[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 193 (Friday, October 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56986-56990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19743]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 070924535-7536-01]
RIN 0648-XC78


Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating 
Critical Habitat: Petition to List Five Rockfish Species in Puget Sound 
(Washington) as Endangered or Threatened Species under the Endangered 
Species Act

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

ACTION: Notice of finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, have received a petition to list bocaccio (Sebastes 
paucispinis), canary rockfish (S. pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (S. 
ruberrimus), greenstripe rockfish (S. elongatus) and redstripe rockfish 
(S. proriger) as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned actions may be warranted.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 9, 2007, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright 
(Olympia, Washington) to list Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) of 
bocaccio, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, greenstripe rockfish, 
and redstripe rockfish in Puget Sound as endangered or threatened 
species under the ESA. Copies of this petition are available from NMFS 
(see ADDRESSES, above).

ESA Statutory and Policy Provisions

    Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains provisions concerning petitions 
from interested persons requesting the Secretary of Commerce 
(Secretary) to list species under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). 
Section 4(b)(3)(A) requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, 
within 90 days after receiving such a petition, the Secretary make a 
finding whether the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted. Our ESA implementing regulations define Asubstantial 
information@ as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable 
person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be 
warranted. In evaluating a petitioned action, the Secretary considers 
whether the petition contains a detailed narrative justification for 
the recommended measure, including: past and present numbers and 
distribution of the species involved, and any threats faced by the 
species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)); and information regarding the status 
of the species throughout all or a significant portion of its range (50 
CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)). In addition to the information presented in a 
petition, we review other data and publications readily available to 
our scientists (i.e., currently within agency files) to determine 
whether it is in general agreement with the information presented in 
the petition.
    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, 
subspecies, or a DPS of any vertebrate species which interbreeds when 
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(15)). On February 7, 1996, we and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service adopted a joint policy to clarify the agencies' 
interpretation of the phrase ``Distinct population segment of any 
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife'' (ESA section 3(15)) for the 
purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the 
ESA (51 FR 4722). The joint DPS policy established two criteria that 
must be met for a population or group of populations to be considered a 
DPS: (1) The population segment must be discrete in relation to the 
remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and (2) 
the population segment must be significant to the remainder of the 
species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. A population segment may 
be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the 
same biological taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, 
ecological, or behavioral

[[Page 56987]]

factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries across which there 
is a significant difference in exploitation control, habitat management 
or conservation status. If a population is determined to be discrete, 
the agency must 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.
    A species, subspecies, or DPS is ``endangered'' if it is in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and 
``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
(ESA Sections 3(6) and 3(19), respectively).

Distribution and Life-History Traits of Rockfishes

    Rockfishes are a tremendously diverse group of marine fishes (about 
102 species worldwide and at least 72 species in the northeastern 
Pacific (Kendall, 1991)), and are among the most common benthic fish on 
the Pacific coast of North America (Love et al., 2002). Adult rockfish 
can be the most abundant fish in various coastal benthic habitats such 
as relatively shallow subtidal kelp forests, rocky reefs, and rocky 
outcrops in submarine canyons at depths greater than 300m (Yoklavich, 
1998). The life history of rockfish is different than that of most 
other bony fishes. Whereas most bony fishes fertilize their eggs 
externally, fertilization and embryo development in rockfishes is 
internal, and female rockfish give birth to larval young. Larvae are 
found in surface waters, and may be distributed over a wide area 
extending several hundred kilometers offshore (Love et al., 2002). 
Larvae and small juvenile rockfish may remain in open waters for 
several months being passively dispersed by ocean currents. The 
dispersal potential for larvae varies by species depending on the 
length of time larvae remain in the pelagic environment (i.e., 
``pelagic larval duration''), and the fecundity of females (i.e., the 
more larval propagules a species produces the greater the potential 
that some larvae will be transported long distances). Larval rockfish 
feed on diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and cladocerans, and 
juveniles consume copepods and euphausiids of all life stages (Sumida 
and Moser, 1984). Survival and subsequent recruitment of young 
rockfishes exhibit considerable interannual variability (Ralston and 
Howard, 1995). New recruits may be found in tide pool habitats, and 
shallow coastal waters associated with rocky bottoms and algae (Love, 
1996; Sakuma and Ralston, 1995). Juvenile and subadults may be more 
common than adults in shallow water, and be associated with rocky 
reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures such a piers and oil 
platforms (Love et al., 2002). Adults generally move into deeper water 
as they increase in size and age (Garrison and Miller, 1982; Love, 
1996), but generally exhibit strong site fidelity with rocky bottoms 
and outrcrops (Yoklavich et al., 2000). Adults eat demersal 
invertebrates and small fishes, including other species of rockfish, 
associated with kelp beds, rocky reefs, pinnacles, and sharp drop-offs 
(Love, 1996; Sumida and Moser, 1984). Many species of rockfishes are 
slow-growing, long-lived (50-140yrs; Archibald et al., 1981), and 
mature at older ages (6-12 yrs; Wyllie-Echeverria, 1987).
    Bocaccio - Bocaccio range from Punta Blanca, Baja California, to 
the Gulf of Alaska off Krozoff and Kodiak Islands (Chen, 1971; Miller 
and Lea, 1972). They are most common within this range between Oregon 
and northern Baja California (Love et al., 2002). Bocaccio are most 
common between 50 and 250 m depth, but may be found as deep as 475 m 
(Orr et al., 2000). Bocaccio larvae have relatively high dispersal 
potential with a pelagic larval duration of approximately 155 days 
(Shanks and Eckert, 2005), and fecundity ranging from 20,000 to over 2 
million eggs, considerably more than many other rockfish species (Love 
et al., 2002). Approximately 50 percent of adults mature in 4 to 6years 
(MBC, 1987). Adults are difficult to age, but are suspected to live as 
long as 50 years (Love et al., 2002).
    Canary Rockfish - Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett, Baja 
California, and the Western Gulf of Alaska (Boehlert, 1980; Mecklenburg 
et al., 2002). Within this range canary rockfish are most common off 
the coast of central Oregon (Richardson and Laroche, 1979). Canary 
rockfish primarily inhabit waters 50 to 250m deep (Orr et al., 2000), 
but may be found up to 425 m depth (Boehlert, 1980). Canary rockfish 
larvae have relatively high dispersal potential with a pelagic larval 
duration of approximately 116 days (Shanks and Eckert, 2005), and 
fecundity ranging from 260,000 to 1.9 million eggs, considerably more 
than many other rockfish species (Love et al., 2002). Approximately 50 
percent of adults are mature at 35.6 cm (5 to 6 years of age) (Hart, 
1973). Canary rockfish can live to be 75 years old (Love, 1996).
    Greenstripe Rockfish - Greenstripe rockfish range from Cedros 
Island, Baja California, to Green Island in the Gulf of Alaska. Within 
this range greenstripe rockfish are common between British Columbia and 
Punta Colnett in Northern Baja California (Eschmeyer et al., 1983; 
Hart, 1973; Love et al., 2002). Greenstripe rockfish is a deep-water 
species that can inhabit waters from 52 to 828 m in depth, but is most 
common between 100 and 250 m depth (Orr et al., 2000). Estimates of 
pelagic larval duration and fecundity are not available for greenstripe 
rockfish to infer dispersal potential, although we expect that larval 
duration would be similar to or lower than that for bocaccio or canary 
rockfish (116-155 days; Varanasi, 2007). Approximately 50 percent of 
adults mature at 18-19 cm (Love et al., 1990). Male greenstripe 
rockfish can live to approximately 37 years of age, and females to 
approximately 28 years of age (Love et al., 1990).
    Redstripe Rockfish - Redstripe rockfish occur from southern Baja 
California to the Bering Sea (Hart, 1973; Love et al., 2002). Redstripe 
rockfish have been reported between 12 and 425 m in depth, but 95 
percent occur between 150 and 275 m (Love et al., 2002). Estimates of 
pelagic larval duration and fecundity are not available for redstripe 
rockfish to infer dispersal potential, although we expect that larval 
duration would be similar to or lower than that for bocaccio or canary 
rockfish (116-155 days; Varanasi, 2007). Approximately 50 percent of 
adults mature at 28-29 cm (Garrison and Miller, 1982), and may reach 55 
years of age (Munk, 2001).
    Yelloweye Rockfish - Yelloweye rockfish range from northern Baja 
California to the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, but are most common from 
central California northward to the Gulf of Alaska (Clemens and Wilby, 
1961; Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Hart, 1973; Love, 1996). Yelloweye 
rockfish occur in waters 25 to 475 m deep (Orr et al., 2000), but are 
most commonly found between 91 to 180 m depth (Love et al.,

[[Page 56988]]

2002). Approximately 50 percent of adults are mature by 41 cm length 
(about 6 years) (Love, 1996). Estimates of pelagic larval duration are 
not available for yelloweye rockfish, although we expect that it would 
be similar to or lower than that for bocaccio or canary rockfish (116-
155 days; Varanasi, 2007). Fecundity ranges from 1.2 to 2.7 million 
eggs, considerably more than many other rockfish species (Love et al., 
2002). Yelloweye rockfish are among the longest lived of rockfishes, 
living to be at least 118 years old (Love, 1996; O'Connell and Funk, 
1986; Love et al., 2002).

Previous Rockfish Status Review and Petitions Received

    In February 1999 we received a petition from Mr. Wright to list 18 
species of marine fishes in Puget Sound under the ESA, including 14 
species of rockfish. We issued a positive 90-day finding on June 21, 
1999 (64 FR 33037), accepting the petition and initiating ESA status 
reviews for seven of the petitioned species, including three rockfish 
species (copper, brown and quillback rockfishes). For the remaining 11 
petitioned rockfish species, which included the five rockfish species 
that are the subject of this notice, we found that there was 
insufficient information to evaluate stock structure, status and 
trends. Consequently, we did not accept the petition for these 11 
species, finding that the petition failed to present substantial 
information to suggest that listing these species in Puget Sound may be 
warranted.
    In 2001 we convened a Biological Review Team (BRT) to evaluate the 
population structure and biological status of the three rockfish 
species accepted for review. The BRT concluded that the brown, copper 
and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound Proper (defined as east of 
Deception Pass and to the south and east of Admiralty Head, 
encompassing southern Puget Sound, Whidbey Basin, Hood Canal, and the 
main Basin) constitute DPSs for consideration as ``species'' under the 
ESA (Stout et al., 2001). On April 3, 2001, we concluded that these 
DPSs did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered species (66 FR 
17659). Although these DPSs had experienced declines over the last 40 
years, likely due to overharvest, we noted that the populations 
appeared stable over the most recent 5 years.
    In September 2006, we received another petition from Mr. Wright to 
list the Puget Sound DPSs of copper and quillback rockfishes as 
endangered or threatened species under the ESA. The petition did not 
include new data or information regarding the abundance, trends, 
productivity, or distribution for these species. The petitioner 
criticized the risk assessment methods of the 2001 BRT and disagreed 
with our conclusion that the two DPSs did not warrant listing. The 
petitioner criticized the findings of the 2001 BRT for inadequately 
considering the loss of age structure and longevity in rockfish 
populations due to overfishing, and, consequently, for underestimating 
the extinction risk of these rockfish DPSs. The petitioner also 
criticized the management of rockfish fisheries by the Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). In a finding published in 
January 2007, we determined that the September 2006 petition from Mr. 
Wright failed to present substantial scientific and commercial 
information to suggest that the ESA listing of copper and quillback 
rockfishes in Puget Sound may be warranted (72 FR 2863; January 23, 
2007). We disagreed with the petitioner that the risk assessment 
methods employed by the 2001 BRT were flawed. The risk assessment 
methods employed by the 2001 BRT were similar in nature to those used 
in numerous other ESA status reviews over the last 16 years. This 
approach utilizes a diversity of expertise and perspectives and applies 
a consistent and transparent methodology to evaluate the best available 
scientific data and analyses, including both quantitative and 
qualitative information. Details regarding the risk assessment methods 
used by BRT are provided in the 2001 status review which is available 
online (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/statusreviews.htm). 
With respect to the consideration of age structure and longevity in 
rockfish populations, we acknowledged the potential significance of 
laboratory studies suggesting the importance of these factors in 
evaluating the extinction risk of rockfish populations (essentially, 
that the oldest and largest females may be particularly important to 
population viability by producing larvae with greater average survival 
than larvae from younger females). However, we noted that the 
importance of this ``maternal-age effect'' in the wild depends upon the 
age structure and age-at-maturity of the populations under 
consideration (see 72 FR at 2865 for further discussion). We noted that 
the necessary data to evaluate the actual importance of the maternal-
age effect for the two petitioned rockfish species in Puget Sound was 
not available, and that other published studies on closely related 
rockfish species indicated that it is unlikely that the maternal-age 
effect would alter the conclusions of the 2001 status review (Varanasi, 
2006). We also recognized that the petitioner believes that WDFW could 
enact regulations to further protect Puget Sound rockfish stocks. 
However, the fishing regulations the petitioner criticizes represent a 
reduction from previous fishing levels, and do not portend an 
increasing threat due to fishing for rockfish stocks in Puget Sound.

Analysis of the April 2007 Petition

    We evaluated the information provided and/or cited in Mr. Wright's 
recent petition to determine if it presents substantial scientific and 
commercial information to suggest that petitioned actions may be 
warranted. Our Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) reviewed the 
scientific information in the recent petition that was not previously 
evaluated for the September 2006 petition (Varanasi, 2007) or addressed 
in our January 2007 petition finding (72 FR 2863; January 23, 2007). 
Specifically, we considered: (1) whether the petition presents 
substantial information indicating that these five rockfish species in 
Puget Sound may warrant delineation as DPSs; and, if delineation of 
Puget Sound DPSs may be warranted, (2) whether the petition presents 
substantial information indicating that such DPSs may be ``threatened'' 
or ``endangered.'' Below, our summary and analysis of the information 
presented in the recent petition is organized by these two inquiries.

Does the Petition Present Substantial Information Indicating That These 
Five Rockfish Species in Puget Sound May Warrant Delineation as DPSs?

    Under the 1996 joint DPS policy, a population or group of 
populations is considered a DPS if it is ``discrete'' and 
``significant'' to the remainder of the species to which it belongs (51 
FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The petitioner contends that the five 
petitioned species likely warrant delineation as Puget Sound DPSs based 
on: (1) relatively closed oceanographic circulation patterns in the 
Puget Sound area (see Stout et al., 2001, at p. 75) that should promote 
the retention of rockfish larvae originating within Puget Sound, and 
limit the delivery of larvae from sources external to Puget Sound; and 
(2) NMFS' finding in 2001 that brown, copper, and quillback rockfishes 
in Puget Sound respectively warranted delineation as DPSs (Stout et 
al., 2001; 66 FR 17659, April 3, 2001). Although the five petitioned 
rockfish species may be

[[Page 56989]]

considered to have high dispersal ``potential'' due to their long 
pelagic larval duration and high fecundity, their realized larval 
dispersal is determined to a large extent by local oceanographic 
patterns and larval behavior (Varanasi, 2007). Since the larvae of 
these rockfish species are generally associated with surface waters 
during the pelagic dispersal phase, we agree with the petitioner that 
the relatively closed circulation patterns of surface waters in Puget 
Sound lends support to the ``discreteness'' of these species in Puget 
Sound. Although, as the petitioner acknowledges, there are no 
population genetic studies of the five petitioned species that include 
samples from Puget Sound, the available studies of West Coast rockfish 
suggest that it is reasonable to suspect that there are genetically 
discrete Puget Sound population segments for these species. There are 
examples of rockfish populations exhibiting genetic differences in 
relation to circulation patterns and biogeographic barriers, many of 
which are probably less restrictive to trans-boundary larval dispersal 
than the entrance to Puget Sound (Sekino et al., 2001; Varanasi, 2007). 
Even on the open coast where one might expect oceanographic patterns to 
result in considerable larval exchange and strong genetic similarities 
among stocks, the available genetic studies indicate that rockfish 
species exhibit some level of genetic population structure (Buonaccorsi 
et al., 2002, 2005; Cope, 2004; Rocha-Olivares and Vetter, 1999). One 
of the petitioned species, bocaccio, also exhibits genetic population 
structure on the open coast (Matala et al., 2004), and it is reasonable 
to assume the it would also show some genetic isolation within Puget 
Sound relative to other areas (Varanasi, 2007). Genetic studies that 
include samples from Puget Sound have found that rockfish populations 
in Puget Sound are generally distinct from populations sampled in other 
geographic areas (Buonaccorsi et al., 2002, 2005). Based on the above 
information, it is plausible that the five petitioned species in Puget 
Sound satisfy the ``discreteness'' criterion under the joint-DPS policy 
(Varanasi, 2007).
    In addition to the ``discreteness'' element a population must also 
be ``significant'' to be delineated as a DPS. As noted above, the 
petitioner contends that the five petitioned rockfish species are 
likely DPSs based on our 2001 DPS delineations for brown, copper, and 
quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound (Stout et al., 2001). These three 
species were found to be ``significant'' based on unique environmental, 
geological, biogeographic factors, and likely adaptive life-history 
differences (e.g., coloration patters, mating behaviors, or timing of 
reproduction). NWFSC's review of the petition found no biological 
reason why brown, copper, and quillback rockfishes in Puget Sound would 
satisfy the ``significance'' criterion and the five petitioned species 
would not (Varanasi, 2007). Accordingly we find it reasonable that the 
five petitioned species in Puget Sound may warrant delineation as DPSs.

Does the Petition Present Substantial Information Indicating That the 
Hypothesized DPSs May Be ``Threatened'' or ``Endangered?''

Information Considered in the September 2006 Petition
    The information provided by the petitioner concerning extinction 
risk is largely similar in substance to the petition submitted in 
September 2006, except for the inclusion of approximately 12 years of 
recreational catch data (see discussion of Recreational Fishery Data 
below). The petitioner repeats criticisms of our 2001 status review 
from the September 2006 petition. While the 2001 status review did not 
encompass the five species included in the April 2007 petition, the 
same methods would likely be used in a future status review for these 
species, should one be warranted. (The reader is referred to our 
earlier petition finding (72 FR at 2864; January 23, 2007) for further 
discussion of the petitioner's criticisms of the 2001 BRT's risk 
assessment methods). The recent petition again stresses the importance 
of age structure, longevity, and the maternal-age effect in evaluating 
the extinction risk of rockfish populations. (The reader is again 
referred to our earlier petition finding (72 FR at 2865; January 23, 
2007) for further discussion of the maternal-age effect and related 
scientific publications). The petitioner disagrees with our discussion 
of the maternal-age effect in our earlier petition finding (72 FR 2865; 
January 23, 2007), feeling that we disregarded its potential importance 
to evaluating the risks faced by Puget Sound rockfish populations. The 
petitioner feels that we dismissed these laboratory studies because 
they focused on rockfish species other than those petitioned. As noted 
in our previous petition finding, we concluded that the importance of 
this maternal-age effect in the wild depends upon the age structure and 
age-at-maturity of the specific populations under consideration (72 FR 
2865; January, 23, 2007). We are in agreement with the statement in the 
recent petition that ``the important parameter is simply the percentage 
of the spawning population composed of smaller females ...'' As was the 
case in our finding on the September 2006 petition, the necessary data 
is not available to evaluate the actual importance of the maternal-age 
effect for the five recently petitioned rockfish species. The 
petitioner's statements that we do not fully appreciate the maternal-
age effect do not represent substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the five petitioned species may warrant ESA 
listing.

Recreational Fishery Data

    The April 2007 petition provides recreational catch data for the 
five petitioned species spanning approximately 12 years in the mid-
1970s to mid-1990s. NWFSC's recent review (Varanasi, 2007) notes that 
although these data might suggest possible declines for three of the 
species (bocaccio, greenstripe, and red stripe rockfishes) and a lack 
of decline for the other two species (canary and yelloweye rockfish), 
the support for making any inferences regarding populations status is 
weak. Neither the petition nor NMFS' files contain information, for 
example, regarding the level or distribution of fishery effort, changes 
in fisheries practices, or changes in regulations governing fisheries 
in which the petitioned species are taken as bycatch. Because the five 
petitioned DPSs occur solely within state-managed waters, WDFW may have 
data relevant to these issues, though we do not know whether or to what 
extent such information has been collected and evaluated by WDFW. While 
NMFS does have some recreational fishing data within its agency files, 
no such information as it relates to the five petitioned rockfish 
species within Puget Sound waters is available. Without this additional 
information it is not possible to determine whether the recreational 
catch data reflect population status. We conclude that the recreational 
catch and other anecdotal information in the petition do not represent 
``substantial scientific or commercial'' information that would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the status of the petitioned species 
may be at risk.

Fishery Management Concerns

    The petitioner reiterates concerns presented in the September 2006 
petition that WDFW's fishery regulations inadequately protect Puget 
Sound rockfish stocks. In particular, the petitioner criticizes WDFW's 
reduction in 2000 of the daily bag limit for

[[Page 56990]]

rockfish to one fish, the establishment of voluntary no-take marine 
reserves, and the 2004 regulation restricting spear and recreational 
fishing for rockfish to periods when fisheries are open for lingcod and 
hatchery Chinook salmon. We recognize that the petitioner believes that 
WDFW could enact regulations to further protect Puget Sound rockfish 
stocks. However, the fishing regulations the petitioner criticizes 
represent a reduction from previous fishing levels, and do not portend 
an increasing threat due to fishing bycatch and mortality.
    The petitioner is particularly concerned that the production of 
hatchery Chinook salmon in Puget Sound negatively affects rockfish 
stocks through the competition for limited food resources. The 
petitioner also feels that harvest directed at hatchery Chinook salmon 
results in significant bycatch of rockfish. However, he has presented 
no information in the petition to provide support for these 
contentions.

Petition Finding

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

References Cited

    A complete list of all references is available upon request from 
the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Northwest Regional Office 
(see ADDRESSES).

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

    Dated: October 1, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7-19743 Filed 10-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S