondent. These burden hours apply
only to those seeking a long-term eagle
take permit. In addition, those that
receive a permit are required to report
take of eagles and threatened or
endangered species within 48 hours of
discovery of the take. It is estimated that
of the 15 projects permitted to take
eagles each year, 10 will actually take
eagles, requiring 2 hours per respondent
to report. Take of threatened or
endangered species is expected to be a
rare event, and occur at only 1 of the 15
projects permitted each year, requiring
only 2 hours to report. The burden
hours also include the costs for the 5year permit review. We estimate 8 hours
per respondent to complete the
requirements of the permit review for a
total of 32 hours.
Estimated New Total Nonhour Burden
Cost: $359,200 for administration fees
and application fees associated with
changes implemented by this rule. This
amount does not include the nonhour
cost burden for eagle or eagle nest take
permits approved under OMB Control
No. 1018–0022. States, local
governments, and tribal governments
are exempt from paying these fees.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
Dated: January 12, 2017.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2017–01284 Filed 1–19–17; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 223, 224, and 226
[Docket No. 160524463–7001–02]
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Removal of the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin Distinct Population Segment of
Canary Rockfish From the Federal List
of Threatened and Endangered
Species and Removal of Designated
Critical Habitat, and Update and
Amendment to the Listing Descriptions
for the Yelloweye Rockfish DPS and
Bocaccio DPS
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, are issuing a final
rule to remove the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin canary rockfish (Sebastes
pinniger) Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) from the Federal List of
Threatened and Endangered Species
and remove its critical habitat
designation. We proposed these actions
based on newly obtained samples and
genetic analysis that demonstrates that
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary
rockfish population does not meet the
DPS criteria and therefore does not
qualify for listing under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Following public
and peer review of the proposed rule
and supporting scientific information,
this final rule implements the changes
to the listing and critical habitat for
canary rockfish.
We also update and amend the listing
description for the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin yelloweye rockfish (S.
ruberrimus) DPS based on a geographic
description to include fish within
specified boundaries. Further, although
the current listing description is not
based on boundaries, with this final rule
we are also correcting a descriptive
boundary for the DPS depicted on maps
to include an area in the northern
Johnstone Strait and Queen Charlotte
Channel in waters of Canada consistent
with newly obtained genetic
information on yelloweye rockfish
population grouping.
We also update and amend the listing
description for the bocaccio DPS based
on a geographic description and to
include fish within specified
boundaries.
SUMMARY:
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
This final rule is effective on
March 24, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan
Tonnes, NMFS, West Coast Region,
Protected Resources Division, 206–526–
4643; or Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office
of Protected Resources, 301–427–8491.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Background
RIN 0648–XE657
PO 00000
7711
Sfmt 4700
On April 9, 2007, we received a
petition from Mr. Sam Wright (Olympia,
Washington) to list DPSs of five rockfish
species (yelloweye, canary, bocaccio,
greenstriped and redstripe) in Puget
Sound, as endangered or threatened
species under the ESA and to designate
critical habitat. We found that this
petition did not 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 Mr. Wright presenting
information that was not included in the
April 2007 petition, and requesting
reconsideration of the decision not to
initiate a review of the species’ status.
We considered the supplemental
information as a new petition and
concluded that there was enough
information in this new petition to
warrant conducting status reviews of
these five rockfish species. The status
review was initiated on March 17, 2008
(73 FR 14195) and completed in 2010
(Drake et al., 2010).
In the 2010 status review, the
Biological Review Team (BRT) used the
best scientific and commercial data
available at that time, including
environmental and ecological features of
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, but
noted that the limited genetic and
demographic data for the five petitioned
rockfish species populations created
some uncertainty in the DPS
determinations (Drake et al., 2010). The
BRT assessed genetic data from the
Strait of Georgia (inside waters of
eastern Vancouver Island) for yelloweye
rockfish (Yamanaka et al., 2006) that
indicated a distinct genetic cluster that
differed consistently from coastal
samples of yelloweye rockfish, but also
observed that genetic data from Puget
Sound were not available for this
species. The BRT also noted there was
genetic information for canary rockfish
(Wishard et al., 1980) and bocaccio
(Matala et al., 2004, Field et al., 2009)
in coastal waters, but no genetic data for
either species from inland Puget Sound
waters. The BRT found that in spite of
these data limitations there was other
evidence to conclude that each noted
population of rockfish within inland
waters of the Puget Sound/Georgia
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
7712
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Basin was discrete from its coastal
counterpart.
Specifically, the BRT noted similar
life histories of rockfish and based their
determinations, in part, on the status
review of brown rockfish, copper
rockfish, and quillback rockfish (Stout
et al., 2001) and the genetic information
for those species that supported separate
DPSs for inland compared to coastal
populations (Drake et al., 2010). Thus,
based on information related to rockfish
life history, genetic variation among
populations, and the environmental and
ecological features of Puget Sound and
the Georgia Basin, the BRT identified
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs for
yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and
bocaccio, and a Puget Sound proper
DPS for greenstriped rockfish and
redstripe rockfish (Drake et al., 2010).
Informed by the BRT
recommendations and our interpretation
of best available scientific and
commercial data, on April 28, 2010, we
listed the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
DPSs of yelloweye rockfish and canary
rockfish as threatened under the ESA,
and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS
of bocaccio as endangered (75 FR
22276). The final critical habitat rule for
the listed DPSs of rockfishes was
published in the Federal Register on
November 1, 2014 (79 FR 68041). We
determined that greenstriped rockfish
(S. elongatus) and redstripe rockfish (S.
proriger) within Puget Sound proper
each qualified as a DPS, but these DPSs
were not at risk of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of their
ranges (Drake et al., 2010).
In 2013, we appointed a recovery
team and initiated recovery planning for
the listed rockfish species. Through the
process of recovery planning, priority
research and recovery actions emerged.
One such action was to seek specific
genetic data for each of these rockfish
species to better evaluate and determine
whether differences exist in the genetic
structure of the listed species’
populations between inland basins
where the DPSs occur and the outer
coast. Analysis of the geographical
distribution of genetic variation is a
powerful method of identifying discrete
populations (Drake et al., 2010); thus,
genetic analysis provides useful
information to address the uncertainties
associated with the limited information
that informed our initial discreteness
determinations for yelloweye rockfish,
canary rockfish and bocaccio.
In 2014 and 2015, we partnered with
the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW), several local fishing
guides, and Puget Sound Anglers to
collect samples between the different
basins of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
DPSs area and the outer coast. We
collected biological samples for genetic
analysis several ways. Over the course
of 74 fishing trips, biological samples
were gathered from listed rockfishes
using hook-and-line recreational fishing
methods in Puget Sound and the Strait
of Juan de Fuca. Additional samples
were gathered from archived sources
from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the
NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science
Center’s Fisheries Resource Division,
and the NMFS Northwest Fisheries
Science Center’s West Coast groundfish
bottom trawl survey.
Samples collected from these sources
were used to examine the population
structure for each species. Population
structure was examined using three
methods: Principal components analysis
(PCA), calculation of FST (fixation
index—which is a measure of
population differentiation) among
geographic groups, and a population
genetics based model clustering analysis
(termed STRUCTURE) (NMFS 2016a).
In 2015, we announced a 5-year
review (80 FR 6695; February 6, 2015)
for the three rockfish DPSs. The 5-year
review was completed on May 5, 2016
(NMFS 2016a), and is available at:
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.
gov/publications/protected_species/
other/rockfish/5.5.2016_5yr_review_
report_rockfish.pdf. To complete the
review, we collected, evaluated, and
incorporated all information on the
species that has become available since
April 2010, the date of the listing,
including the 2014 final critical habitat
designation and newly obtained
samples and analysis of genetic
information (Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a).
NMFS’ Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
rockfish BRT reviewed the results from
the new genetic information. Their
recommendations (Ford 2015) informed
and were further evaluated during the
five-year review (NMFS 2016a) which
confirmed the DPS identity and listing
status for yelloweye rockfish and
bocaccio but concluded that the canary
rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin do not meet the criteria to be
considered a DPS.
Policies for Delineating and Listing
Species Under the ESA
Under the ESA, the term ‘‘species’’
means a species, a subspecies, or a DPS
of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). A joint NMFS–USFWS policy
clarifies the Services’ interpretation of
the phrase ‘‘Distinct Population
Segment,’’ or DPS (61 FR 4722; February
7, 1996). The DPS Policy requires the
consideration of two elements when
evaluating whether a vertebrate
population segment qualifies as a DPS
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
under the ESA: (1) Discreteness of the
population segment in relation to the
remainder of the species/taxon; and, if
discrete, (2) the significance of the
population segment to the species/taxon
to which it belongs. Thus, 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.
A population 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; 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 (61 FR 4722; February 7,
1996). According to the policy,
quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity can be
used to provide evidence for item (1)
above.
Consideration of the significance of a
discrete population may include, but is
not limited to the following conditions:
(1) Persistence of the discrete segment
in an ecological setting unusual or
unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that
loss of the discrete segment would
result in a significant gap in the range
of the taxon; (3) evidence that the
discrete segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon
that may be more abundant elsewhere as
an introduced population outside its
historical range; or (4) evidence that the
discrete segment differs markedly from
other populations of the species in its
genetic characteristics.
The ESA gives us clear authority to
make listing determinations and to
revise the Federal list of endangered and
threatened species to reflect these
determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA authorizes us to determine by
regulation whether ‘‘any species,’’
which is defined to include species,
subspecies, and DPSs, is an endangered
species or a threatened species based on
certain factors. Review of a species’
status may be commenced at any time,
either on the Services’ own initiative—
through a status review or in connection
with a five-year review under Section
4(c)(2)—or in response to a petition.
Because a DPS is not a scientifically
recognized entity, but rather one created
under the language of the ESA and
effectuated through our DPS Policy (61
FR 4722; February 7, 1996), we have
some discretion to determine whether
populations of a species should be
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
identified as DPSs, and, based upon
their range and propensity for
movement, what boundaries should be
recognized for a DPS. Section 4(c)(1) of
the ESA gives us authority to update the
Federal list of threatened and
endangered species to reflect these
determinations. This can include
revising the list to remove a species or
reclassify the listed entity.
Under sections 4(c)(1) and 4(a)(1) of
the ESA the Secretary shall undertake a
five-year review of a listed species and
consider, among other things, whether a
species’ listing status should be
continued. Pursuant to implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d), a
species shall be removed from the list if
the Secretary of Commerce determines,
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available after
conducting a review of the species’
status, that the species is no longer
threatened or endangered because of
one or a combination of the section
4(a)(1) factors. A species may be
delisted only if such data substantiate
that it is neither endangered nor
threatened for one or more of the
following reasons:
(1) Extinction. Unless all individuals
of the listed species had been previously
identified and located, and were later
found to be extirpated from their
previous range, a sufficient period of
time must be allowed before delisting to
indicate clearly that the species is
extinct.
(2) Recovery. The principal goal of the
Services is to return listed species to a
point at which protection under the
ESA is no longer required. A species
may be delisted on the basis of recovery
only if the best scientific and
commercial data available indicate that
it is no longer endangered or threatened.
(3) Original data for classification in
error. Subsequent investigations may
show that the best scientific or
commercial data available when the
species was listed, or the interpretation
of such data, were in error (50 CFR
424.11(d)).
To make our final listing
determinations, we reviewed all
information provided during the 60-day
public comment period on the proposed
rule. Additionally we reviewed
additional genetic analysis developed
by the Northwest Fisheries Science
Center (NWFSC) after the proposed rule
(Andrews and Nichols 2016). This
additional information supplemented,
and supported, the information
presented in the proposed rule. Where
new information was received we have
reviewed it and presented our
evaluation in this final rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
Proposed Rule
Informed by the BRT
recommendations (Ford 2015), our
interpretation of best available scientific
and commercial data, and the
conclusions of the five-year review, on
July 6, 2016 we issued a proposed rule
(81 FR 43979) to remove the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish
(Sebastes pinniger) which included the
following findings for each listed
rockfish species.
Yelloweye Rockfish
Several different analytical methods
indicated significant genetic
differentiation between the inland and
coastal samples of yelloweye rockfish at
a level consistent with the limited
genetic data for this species (Yamanaka
et al., 2006) that were available at the
time of the 2010 status review. The BRT
concluded that this new genetic
information represents the best available
scientific and commercial data and are
consistent with and confirm the
existence of an inland population of
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye
rockfish that is discrete from coastal
yelloweye rockfish (Ford 2015, NMFS
2016a). In addition, this genetic
information demonstrates that
yelloweye rockfish from Hood Canal are
genetically differentiated from other
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin fish,
indicating a previously unknown degree
of population differentiation within the
DPS (Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a).
The BRT also found that new genetic
information from Canada demonstrates
that yelloweye rockfish occurring in the
northern Johnstone Strait and Queen
Charlotte Channel clustered genetically
with yelloweye rockfish occurring in the
northern Strait of Georgia, the San Juan
Islands, and Puget Sound (Ford 2015).
This is consistent with additional
genetic analysis identifying a
population of yelloweye rockfish inside
the waters of eastern Vancouver Island
(Yamanaka et. al. 2006, COSEWIC 2008,
Yamanaka et al., 2012, Siegle et al.,
2013). Based on this information and
the five-year review, we proposed to
correct the previous description of the
northern boundary of the threatened
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye
rockfish (S. ruberrimus) DPS to include
this area. We also proposed to update
and amend the description of the DPS
as fish residing within certain
boundaries (including this geographic
area farther north in the Strait of Georgia
waters in Canada). We proposed this
change because this description better
aligns with yelloweye rockfish lifehistory and their sedentary behavior as
adults, rather than the current
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7713
description of fish originating from the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.
In the five-year review, our analysis of
the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors found
that the collective risk to the persistence
of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS
of yelloweye rockfish has not changed
significantly since our final listing
determination in 2010 (75 FR 22276;
April 28, 2010), and they remain listed
as threatened (NMFS 2016a).
Canary Rockfish
The same analytical methods
(described in Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a
and Andrews and Nichols 2016) as used
for yelloweye rockfish were used to
analyze population structure in canary
rockfish. These analyses indicate a lack
of genetic differentiation of canary
rockfish between coastal and inland
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin samples. FST
values, a metric of population
differentiation, among groups were not
significantly different from zero among
geographic regions, and STRUCTURE
analysis did not provide evidence
supporting population structure in the
data. None of these analyses provided
any evidence of genetic differentiation
between canary rockfish along the coast
from the canary rockfish within the
boundaries of the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin DPS (Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a,
Andrews and Nichols 2016).
The BRT noted that the very large
number of loci provided considerable
power to detect differentiation among
sample groups and concluded that the
lack of such differentiation indicated
that it is unlikely the inland Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin samples are
discrete from coastal areas (Ford 2015).
In the context of this newly obtained
genetic information, the BRT considered
whether other factors that supported the
original discreteness determination,
such as oceanography and ecological
differences among locations, continue to
support a finding of discreteness for this
population (Ford 2015). In considering
this newly obtained genetic data in the
context of the other evidence, the BRT
found that their original interpretation
of the scientific data informing
discreteness is no longer supported
(Ford 2015). Rather, they concluded that
the lack of genetic differentiation
indicates sufficient dispersal to render a
discreteness determination based on
environmental factors implausible. The
BRT found that current genetic data
evaluated and interpreted in the context
of all available scientific information
now provides strong evidence that
canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin are not discrete from
coastal area canary rockfish. Based on
the BRT findings, the five-year review,
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
7714
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
and best available science and
commercial information, and in
accordance with the DPS policy, we
determined that the canary rockfish of
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin did not
meet the criteria to be considered a DPS.
Rather, the new genetic data reveal that
canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin are part of the larger
population occupying the Pacific coast
(Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a, Andrews and
Nichols 2016).
Canary rockfish of the Pacific coast
was declared overfished in 2000 and a
rebuilding plan under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act) was put in place in 2001. NMFS
determined the stock to be ‘‘rebuilt’’ in
2015 (Thorson and Wetzel 2015, NMFS
2016b).
Based on the discussion above and
the recommendation of the five-year
review, we proposed to remove Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish
from the Federal List of Threatened and
Endangered Species because the new
genetic data evaluated and interpreted
in the context of all best available
science indicate they are not a discrete
population (81 FR 43979; July 6, 2016).
Under section 4(c)(1) of the ESA and the
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.11(d)(3), we may delist canary
rockfish if, among other things,
subsequent investigation demonstrates
that our interpretation of best scientific
or commercial information was in error.
After considering this newly obtained
genetic data in the context of the other
evidence supporting discreteness, we
determined that our original
interpretation of discreteness for Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish is
no longer supported and was in error.
Based on this reasoning, there is no
need for a post-delisting monitoring
plan.
Bocaccio
Bocaccio were also evaluated by the
BRT (Ford 2015) and during the fiveyear review (NMFS 2016a). Bocaccio are
particularly rare within the DPS area
and thus the NWFSC was only able to
obtain three samples from within the
DPS area for the genetic analysis. The
BRT determined that this is not
sufficient information to support a
change to our prior status review and
listing determination that Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin bocaccio are discrete from
coastal fish (Ford 2015).
The BRT noted that bocaccio have a
propensity for greater adult movement
than more benthic rockfish species,
similar to the case for canary rockfish.
The BRT considered that the lack of
genetic differentiation between coastal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary
rockfish might suggest a similar lack of
genetic differentiation for bocaccio
because of similarities in the life history
of the two species. Nevertheless, the
BRT concluded that the new
information was not sufficient to change
the conclusions of the previous BRT
documented in Drake et al., (2010) or
suggest a change in listing status (Ford
2015). This is consistent with the fiveyear review recommendation (NMFS
2016a) and is based upon best available
scientific data and commercial
information.
However, similarly to yelloweye
rockfish, we proposed to update and
amend the listing description of the
bocaccio DPS to describe boundaries to
include fish residing within the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin rather than fish
originating from the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin.
In the five-year review, our analysis of
the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors found
that the collective risk to the persistence
of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS
of bocaccio has not changed
significantly since our final listing
determination in 2010 (75 FR 22276;
April 28, 2010), and they remain listed
as endangered (NMFS 2016a).
Peer Review and Public Comment
The scientific information considered
by the BRT and summarized in our fiveyear review (NMFS 2016a) was peer
reviewed and the proposed rule was
subject to public comment. Following
those reviews, there are no changes to
the actions as proposed.
Summary of Comments
On July 6, 2016, we solicited
comments during a 60-day public
comment period from all interested
parties including the public, other
concerned governments and agencies,
the scientific community, industry, and
other interested parties on the proposed
rule (81 FR 43979).
We received four public comments,
and three peer reviews on the proposed
rule. Summaries of the substantive
comments received, and our responses,
are provided below and organized by
topic.
Comments on Sampling and Genetic
Analysis
Two of the three peer reviewers had
questions and observations about the
genetic analyses for both canary rockfish
and yelloweye rockfish provided in the
five-year review. NOAA’s Northwest
Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC)
reviewed the genetic and sampling
questions and provided responses
within a memorandum (Andrews and
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Nichols 2016). This memorandum also
reported on additional genetic analysis
of samples collected in 2014 and 2015
that had not yet been analyzed and
available in the five-year review (NMFS
2016a) or by the BRT (2015).
The results of the updated genetic
analysis are consistent with and did not
change the outcome of the genetic
assessment presented to the Biological
Review Team in November 2015 (Ford
2015) and in the five-year review
(NMFS 2016a) that informed the
proposed rule. The information from the
new analysis (Andrews and Nichols
2016) is included in the responses
below.
Comment 1: Two of the three
scientific peer reviewers and two
commenters agreed that canary rockfish
sampled from the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin are not genetically differentiated
from canary rockfish sampled outside of
this area.
Response: We agree.
Comment 2: One peer reviewer did
not agree that there was sufficient
evidence to support our finding that
canary rockfish are not genetically
differentiated.
Response: We disagree with the peer
reviewer based on the analysis provided
in the five-year review (NMFS 2016a)
and BRT report (Ford 2015) in addition
to the supplemental analysis provided
by Andrews and Nichols (2016) and
elaborated in this final rule. The best
available information provides strong
evidence that canary rockfish sampled
in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are
not genetically differentiated from
coastal canary rockfish.
Comment 3: Regarding the yelloweye
rockfish and canary rockfish genetic
analysis, one reviewer suggested that
analytical methods conducted by the
NWFSC (such as FST and STRUCTURE)
should be described in our final rule.
Response: We agree. While additional
information on these analyses was
included in documents supporting the
proposed rule (81 FR 43979; July 6,
2016), we include clarifying information
in this final rule as well (and as detailed
in Andrews and Nichols 2016). The
NWFSC conducted Principal
Component Analysis (PCA),
STRUCTURE, and FST analyses for
yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish,
which are detailed in Andrews and
Nichols (2016). These analyses for
yelloweye rockfish support our findings
that fish collected in the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin DPS are discrete from
yelloweye rockfish collected on the
outer coast. Similar analyses for canary
rockfish support our findings that there
is no discrete Puget Sound/Georgia
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Basin population (Andrews and Nichols
2016).
Comment 4: One peer reviewer
questioned the relatively low proportion
of overall variation explained by PCA
one and PCA two described in our fiveyear review and the proposed rule.
Response: For yelloweye rockfish, the
NWFSC used over 5,000 Restriction Site
Associated DNA Sequencing loci in the
analyses presented in the five-year
review and over 7,000 loci in its final
dataset (Andrews and Nichols 2016).
There is a large amount of variation
possible among this many loci leading
to a relatively low proportion of the
variance explained by the first two
principal component scores.
Comment 5: One reviewer questioned
how the number of samples collected
and analyzed by the NWFSC affects the
estimate of statistical power and the
ability to detect genetic differentiation
for yelloweye rockfish and canary
rockfish.
Response: The NWFS did not conduct
power analyses. Andrews and Nichols
(2016) state that ‘‘. . . the magnitude of
the FST confidence intervals, and the
upper bound of those confidence
intervals provide compelling evidence
that differentiation among the sampled
regions for canary rockfish is not
significantly different from zero, and in
many cases orders of magnitude lower
than that observed for yelloweye
rockfish.’’ This analysis bolsters the
conclusion that canary rockfish are not
genetically differentiated between the
Puget Sound and the outer coast.
Comment 6: One peer reviewer
suggested that we provide details about
the PCA scores, and which loci loaded
most prominently onto those principal
components.
Response: The three analyses
conducted by the NWFSC used this
information to inform the integrative
comparisons among individuals (PCA),
population assignments (STRUCTURE)
and statistical comparisons of FST values
as documented in the five-year review
and updated in Andrews and Nichols
(2016). These integrative comparisons
further support the evidence of genetic
differentiation for yelloweye rockfish,
and the lack thereof for canary rockfish.
Comment 7: One peer reviewer stated
that our proposal to delist canary
rockfish should have taken into account
environmental and/or life history
characteristics that would ‘‘produce’’ a
seemingly genetically homogeneous
population, and questioned whether it
is logical that yelloweye constitute a
DPS but canary do not.
Response: Our proposal to delist
canary rockfish (81 FR 43979; July 6,
2016), in addition to the five-year
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
review (NMFS 2016a), did discuss the
known life-history characteristics of
canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish.
Yelloweye rockfish have been found to
have limited movements as adults
(Hannah and Rankin 2011), while
canary rockfish are known to move over
large distances at both short and long
time scales (DeMott 1983, Lea et al.,
1999, Love et al., 2002, Hannah and
Rankin 2011). This life-history
characteristic suggests that there is
limited probability of adult yelloweye
from Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
reproducing with adults from the outer
coast, and therefore providing the
necessary conditions for genetic
differentiation to develop over time. The
relatively quick and long-range
movements of some adult canary
rockfish suggest the high potential for
breeding among individuals throughout
their range and thus leading to a
panmictic population (Andrews and
Nichols 2016).
A second relevant life-history trait
supporting discreteness and
identification of yelloweye rockfish as a
DPS, in contrast to canary rockfish, is
the timing of larval release. In waters off
British Columbia, yelloweye rockfish
release larvae from April to September
with peaks in May and June. This
timing of larval release could
significantly affect the dispersal and/or
retention of larval rockfish depending
on the prevailing oceanographic
currents and freshwater flows into and
out of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
(Andrews and Nichols 2016). Canary
rockfish experience peak release of
larvae from February to March (Love et.
al. 2002) and thus this different release
period may influence dispersal of larvae
because of different oceanic and current
conditions.
Comment 8: A peer reviewer asked if
there was any information regarding
where canary rockfish reproduction
takes place, whether canary rockfish
spawn in aggregates, and if they have
philopatric tendencies (a behavior
where individuals return to their
birthplace to breed).
Response: We are not aware of
information regarding where canary
rockfish spawn on the Pacific coast or
Puget Sound, but note that in locations
where they are observed as gravid, it is
logical that they release larvae nearby.
Similarly, we are not aware of
information regarding if canary rockfish
mate or release larvae in aggregates.
Comment 9: One peer reviewer asked
if our proposal to delist canary rockfish
accounted for the possibility that they
were historically depleted in local
waters, as documented in the 2010
Status Review (Drake et al., 2010), and
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7715
replaced by the immigration of canary
rockfish from the Pacific coast.
Response: We do not have samples of
canary rockfish from within the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin prior to their
listing in 2010—thus it is not possible
to test the scenario hypothesized by the
reviewer genetically. However, it is
unlikely that the process of recruitment
or immigration of individual canary
rockfish to/from the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin would have changed as
theorized by the peer reviewer
(Andrews and Nichols 2016). If
recruitment or immigration of canary
rockfish from the outer coast to the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin occurs
today, which the genetic analysis
suggests (see Figs. 2b, 4c and 6 and
Table 2 in Andrews and Nichols 2016),
it was very likely happening
historically. The historical overfishing
of canary rockfish in Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin would not have altered
the process of adults or larval dispersal
of canary rockfish from the Pacific Coast
into Puget Sound. If larval/juvenile
canary rockfish dispersal among the two
regions occurred historically, it is
unlikely that canary rockfish in Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin would have been
genetically differentiated and yet the
sampling would have missed these fish
(Andrews and Nichols 2016).
Comment 10: One peer reviewer
asked how much genetic exchange is
going on between the outer coast and
the Puget Sound, and speculated that if
canary rockfish are extirpated from the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, that the
population may not rebuild if there is
limited movement of fish from the
Pacific coast.
Response: The genetic analysis
indicates that genetic exchange of
canary rockfish in the Pacific coast and
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin occurs
frequently enough to develop one
population across these areas (Andrews
and Nichols 2016). For these reasons, it
is unlikely that a hypothesized
extirpation of canary rockfish within the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin would occur
so long as there are canary rockfish
outside of the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin that move amongst these areas.
Comment 11: One peer reviewer
disagreed that genetic information for
canary rockfish, as detailed in the fiveyear review (NMFS 2016a) and BRT
memo (Ford 2015), indicate ‘‘strong’’
evidence that fish sampled from the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are not
discrete from coastal fish. The reviewer
questioned this characterization because
of sample size, sample integrity, and
sample representativeness of canary
rockfish collected in this research. In
addition, the reviewer questioned the
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
7716
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
reliance on principal coordinate cluster
plots to portray genetic similarity
because of the potential for
misinterpretation of the results. The
reviewer questioned why STRUCTURE
plots and analysis of molecular variance
results were not provided in the fiveyear review and asked what the average
magnitude of FST values for canary
rockfish were compared to yelloweye
rockfish.
Response: The STRUCTURE and FST
information was included in supporting
documents, and we agree that additional
information would be useful to further
explain the genetic data. Updated
genetic analysis (based on an analysis of
additional samples) and additional
explanatory text are now documented in
Andrews and Nichols (2016). The BRT
considered not only the PCA, but also
results from STRUCTURE and tests for
pairwise population differentiation
based on FST (Andrews and Nichols
2016). Those analyses were conducted
on the number of samples outlined in
the status review published in May
2016, but have since also been extended
to additional samples with the same
conclusions (see Andrews and Nichols
2016). All of these analyses show clear
evidence for population structure in
yelloweye rockfish, but not in the
canary rockfish samples.
Comment 12: One peer reviewer
stated that a primary reason the
yelloweye rockfish genetic analysis
shows significant differentiation relative
to canary rockfish is because we were
able to collect samples of yelloweye
rockfish samples in Canada and Hood
Canal, in addition to the Central Puget
Sound and from the Georgia Basin. The
reviewer noted that the NWFSC was not
able to collect canary rockfish samples
from Canada (the Georgia Basin) and
Hood Canal, and asked what the genetic
analysis may have shown if samples
could have been collected from these
areas.
Response: We were unable to collect
canary rockfish samples in Hood Canal.
We also searched for existing canary
rockfish samples by contacting the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, but were not able to find any
from Canadian waters. Based on the lack
of genetic differentiation between more
geographically disparate locations such
as the Central Puget Sound (where the
NWFSC was able to collect samples)
and the outer Pacific Coast, we would
not expect genetic differentiation of
canary rockfish if samples from
Canadian coastal or inland waters were
included (Andrews and Nichols 2016).
As previously noted, canary rockfish
have been documented to travel long
distances, thus we would also not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
expect canary rockfish collected in
Hood Canal to be genetically different
even though there is a large sill at the
entrance of Hood Canal (Drake et al.,
2010) that may restrict dispersal due to
restricted water movement into and out
of this water body (Andrews and
Nichols 2016). As suggested by this
reviewer, the NWFSC examined the
results from the PCA analysis for
yelloweye rockfish as if we did not have
the samples from Hood Canal and
Canada (Fig. 7 in Andrews and Nichols
2016) and this analysis gives the same
conclusion—that Puget Sound is
significantly differentiated from the
coastal collections in yelloweye
rockfish.
This conclusion is also supported by
other genetic analyses, including
pairwise differentiation of collections
from these more limited regions.
Therefore it is likely that if there were
significant genetic differentiation for
canary rockfish, the NWFSC would have
detected it from the samples in Puget
Sound and the Pacific coast as for
yelloweye rockfish sampled in these
regions.
Comment 13: One peer reviewer
stated that the absence of observed
structure in the canary rockfish sample
does not necessarily equate to the
absence of structure in the population
and questioned whether or not the
sampled fish are actually representative
of the population.
Response: There are two reasons we
believe the sampled canary rockfish are
representative of the population. First,
the sampling design consisted of 74
days of fishing across four regions of the
DPS (South Puget Sound, Central Puget
Sound, Hood Canal and the San Juan
Islands) and one region outside the DPS
(Strait of Juan de Fuca including
locations near Neah Bay and Sekiu,
WA). The sampling locations within
these regions were derived from the
knowledge of recreational charter boat
captains, recent and past Remotely
Operated Vehicle (ROV) surveys, and
historical recreational catch information
to target habitats where canary rockfish
had been observed. This information
and the number of sampling days
provided ample effort to target canary
rockfish in each of these regions, and we
indeed collected canary rockfish from
three of these five regions, including 50
from within the DPS (47 of these
samples had sufficient readings during
sequencing to be used in subsequent
analyses) (Andrews and Nichols 2016).
Second, the genetic sequencing methods
used by the NWFSC allowed for
detailed examination of the genome of
each individual fish—increasing the
power of these analyses to detect
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
differences between individuals and
differences among regions as compared
to traditional analyses (Andrews and
Nichols 2016).
Comment 14: One peer reviewer
suggested we collect larval canary
rockfish for additional genetic analysis.
Response: Given the strength of the
genetic analysis we do not believe that
additional samples from larval rockfish
(or any other life-stage of canary
rockfish) are needed to clarify the lack
of structure of canary rockfish sampled
within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
and the Pacific coast. The samples
collected from canary rockfish provide
ample sample size to support the overall
conclusion regarding the lack of genetic
differentiation discussed in the five-year
review and the proposal to delist canary
rockfish (81 FR 43979; July 6, 2016),
Ford (2015) and Andrews and Nichols
(2016).
Comment 15: One peer reviewer
questioned whether our genetic analysis
and proposal to delist canary rockfish
was potentially influenced by potential
misidentification of canary rockfish and
yelloweye rockfish, including
misidentification by scuba-divers. The
reviewer was concerned that canary
rockfish used in the genetics samples
may have actually been yelloweye
rockfish, (and vice versa).
Response: All fish sampled in the
genetic study were collected by
professional fishing charter guides,
biologists with NOAA Fisheries and the
Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife, thus we are confident that
all canary rockfish and yelloweye
rockfish sampled were identified to
species correctly. The peer reviewer is
correct, however, that yelloweye
rockfish and canary rockfish look
similar and the identification of rockfish
to species can be difficult (Sawchuk et
al., 2015). If such an incorrect species
labeling were to occur within the
genetic analysis, the analysis itself
would have indicated this.
Comments on Species Status and
Protections
Comment 16: Two peer reviewers
observed that available information
indicates that the number of canary
rockfish individuals in the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin is relatively small.
One reviewer acknowledged that canary
rockfish in the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin do not appear to be a DPS, but
expressed concern that fish in this area
may nonetheless become extirpated.
Another reviewer stated our decision to
propose delisting should have been
more precautionary because of the ‘‘. . .
dearth of information for canary
rockfish and scarcity of available data’’
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
regarding their abundance. Similarly, in
the five-year review we noted that six
canary rockfish were observed during
recent ROV surveys, and one peer
reviewer asked in how many years of
surveys these six fish were observed.
Response: We agree that there is little
data regarding canary rockfish
abundance in the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin, as described in our five-year
review, and that it appears that canary
rockfish in this area declined
significantly in the latter half of the 20th
century (as described in Drake et al.,
2010). However, the determination to
delist canary rockfish is based not on
abundance information, but rather on
determining if canary rockfish in the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin meet the
criteria of a DPS (61 FR 4722; February
7, 1996), which allows them to be listed
under the ESA.
Though we are not required to
implement a post-delisting monitoring
plan for canary rockfish, there are
research projects underway that will
help us understand the numbers and
distribution of rockfish in the Puget
Sound, including canary rockfish. We
have contracted with the Washington
State Department of Wildlife to conduct
an ROV survey within the Puget Sound.
This two-year survey will be completed
in early 2017 and data analysis and
report writing will likely take a year or
two after the completion date. This
research will eventually provide
additional data about rockfish
abundance and distribution. In our fiveyear review we reported that this ROV
survey had documented six canary
rockfish; most of these fish were
documented in the first year of the
survey (2015) because the data from the
second year of the survey is not yet fully
available. In addition to the ROV
survey, we have begun to seek
information on where recreational
divers observe juvenile yelloweye
rockfish, canary rockfish and bocaccio.
Similarly, the NWFSC is developing a
young-of-the-year rockfish monitoring
plan for the Puget Sound. As this
monitoring plan is implemented we will
gather additional information regarding
the abundance and recruitment of
rockfish, including canary rockfish.
Comment 17: One peer reviewer
stated that the declaration of the canary
rockfish stock as ‘‘rebuilt’’ under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, as documented
in Thorson and Wetzel (2015) and
NMFS (2016b), was a ‘‘major
consideration for the recommendation
to delist’’ the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin DPS.
Response: The reviewer is incorrect.
Our removal of canary rockfish of the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin from the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
Federal List of Threatened and
Endangered Species is based on the best
available science and commercial
information. In accordance with the
DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7,
1996), we have determined that the
canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin do not meet the criteria to
be considered a DPS based on genetic
information documented in the five-year
review (NMFS 2016a), Ford (2015) and
Andrews and Nichols (2016).
Comment 18: One peer reviewer
stated that information in the five-year
review indicated that canary rockfish
are rare in Puget Sound, and questioned
how they could be declared ‘‘rebuilt’’
under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Act.
Response: The peer reviewers were
not tasked with evaluating the previous
agency decision to declare canary
rockfish of the Pacific coast as ‘‘rebuilt’’
subject to the criteria defined in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Federal canary
rockfish stock assessments performed
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
do not include data regarding canary
rockfish in Puget Sound waters within
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. Rather
the 2015 canary rockfish stock
assessment under the MagnusonStevens Act was conducted with data
collected along the Pacific coast (outside
of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin).
Comment 19: One peer reviewer
asked how canary rockfish in the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin are going to be
protected if they are removed from the
ESA.
Response: Since the listing of
yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish and
bocaccio in 2010, WDFW has changed
fisheries regulations for several nontribal commercial fisheries in Puget
Sound in order to protect rockfish
populations. The WDFW closed the
active set net, set line, and bottom trawl
fisheries, and the inactive pelagic trawl
and bottomfish pot fishery. As a
precautionary measure, WDFW closed
the above commercial fisheries
westward of the ESA-listed rockfish
DPSs’ boundary to Cape Flattery.
WDFW extended the closure west of the
rockfish DPSs’ boundary to prevent
applicable commercial fishers from
concentrating gear in that area. The
WDFW also implemented a rule that
recreational anglers targeting bottomfish
not fish deeper than 120 feet. These
fisheries regulations are unlikely to
change, and will benefit canary rockfish
and nearly all rockfish species within
the Puget Sound.
On August 16, 2016, we released a
Draft Recovery Plan for yelloweye
rockfish and bocaccio (listed rockfish) of
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (81 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7717
54556). The Draft Recovery Plan
identifies approximately 45 research
and recovery actions for listed rockfish,
and though these actions are not
specifically designed for canary
rockfish, they would nonetheless benefit
from Plan implementation because of
the similarity of habitats occupied for
each species.
We expect the Plan to inform section
7 consultations with Federal agencies
under the ESA and to support other ESA
decisions, such as considering permits
under section 10. Mitigation
incorporated into section 7 and section
10 actions to reduce impacts on listed
rockfish will also likely reduce impacts
to canary and other rockfish species. We
have already begun implementation of
several actions as described in the Plan,
such as partnering with the WDFW to
conduct ROV surveys to assess listed
rockfish abundance, distribution, and
habitat use.
After the adoption of the Final
Recovery Plan, we will continue to
implement actions for which we have
authority, work cooperatively on
implementation of other actions, and
encourage other Federal and state
agencies to implement recovery actions
for which they have responsibility and
authority. Collectively, the management
of fisheries, section 7 and 10 actions,
and implementation of the listedrockfish Recovery Plan will also benefit
many species of non-listed rockfish of
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin,
including canary rockfish.
Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Listing Rule
We reviewed the best available
scientific and commercial information,
including the information in the peer
reviews of the proposed rule (81 FR
43979; July 6, 2016), public comments,
and information and analysis (Andrews
and Nichols 2016) that have become
available since the publication of the
proposed rule. Based on this
information, we have made no changes
in this final rule.
Final DPS and Status Determinations
As proposed on July 6, 2016 (81 FR
43979), in this final rule we: (1) Correct
the previous description of the northern
boundary of the threatened Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish
DPS to include an area farther north of
the Johnstone Strait in Canada. We also
update and amend the description of the
DPS as fish residing within certain
boundaries (including this geographic
area farther north in the Strait of Georgia
waters in Canada); (2) we remove Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish
DPS from the Federal List of Threatened
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
7718
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
change to the spatial area that was
originally designated. Maps of critical
habitat can be found on our Web site at
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov
and in the final critical habitat rule (79
FR 68041; November 13, 2014).
Additionally, we correct the listing
description of the yelloweye rockfish
DPS to define geographical boundaries
including an area farther north of the
Johnstone Strait in Canada (Figure 1).
This boundary would not have an effect
on critical habitat, because we do not
designate critical habitat outside U.S.
territory.
With the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
canary rockfish DPS delisting, the
requirements under section 7 of the ESA
no longer apply. Federal agencies are
relieved of the need to consult with us
on their actions that may affect Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish
and their designated critical habitat and
to insure that any action they authorize,
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
ER23JA17.002</GPH>
Effects of the New Determinations
Based on the new information and the
BRT’s determination, and consideration
of public and peer review comments, we
are removing canary rockfish of the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin from the
Federal List of Threatened and
Endangered Species. The Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish DPS
shall remain threatened under the ESA,
and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
bocaccio DPS shall remain endangered.
We are also removing designated
critical habitat for canary rockfish. The
critical habitat designation for the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish
and bocaccio DPSs remain in place. The
area removed as designated critical
habitat for canary rockfish will continue
to be designated critical habitat for
bocaccio and, thus, there will be no
and Endangered Species and their
critical habitat, and (3) similar to
yelloweye rockfish, we update and
amend the listing description of the
bocaccio DPS to describe boundaries to
include fish residing within the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin rather than fish
originating from the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin.
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
fund, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
canary rockfish or adversely modify
their critical habitat. ESA section 7
consultation requirements remain in
place for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio DPSs.
Recovery planning efforts will continue
for these listed DPSs and a Draft
Recovery Plan was released on August
16, 2016 (81 FR 54556).
References Cited
The complete citations for the
references used in this document can be
obtained by contacting NMFS (See
ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) or on our Web
page at: https://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.
Information Quality Act and Peer
Review
In December 2004, OMB issued a
Final Information Quality Bulletin for
Peer Review pursuant to the Information
Quality Act. The Bulletin was published
in the Federal Register on January 14,
2005 (70 FR 2664). The Bulletin
established minimum peer review
standards, a transparent process for
public disclosure of peer review
planning, and opportunities for public
participation with regard to certain
types of information disseminated by
the Federal Government. Peer review
under the OMB Peer Review Bulletin
ensures that our listing determinations
are based on the best available scientific
and commercial information. To satisfy
our requirements under the OMB
Bulletin, we obtained independent peer
review of the proposed rule and
underlying scientific information by
three independent scientists with
expertise in rockfish biology and/or
genetics. All peer review comments
were addressed in this final rule (see the
Summary of Comments heading in this
preamble).
Classification
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in
section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
7719
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, 657 F. 2d
829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded
that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing
actions. (See NOAA Administrative
Order 216–6.).
United States toward Indian Tribes. E.O.
13175—Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments—
outlines the responsibilities of the
Federal Government in matters affecting
tribal interests.
We have coordinated with tribal
governments that may be affected by the
action.
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 final
rule is exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866. This final rule
does not contain a collection of
information requirement for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
List of Subjects
Executive Order 13122, Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we
determined that this final rule does not
have significant federalism effects and
that a federalism assessment is not
required. 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 final rule will be
shared with the relevant state agencies
in Washington state.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
The longstanding and distinctive
relationship between the Federal and
tribal governments is defined by
treaties, statutes, executive orders,
judicial decisions, and co-management
agreements, which differentiate tribal
governments from the other entities that
deal with, or are affected by, the Federal
government. This relationship has given
rise to a special Federal trust
responsibility involving the legal
responsibilities and obligations of the
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Transportation.
50 CFR Part 224
Endangered and threatened species.
50 CFR Part 226
Designated Critical Habitat.
Dated: January 9, 2017.
Samuel D Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR parts 223. 224, and
226 are 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,
§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C.
1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
§ 223.206(d)(9).
2. In § 223.102, in the table in
paragraph (e), under the subheading
‘‘Fishes,’’ remove the entry for
‘‘Rockfish, canary (Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin DPS)’’; and revise the table entries
for ‘‘Rockfish, yelloweye (Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin DPS).’’
The revision reads as follows:
■
§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened
marine and anadromous species.
*
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
*
*
7720
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Species 1
Common name
Scientific name
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Description of listed entity
Critical habitat
*
75 FR 22276, Apr
28, 2010.
*
ESA rules
Fishes
*
Rockfish, yelloweye
(Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin
DPS).
*
Sebastes
ruberrimus.
*
*
*
Yelloweye rockfish residing within the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, inclusive
of the Queen Charlotte Channel to
Malcom Island, in a straight line between the western shores of Numas
and Malcom Islands—N 50 50′46″, W
127 5′55″ and N 50 36′49″, W 127
10′17″.
The Western Boundary of the U.S. side
in the Strait of Juan de Fuca is N 48
7′16″, W123 17′15″ in a straight line to
the Canadian side at N 48 24′40″, 123
17′38″.
*
*
*
*
*
226.224
*
NA
*
1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February,
1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered
marine and anadromous species.
4. In § 224.101, paragraph (h), under
the subheading ‘‘Fishes,’’ revise the
table entry for ‘‘Bocaccio (Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin DPS)’’ to read as follows:
PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE
AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES.
*
■
3. The authority citation for part 224
continues to read as follows:
■
Species 1
Common name
Scientific name
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
Description of listed entity
Critical habitat
*
75 FR 22276, Apr
28, 2010.
*
ESA rules
Fishes
*
Bocaccio (Puget
Sound/Georgia
Basin DPS).
*
Sebastes
paucispinis.
*
*
*
Bocaccio residing within the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin to the Northern
Boundary of the Northern Strait of
Georgia along the southern contours
of Quadra Island, Maurelle Island and
Sonora Island, all of Bute Inlet.
The Western Boundary of the U.S. side
in the Strait of Juan de Fuca is N 48
7′16″, W123 17′15″ in a straight line to
the Canadian side at N 48 24′40″, 123
17′38″.
*
*
*
*
*
226.224
*
NA
*
1 Species
includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February,
1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
PART 226—DESIGNATED CRITICAL
HABITAT
5. The authority citation for Part 226
continues to read as follows:
■
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
6. In § 226.224:
a. Revise the section heading;
b. Remove the entry for canary
rockfish in the table in paragraph (a);
and
■ c. Revise paragraphs (b), (c), and (d).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
§ 226.224 Critical habitat for the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of yelloweye
rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), and
Bocaccio (S. paucispinus).
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Critical habitat boundaries. In
delineating nearshore (shallower than
30 m (98 ft)) areas in Puget Sound, we
define critical habitat for bocaccio, as
depicted in the maps below, as
occurring from the shoreline from
extreme high water out to a depth no
greater than 30 m (98 ft) relative to mean
lower low water. Deepwater critical
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
habitat for yelloweye rockfish and
bocaccio occurs in some areas, as
depicted in the maps below, from
depths greater than 30 m (98 ft). The
critical habitat designation includes the
marine waters above (the entire water
column) the nearshore and deepwater
areas depicted in the maps in this
section.
(c) Essential features for juvenile
bocaccio. (1) Juvenile settlement
habitats located in the nearshore with
substrates such as sand, rock and/or
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
cobble compositions that also support
kelp are essential for conservation
because these features enable forage
opportunities and refuge from predators
and enable behavioral and physiological
changes needed for juveniles to occupy
deeper adult habitats. Several attributes
of these sites determine the quality of
the area and are useful in considering
the conservation value of the associated
feature and in determining whether the
feature may require special management
considerations or protection. These
features also are relevant to evaluating
the effects of an action in an ESA
section 7 consultation if the specific
area containing the site is designated as
critical habitat. These attributes include:
(i) Quantity, quality, and availability
of prey species to support individual
growth, survival, reproduction, and
feeding opportunities; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
(ii) Water quality and sufficient levels
of dissolved oxygen to support growth,
survival, reproduction, and feeding
opportunities.
(2) Nearshore areas are contiguous
with the shoreline from the line of
extreme high water out to a depth no
greater than 30 meters (98 ft) relative to
mean lower low water.
(d) Essential features for adult
bocaccio and adult and juvenile
yelloweye rockfish. Benthic habitats and
sites deeper than 30 m (98 ft) that
possess or are adjacent to areas of
complex bathymetry consisting of rock
and or highly rugose habitat are
essential to conservation because these
features support growth, survival,
reproduction, and feeding opportunities
by providing the structure for rockfish
to avoid predation, seek food and persist
for decades. Several attributes of these
sites determine the quality of the habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7721
and are useful in considering the
conservation value of the associated
feature, and whether the feature may
require special management
considerations or protection. These
attributes are also relevant in the
evaluation of the effects of a proposed
action in an ESA section 7 consultation
if the specific area containing the site is
designated as critical habitat. These
attributes include:
(1) Quantity, quality, and availability
of prey species to support individual
growth, survival, reproduction, and
feeding opportunities;
(2) Water quality and sufficient levels
of dissolved oxygen to support growth,
survival, reproduction, and feeding
opportunities; and
(3) The type and amount of structure
and rugosity that supports feeding
opportunities and predator avoidance.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Final Critical Habitat (CH) for the
Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockflsh DPSs
Strait of Georgia Area
u.s.
This map does not si!CMI'
Department Df Defense
(DOD) sites detennlned to be Ineligible lbr designation
""'-- Shoreline
Final Dilepwllfer CH (Bocacclo and Yellowaye Rockfish)
~ Final Nevllhofe CH (Bocacclo)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
na excluded erees essociated wllll Indian lands end
certain additional DOD slles; see !he reguleiDry text fer
• deKriplklll oflhesellnel exduded B!MS.
A11111dcan Indian ReHmttlon
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
ER23JA17.003</GPH>
7722
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
7723
Final Critical Habitat (CH) for the
Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish DPSs
0 1.25 2.5
I
I I I
I
I I I
I
0 0.751.6
~sharellne
-
lbis map does nat show u.s. Depanment of Defense
(DOD) sites determined to be Ineligible for deslgnallon
nor excluded areas associllled willllndilln lands and
certain addilional COD sites; see the regulatory text far
a deserlpllon Qf these final excluded lllell$.
u.s. 1 canadian Boundary
American Indian Reservation
~ Flnat Nea...hore CH (Bocacclo)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Final Deepwater CH (Bocacclo and Yelloweye Rockflah)
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
ER23JA17.004</GPH>
=
7724
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Final Critical Habitat (CH) for the
Bocacclo and Yelloweye Rockftsh DPSs
Bellingham and Samlah Bay Area
1bls map does not show u.s. Depalfment of Defense
(000) sites determinod to be Ineligible dft!gnlllion
nor excluded areas associated wilh Indian lands and
certain addillonal DOD sites: saalhe regulalay text fer
a deSCI\)IIon of lhasa final excluded areas.
..,.__ Shoreline
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
American Indian Reservation
Final Deepwater CH (Bocacclo and Yelloweye Rockfish)
fZ!2J Final Nea1'8hore CH (Bocacclo)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
ER23JA17.005</GPH>
m
-
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
7725
Final Critical Habitat (CH) for the
Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish DPSs
... .
•
•
411•15'N
Strait ofJuan de Fuca
\.1
. tl .
•
•
•
.•
""-- Shoreline
= u.s. I Canadian Boundary
Amtrlcan Indian RaNtVatlon
This map does not show u.s. Department of Defense
(000) $lies dotermiled to be ileligible br design lllioo
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Final Deepwater CH (Bocacclo and Yelloweye Rockfish)
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
ER23JA17.006</GPH>
nor excluded areas associated with Indian lands and
cenail addlllonal 000 sites; see Ill e regulatory text for
a description of lllese final excluded areas.
~Final Nearsho~e CH (Bocacclo)
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Final Critical Habitat (CH) for the
Bocaccioand Yelloweye RockFISh DPSs
North Whidbey Area
This map does not si!CMI' u.s. Department Df Defense
(DOD) sites detennlned to be Ineligible lbr designation
....,__ Shoreline
American Indian Reservation
~ Final Nearahcmt CH (Bocacclo)
•
Final Deepwater CH (Bocacclo and Yeltoweye Rockfleh)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4700
na excluded arees associated wllll Indian lands and
certain additional DOD sites; see !he reguleiDry text fer
e deKriplkln Dflhesellnel exduded - ·
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
ER23JA17.007</GPH>
7726
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
7727
Final Critical Habitat (CH) for the
Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish DPSs
North
....-------..... Central Puget Sound Area
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
ER23JA17.008</GPH>
This map does not show u.s. Depanment of Defense
(DOD) sites determined to be Ineligible for designation
nor excluded areas associated wilh Indian lands and
certain addlllcnal DOD sites; see the regulatory text b"
a dosmpllon of these fimll exduded .ees.
'"""--Shoreline
-American Indian Renrvatlon
~ Final NeanJhore CH (Bocacclo)
Final Deepwater CH (Bacacclo and Yelloweye Rocktlsh}
7728
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Final Critical Habitat (CH) for the
Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish DPSs
South central Puget SOUnd Area
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
ER23JA17.009</GPH>
This map does not show u.s. Depanment of Defense
(DOD) Giles determined to be ineligible for de6ignalion
nor excluded 8lfi8S associated with Indian lands and
certain additional DOD shes; see lhe ll!lgulatmy leo<! for
a description of lhese final excluded areas.
-..-- Shoreline
American Indian ReMrYation
~Final Nearshore CH (Bocacclol
-Final Deepwater CH (Bocacc:io and Yelloweye Rockfish)
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Final Critical Habitat (CH) for the
Bocaccioand Yelloweye Rockfish DPSs
North Hood Canal Anta
""-- Shoreline
lbls map does not shw U.S. Depallment of Defense
(DOD) sibls datennined tD be ineligible far designlllion
American Indian Reurvatlon
~ Final Nearshore CH (Bocacclo)
Final Deepwater CH (Bocacclo and Yelloweye Rockfish)
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4700
nor excluded erees essoclab!d wilh Indian iands and
celtain additional DOD sites; see tile regulatory text ror
a description oflll- final excluded aRias.
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
ER23JA17.010</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
7729
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Final Critical Habitat (CH) for the
Bocaccio and Yelloweye Rockfish DPSs
South Hood Canal Anta
This map does not show u.s. Department of Defense
(DOD) si1es determined ID be Ineligible br deslgndon
nor excluded 11r11115 -lilted wilh lndilln illnds 11nd
cenaln addlllonal DOD sites; see llle regulatary text far
a descr~Piicln of !IIese final excluded area
..,__Shoreline
-
Amertcan Indian Reservation
~ Final Ne81'8horv CH (Bocacclo)
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Final Deepwater CH (Bocaccloand Yelloweye Rockfl8h)
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
ER23JA17.011</GPH>
7730
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
7731
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of lobster harvest
guideline.
50 CFR Part 665
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
SUMMARY:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
RIN 0648–XF155
Pacific Island Fisheries; 2017
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
Lobster Harvest Guideline
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:54 Jan 19, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NMFS establishes the annual
harvest guideline for the commercial
lobster fishery in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands for calendar year 2017
at zero lobsters.
DATES: January 23, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
Harman, NMFS PIR Sustainable
Fisheries, telephone: 808–725–5170.
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
ER23JA17.012</GPH>
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[FR Doc. 2017–00559 Filed 1–19–17; 8:45 am]
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7711-7731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00559]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223, 224, and 226
[Docket No. 160524463-7001-02]
RIN 0648-XE657
Endangered and Threatened Species; Removal of the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segment of Canary Rockfish From the
Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species and Removal of
Designated Critical Habitat, and Update and Amendment to the Listing
Descriptions for the Yelloweye Rockfish DPS and Bocaccio DPS
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, are issuing a final rule to remove the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered
Species and remove its critical habitat designation. We proposed these
actions based on newly obtained samples and genetic analysis that
demonstrates that the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish
population does not meet the DPS criteria and therefore does not
qualify for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Following
public and peer review of the proposed rule and supporting scientific
information, this final rule implements the changes to the listing and
critical habitat for canary rockfish.
We also update and amend the listing description for the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus) DPS based on a
geographic description to include fish within specified boundaries.
Further, although the current listing description is not based on
boundaries, with this final rule we are also correcting a descriptive
boundary for the DPS depicted on maps to include an area in the
northern Johnstone Strait and Queen Charlotte Channel in waters of
Canada consistent with newly obtained genetic information on yelloweye
rockfish population grouping.
We also update and amend the listing description for the bocaccio
DPS based on a geographic description and to include fish within
specified boundaries.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 24, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Tonnes, NMFS, West Coast Region,
Protected Resources Division, 206-526-4643; or Chelsey Young, NMFS,
Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8491.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 9, 2007, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright
(Olympia, Washington) to list DPSs of five rockfish species (yelloweye,
canary, bocaccio, greenstriped and redstripe) in Puget Sound, as
endangered or threatened species under the ESA and to designate
critical habitat. We found that this petition did not 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 Mr. Wright presenting
information that was not included in the April 2007 petition, and
requesting reconsideration of the decision not to initiate a review of
the species' status. We considered the supplemental information as a
new petition and concluded that there was enough information in this
new petition to warrant conducting status reviews of these five
rockfish species. The status review was initiated on March 17, 2008 (73
FR 14195) and completed in 2010 (Drake et al., 2010).
In the 2010 status review, the Biological Review Team (BRT) used
the best scientific and commercial data available at that time,
including environmental and ecological features of the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin, but noted that the limited genetic and demographic data
for the five petitioned rockfish species populations created some
uncertainty in the DPS determinations (Drake et al., 2010). The BRT
assessed genetic data from the Strait of Georgia (inside waters of
eastern Vancouver Island) for yelloweye rockfish (Yamanaka et al.,
2006) that indicated a distinct genetic cluster that differed
consistently from coastal samples of yelloweye rockfish, but also
observed that genetic data from Puget Sound were not available for this
species. The BRT also noted there was genetic information for canary
rockfish (Wishard et al., 1980) and bocaccio (Matala et al., 2004,
Field et al., 2009) in coastal waters, but no genetic data for either
species from inland Puget Sound waters. The BRT found that in spite of
these data limitations there was other evidence to conclude that each
noted population of rockfish within inland waters of the Puget Sound/
Georgia
[[Page 7712]]
Basin was discrete from its coastal counterpart.
Specifically, the BRT noted similar life histories of rockfish and
based their determinations, in part, on the status review of brown
rockfish, copper rockfish, and quillback rockfish (Stout et al., 2001)
and the genetic information for those species that supported separate
DPSs for inland compared to coastal populations (Drake et al., 2010).
Thus, based on information related to rockfish life history, genetic
variation among populations, and the environmental and ecological
features of Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin, the BRT identified Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs for yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and
bocaccio, and a Puget Sound proper DPS for greenstriped rockfish and
redstripe rockfish (Drake et al., 2010).
Informed by the BRT recommendations and our interpretation of best
available scientific and commercial data, on April 28, 2010, we listed
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs of yelloweye rockfish and canary
rockfish as threatened under the ESA, and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
DPS of bocaccio as endangered (75 FR 22276). The final critical habitat
rule for the listed DPSs of rockfishes was published in the Federal
Register on November 1, 2014 (79 FR 68041). We determined that
greenstriped rockfish (S. elongatus) and redstripe rockfish (S.
proriger) within Puget Sound proper each qualified as a DPS, but these
DPSs were not at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of their ranges (Drake et al., 2010).
In 2013, we appointed a recovery team and initiated recovery
planning for the listed rockfish species. Through the process of
recovery planning, priority research and recovery actions emerged. One
such action was to seek specific genetic data for each of these
rockfish species to better evaluate and determine whether differences
exist in the genetic structure of the listed species' populations
between inland basins where the DPSs occur and the outer coast.
Analysis of the geographical distribution of genetic variation is a
powerful method of identifying discrete populations (Drake et al.,
2010); thus, genetic analysis provides useful information to address
the uncertainties associated with the limited information that informed
our initial discreteness determinations for yelloweye rockfish, canary
rockfish and bocaccio.
In 2014 and 2015, we partnered with the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), several local fishing guides, and Puget Sound
Anglers to collect samples between the different basins of the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs area and the outer coast. We collected
biological samples for genetic analysis several ways. Over the course
of 74 fishing trips, biological samples were gathered from listed
rockfishes using hook-and-line recreational fishing methods in Puget
Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Additional samples were gathered
from archived sources from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the NMFS
Southwest Fisheries Science Center's Fisheries Resource Division, and
the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center's West Coast groundfish
bottom trawl survey.
Samples collected from these sources were used to examine the
population structure for each species. Population structure was
examined using three methods: Principal components analysis (PCA),
calculation of FST (fixation index--which is a measure of
population differentiation) among geographic groups, and a population
genetics based model clustering analysis (termed STRUCTURE) (NMFS
2016a).
In 2015, we announced a 5-year review (80 FR 6695; February 6,
2015) for the three rockfish DPSs. The 5-year review was completed on
May 5, 2016 (NMFS 2016a), and is available at: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/other/rockfish/5.5.2016_5yr_review_report_rockfish.pdf. To complete the
review, we collected, evaluated, and incorporated all information on
the species that has become available since April 2010, the date of the
listing, including the 2014 final critical habitat designation and
newly obtained samples and analysis of genetic information (Ford 2015,
NMFS 2016a).
NMFS' Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish BRT reviewed the results
from the new genetic information. Their recommendations (Ford 2015)
informed and were further evaluated during the five-year review (NMFS
2016a) which confirmed the DPS identity and listing status for
yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio but concluded that the canary rockfish
of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin do not meet the criteria to be
considered a DPS.
Policies for Delineating and Listing Species Under the ESA
Under the ESA, the term ``species'' means a species, a subspecies,
or a DPS of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-
USFWS policy clarifies the Services' interpretation of the phrase
``Distinct Population Segment,'' or DPS (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
The DPS Policy requires the consideration of two elements when
evaluating whether a vertebrate population segment qualifies as a DPS
under the ESA: (1) Discreteness of the population segment in relation
to the remainder of the species/taxon; and, if discrete, (2) the
significance of the population segment to the species/taxon to which it
belongs. Thus, 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.
A population 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; 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 (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996). According to the policy, quantitative measures of
genetic or morphological discontinuity can be used to provide evidence
for item (1) above.
Consideration of the significance of a discrete population may
include, but is not limited to the following conditions: (1)
Persistence of the discrete segment in an ecological setting unusual or
unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete segment
would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3)
evidence that the discrete segment represents the only surviving
natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historical range; or (4) evidence
that the discrete segment differs markedly from other populations of
the species in its genetic characteristics.
The ESA gives us clear authority to make listing determinations and
to revise the Federal list of endangered and threatened species to
reflect these determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA authorizes us
to determine by regulation whether ``any species,'' which is defined to
include species, subspecies, and DPSs, is an endangered species or a
threatened species based on certain factors. Review of a species'
status may be commenced at any time, either on the Services' own
initiative--through a status review or in connection with a five-year
review under Section 4(c)(2)--or in response to a petition. Because a
DPS is not a scientifically recognized entity, but rather one created
under the language of the ESA and effectuated through our DPS Policy
(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), we have some discretion to determine
whether populations of a species should be
[[Page 7713]]
identified as DPSs, and, based upon their range and propensity for
movement, what boundaries should be recognized for a DPS. Section
4(c)(1) of the ESA gives us authority to update the Federal list of
threatened and endangered species to reflect these determinations. This
can include revising the list to remove a species or reclassify the
listed entity.
Under sections 4(c)(1) and 4(a)(1) of the ESA the Secretary shall
undertake a five-year review of a listed species and consider, among
other things, whether a species' listing status should be continued.
Pursuant to implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d), a species
shall be removed from the list if the Secretary of Commerce determines,
based on the best scientific and commercial data available after
conducting a review of the species' status, that the species is no
longer threatened or endangered because of one or a combination of the
section 4(a)(1) factors. A species may be delisted only if such data
substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened for one or
more of the following reasons:
(1) Extinction. Unless all individuals of the listed species had
been previously identified and located, and were later found to be
extirpated from their previous range, a sufficient period of time must
be allowed before delisting to indicate clearly that the species is
extinct.
(2) Recovery. The principal goal of the Services is to return
listed species to a point at which protection under the ESA is no
longer required. A species may be delisted on the basis of recovery
only if the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that
it is no longer endangered or threatened.
(3) Original data for classification in error. Subsequent
investigations may show that the best scientific or commercial data
available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such
data, were in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)).
To make our final listing determinations, we reviewed all
information provided during the 60-day public comment period on the
proposed rule. Additionally we reviewed additional genetic analysis
developed by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) after the
proposed rule (Andrews and Nichols 2016). This additional information
supplemented, and supported, the information presented in the proposed
rule. Where new information was received we have reviewed it and
presented our evaluation in this final rule.
Proposed Rule
Informed by the BRT recommendations (Ford 2015), our interpretation
of best available scientific and commercial data, and the conclusions
of the five-year review, on July 6, 2016 we issued a proposed rule (81
FR 43979) to remove the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish
(Sebastes pinniger) which included the following findings for each
listed rockfish species.
Yelloweye Rockfish
Several different analytical methods indicated significant genetic
differentiation between the inland and coastal samples of yelloweye
rockfish at a level consistent with the limited genetic data for this
species (Yamanaka et al., 2006) that were available at the time of the
2010 status review. The BRT concluded that this new genetic information
represents the best available scientific and commercial data and are
consistent with and confirm the existence of an inland population of
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish that is discrete from
coastal yelloweye rockfish (Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a). In addition, this
genetic information demonstrates that yelloweye rockfish from Hood
Canal are genetically differentiated from other Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin fish, indicating a previously unknown degree of population
differentiation within the DPS (Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a).
The BRT also found that new genetic information from Canada
demonstrates that yelloweye rockfish occurring in the northern
Johnstone Strait and Queen Charlotte Channel clustered genetically with
yelloweye rockfish occurring in the northern Strait of Georgia, the San
Juan Islands, and Puget Sound (Ford 2015). This is consistent with
additional genetic analysis identifying a population of yelloweye
rockfish inside the waters of eastern Vancouver Island (Yamanaka et.
al. 2006, COSEWIC 2008, Yamanaka et al., 2012, Siegle et al., 2013).
Based on this information and the five-year review, we proposed to
correct the previous description of the northern boundary of the
threatened Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus)
DPS to include this area. We also proposed to update and amend the
description of the DPS as fish residing within certain boundaries
(including this geographic area farther north in the Strait of Georgia
waters in Canada). We proposed this change because this description
better aligns with yelloweye rockfish life-history and their sedentary
behavior as adults, rather than the current description of fish
originating from the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.
In the five-year review, our analysis of the ESA section 4(a)(1)
factors found that the collective risk to the persistence of the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of yelloweye rockfish has not changed
significantly since our final listing determination in 2010 (75 FR
22276; April 28, 2010), and they remain listed as threatened (NMFS
2016a).
Canary Rockfish
The same analytical methods (described in Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a and
Andrews and Nichols 2016) as used for yelloweye rockfish were used to
analyze population structure in canary rockfish. These analyses
indicate a lack of genetic differentiation of canary rockfish between
coastal and inland Puget Sound/Georgia Basin samples. FST
values, a metric of population differentiation, among groups were not
significantly different from zero among geographic regions, and
STRUCTURE analysis did not provide evidence supporting population
structure in the data. None of these analyses provided any evidence of
genetic differentiation between canary rockfish along the coast from
the canary rockfish within the boundaries of the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin DPS (Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a, Andrews and Nichols 2016).
The BRT noted that the very large number of loci provided
considerable power to detect differentiation among sample groups and
concluded that the lack of such differentiation indicated that it is
unlikely the inland Puget Sound/Georgia Basin samples are discrete from
coastal areas (Ford 2015). In the context of this newly obtained
genetic information, the BRT considered whether other factors that
supported the original discreteness determination, such as oceanography
and ecological differences among locations, continue to support a
finding of discreteness for this population (Ford 2015). In considering
this newly obtained genetic data in the context of the other evidence,
the BRT found that their original interpretation of the scientific data
informing discreteness is no longer supported (Ford 2015). Rather, they
concluded that the lack of genetic differentiation indicates sufficient
dispersal to render a discreteness determination based on environmental
factors implausible. The BRT found that current genetic data evaluated
and interpreted in the context of all available scientific information
now provides strong evidence that canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin are not discrete from coastal area canary rockfish. Based
on the BRT findings, the five-year review,
[[Page 7714]]
and best available science and commercial information, and in
accordance with the DPS policy, we determined that the canary rockfish
of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin did not meet the criteria to be
considered a DPS. Rather, the new genetic data reveal that canary
rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are part of the larger
population occupying the Pacific coast (Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a, Andrews
and Nichols 2016).
Canary rockfish of the Pacific coast was declared overfished in
2000 and a rebuilding plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) was put in place
in 2001. NMFS determined the stock to be ``rebuilt'' in 2015 (Thorson
and Wetzel 2015, NMFS 2016b).
Based on the discussion above and the recommendation of the five-
year review, we proposed to remove Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary
rockfish from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species
because the new genetic data evaluated and interpreted in the context
of all best available science indicate they are not a discrete
population (81 FR 43979; July 6, 2016). Under section 4(c)(1) of the
ESA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d)(3), we may
delist canary rockfish if, among other things, subsequent investigation
demonstrates that our interpretation of best scientific or commercial
information was in error. After considering this newly obtained genetic
data in the context of the other evidence supporting discreteness, we
determined that our original interpretation of discreteness for Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish is no longer supported and was in
error. Based on this reasoning, there is no need for a post-delisting
monitoring plan.
Bocaccio
Bocaccio were also evaluated by the BRT (Ford 2015) and during the
five-year review (NMFS 2016a). Bocaccio are particularly rare within
the DPS area and thus the NWFSC was only able to obtain three samples
from within the DPS area for the genetic analysis. The BRT determined
that this is not sufficient information to support a change to our
prior status review and listing determination that Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin bocaccio are discrete from coastal fish (Ford 2015).
The BRT noted that bocaccio have a propensity for greater adult
movement than more benthic rockfish species, similar to the case for
canary rockfish. The BRT considered that the lack of genetic
differentiation between coastal and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary
rockfish might suggest a similar lack of genetic differentiation for
bocaccio because of similarities in the life history of the two
species. Nevertheless, the BRT concluded that the new information was
not sufficient to change the conclusions of the previous BRT documented
in Drake et al., (2010) or suggest a change in listing status (Ford
2015). This is consistent with the five-year review recommendation
(NMFS 2016a) and is based upon best available scientific data and
commercial information.
However, similarly to yelloweye rockfish, we proposed to update and
amend the listing description of the bocaccio DPS to describe
boundaries to include fish residing within the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin rather than fish originating from the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.
In the five-year review, our analysis of the ESA section 4(a)(1)
factors found that the collective risk to the persistence of the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio has not changed significantly since
our final listing determination in 2010 (75 FR 22276; April 28, 2010),
and they remain listed as endangered (NMFS 2016a).
Peer Review and Public Comment
The scientific information considered by the BRT and summarized in
our five-year review (NMFS 2016a) was peer reviewed and the proposed
rule was subject to public comment. Following those reviews, there are
no changes to the actions as proposed.
Summary of Comments
On July 6, 2016, we solicited comments during a 60-day public
comment period from all interested parties including the public, other
concerned governments and agencies, the scientific community, industry,
and other interested parties on the proposed rule (81 FR 43979).
We received four public comments, and three peer reviews on the
proposed rule. Summaries of the substantive comments received, and our
responses, are provided below and organized by topic.
Comments on Sampling and Genetic Analysis
Two of the three peer reviewers had questions and observations
about the genetic analyses for both canary rockfish and yelloweye
rockfish provided in the five-year review. NOAA's Northwest Fisheries
Science Center (NWFSC) reviewed the genetic and sampling questions and
provided responses within a memorandum (Andrews and Nichols 2016). This
memorandum also reported on additional genetic analysis of samples
collected in 2014 and 2015 that had not yet been analyzed and available
in the five-year review (NMFS 2016a) or by the BRT (2015).
The results of the updated genetic analysis are consistent with and
did not change the outcome of the genetic assessment presented to the
Biological Review Team in November 2015 (Ford 2015) and in the five-
year review (NMFS 2016a) that informed the proposed rule. The
information from the new analysis (Andrews and Nichols 2016) is
included in the responses below.
Comment 1: Two of the three scientific peer reviewers and two
commenters agreed that canary rockfish sampled from the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin are not genetically differentiated from canary rockfish
sampled outside of this area.
Response: We agree.
Comment 2: One peer reviewer did not agree that there was
sufficient evidence to support our finding that canary rockfish are not
genetically differentiated.
Response: We disagree with the peer reviewer based on the analysis
provided in the five-year review (NMFS 2016a) and BRT report (Ford
2015) in addition to the supplemental analysis provided by Andrews and
Nichols (2016) and elaborated in this final rule. The best available
information provides strong evidence that canary rockfish sampled in
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are not genetically differentiated from
coastal canary rockfish.
Comment 3: Regarding the yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish
genetic analysis, one reviewer suggested that analytical methods
conducted by the NWFSC (such as FST and STRUCTURE) should be described
in our final rule.
Response: We agree. While additional information on these analyses
was included in documents supporting the proposed rule (81 FR 43979;
July 6, 2016), we include clarifying information in this final rule as
well (and as detailed in Andrews and Nichols 2016). The NWFSC conducted
Principal Component Analysis (PCA), STRUCTURE, and FST
analyses for yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish, which are detailed
in Andrews and Nichols (2016). These analyses for yelloweye rockfish
support our findings that fish collected in the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin DPS are discrete from yelloweye rockfish collected on the outer
coast. Similar analyses for canary rockfish support our findings that
there is no discrete Puget Sound/Georgia
[[Page 7715]]
Basin population (Andrews and Nichols 2016).
Comment 4: One peer reviewer questioned the relatively low
proportion of overall variation explained by PCA one and PCA two
described in our five-year review and the proposed rule.
Response: For yelloweye rockfish, the NWFSC used over 5,000
Restriction Site Associated DNA Sequencing loci in the analyses
presented in the five-year review and over 7,000 loci in its final
dataset (Andrews and Nichols 2016). There is a large amount of
variation possible among this many loci leading to a relatively low
proportion of the variance explained by the first two principal
component scores.
Comment 5: One reviewer questioned how the number of samples
collected and analyzed by the NWFSC affects the estimate of statistical
power and the ability to detect genetic differentiation for yelloweye
rockfish and canary rockfish.
Response: The NWFS did not conduct power analyses. Andrews and
Nichols (2016) state that ``. . . the magnitude of the FST confidence
intervals, and the upper bound of those confidence intervals provide
compelling evidence that differentiation among the sampled regions for
canary rockfish is not significantly different from zero, and in many
cases orders of magnitude lower than that observed for yelloweye
rockfish.'' This analysis bolsters the conclusion that canary rockfish
are not genetically differentiated between the Puget Sound and the
outer coast.
Comment 6: One peer reviewer suggested that we provide details
about the PCA scores, and which loci loaded most prominently onto those
principal components.
Response: The three analyses conducted by the NWFSC used this
information to inform the integrative comparisons among individuals
(PCA), population assignments (STRUCTURE) and statistical comparisons
of FST values as documented in the five-year review and
updated in Andrews and Nichols (2016). These integrative comparisons
further support the evidence of genetic differentiation for yelloweye
rockfish, and the lack thereof for canary rockfish.
Comment 7: One peer reviewer stated that our proposal to delist
canary rockfish should have taken into account environmental and/or
life history characteristics that would ``produce'' a seemingly
genetically homogeneous population, and questioned whether it is
logical that yelloweye constitute a DPS but canary do not.
Response: Our proposal to delist canary rockfish (81 FR 43979; July
6, 2016), in addition to the five-year review (NMFS 2016a), did discuss
the known life-history characteristics of canary rockfish and yelloweye
rockfish. Yelloweye rockfish have been found to have limited movements
as adults (Hannah and Rankin 2011), while canary rockfish are known to
move over large distances at both short and long time scales (DeMott
1983, Lea et al., 1999, Love et al., 2002, Hannah and Rankin 2011).
This life-history characteristic suggests that there is limited
probability of adult yelloweye from Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
reproducing with adults from the outer coast, and therefore providing
the necessary conditions for genetic differentiation to develop over
time. The relatively quick and long-range movements of some adult
canary rockfish suggest the high potential for breeding among
individuals throughout their range and thus leading to a panmictic
population (Andrews and Nichols 2016).
A second relevant life-history trait supporting discreteness and
identification of yelloweye rockfish as a DPS, in contrast to canary
rockfish, is the timing of larval release. In waters off British
Columbia, yelloweye rockfish release larvae from April to September
with peaks in May and June. This timing of larval release could
significantly affect the dispersal and/or retention of larval rockfish
depending on the prevailing oceanographic currents and freshwater flows
into and out of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (Andrews and Nichols
2016). Canary rockfish experience peak release of larvae from February
to March (Love et. al. 2002) and thus this different release period may
influence dispersal of larvae because of different oceanic and current
conditions.
Comment 8: A peer reviewer asked if there was any information
regarding where canary rockfish reproduction takes place, whether
canary rockfish spawn in aggregates, and if they have philopatric
tendencies (a behavior where individuals return to their birthplace to
breed).
Response: We are not aware of information regarding where canary
rockfish spawn on the Pacific coast or Puget Sound, but note that in
locations where they are observed as gravid, it is logical that they
release larvae nearby. Similarly, we are not aware of information
regarding if canary rockfish mate or release larvae in aggregates.
Comment 9: One peer reviewer asked if our proposal to delist canary
rockfish accounted for the possibility that they were historically
depleted in local waters, as documented in the 2010 Status Review
(Drake et al., 2010), and replaced by the immigration of canary
rockfish from the Pacific coast.
Response: We do not have samples of canary rockfish from within the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin prior to their listing in 2010--thus it is
not possible to test the scenario hypothesized by the reviewer
genetically. However, it is unlikely that the process of recruitment or
immigration of individual canary rockfish to/from the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin would have changed as theorized by the peer reviewer
(Andrews and Nichols 2016). If recruitment or immigration of canary
rockfish from the outer coast to the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin occurs
today, which the genetic analysis suggests (see Figs. 2b, 4c and 6 and
Table 2 in Andrews and Nichols 2016), it was very likely happening
historically. The historical overfishing of canary rockfish in Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin would not have altered the process of adults or
larval dispersal of canary rockfish from the Pacific Coast into Puget
Sound. If larval/juvenile canary rockfish dispersal among the two
regions occurred historically, it is unlikely that canary rockfish in
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin would have been genetically differentiated
and yet the sampling would have missed these fish (Andrews and Nichols
2016).
Comment 10: One peer reviewer asked how much genetic exchange is
going on between the outer coast and the Puget Sound, and speculated
that if canary rockfish are extirpated from the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin, that the population may not rebuild if there is limited movement
of fish from the Pacific coast.
Response: The genetic analysis indicates that genetic exchange of
canary rockfish in the Pacific coast and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
occurs frequently enough to develop one population across these areas
(Andrews and Nichols 2016). For these reasons, it is unlikely that a
hypothesized extirpation of canary rockfish within the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin would occur so long as there are canary rockfish outside
of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin that move amongst these areas.
Comment 11: One peer reviewer disagreed that genetic information
for canary rockfish, as detailed in the five-year review (NMFS 2016a)
and BRT memo (Ford 2015), indicate ``strong'' evidence that fish
sampled from the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are not discrete from
coastal fish. The reviewer questioned this characterization because of
sample size, sample integrity, and sample representativeness of canary
rockfish collected in this research. In addition, the reviewer
questioned the
[[Page 7716]]
reliance on principal coordinate cluster plots to portray genetic
similarity because of the potential for misinterpretation of the
results. The reviewer questioned why STRUCTURE plots and analysis of
molecular variance results were not provided in the five-year review
and asked what the average magnitude of FST values for
canary rockfish were compared to yelloweye rockfish.
Response: The STRUCTURE and FST information was included
in supporting documents, and we agree that additional information would
be useful to further explain the genetic data. Updated genetic analysis
(based on an analysis of additional samples) and additional explanatory
text are now documented in Andrews and Nichols (2016). The BRT
considered not only the PCA, but also results from STRUCTURE and tests
for pairwise population differentiation based on FST
(Andrews and Nichols 2016). Those analyses were conducted on the number
of samples outlined in the status review published in May 2016, but
have since also been extended to additional samples with the same
conclusions (see Andrews and Nichols 2016). All of these analyses show
clear evidence for population structure in yelloweye rockfish, but not
in the canary rockfish samples.
Comment 12: One peer reviewer stated that a primary reason the
yelloweye rockfish genetic analysis shows significant differentiation
relative to canary rockfish is because we were able to collect samples
of yelloweye rockfish samples in Canada and Hood Canal, in addition to
the Central Puget Sound and from the Georgia Basin. The reviewer noted
that the NWFSC was not able to collect canary rockfish samples from
Canada (the Georgia Basin) and Hood Canal, and asked what the genetic
analysis may have shown if samples could have been collected from these
areas.
Response: We were unable to collect canary rockfish samples in Hood
Canal. We also searched for existing canary rockfish samples by
contacting the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, but were not
able to find any from Canadian waters. Based on the lack of genetic
differentiation between more geographically disparate locations such as
the Central Puget Sound (where the NWFSC was able to collect samples)
and the outer Pacific Coast, we would not expect genetic
differentiation of canary rockfish if samples from Canadian coastal or
inland waters were included (Andrews and Nichols 2016).
As previously noted, canary rockfish have been documented to travel
long distances, thus we would also not expect canary rockfish collected
in Hood Canal to be genetically different even though there is a large
sill at the entrance of Hood Canal (Drake et al., 2010) that may
restrict dispersal due to restricted water movement into and out of
this water body (Andrews and Nichols 2016). As suggested by this
reviewer, the NWFSC examined the results from the PCA analysis for
yelloweye rockfish as if we did not have the samples from Hood Canal
and Canada (Fig. 7 in Andrews and Nichols 2016) and this analysis gives
the same conclusion--that Puget Sound is significantly differentiated
from the coastal collections in yelloweye rockfish.
This conclusion is also supported by other genetic analyses,
including pairwise differentiation of collections from these more
limited regions. Therefore it is likely that if there were significant
genetic differentiation for canary rockfish, the NWFSC would have
detected it from the samples in Puget Sound and the Pacific coast as
for yelloweye rockfish sampled in these regions.
Comment 13: One peer reviewer stated that the absence of observed
structure in the canary rockfish sample does not necessarily equate to
the absence of structure in the population and questioned whether or
not the sampled fish are actually representative of the population.
Response: There are two reasons we believe the sampled canary
rockfish are representative of the population. First, the sampling
design consisted of 74 days of fishing across four regions of the DPS
(South Puget Sound, Central Puget Sound, Hood Canal and the San Juan
Islands) and one region outside the DPS (Strait of Juan de Fuca
including locations near Neah Bay and Sekiu, WA). The sampling
locations within these regions were derived from the knowledge of
recreational charter boat captains, recent and past Remotely Operated
Vehicle (ROV) surveys, and historical recreational catch information to
target habitats where canary rockfish had been observed. This
information and the number of sampling days provided ample effort to
target canary rockfish in each of these regions, and we indeed
collected canary rockfish from three of these five regions, including
50 from within the DPS (47 of these samples had sufficient readings
during sequencing to be used in subsequent analyses) (Andrews and
Nichols 2016). Second, the genetic sequencing methods used by the NWFSC
allowed for detailed examination of the genome of each individual
fish--increasing the power of these analyses to detect differences
between individuals and differences among regions as compared to
traditional analyses (Andrews and Nichols 2016).
Comment 14: One peer reviewer suggested we collect larval canary
rockfish for additional genetic analysis.
Response: Given the strength of the genetic analysis we do not
believe that additional samples from larval rockfish (or any other
life-stage of canary rockfish) are needed to clarify the lack of
structure of canary rockfish sampled within the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin and the Pacific coast. The samples collected from canary rockfish
provide ample sample size to support the overall conclusion regarding
the lack of genetic differentiation discussed in the five-year review
and the proposal to delist canary rockfish (81 FR 43979; July 6, 2016),
Ford (2015) and Andrews and Nichols (2016).
Comment 15: One peer reviewer questioned whether our genetic
analysis and proposal to delist canary rockfish was potentially
influenced by potential misidentification of canary rockfish and
yelloweye rockfish, including misidentification by scuba-divers. The
reviewer was concerned that canary rockfish used in the genetics
samples may have actually been yelloweye rockfish, (and vice versa).
Response: All fish sampled in the genetic study were collected by
professional fishing charter guides, biologists with NOAA Fisheries and
the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, thus we are
confident that all canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish sampled were
identified to species correctly. The peer reviewer is correct, however,
that yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish look similar and the
identification of rockfish to species can be difficult (Sawchuk et al.,
2015). If such an incorrect species labeling were to occur within the
genetic analysis, the analysis itself would have indicated this.
Comments on Species Status and Protections
Comment 16: Two peer reviewers observed that available information
indicates that the number of canary rockfish individuals in the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin is relatively small. One reviewer acknowledged that
canary rockfish in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin do not appear to be a
DPS, but expressed concern that fish in this area may nonetheless
become extirpated. Another reviewer stated our decision to propose
delisting should have been more precautionary because of the ``. . .
dearth of information for canary rockfish and scarcity of available
data''
[[Page 7717]]
regarding their abundance. Similarly, in the five-year review we noted
that six canary rockfish were observed during recent ROV surveys, and
one peer reviewer asked in how many years of surveys these six fish
were observed.
Response: We agree that there is little data regarding canary
rockfish abundance in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, as described in
our five-year review, and that it appears that canary rockfish in this
area declined significantly in the latter half of the 20th century (as
described in Drake et al., 2010). However, the determination to delist
canary rockfish is based not on abundance information, but rather on
determining if canary rockfish in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin meet
the criteria of a DPS (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), which allows them
to be listed under the ESA.
Though we are not required to implement a post-delisting monitoring
plan for canary rockfish, there are research projects underway that
will help us understand the numbers and distribution of rockfish in the
Puget Sound, including canary rockfish. We have contracted with the
Washington State Department of Wildlife to conduct an ROV survey within
the Puget Sound. This two-year survey will be completed in early 2017
and data analysis and report writing will likely take a year or two
after the completion date. This research will eventually provide
additional data about rockfish abundance and distribution. In our five-
year review we reported that this ROV survey had documented six canary
rockfish; most of these fish were documented in the first year of the
survey (2015) because the data from the second year of the survey is
not yet fully available. In addition to the ROV survey, we have begun
to seek information on where recreational divers observe juvenile
yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish and bocaccio. Similarly, the NWFSC
is developing a young-of-the-year rockfish monitoring plan for the
Puget Sound. As this monitoring plan is implemented we will gather
additional information regarding the abundance and recruitment of
rockfish, including canary rockfish.
Comment 17: One peer reviewer stated that the declaration of the
canary rockfish stock as ``rebuilt'' under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as
documented in Thorson and Wetzel (2015) and NMFS (2016b), was a ``major
consideration for the recommendation to delist'' the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin DPS.
Response: The reviewer is incorrect. Our removal of canary rockfish
of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin from the Federal List of Threatened
and Endangered Species is based on the best available science and
commercial information. In accordance with the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996), we have determined that the canary rockfish of the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin do not meet the criteria to be considered a
DPS based on genetic information documented in the five-year review
(NMFS 2016a), Ford (2015) and Andrews and Nichols (2016).
Comment 18: One peer reviewer stated that information in the five-
year review indicated that canary rockfish are rare in Puget Sound, and
questioned how they could be declared ``rebuilt'' under the authority
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Response: The peer reviewers were not tasked with evaluating the
previous agency decision to declare canary rockfish of the Pacific
coast as ``rebuilt'' subject to the criteria defined in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Federal canary rockfish stock assessments performed
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act do not include data regarding
canary rockfish in Puget Sound waters within the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin. Rather the 2015 canary rockfish stock assessment under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act was conducted with data collected along the
Pacific coast (outside of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin).
Comment 19: One peer reviewer asked how canary rockfish in the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are going to be protected if they are removed
from the ESA.
Response: Since the listing of yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish
and bocaccio in 2010, WDFW has changed fisheries regulations for
several non-tribal commercial fisheries in Puget Sound in order to
protect rockfish populations. The WDFW closed the active set net, set
line, and bottom trawl fisheries, and the inactive pelagic trawl and
bottomfish pot fishery. As a precautionary measure, WDFW closed the
above commercial fisheries westward of the ESA-listed rockfish DPSs'
boundary to Cape Flattery. WDFW extended the closure west of the
rockfish DPSs' boundary to prevent applicable commercial fishers from
concentrating gear in that area. The WDFW also implemented a rule that
recreational anglers targeting bottomfish not fish deeper than 120
feet. These fisheries regulations are unlikely to change, and will
benefit canary rockfish and nearly all rockfish species within the
Puget Sound.
On August 16, 2016, we released a Draft Recovery Plan for yelloweye
rockfish and bocaccio (listed rockfish) of the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin (81 FR 54556). The Draft Recovery Plan identifies approximately
45 research and recovery actions for listed rockfish, and though these
actions are not specifically designed for canary rockfish, they would
nonetheless benefit from Plan implementation because of the similarity
of habitats occupied for each species.
We expect the Plan to inform section 7 consultations with Federal
agencies under the ESA and to support other ESA decisions, such as
considering permits under section 10. Mitigation incorporated into
section 7 and section 10 actions to reduce impacts on listed rockfish
will also likely reduce impacts to canary and other rockfish species.
We have already begun implementation of several actions as described in
the Plan, such as partnering with the WDFW to conduct ROV surveys to
assess listed rockfish abundance, distribution, and habitat use.
After the adoption of the Final Recovery Plan, we will continue to
implement actions for which we have authority, work cooperatively on
implementation of other actions, and encourage other Federal and state
agencies to implement recovery actions for which they have
responsibility and authority. Collectively, the management of
fisheries, section 7 and 10 actions, and implementation of the listed-
rockfish Recovery Plan will also benefit many species of non-listed
rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, including canary rockfish.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Listing Rule
We reviewed the best available scientific and commercial
information, including the information in the peer reviews of the
proposed rule (81 FR 43979; July 6, 2016), public comments, and
information and analysis (Andrews and Nichols 2016) that have become
available since the publication of the proposed rule. Based on this
information, we have made no changes in this final rule.
Final DPS and Status Determinations
As proposed on July 6, 2016 (81 FR 43979), in this final rule we:
(1) Correct the previous description of the northern boundary of the
threatened Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish DPS to include
an area farther north of the Johnstone Strait in Canada. We also update
and amend the description of the DPS as fish residing within certain
boundaries (including this geographic area farther north in the Strait
of Georgia waters in Canada); (2) we remove Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
canary rockfish DPS from the Federal List of Threatened
[[Page 7718]]
and Endangered Species and their critical habitat, and (3) similar to
yelloweye rockfish, we update and amend the listing description of the
bocaccio DPS to describe boundaries to include fish residing within the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rather than fish originating from the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin.
Effects of the New Determinations
Based on the new information and the BRT's determination, and
consideration of public and peer review comments, we are removing
canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin from the Federal List
of Threatened and Endangered Species. The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
yelloweye rockfish DPS shall remain threatened under the ESA, and the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin bocaccio DPS shall remain endangered.
We are also removing designated critical habitat for canary
rockfish. The critical habitat designation for the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio DPSs remain in place. The area
removed as designated critical habitat for canary rockfish will
continue to be designated critical habitat for bocaccio and, thus,
there will be no change to the spatial area that was originally
designated. Maps of critical habitat can be found on our Web site at
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov and in the final critical
habitat rule (79 FR 68041; November 13, 2014).
Additionally, we correct the listing description of the yelloweye
rockfish DPS to define geographical boundaries including an area
farther north of the Johnstone Strait in Canada (Figure 1). This
boundary would not have an effect on critical habitat, because we do
not designate critical habitat outside U.S. territory.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.002
With the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish DPS delisting,
the requirements under section 7 of the ESA no longer apply. Federal
agencies are relieved of the need to consult with us on their actions
that may affect Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish and their
designated critical habitat and to insure that any action they
authorize,
[[Page 7719]]
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of canary rockfish or adversely modify their critical habitat. ESA
section 7 consultation requirements remain in place for the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio DPSs. Recovery
planning efforts will continue for these listed DPSs and a Draft
Recovery Plan was released on August 16, 2016 (81 FR 54556).
References Cited
The complete citations for the references used in this document can
be obtained by contacting NMFS (See ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) or on our Web page at: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.
Information Quality Act and Peer Review
In December 2004, OMB issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin
for Peer Review pursuant to the Information Quality Act. The Bulletin
was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2005 (70 FR 2664).
The Bulletin established minimum peer review standards, a transparent
process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and
opportunities for public participation with regard to certain types of
information disseminated by the Federal Government. Peer review under
the OMB Peer Review Bulletin ensures that our listing determinations
are based on the best available scientific and commercial information.
To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained
independent peer review of the proposed rule and underlying scientific
information by three independent scientists with expertise in rockfish
biology and/or genetics. All peer review comments were addressed in
this final rule (see the Summary of Comments heading in this preamble).
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
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, 657 F. 2d 829 (6th Cir.
1981), we have concluded that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing
actions. (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 final rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This final rule does not contain a collection of
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Executive Order 13122, Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule
does not have significant federalism effects and that a federalism
assessment is not required. 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 final
rule will be shared with the relevant state agencies in Washington
state.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal
and tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive
orders, judicial decisions, and co-management agreements, which
differentiate tribal governments from the other entities that deal
with, or are affected by, the Federal government. This relationship has
given rise to a special Federal trust responsibility involving the
legal responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward
Indian Tribes. E.O. 13175--Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments--outlines the responsibilities of the Federal
Government in matters affecting tribal interests.
We have coordinated with tribal governments that may be affected by
the action.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.
50 CFR Part 224
Endangered and threatened species.
50 CFR Part 226
Designated Critical Habitat.
Dated: January 9, 2017.
Samuel D Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223. 224, and
226 are amended as follows:
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
0
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).
0
2. In Sec. 223.102, in the table in paragraph (e), under the
subheading ``Fishes,'' remove the entry for ``Rockfish, canary (Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin DPS)''; and revise the table entries for
``Rockfish, yelloweye (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS).''
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 7720]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for listing Critical ESA rules
Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity determination(s) habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Rockfish, yelloweye (Puget Sound/ Sebastes ruberrimus.... Yelloweye rockfish residing 75 FR 22276, Apr 28, 226.224 NA
Georgia Basin DPS). within the Puget Sound/ 2010.
Georgia Basin, inclusive of
the Queen Charlotte Channel
to Malcom Island, in a
straight line between the
western shores of Numas and
Malcom Islands--N 50
50'46'', W 127 5'55'' and N
50 36'49'', W 127 10'17''.
The Western Boundary of the
U.S. side in the Strait of
Juan de Fuca is N 48
7'16'', W123 17'15'' in a
straight line to the
Canadian side at N 48
24'40'', 123 17'38''.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February, 1996), and
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES.
0
3. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
0
4. In Sec. 224.101, paragraph (h), under the subheading ``Fishes,''
revise the table entry for ``Bocaccio (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS)''
to read as follows:
Sec. 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for listing Critical ESA rules
Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity determination(s) habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Bocaccio (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Sebastes paucispinis... Bocaccio residing within the 75 FR 22276, Apr 28, 226.224 NA
DPS). Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 2010.
to the Northern Boundary of
the Northern Strait of
Georgia along the southern
contours of Quadra Island,
Maurelle Island and Sonora
Island, all of Bute Inlet.
The Western Boundary of the
U.S. side in the Strait of
Juan de Fuca is N 48
7'16'', W123 17'15'' in a
straight line to the
Canadian side at N 48
24'40'', 123 17'38''.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February, 1996), and
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
0
5. The authority citation for Part 226 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
0
6. In Sec. 226.224:
0
a. Revise the section heading;
0
b. Remove the entry for canary rockfish in the table in paragraph (a);
and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (b), (c), and (d).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 226.224 Critical habitat for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS
of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), and Bocaccio (S.
paucispinus).
* * * * *
(b) Critical habitat boundaries. In delineating nearshore
(shallower than 30 m (98 ft)) areas in Puget Sound, we define critical
habitat for bocaccio, as depicted in the maps below, as occurring from
the shoreline from extreme high water out to a depth no greater than 30
m (98 ft) relative to mean lower low water. Deepwater critical habitat
for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio occurs in some areas, as depicted
in the maps below, from depths greater than 30 m (98 ft). The critical
habitat designation includes the marine waters above (the entire water
column) the nearshore and deepwater areas depicted in the maps in this
section.
(c) Essential features for juvenile bocaccio. (1) Juvenile
settlement habitats located in the nearshore with substrates such as
sand, rock and/or
[[Page 7721]]
cobble compositions that also support kelp are essential for
conservation because these features enable forage opportunities and
refuge from predators and enable behavioral and physiological changes
needed for juveniles to occupy deeper adult habitats. Several
attributes of these sites determine the quality of the area and are
useful in considering the conservation value of the associated feature
and in determining whether the feature may require special management
considerations or protection. These features also are relevant to
evaluating the effects of an action in an ESA section 7 consultation if
the specific area containing the site is designated as critical
habitat. These attributes include:
(i) Quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support
individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities;
and
(ii) Water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to
support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities.
(2) Nearshore areas are contiguous with the shoreline from the line
of extreme high water out to a depth no greater than 30 meters (98 ft)
relative to mean lower low water.
(d) Essential features for adult bocaccio and adult and juvenile
yelloweye rockfish. Benthic habitats and sites deeper than 30 m (98 ft)
that possess or are adjacent to areas of complex bathymetry consisting
of rock and or highly rugose habitat are essential to conservation
because these features support growth, survival, reproduction, and
feeding opportunities by providing the structure for rockfish to avoid
predation, seek food and persist for decades. Several attributes of
these sites determine the quality of the habitat and are useful in
considering the conservation value of the associated feature, and
whether the feature may require special management considerations or
protection. These attributes are also relevant in the evaluation of the
effects of a proposed action in an ESA section 7 consultation if the
specific area containing the site is designated as critical habitat.
These attributes include:
(1) Quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support
individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities;
(2) Water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to
support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and
(3) The type and amount of structure and rugosity that supports
feeding opportunities and predator avoidance.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 7722]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.003
[[Page 7723]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.004
[[Page 7724]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.005
[[Page 7725]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.006
[[Page 7726]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.007
[[Page 7727]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.008
[[Page 7728]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.009
[[Page 7729]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.010
[[Page 7730]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.011
[[Page 7731]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.012
[FR Doc. 2017-00559 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
