[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 52 (Monday, March 17, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14195-14200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5309]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 080229341-8367-01]
RIN 0648-XF89
Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating
Critical Habitat: Notice of Finding on a 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; request for information, and initiation of
status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 29, 2007, we, NMFS, received new information and a
request to reconsider our ``not warranted'' finding on a petition
submitted in April 2007 to list bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary
rockfish (S. pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus), greenstripe
rockfish (S. elongatus) and redstripe rockfish (S. proriger) in Puget
Sound (Washington) as endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We consider this a new petition and find
that this new petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted.
Accordingly, we are initiating a status review of these five rockfish
species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based upon
the best available scientific and commercial information, we are
soliciting information regarding the population structure and status of
these rockfish species.
DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by May 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the code 0648-XF89,
addressed to: Chief, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, by any of the
following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov
Facsimile (fax): 503-231-5441
Mail: 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland,
Oregon, 97232.
Hand delivery: You may hand-deliver written comments to
our office
[[Page 14196]]
during normal business hours at the street address given above.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and may be posted to http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.nwr.noaa.gov without change. All personally identifiable
information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments
will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, Corel WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region,
(503) 231-2005; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
(301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 9, 2007, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright
(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 and to designate critical habitat. We declined to
initiate a review of the species' status under the ESA, finding that
the petition failed to present substantial scientific or commercial
information to suggest that the petitioned actions may be warranted (72
FR 56986; October 5, 2007). On October 29, 2007, we received a letter
from Sam Wright presenting information that was not included in the
April 2007 petition, and requesting that we reconsider our October 5,
2007, decision not to initiate a review of the species' status. We
considered the supplemental information provided in the letter, in
addition to the information submitted previously in the April 2007
petition, as a new petition to list bocaccio, canary rockfish,
yelloweye rockfish, greenstripe rockfish, and redstripe rockfish and to
designate critical habitat. Copies of the April 2007 petition, our
October 2007 petition finding, and the October 2007 letter are
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES, above).
ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions
Section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act (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. Joint NOAA-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) ESA implementing regulations define ``substantial information''
as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50
CFR 424.14(b)(1)). 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. When it is found that substantial
information is presented in the petition, we are required to promptly
commence a review of the status of the species concerned. Within 1 year
of receipt of the petition, we must make one of the following findings:
(1) the petitioned action is not warranted; (2) the petitioned action
is warranted, in which case we must promptly publish a propped listing
determination; or (3) the petitioned action is warranted but that a
proposed listing is precluded by pending rulemaking for other species.
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)). A joint NOAA-USFWS policy clarifies the
agencies' interpretation of the phrase ``distinct population segment of
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife'' (ESA section 3(16)) for
the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under
the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). 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 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,
conservation status, or if regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. 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, or
``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(20), respectively).
Listing Factors and Basis for Determination
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species can be determined to be
threatened or endangered based on any of the 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)
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or
manmade factors affecting the species continuing existence. Listing
determinations are based solely on the best available scientific and
commercial data after taking into account any efforts
[[Page 14197]]
being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the species.
Distribution and Life-History Traits of Rockfishes
Rockfishes are a diverse group of marine fishes (about one hundred
and two species worldwide and at least seventy-two 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 980 feet
(300 m) (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 live larval
young. Larvae are found in surface waters, and may be distributed over
a wide area extending several hundred miles (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 Moster, 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; Sauma and Ralston, 1995). Juvenile
and subadults may be more common than adults in shallow water, and are
associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures
such as piers and oil platforms (Love et al., 2002). Adults generally
move into deeper water as they increase in size and age (Garrison and
Miller, 1982; Love, 1996), but generally exhibit strong site fidelity
to 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 (50-140 years; 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 160 and 820 feet (50 and 250 m) depth, but may be found as deep
as 1560 feet (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 6 years (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 160 to 820 feet (50 to 250 m) deep
(Orr et al., 2000), but may be found up to 1400 feet (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 14
inches (35.6 cm) total length (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 170 to 2715 feet (52 to 828 m) in
depth, but is most common between 330 and 820 feet (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 7 to 7.5
inches (18 to 19 cm) total length (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 39 and 1400 feet (12 and 425 m) in
depth, but 95 percent occur between 490 and 900 feet (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 11 to 11.5 inches
(28 to 29 cm) total length (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 80 to 1560 feet (25 to 475 m) deep (Orr et
al., 2000), but are most commonly found between 300 to 590 feet (91 to
180 m) depth (Love et al., 2002). Approximately 50 percent of adults
are mature by 16 inches (41 cm) total 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; Love et al., 2002; O'Connell and
Funk, 1986).
Previous Rockfish Petitions and Status Review
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), and initiated ESA status reviews for
[[Page 14198]]
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 concerning stock structure, status and trends.
Consequently, for these 11 species, we found 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 for which we initiated status reviews. 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. 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).
Analysis of Mr. Wright's New Petition
We reviewed the information from Mr. Wright's April 2007 petition,
the supplemental information provided in his October 2007 letter, as
well as other information readily available to our scientists (i.e.,
currently within our files), to determine if the new petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned actions may be warranted. Specifically, we evaluated
whether: (1) the 5 rockfish species may warrant delineation into one or
more DPSs; and (2) the 5 species, or putative DPSs, may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of their range.
Information Regarding the DPS Structure of the Five Rockfish Species in
Puget Sound
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 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, we find that the new petition presents substantial
scientific information indicating that the five petitioned DPSs may
satisfy the ``discreteness'' criterion under the joint DPS policy
(Varanasi, 2007).
However, ``discreteness'' does not necessarily indicate that a
population group may also be ``significant'' and hence a DPS for
listing consideration. As noted above, the petitioner contends that the
5 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 ``discrete'' population segments were
found to be ``significant'' under the DPS policy because the
environmental, geological, and biogeographic characteristics of Puget
Sound represent ``an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for
the taxon.'' These characteristics unique to the Puget Sound are
reflected in likely adaptive life-history differences (e.g., coloration
patterns, mating behaviors, or timing of reproduction) for the
respective species in Puget Sound relative to elsewhere in their range
(Stout et al., 2001). These same characteristics that established the
uniqueness of the Puget Sound ecosystem also apply to the 5 petitioned
rockfish species in Puget Sound (Varanasi, 2007). It is likely that
``discrete'' population segments for the 5 species would be
``significant'' under the DPS policy as Puget Sound represents an
ecological setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon. We find
that the new petition presents substantial scientific information
indicating that the five petitioned rockfish species in Puget Sound may
satisfy the ``significance'' criterion under the joint DPS policy, and
thus may warrant delineation as DPSs for listing consideration under
the ESA.
[[Page 14199]]
Information Regarding the Extinction Risk of the Five Rockfish Species
in Puget Sound
The petitioner stresses the importance of age structure, longevity,
and the maternal-age effect in evaluating the extinction risk of
rockfish populations. (The reader is referred to our earlier petition
finding (72 FR 2865; January 23, 2007) for further discussion of the
maternal-age effect and related scientific publications.) 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). However, the necessary
data are not available to evaluate the actual importance of the
maternal-age effect for the five recently petitioned rockfish species.
The April 2007 petition provides recreational catch data for the
five petitioned species spanning approximately 12 years from the mid-
1970s to mid-1990s. These data suggest possible declines for three of
the species (bocaccio, greenstripe, and red stripe rockfishes) and no
decline for the other two species (canary and yelloweye rockfish). In
our October 2007 finding we noted that the support for making any
inferences regarding population status was weak, given that the
petition did not include information 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 (72 FR 56986; October 5, 2007). We
concluded that without this additional information it was not possible
to determine whether the recreational catch data reflect population
status. We concluded 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.
In his October 29, 2007, letter the petitioner presents
supplemental information necessary for determining whether the
recreational catch data provided in the April 2007 petition are valid
reflections of population status for the petitioned species.
Specifically, the petitioner provides the information regarding fishery
effort, changes in fisheries practices, and changes in fishery
regulations that we found lacking in the April 2007 petition.
The petitioner explains that there are three possible explanations
that might account for a decline in the recreational catch data: (1)
That there was a change in the distribution of fishery effort or a
change in the distribution of the petitioned species; (2) that there
was a change in angler behavior or fishery regulations resulting in
decline in overall fishery effort; or (3) that the recreational catch
data indeed reflect declining trends in the species' abundance. The
petitioner notes that the petitioned species are non-migratory, so a
change in the stocks' distribution is not a valid explanation for the
observed declining trends in catch for bocaccio, redstripe rockfish and
greenstripe rockfish. Moreover, there is no information to suggest that
the spatial distribution of fishery effort changed appreciably over the
time period to explain the observed trends in the recreational catch
data. The petitioner also concludes that the observed trends are not
explainable by declining fishery effort due to changes in angler
behavior or fishery regulations.
During the 12-year period for which there is recreational fishery
data, anglers began to directly target rockfish species to compensate
for the reduced availability of salmonids for harvest, and anglers were
also able to target rockfish aggregations more efficiently and at much
greater depths due to rapid advances in fish-finding technology. The
petitioner concludes that these changes in angler effort and of
rockfish harvest should have led to an increase in total catch. Given
this expectation, the petitioner is particularly concerned that
observed declines in the catch data for bocaccio, redstripe rockfish,
and greenstripe rockfish likely reflect severe declines in the
abundance of these stocks. The petitioner further suspects that the
increasing fishery effort and efficiency likely masked declining trends
in abundance for canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish stocks. In
support of his qualitative inferences from changes in angler behavior
and efficiency, the petitioner provides data for overall fishery effort
(measured in the number of angler boat trips) and catch per unit effort
over the 12-year period of recreational catch data. Over this period
the number of angler trips increased substantially, and there was a
decline in the average number of rockfish caught per trip (Palsson et
al., 1997; Palsson and Pacunski, 1998; West, 1997).
The fishery effort and catch per unit effort data support the
petitioner's conclusions that the recreational catch data reflect
severe declines in stock abundance for bocaccio, redstripe rockfish,
and greenstripe rockfish, and that increasing fishery effort and
efficiency over the time period likely masked declines in stock
abundance for canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish. Finally, the
petitioner concludes that the observed declining trends in the
recreational catch data cannot be explained by a reduction in catch due
to changing fishery regulations. Changes in rockfish catch regulations
(e.g., reductions in the daily bag limit) and large scale closures in
salmonid fisheries in which rockfish are taken as bycatch did not occur
until 1994, well after the period covered by the recreational catch
data (1975-1986). Based on the supplemental information, the petitioner
concludes that the most parsimonious explanation for the observed
trends in the recreational catch data is that they reflect actual
declines in the abundance of the five petitioned species in Puget
Sound.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the April 2007
petition, the supplemental information contained in the petitioner's
October 2007 letter, and other information readily available in our
files, we determine that the new petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned actions
may be warranted. In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and
NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence
a review of the status of the five species concerned and make a
determination within 12 months of receiving the new petition (i.e., by
October 29, 2008) whether the petitioned action is warranted.
Information Solicited
DPS Structure and Extinction Risk
To ensure that the updated status review is complete and based on
the best available and most recent scientific and commercial data, we
solicit data, information, and comments (see DATES and ADDRESSES)
concerning the status of bocaccio, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish,
greenstripe rockfish, and redstripe rockfish. We solicit pertinent
information such as: (1) biological or other data pertinent to
determining the DPS structure of these 5 rockfish species (e.g., age
structure, genetics, migratory patterns, morphology, physiology); (2)
historical trends and current abundance and distribution of these
rockfish stocks in Puget Sound; (3) natural and human-influenced
factors that cause variability in their survival, distribution, and
abundance; and (4) current or planned activities and their possible
impact on these rockfish species (e.g., harvest measures and habitat
actions).
[[Page 14200]]
Efforts Being Made to Protect Puget Sound Rockfish
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make
listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of a
species and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the
species. Therefore, in making its listing determinations, we first
assess the status of the species and identify factors that have led to
the decline. We then assess conservation measures to determine whether
they ameliorate a species' extinction risk (50 CFR 424.11(f)). In
judging the efficacy of conservation efforts, NMFS considers the
following: the substantive, protective, and conservation elements of
such efforts; the degree of certainty that such efforts will reliably
be implemented, and the degree of certainty that such efforts will be
effective in furthering the conservation of the species (68 FR 15100,
March 28, 2003); and the presence of monitoring provisions that track
the effectiveness of recovery efforts, and that inform iterative
refinement to management as information is accrued. In some cases,
conservation efforts may be relatively new or may not have had
sufficient time to demonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases,
provisions of adequate monitoring and funding for conservation efforts
are essential to ensure that the intended conservation benefits are
realized. We also encourage all parties to submit information on
ongoing efforts to protect these 5 rockfish stocks in Washington, as
well as information on recently implemented or planned activities and
their likely impact(s).
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: March 11, 2008.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8-5309 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S