Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of a Status Review for Alewife and Blueback Herring Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 38672-38674 [2017-17218]
Download as PDF
38672
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
limits. IWC-set catch limits are, in turn,
based on IWC Scientific Committee
advice on the sustainability of proposed
catch limits using a population model,
referred to as a Strike Limit Algorithm.
The Strike Limit Algorithm used by the
IWC is specific to this population of
bowhead whales and is the IWC’s
formula for calculating sustainable
aboriginal subsistence whaling removal
levels, based on the size and
productivity of a whale population, in
order to satisfy subsistence need. The
Strike Limit Algorithm also allows for
an inter-annual variation of strikes up to
50 percent of the annual strike limit in
order to provide flexibility for the hunt
while meeting the Commission’s
conservation objectives.
Alternatives
NMFS preliminarily anticipates four
alternatives:
Alternative 1 (no action): Do not grant
the AEWC a catch limit.
Alternative 2: Grant the AEWC an
annual strike limit of 67 bowhead
whales, not to exceed a total of 336
landed whales over any 6-year period,
with no unused strikes from previous
years added to a subsequent annual
limit.
Alternative 3: Grant the AEWC an
annual strike limit of 67 bowhead
whales, not to exceed a total of 336
landed whales over any 6-year period,
with unused strikes from previous years
carried forward and added to the annual
strike limit of subsequent years (subject
to limits), provided that no more than
15 additional strikes are added to any
one year’s allocation of strikes. This
alternative would maintain the status
quo for any six-year period with respect
to management of the hunt.
Alternative 4: Grant the AEWC an
annual strike limit of 67 bowhead
whales, not to exceed a total take of 336
landed whales over any 6-year period,
with unused strikes from previous years
carried forward and added to the annual
strike quota of subsequent years (subject
to limits), provided that no more than
50 percent of the annual strike limit is
added for any one year. This would
maintain the status quo for any 6-year
period with respect to management of
the hunt for landed whales and employ
the Commission’s 50 percent carryover
principle.
NOAA prepared an EIS in 2013 that
analyzed issuing annual strike limits to
the AEWC for a subsistence hunt on
bowhead whales from 2013 through
2018. That analysis concluded that the
overall effects of human activities
associated with subsistence whaling
results in only minor impacts on the
western Arctic bowhead whale stock. In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Aug 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
light of the stability of the IWC
subsistence harvest allocations and the
subsistence bowhead harvests by Alaska
Natives, the 2013 EIS estimated
environmental consequences for a 25- or
30-year period, recognizing that every 5
or 6 years, when new catch limits are
considered by the IWC, NMFS would
prepare an Environmental Assessment
(EA) to determine whether any new
circumstances would result in
significant environmental impacts
warranting a new EIS.
NMFS decided to prepare an EIS
rather than an EA in order to assess the
impacts of issuing annual quotas for the
subsistence hunt by Alaska Natives from
2019 onward. This decision was not
based on any new determination that
significant effects occur as a result of the
bowhead subsistence hunt, but rather to
take advantage of the greater
transparency and public involvement in
decision-making afforded through an
EIS process.
Major issues to be addressed in this
EIS include: The impact of subsistence
removal of bowhead whales from the
Western Arctic stock of bowhead
whales; the impacts of these harvest
levels on the traditional and cultural
values of Alaska Natives, and the
cumulative effects of the action when
considered along with environmental
conditions and past, present, and future
actions potentially affecting bowhead
whales.
Public Comment
We begin this NEPA process by
soliciting input from the public and
interested parties on the type of impacts
to be considered in the EIS, the range of
alternatives to be assessed, and any
other pertinent information.
Specifically, this scoping process is
intended to accomplish the following
objectives:
1. Invite affected Federal, state, and
local agencies, Alaska Natives, and
other interested persons to participate in
the EIS process.
2. Determine the potential significant
environmental issues to be analyzed in
the EIS.
3. Identify and eliminate issues
determined to be insignificant or
addressed in other documents.
4. Allocate assignments among the
lead agency and cooperating agencies
regarding preparation of the EIS,
including impact analysis and
identification of mitigation measures.
5. Identify related environmental
documents being prepared.
6. Identify other environmental
review and consultation requirements.
The official scoping period is from
August 15, 2017, until September 14,
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2017. Please visit the NOAA Fisheries’
Alaska Regional Office’s Web page at
https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/
whales-bowhead for more information
on this EIS. NMFS estimates the draft
EIS for 2019 onward will be available in
May 2018.
Authority
The preparation of the EIS for the
subsistence harvest of Western Arctic
bowhead whales by Alaska Natives will
be conducted under the authority and in
accordance with the requirements of
NEPA, Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–
1508), other applicable Federal laws and
regulations, and policies and procedures
of NMFS for compliance with those
regulations.
Dated: August 9, 2017.
John Henderschedt,
Director, Office of International Affairs and
Seafood Inspection, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–17173 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 170718681–7735–01]
RIN 0648–XF575
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Initiation of a Status Review for Alewife
and Blueback Herring Under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of initiation of a status
review; request for information.
AGENCY:
We, NMFS, announce the
initiation of a new status review of
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and
blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) to
determine whether listing either species
as endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act is warranted. A
comprehensive status review must be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available at the time of
the review. Therefore, we are asking the
public to provide such information on
alewife and blueback herring that has
become available since the listing
determination in 2013.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
conduct this review, we must receive
your information no later than October
16, 2017.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices
You may submit
information for us to use in our status
review, identifying it as ‘‘Alewife and
Blueback Herring Status Review
(NOAA–NMFS–2017–0094),’’ by either
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=[NOAA-NMFS-20170094], click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail or hand-delivery: Submit
written comments to Tara Trinko Lake,
NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930.
Instructions: Information sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All information
received is a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on https://www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. We will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara
Trinko Lake at the above address, by
phone at 978–282–8477 or tara.trinko@
noaa.gov, David Gouveia, 978–281–
9280 or david.gouveia@noaa.gov, or
Marta Nammack, 301–427–8469 or
marta.nammack@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice announces our active review of
alewife and blueback herring. On
August 12, 2013, we determined that
listing alewife and blueback herring as
threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) was not warranted
(78 FR 48943). However, at that time,
we committed to revisiting the status of
both species in 3 to 5 years. The 3- to
5-year timeframe equated to
approximately one generation time for
these species, and allowed for time to
complete ongoing scientific studies,
including a river herring stock
assessment update that was completed
by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission in August 2017.
The Natural Resources Defense
Council and Earthjustice (the Plaintiffs)
filed suit against us on February 10,
2015, in the U.S. District Court in
Washington, DC, challenging our
decision not to list blueback herring as
threatened or endangered. The Plaintiffs
also challenged our determination that
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Aug 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
the Mid-Atlantic stock complex of
blueback herring is not a distinct
population segment (DPS). On March
25, 2017, the court vacated the blueback
herring listing determination and
remanded the listing determination to
us. As part of a negotiated agreement
with the Plaintiffs, we committed to
publish a revised listing determination
for blueback herring no later than
January 31, 2019. We also agreed to
conduct a new status review and
publish in the Federal Register a notice
of the status review, soliciting new
information.
Background information about both
species, including the 2013 listing
determination, is available on the NMFS
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries
Office Web site: https://
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/
protected/pcp/soc/river_herring.html.
Determining if a Species Is Threatened
or Endangered
Paragraph (a)(1) of section 4 of the
ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) requires that we
determine whether a species is
endangered or threatened based on one
or more of the five following factors: (1)
The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (2) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or
predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other
natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. Paragraph (b) of
ESA section 4 requires that our
determination be made on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data
available after taking into account those
efforts, if any, being made by any State
or foreign nation, to protect such
species.
Application of the Distinct Population
Segment Policy
In the application of the DPS policy,
we are responsible for determining
whether species, subspecies, or DPSs of
marine and anadromous species are
threatened or endangered under the
ESA. If we are petitioned to list
populations of a vertebrate species as
DPSs, or if we determine that
identifying DPSs may result in a
conservation benefit to the species, we
use the joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service-NMFS DPS policy (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996) to determine whether
any populations of the species meet the
DPS policy criteria. Under this policy,
in order to be considered a DPS, a
population must be discrete from other
conspecific populations, and it must be
significant to the taxon to which it
belongs. A group of organisms is
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38673
discrete if physical, physiological,
ecological or behavioral factors make it
markedly separate from other
populations of the same taxon. Under
the DPS policy, if a population group is
determined to be discrete, the agency
may then consider whether it is
significant to the taxon to which it
belongs. Considerations in evaluating
the significance of a discrete population
include: (1) Persistence of the discrete
population in an unusual or unique
ecological setting for the taxon; (2)
evidence that the loss of the discrete
population segment would cause a
significant gap in the taxon’s range; (3)
evidence that the discrete population
segment represents the only surviving
natural occurrence of a taxon that may
be more abundant elsewhere outside its
historical geographic range; or (4)
evidence that the discrete population
has marked genetic differences from
other populations of the species.
Public Solicitation of New Information
With this notice, we commence a
status review of alewife and blueback
herring to determine whether listing the
species as endangered or threatened
under the ESA is warranted. To ensure
that our review of alewife and blueback
herring is informed by the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we are opening a 60-day public
comment period to solicit information
to support our status review.
For the status review to be complete
and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information,
we request information on these species
from governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, and any other
interested parties. We seek information
on: (1) Species abundance; (2) species
productivity; (3) species distribution or
population spatial structure; (4) patterns
of phenotypic, genotypic, and life
history diversity; (5) habitat conditions
and associated limiting factors and
threats; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to
protect and restore the species and their
habitats; (7) the adequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms and whether
protections are being implemented and
are proving effective in conserving the
species; (8) data concerning the status
and trends of identified limiting factors
or threats; (9) information concerning
the impacts of environmental variability
and climate change on survival,
recruitment, distribution, and/or
extinction risk; and (10) other new
information, data, or corrections
including, but not limited to, taxonomic
or nomenclature changes, identification
of erroneous information in the previous
listing determination, and improved
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
38674
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices
analytical methods for evaluating
extinction risk.
In addition to the above requested
information, we are interested in any
information concerning protective
efforts that have not yet been fully
implemented or demonstrated as
effective. Our consideration of
conservation measures, regulatory
mechanisms, and other protective
efforts will be guided by the Services
‘‘Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions’’
(PECE Policy) (68 FR 15100; March 28,
2003). The PECE established criteria to
ensure the consistent and adequate
evaluation of formalized conservation
efforts when making listing decisions
under the ESA. This policy may also
guide the development of conservation
efforts that sufficiently improve a
species’ status so as to make listing the
species as threatened or endangered
unnecessary. Under the PECE the
adequacy of conservation efforts is
evaluated in terms of the certainty of
their implementation, and the certainty
of their effectiveness. Criteria for
evaluating the certainty of
implementation include whether: The
necessary resources are available; the
necessary authority is in place; an
agreement is formalized (i.e., regulatory
and procedural mechanisms are in
place); there is a schedule for
completion and evaluation; for
voluntary measures, incentives to
ensure necessary participation are in
place; and there is agreement of all
necessary parties to the measure or plan.
Criteria for evaluating the certainty of
effectiveness include whether the
measure or plan: Includes a clear
description of the factors for decline to
be addressed and how they will be
reduced; establishes specific
conservation objectives; identifies
necessary steps to reduce threats;
includes quantifiable performance
measures for monitoring compliance
and effectiveness; employs principles of
adaptive management; and is certain to
improve the species’ status at the time
of listing determination. We request that
any information submitted with respect
to conservation measures, regulatory
mechanisms, or other protective efforts
that have yet to be implemented or
show effectiveness explicitly address
these criteria in the PECE.
If you wish to provide your
information for this status review, you
may submit your information and
materials electronically via email (see
ADDRESSES section). We request that all
information be accompanied by: (1)
Supporting documentation such as
maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Aug 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
(2) the submitter’s name, address, and
any association, institution, or business
that the person represents.
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 10, 2017.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Dated: August 7, 2017.
A.M. Nichols,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate
General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017–17140 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
[FR Doc. 2017–17218 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Availability of Record of
Decision for the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Disposal and
Reuse of Surplus Property at Naval
Station Newport, Rhode Island
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the
Navy (Navy), after carefully weighing
the environmental consequences of the
proposed action, announces its decision
to implement Alternative 1, the Navy’s
preferred alternative as described in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the Disposal and Reuse of
Surplus Property at Naval Station
(NAVSTA) Newport, Rhode Island. This
decision will make 158 acres of former
NAVSTA Newport property available to
the local communities of Aquidneck
Island for economic redevelopment.
SUMMARY:
Disposal
and reuse under the chosen alternative
is consistent with the Aquidneck Island
Reuse Planning Authority’s
‘‘Redevelopment Plan for Surplus
Properties at NAVSTA Newport’’
(Redevelopment Plan) and Public Law
101–510, the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990, as amended in
2005 (BRAC Law). The complete text of
the Record of Decision (ROD) is
available for public viewing on the
project Web site at https://
www.BRACPMO.Navy.mil along with
the Final EIS and supporting
documents. Single copies of the ROD
will be made available upon request by
contacting: Mr. Gregory Preston, BRAC
Program Management Office East, 4911
South Broad Street, Building 679,
Philadelphia, PA 19112–1303,
telephone 215–897–4900, facsimile
215–897–4902, email gregory.preston@
navy.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Notice of Redesignation of the
Environmental Impact Statement To
Transition FA–18C Strike Fighter
Squadrons to FA–18E Strike Fighter
Squadrons at Naval Air Station
Oceana, Virginia, as an Environmental
Assessment and Announcement of
Public Meetings
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Navy’s
(DoN) intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the transition of the remaining F/A–
18A/C/D (Hornet) aircraft, based at
Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, to the
F/A–18E/F (Super Hornet), published in
the Federal Register on September 10,
2015 (80 FR 175), is hereby modified.
The DoN is redesignating the EIS as an
Environmental Assessment (EA). The
DoN will hold public meetings on
August 29 and 30, 2017, to inform the
public and answer questions about the
Draft EA and the proposed action as
well as provide opportunities for the
public to comment on the Draft EA.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 and regulations
implemented by the Council on
Environmental Quality, the DoN
published a Notice of Intent to prepare
an EIS to transition Hornet aircraft to
Super Hornet aircraft at NAS Oceana on
September 10, 2015, in the Federal
Register (80 FR 175). The majority of
aircraft based at NAS Oceana
transitioned to Super Hornet over a
decade ago (as part of a separate
proposed action), and are currently
conducting flight training operations at
NAS Oceana and Naval Auxiliary
Landing Field (NALF) Fentress. The
purpose of transitioning the remaining
Hornet aircraft to Super Hornet aircraft
is to provide newer, more capable, and
more reliable aircraft to the NAS
Oceana-based strike fighter community,
which are needed to support the Navy’s
national defense requirements under
Title 10 U.S. Code Section 5062.
During the development of the EIS,
the DoN’s analysis showed no
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38672-38674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17218]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 170718681-7735-01]
RIN 0648-XF575
Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of a Status Review
for Alewife and Blueback Herring Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of initiation of a status review; request for
information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the initiation of a new status review of
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis)
to determine whether listing either species as endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act is warranted. A comprehensive status
review must be based on the best scientific and commercial data
available at the time of the review. Therefore, we are asking the
public to provide such information on alewife and blueback herring that
has become available since the listing determination in 2013.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we must
receive your information no later than October 16, 2017.
[[Page 38673]]
ADDRESSES: You may submit information for us to use in our status
review, identifying it as ``Alewife and Blueback Herring Status Review
(NOAA-NMFS-2017-0094),'' by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=[NOAA-NMFS-2017-0094], click the ``Comment Now'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail or hand-delivery: Submit written comments to Tara
Trinko Lake, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great
Republic Drive, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930.
Instructions: Information sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All information received is a part of
the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
https://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Trinko Lake at the above address,
by phone at 978-282-8477 or tara.trinko@noaa.gov, David Gouveia, 978-
281-9280 or david.gouveia@noaa.gov, or Marta Nammack, 301-427-8469 or
marta.nammack@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces our active review of
alewife and blueback herring. On August 12, 2013, we determined that
listing alewife and blueback herring as threatened or endangered under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) was not
warranted (78 FR 48943). However, at that time, we committed to
revisiting the status of both species in 3 to 5 years. The 3- to 5-year
timeframe equated to approximately one generation time for these
species, and allowed for time to complete ongoing scientific studies,
including a river herring stock assessment update that was completed by
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in August 2017.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the
Plaintiffs) filed suit against us on February 10, 2015, in the U.S.
District Court in Washington, DC, challenging our decision not to list
blueback herring as threatened or endangered. The Plaintiffs also
challenged our determination that the Mid-Atlantic stock complex of
blueback herring is not a distinct population segment (DPS). On March
25, 2017, the court vacated the blueback herring listing determination
and remanded the listing determination to us. As part of a negotiated
agreement with the Plaintiffs, we committed to publish a revised
listing determination for blueback herring no later than January 31,
2019. We also agreed to conduct a new status review and publish in the
Federal Register a notice of the status review, soliciting new
information.
Background information about both species, including the 2013
listing determination, is available on the NMFS Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office Web site: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/pcp/soc/river_herring.html.
Determining if a Species Is Threatened or Endangered
Paragraph (a)(1) of section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) requires
that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based
on one or more of the five following factors: (1) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Paragraph (b) of ESA section 4
requires that our determination be made on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available after taking into account
those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, to
protect such species.
Application of the Distinct Population Segment Policy
In the application of the DPS policy, we are responsible for
determining whether species, subspecies, or DPSs of marine and
anadromous species are threatened or endangered under the ESA. If we
are petitioned to list populations of a vertebrate species as DPSs, or
if we determine that identifying DPSs may result in a conservation
benefit to the species, we use the joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service-NMFS DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) to determine
whether any populations of the species meet the DPS policy criteria.
Under this policy, in order to be considered a DPS, a population must
be discrete from other conspecific populations, and it must be
significant to the taxon to which it belongs. A group of organisms is
discrete if physical, physiological, ecological or behavioral factors
make it markedly separate from other populations of the same taxon.
Under the DPS policy, if a population group is determined to be
discrete, the agency may then consider whether it is significant to the
taxon to which it belongs. Considerations in evaluating the
significance of a discrete population include: (1) Persistence of the
discrete population in an unusual or unique ecological setting for the
taxon; (2) evidence that the loss of the discrete population segment
would cause a significant gap in the taxon's range; (3) evidence that
the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere outside its
historical geographic range; or (4) evidence that the discrete
population has marked genetic differences from other populations of the
species.
Public Solicitation of New Information
With this notice, we commence a status review of alewife and
blueback herring to determine whether listing the species as endangered
or threatened under the ESA is warranted. To ensure that our review of
alewife and blueback herring is informed by the best available
scientific and commercial information, we are opening a 60-day public
comment period to solicit information to support our status review.
For the status review to be complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we request information
on these species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes,
the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.
We seek information on: (1) Species abundance; (2) species
productivity; (3) species distribution or population spatial structure;
(4) patterns of phenotypic, genotypic, and life history diversity; (5)
habitat conditions and associated limiting factors and threats; (6)
ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and their
habitats; (7) the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms and
whether protections are being implemented and are proving effective in
conserving the species; (8) data concerning the status and trends of
identified limiting factors or threats; (9) information concerning the
impacts of environmental variability and climate change on survival,
recruitment, distribution, and/or extinction risk; and (10) other new
information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to,
taxonomic or nomenclature changes, identification of erroneous
information in the previous listing determination, and improved
[[Page 38674]]
analytical methods for evaluating extinction risk.
In addition to the above requested information, we are interested
in any information concerning protective efforts that have not yet been
fully implemented or demonstrated as effective. Our consideration of
conservation measures, regulatory mechanisms, and other protective
efforts will be guided by the Services ``Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions'' (PECE Policy) (68
FR 15100; March 28, 2003). The PECE established criteria to ensure the
consistent and adequate evaluation of formalized conservation efforts
when making listing decisions under the ESA. This policy may also guide
the development of conservation efforts that sufficiently improve a
species' status so as to make listing the species as threatened or
endangered unnecessary. Under the PECE the adequacy of conservation
efforts is evaluated in terms of the certainty of their implementation,
and the certainty of their effectiveness. Criteria for evaluating the
certainty of implementation include whether: The necessary resources
are available; the necessary authority is in place; an agreement is
formalized (i.e., regulatory and procedural mechanisms are in place);
there is a schedule for completion and evaluation; for voluntary
measures, incentives to ensure necessary participation are in place;
and there is agreement of all necessary parties to the measure or plan.
Criteria for evaluating the certainty of effectiveness include whether
the measure or plan: Includes a clear description of the factors for
decline to be addressed and how they will be reduced; establishes
specific conservation objectives; identifies necessary steps to reduce
threats; includes quantifiable performance measures for monitoring
compliance and effectiveness; employs principles of adaptive
management; and is certain to improve the species' status at the time
of listing determination. We request that any information submitted
with respect to conservation measures, regulatory mechanisms, or other
protective efforts that have yet to be implemented or show
effectiveness explicitly address these criteria in the PECE.
If you wish to provide your information for this status review, you
may submit your information and materials electronically via email (see
ADDRESSES section). We request that all information be accompanied by:
(1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name,
address, and any association, institution, or business that the person
represents.
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 10, 2017.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17218 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P