Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7711-7731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223, 224, and 226

[Docket No. 160524463-7001-02]
RIN 0648-XE657

Endangered and Threatened Species; Removal of the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin Distinct Population Segment of Canary Rockfish From the
Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species and Removal of
Designated Critical Habitat, and Update and Amendment to the Listing
Descriptions for the Yelloweye Rockfish DPS and Bocaccio DPS

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, are issuing a final rule to remove the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered
Species and remove its critical habitat designation. We proposed these
actions based on newly obtained samples and genetic analysis that
demonstrates that the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish
population does not meet the DPS criteria and therefore does not
qualify for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Following
public and peer review of the proposed rule and supporting scientific
information, this final rule implements the changes to the listing and
critical habitat for canary rockfish.
We also update and amend the listing description for the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus) DPS based on a
geographic description to include fish within specified boundaries.
Further, although the current listing description is not based on
boundaries, with this final rule we are also correcting a descriptive
boundary for the DPS depicted on maps to include an area in the
northern Johnstone Strait and Queen Charlotte Channel in waters of
Canada consistent with newly obtained genetic information on yelloweye
rockfish population grouping.
We also update and amend the listing description for the bocaccio
DPS based on a geographic description and to include fish within
specified boundaries.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 24, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Tonnes, NMFS, West Coast Region,
Protected Resources Division, 206-526-4643; or Chelsey Young, NMFS,
Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8491.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 9, 2007, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright
(Olympia, Washington) to list DPSs of five rockfish species (yelloweye,
canary, bocaccio, greenstriped and redstripe) in Puget Sound, as
endangered or threatened species under the ESA and to designate
critical habitat. We found that this petition did not present
substantial scientific or commercial information to suggest that the
petitioned actions may be warranted (72 FR 56986; October 5, 2007). On
October 29, 2007, we received a letter from Mr. Wright presenting
information that was not included in the April 2007 petition, and
requesting reconsideration of the decision not to initiate a review of
the species' status. We considered the supplemental information as a
new petition and concluded that there was enough information in this
new petition to warrant conducting status reviews of these five
rockfish species. The status review was initiated on March 17, 2008 (73
FR 14195) and completed in 2010 (Drake et al., 2010).
In the 2010 status review, the Biological Review Team (BRT) used
the best scientific and commercial data available at that time,
including environmental and ecological features of the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin, but noted that the limited genetic and demographic data
for the five petitioned rockfish species populations created some
uncertainty in the DPS determinations (Drake et al., 2010). The BRT
assessed genetic data from the Strait of Georgia (inside waters of
eastern Vancouver Island) for yelloweye rockfish (Yamanaka et al.,
2006) that indicated a distinct genetic cluster that differed
consistently from coastal samples of yelloweye rockfish, but also
observed that genetic data from Puget Sound were not available for this
species. The BRT also noted there was genetic information for canary
rockfish (Wishard et al., 1980) and bocaccio (Matala et al., 2004,
Field et al., 2009) in coastal waters, but no genetic data for either
species from inland Puget Sound waters. The BRT found that in spite of
these data limitations there was other evidence to conclude that each
noted population of rockfish within inland waters of the Puget Sound/
Georgia

[[Page 7712]]

Basin was discrete from its coastal counterpart.
Specifically, the BRT noted similar life histories of rockfish and
based their determinations, in part, on the status review of brown
rockfish, copper rockfish, and quillback rockfish (Stout et al., 2001)
and the genetic information for those species that supported separate
DPSs for inland compared to coastal populations (Drake et al., 2010).
Thus, based on information related to rockfish life history, genetic
variation among populations, and the environmental and ecological
features of Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin, the BRT identified Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs for yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and
bocaccio, and a Puget Sound proper DPS for greenstriped rockfish and
redstripe rockfish (Drake et al., 2010).
Informed by the BRT recommendations and our interpretation of best
available scientific and commercial data, on April 28, 2010, we listed
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs of yelloweye rockfish and canary
rockfish as threatened under the ESA, and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
DPS of bocaccio as endangered (75 FR 22276). The final critical habitat
rule for the listed DPSs of rockfishes was published in the Federal
Register on November 1, 2014 (79 FR 68041). We determined that
greenstriped rockfish (S. elongatus) and redstripe rockfish (S.
proriger) within Puget Sound proper each qualified as a DPS, but these
DPSs were not at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of their ranges (Drake et al., 2010).
In 2013, we appointed a recovery team and initiated recovery
planning for the listed rockfish species. Through the process of
recovery planning, priority research and recovery actions emerged. One
such action was to seek specific genetic data for each of these
rockfish species to better evaluate and determine whether differences
exist in the genetic structure of the listed species' populations
between inland basins where the DPSs occur and the outer coast.
Analysis of the geographical distribution of genetic variation is a
powerful method of identifying discrete populations (Drake et al.,
2010); thus, genetic analysis provides useful information to address
the uncertainties associated with the limited information that informed
our initial discreteness determinations for yelloweye rockfish, canary
rockfish and bocaccio.
In 2014 and 2015, we partnered with the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), several local fishing guides, and Puget Sound
Anglers to collect samples between the different basins of the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs area and the outer coast. We collected
biological samples for genetic analysis several ways. Over the course
of 74 fishing trips, biological samples were gathered from listed
rockfishes using hook-and-line recreational fishing methods in Puget
Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Additional samples were gathered
from archived sources from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the NMFS
Southwest Fisheries Science Center's Fisheries Resource Division, and
the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center's West Coast groundfish
bottom trawl survey.
Samples collected from these sources were used to examine the
population structure for each species. Population structure was
examined using three methods: Principal components analysis (PCA),
calculation of FST (fixation index--which is a measure of
population differentiation) among geographic groups, and a population
genetics based model clustering analysis (termed STRUCTURE) (NMFS
2016a).
In 2015, we announced a 5-year review (80 FR 6695; February 6,
2015) for the three rockfish DPSs. The 5-year review was completed on
May 5, 2016 (NMFS 2016a), and is available at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/other/rockfish/5.5.2016_5yr_review_report_rockfish.pdf. To complete the
review, we collected, evaluated, and incorporated all information on
the species that has become available since April 2010, the date of the
listing, including the 2014 final critical habitat designation and
newly obtained samples and analysis of genetic information (Ford 2015,
NMFS 2016a).
NMFS' Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish BRT reviewed the results
from the new genetic information. Their recommendations (Ford 2015)
informed and were further evaluated during the five-year review (NMFS
2016a) which confirmed the DPS identity and listing status for
yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio but concluded that the canary rockfish
of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin do not meet the criteria to be
considered a DPS.

Policies for Delineating and Listing Species Under the ESA

Under the ESA, the term ``species'' means a species, a subspecies,
or a DPS of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-
USFWS policy clarifies the Services' interpretation of the phrase
``Distinct Population Segment,'' or DPS (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
The DPS Policy requires the consideration of two elements when
evaluating whether a vertebrate population segment qualifies as a DPS
under the ESA: (1) Discreteness of the population segment in relation
to the remainder of the species/taxon; and, if discrete, (2) the
significance of the population segment to the species/taxon to which it
belongs. Thus, under the DPS policy a population segment is considered
a DPS if it is both discrete from other populations within its taxon
and significant to its taxon.
A population may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one
of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) it is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996). According to the policy, quantitative measures of
genetic or morphological discontinuity can be used to provide evidence
for item (1) above.
Consideration of the significance of a discrete population may
include, but is not limited to the following conditions: (1)
Persistence of the discrete segment in an ecological setting unusual or
unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete segment
would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3)
evidence that the discrete segment represents the only surviving
natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historical range; or (4) evidence
that the discrete segment differs markedly from other populations of
the species in its genetic characteristics.
The ESA gives us clear authority to make listing determinations and
to revise the Federal list of endangered and threatened species to
reflect these determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA authorizes us
to determine by regulation whether ``any species,'' which is defined to
include species, subspecies, and DPSs, is an endangered species or a
threatened species based on certain factors. Review of a species'
status may be commenced at any time, either on the Services' own
initiative--through a status review or in connection with a five-year
review under Section 4(c)(2)--or in response to a petition. Because a
DPS is not a scientifically recognized entity, but rather one created
under the language of the ESA and effectuated through our DPS Policy
(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), we have some discretion to determine
whether populations of a species should be

[[Page 7713]]

identified as DPSs, and, based upon their range and propensity for
movement, what boundaries should be recognized for a DPS. Section
4(c)(1) of the ESA gives us authority to update the Federal list of
threatened and endangered species to reflect these determinations. This
can include revising the list to remove a species or reclassify the
listed entity.
Under sections 4(c)(1) and 4(a)(1) of the ESA the Secretary shall
undertake a five-year review of a listed species and consider, among
other things, whether a species' listing status should be continued.
Pursuant to implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d), a species
shall be removed from the list if the Secretary of Commerce determines,
based on the best scientific and commercial data available after
conducting a review of the species' status, that the species is no
longer threatened or endangered because of one or a combination of the
section 4(a)(1) factors. A species may be delisted only if such data
substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened for one or
more of the following reasons:
(1) Extinction. Unless all individuals of the listed species had
been previously identified and located, and were later found to be
extirpated from their previous range, a sufficient period of time must
be allowed before delisting to indicate clearly that the species is
extinct.
(2) Recovery. The principal goal of the Services is to return
listed species to a point at which protection under the ESA is no
longer required. A species may be delisted on the basis of recovery
only if the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that
it is no longer endangered or threatened.
(3) Original data for classification in error. Subsequent
investigations may show that the best scientific or commercial data
available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such
data, were in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)).
To make our final listing determinations, we reviewed all
information provided during the 60-day public comment period on the
proposed rule. Additionally we reviewed additional genetic analysis
developed by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) after the
proposed rule (Andrews and Nichols 2016). This additional information
supplemented, and supported, the information presented in the proposed
rule. Where new information was received we have reviewed it and
presented our evaluation in this final rule.

Proposed Rule

Informed by the BRT recommendations (Ford 2015), our interpretation
of best available scientific and commercial data, and the conclusions
of the five-year review, on July 6, 2016 we issued a proposed rule (81
FR 43979) to remove the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish
(Sebastes pinniger) which included the following findings for each
listed rockfish species.

Yelloweye Rockfish

Several different analytical methods indicated significant genetic
differentiation between the inland and coastal samples of yelloweye
rockfish at a level consistent with the limited genetic data for this
species (Yamanaka et al., 2006) that were available at the time of the
2010 status review. The BRT concluded that this new genetic information
represents the best available scientific and commercial data and are
consistent with and confirm the existence of an inland population of
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish that is discrete from
coastal yelloweye rockfish (Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a). In addition, this
genetic information demonstrates that yelloweye rockfish from Hood
Canal are genetically differentiated from other Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin fish, indicating a previously unknown degree of population
differentiation within the DPS (Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a).
The BRT also found that new genetic information from Canada
demonstrates that yelloweye rockfish occurring in the northern
Johnstone Strait and Queen Charlotte Channel clustered genetically with
yelloweye rockfish occurring in the northern Strait of Georgia, the San
Juan Islands, and Puget Sound (Ford 2015). This is consistent with
additional genetic analysis identifying a population of yelloweye
rockfish inside the waters of eastern Vancouver Island (Yamanaka et.
al. 2006, COSEWIC 2008, Yamanaka et al., 2012, Siegle et al., 2013).
Based on this information and the five-year review, we proposed to
correct the previous description of the northern boundary of the
threatened Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus)
DPS to include this area. We also proposed to update and amend the
description of the DPS as fish residing within certain boundaries
(including this geographic area farther north in the Strait of Georgia
waters in Canada). We proposed this change because this description
better aligns with yelloweye rockfish life-history and their sedentary
behavior as adults, rather than the current description of fish
originating from the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.
In the five-year review, our analysis of the ESA section 4(a)(1)
factors found that the collective risk to the persistence of the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of yelloweye rockfish has not changed
significantly since our final listing determination in 2010 (75 FR
22276; April 28, 2010), and they remain listed as threatened (NMFS
2016a).

Canary Rockfish

The same analytical methods (described in Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a and
Andrews and Nichols 2016) as used for yelloweye rockfish were used to
analyze population structure in canary rockfish. These analyses
indicate a lack of genetic differentiation of canary rockfish between
coastal and inland Puget Sound/Georgia Basin samples. FST
values, a metric of population differentiation, among groups were not
significantly different from zero among geographic regions, and
STRUCTURE analysis did not provide evidence supporting population
structure in the data. None of these analyses provided any evidence of
genetic differentiation between canary rockfish along the coast from
the canary rockfish within the boundaries of the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin DPS (Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a, Andrews and Nichols 2016).
The BRT noted that the very large number of loci provided
considerable power to detect differentiation among sample groups and
concluded that the lack of such differentiation indicated that it is
unlikely the inland Puget Sound/Georgia Basin samples are discrete from
coastal areas (Ford 2015). In the context of this newly obtained
genetic information, the BRT considered whether other factors that
supported the original discreteness determination, such as oceanography
and ecological differences among locations, continue to support a
finding of discreteness for this population (Ford 2015). In considering
this newly obtained genetic data in the context of the other evidence,
the BRT found that their original interpretation of the scientific data
informing discreteness is no longer supported (Ford 2015). Rather, they
concluded that the lack of genetic differentiation indicates sufficient
dispersal to render a discreteness determination based on environmental
factors implausible. The BRT found that current genetic data evaluated
and interpreted in the context of all available scientific information
now provides strong evidence that canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin are not discrete from coastal area canary rockfish. Based
on the BRT findings, the five-year review,

[[Page 7714]]

and best available science and commercial information, and in
accordance with the DPS policy, we determined that the canary rockfish
of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin did not meet the criteria to be
considered a DPS. Rather, the new genetic data reveal that canary
rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are part of the larger
population occupying the Pacific coast (Ford 2015, NMFS 2016a, Andrews
and Nichols 2016).
Canary rockfish of the Pacific coast was declared overfished in
2000 and a rebuilding plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) was put in place
in 2001. NMFS determined the stock to be ``rebuilt'' in 2015 (Thorson
and Wetzel 2015, NMFS 2016b).
Based on the discussion above and the recommendation of the five-
year review, we proposed to remove Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary
rockfish from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species
because the new genetic data evaluated and interpreted in the context
of all best available science indicate they are not a discrete
population (81 FR 43979; July 6, 2016). Under section 4(c)(1) of the
ESA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d)(3), we may
delist canary rockfish if, among other things, subsequent investigation
demonstrates that our interpretation of best scientific or commercial
information was in error. After considering this newly obtained genetic
data in the context of the other evidence supporting discreteness, we
determined that our original interpretation of discreteness for Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish is no longer supported and was in
error. Based on this reasoning, there is no need for a post-delisting
monitoring plan.

Bocaccio

Bocaccio were also evaluated by the BRT (Ford 2015) and during the
five-year review (NMFS 2016a). Bocaccio are particularly rare within
the DPS area and thus the NWFSC was only able to obtain three samples
from within the DPS area for the genetic analysis. The BRT determined
that this is not sufficient information to support a change to our
prior status review and listing determination that Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin bocaccio are discrete from coastal fish (Ford 2015).
The BRT noted that bocaccio have a propensity for greater adult
movement than more benthic rockfish species, similar to the case for
canary rockfish. The BRT considered that the lack of genetic
differentiation between coastal and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary
rockfish might suggest a similar lack of genetic differentiation for
bocaccio because of similarities in the life history of the two
species. Nevertheless, the BRT concluded that the new information was
not sufficient to change the conclusions of the previous BRT documented
in Drake et al., (2010) or suggest a change in listing status (Ford
2015). This is consistent with the five-year review recommendation
(NMFS 2016a) and is based upon best available scientific data and
commercial information.
However, similarly to yelloweye rockfish, we proposed to update and
amend the listing description of the bocaccio DPS to describe
boundaries to include fish residing within the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin rather than fish originating from the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.
In the five-year review, our analysis of the ESA section 4(a)(1)
factors found that the collective risk to the persistence of the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio has not changed significantly since
our final listing determination in 2010 (75 FR 22276; April 28, 2010),
and they remain listed as endangered (NMFS 2016a).

Peer Review and Public Comment

The scientific information considered by the BRT and summarized in
our five-year review (NMFS 2016a) was peer reviewed and the proposed
rule was subject to public comment. Following those reviews, there are
no changes to the actions as proposed.

Summary of Comments

On July 6, 2016, we solicited comments during a 60-day public
comment period from all interested parties including the public, other
concerned governments and agencies, the scientific community, industry,
and other interested parties on the proposed rule (81 FR 43979).
We received four public comments, and three peer reviews on the
proposed rule. Summaries of the substantive comments received, and our
responses, are provided below and organized by topic.

Comments on Sampling and Genetic Analysis

Two of the three peer reviewers had questions and observations
about the genetic analyses for both canary rockfish and yelloweye
rockfish provided in the five-year review. NOAA's Northwest Fisheries
Science Center (NWFSC) reviewed the genetic and sampling questions and
provided responses within a memorandum (Andrews and Nichols 2016). This
memorandum also reported on additional genetic analysis of samples
collected in 2014 and 2015 that had not yet been analyzed and available
in the five-year review (NMFS 2016a) or by the BRT (2015).
The results of the updated genetic analysis are consistent with and
did not change the outcome of the genetic assessment presented to the
Biological Review Team in November 2015 (Ford 2015) and in the five-
year review (NMFS 2016a) that informed the proposed rule. The
information from the new analysis (Andrews and Nichols 2016) is
included in the responses below.
Comment 1: Two of the three scientific peer reviewers and two
commenters agreed that canary rockfish sampled from the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin are not genetically differentiated from canary rockfish
sampled outside of this area.
Response: We agree.
Comment 2: One peer reviewer did not agree that there was
sufficient evidence to support our finding that canary rockfish are not
genetically differentiated.
Response: We disagree with the peer reviewer based on the analysis
provided in the five-year review (NMFS 2016a) and BRT report (Ford
2015) in addition to the supplemental analysis provided by Andrews and
Nichols (2016) and elaborated in this final rule. The best available
information provides strong evidence that canary rockfish sampled in
the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are not genetically differentiated from
coastal canary rockfish.
Comment 3: Regarding the yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish
genetic analysis, one reviewer suggested that analytical methods
conducted by the NWFSC (such as FST and STRUCTURE) should be described
in our final rule.
Response: We agree. While additional information on these analyses
was included in documents supporting the proposed rule (81 FR 43979;
July 6, 2016), we include clarifying information in this final rule as
well (and as detailed in Andrews and Nichols 2016). The NWFSC conducted
Principal Component Analysis (PCA), STRUCTURE, and FST
analyses for yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish, which are detailed
in Andrews and Nichols (2016). These analyses for yelloweye rockfish
support our findings that fish collected in the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin DPS are discrete from yelloweye rockfish collected on the outer
coast. Similar analyses for canary rockfish support our findings that
there is no discrete Puget Sound/Georgia

[[Page 7715]]

Basin population (Andrews and Nichols 2016).
Comment 4: One peer reviewer questioned the relatively low
proportion of overall variation explained by PCA one and PCA two
described in our five-year review and the proposed rule.
Response: For yelloweye rockfish, the NWFSC used over 5,000
Restriction Site Associated DNA Sequencing loci in the analyses
presented in the five-year review and over 7,000 loci in its final
dataset (Andrews and Nichols 2016). There is a large amount of
variation possible among this many loci leading to a relatively low
proportion of the variance explained by the first two principal
component scores.
Comment 5: One reviewer questioned how the number of samples
collected and analyzed by the NWFSC affects the estimate of statistical
power and the ability to detect genetic differentiation for yelloweye
rockfish and canary rockfish.
Response: The NWFS did not conduct power analyses. Andrews and
Nichols (2016) state that ``. . . the magnitude of the FST confidence
intervals, and the upper bound of those confidence intervals provide
compelling evidence that differentiation among the sampled regions for
canary rockfish is not significantly different from zero, and in many
cases orders of magnitude lower than that observed for yelloweye
rockfish.'' This analysis bolsters the conclusion that canary rockfish
are not genetically differentiated between the Puget Sound and the
outer coast.
Comment 6: One peer reviewer suggested that we provide details
about the PCA scores, and which loci loaded most prominently onto those
principal components.
Response: The three analyses conducted by the NWFSC used this
information to inform the integrative comparisons among individuals
(PCA), population assignments (STRUCTURE) and statistical comparisons
of FST values as documented in the five-year review and
updated in Andrews and Nichols (2016). These integrative comparisons
further support the evidence of genetic differentiation for yelloweye
rockfish, and the lack thereof for canary rockfish.
Comment 7: One peer reviewer stated that our proposal to delist
canary rockfish should have taken into account environmental and/or
life history characteristics that would ``produce'' a seemingly
genetically homogeneous population, and questioned whether it is
logical that yelloweye constitute a DPS but canary do not.
Response: Our proposal to delist canary rockfish (81 FR 43979; July
6, 2016), in addition to the five-year review (NMFS 2016a), did discuss
the known life-history characteristics of canary rockfish and yelloweye
rockfish. Yelloweye rockfish have been found to have limited movements
as adults (Hannah and Rankin 2011), while canary rockfish are known to
move over large distances at both short and long time scales (DeMott
1983, Lea et al., 1999, Love et al., 2002, Hannah and Rankin 2011).
This life-history characteristic suggests that there is limited
probability of adult yelloweye from Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
reproducing with adults from the outer coast, and therefore providing
the necessary conditions for genetic differentiation to develop over
time. The relatively quick and long-range movements of some adult
canary rockfish suggest the high potential for breeding among
individuals throughout their range and thus leading to a panmictic
population (Andrews and Nichols 2016).
A second relevant life-history trait supporting discreteness and
identification of yelloweye rockfish as a DPS, in contrast to canary
rockfish, is the timing of larval release. In waters off British
Columbia, yelloweye rockfish release larvae from April to September
with peaks in May and June. This timing of larval release could
significantly affect the dispersal and/or retention of larval rockfish
depending on the prevailing oceanographic currents and freshwater flows
into and out of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (Andrews and Nichols
2016). Canary rockfish experience peak release of larvae from February
to March (Love et. al. 2002) and thus this different release period may
influence dispersal of larvae because of different oceanic and current
conditions.
Comment 8: A peer reviewer asked if there was any information
regarding where canary rockfish reproduction takes place, whether
canary rockfish spawn in aggregates, and if they have philopatric
tendencies (a behavior where individuals return to their birthplace to
breed).
Response: We are not aware of information regarding where canary
rockfish spawn on the Pacific coast or Puget Sound, but note that in
locations where they are observed as gravid, it is logical that they
release larvae nearby. Similarly, we are not aware of information
regarding if canary rockfish mate or release larvae in aggregates.
Comment 9: One peer reviewer asked if our proposal to delist canary
rockfish accounted for the possibility that they were historically
depleted in local waters, as documented in the 2010 Status Review
(Drake et al., 2010), and replaced by the immigration of canary
rockfish from the Pacific coast.
Response: We do not have samples of canary rockfish from within the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin prior to their listing in 2010--thus it is
not possible to test the scenario hypothesized by the reviewer
genetically. However, it is unlikely that the process of recruitment or
immigration of individual canary rockfish to/from the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin would have changed as theorized by the peer reviewer
(Andrews and Nichols 2016). If recruitment or immigration of canary
rockfish from the outer coast to the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin occurs
today, which the genetic analysis suggests (see Figs. 2b, 4c and 6 and
Table 2 in Andrews and Nichols 2016), it was very likely happening
historically. The historical overfishing of canary rockfish in Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin would not have altered the process of adults or
larval dispersal of canary rockfish from the Pacific Coast into Puget
Sound. If larval/juvenile canary rockfish dispersal among the two
regions occurred historically, it is unlikely that canary rockfish in
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin would have been genetically differentiated
and yet the sampling would have missed these fish (Andrews and Nichols
2016).
Comment 10: One peer reviewer asked how much genetic exchange is
going on between the outer coast and the Puget Sound, and speculated
that if canary rockfish are extirpated from the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin, that the population may not rebuild if there is limited movement
of fish from the Pacific coast.
Response: The genetic analysis indicates that genetic exchange of
canary rockfish in the Pacific coast and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
occurs frequently enough to develop one population across these areas
(Andrews and Nichols 2016). For these reasons, it is unlikely that a
hypothesized extirpation of canary rockfish within the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin would occur so long as there are canary rockfish outside
of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin that move amongst these areas.
Comment 11: One peer reviewer disagreed that genetic information
for canary rockfish, as detailed in the five-year review (NMFS 2016a)
and BRT memo (Ford 2015), indicate ``strong'' evidence that fish
sampled from the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are not discrete from
coastal fish. The reviewer questioned this characterization because of
sample size, sample integrity, and sample representativeness of canary
rockfish collected in this research. In addition, the reviewer
questioned the

[[Page 7716]]

reliance on principal coordinate cluster plots to portray genetic
similarity because of the potential for misinterpretation of the
results. The reviewer questioned why STRUCTURE plots and analysis of
molecular variance results were not provided in the five-year review
and asked what the average magnitude of FST values for
canary rockfish were compared to yelloweye rockfish.
Response: The STRUCTURE and FST information was included
in supporting documents, and we agree that additional information would
be useful to further explain the genetic data. Updated genetic analysis
(based on an analysis of additional samples) and additional explanatory
text are now documented in Andrews and Nichols (2016). The BRT
considered not only the PCA, but also results from STRUCTURE and tests
for pairwise population differentiation based on FST
(Andrews and Nichols 2016). Those analyses were conducted on the number
of samples outlined in the status review published in May 2016, but
have since also been extended to additional samples with the same
conclusions (see Andrews and Nichols 2016). All of these analyses show
clear evidence for population structure in yelloweye rockfish, but not
in the canary rockfish samples.
Comment 12: One peer reviewer stated that a primary reason the
yelloweye rockfish genetic analysis shows significant differentiation
relative to canary rockfish is because we were able to collect samples
of yelloweye rockfish samples in Canada and Hood Canal, in addition to
the Central Puget Sound and from the Georgia Basin. The reviewer noted
that the NWFSC was not able to collect canary rockfish samples from
Canada (the Georgia Basin) and Hood Canal, and asked what the genetic
analysis may have shown if samples could have been collected from these
areas.
Response: We were unable to collect canary rockfish samples in Hood
Canal. We also searched for existing canary rockfish samples by
contacting the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, but were not
able to find any from Canadian waters. Based on the lack of genetic
differentiation between more geographically disparate locations such as
the Central Puget Sound (where the NWFSC was able to collect samples)
and the outer Pacific Coast, we would not expect genetic
differentiation of canary rockfish if samples from Canadian coastal or
inland waters were included (Andrews and Nichols 2016).
As previously noted, canary rockfish have been documented to travel
long distances, thus we would also not expect canary rockfish collected
in Hood Canal to be genetically different even though there is a large
sill at the entrance of Hood Canal (Drake et al., 2010) that may
restrict dispersal due to restricted water movement into and out of
this water body (Andrews and Nichols 2016). As suggested by this
reviewer, the NWFSC examined the results from the PCA analysis for
yelloweye rockfish as if we did not have the samples from Hood Canal
and Canada (Fig. 7 in Andrews and Nichols 2016) and this analysis gives
the same conclusion--that Puget Sound is significantly differentiated
from the coastal collections in yelloweye rockfish.
This conclusion is also supported by other genetic analyses,
including pairwise differentiation of collections from these more
limited regions. Therefore it is likely that if there were significant
genetic differentiation for canary rockfish, the NWFSC would have
detected it from the samples in Puget Sound and the Pacific coast as
for yelloweye rockfish sampled in these regions.
Comment 13: One peer reviewer stated that the absence of observed
structure in the canary rockfish sample does not necessarily equate to
the absence of structure in the population and questioned whether or
not the sampled fish are actually representative of the population.
Response: There are two reasons we believe the sampled canary
rockfish are representative of the population. First, the sampling
design consisted of 74 days of fishing across four regions of the DPS
(South Puget Sound, Central Puget Sound, Hood Canal and the San Juan
Islands) and one region outside the DPS (Strait of Juan de Fuca
including locations near Neah Bay and Sekiu, WA). The sampling
locations within these regions were derived from the knowledge of
recreational charter boat captains, recent and past Remotely Operated
Vehicle (ROV) surveys, and historical recreational catch information to
target habitats where canary rockfish had been observed. This
information and the number of sampling days provided ample effort to
target canary rockfish in each of these regions, and we indeed
collected canary rockfish from three of these five regions, including
50 from within the DPS (47 of these samples had sufficient readings
during sequencing to be used in subsequent analyses) (Andrews and
Nichols 2016). Second, the genetic sequencing methods used by the NWFSC
allowed for detailed examination of the genome of each individual
fish--increasing the power of these analyses to detect differences
between individuals and differences among regions as compared to
traditional analyses (Andrews and Nichols 2016).
Comment 14: One peer reviewer suggested we collect larval canary
rockfish for additional genetic analysis.
Response: Given the strength of the genetic analysis we do not
believe that additional samples from larval rockfish (or any other
life-stage of canary rockfish) are needed to clarify the lack of
structure of canary rockfish sampled within the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin and the Pacific coast. The samples collected from canary rockfish
provide ample sample size to support the overall conclusion regarding
the lack of genetic differentiation discussed in the five-year review
and the proposal to delist canary rockfish (81 FR 43979; July 6, 2016),
Ford (2015) and Andrews and Nichols (2016).
Comment 15: One peer reviewer questioned whether our genetic
analysis and proposal to delist canary rockfish was potentially
influenced by potential misidentification of canary rockfish and
yelloweye rockfish, including misidentification by scuba-divers. The
reviewer was concerned that canary rockfish used in the genetics
samples may have actually been yelloweye rockfish, (and vice versa).
Response: All fish sampled in the genetic study were collected by
professional fishing charter guides, biologists with NOAA Fisheries and
the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, thus we are
confident that all canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish sampled were
identified to species correctly. The peer reviewer is correct, however,
that yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish look similar and the
identification of rockfish to species can be difficult (Sawchuk et al.,
2015). If such an incorrect species labeling were to occur within the
genetic analysis, the analysis itself would have indicated this.

Comments on Species Status and Protections

Comment 16: Two peer reviewers observed that available information
indicates that the number of canary rockfish individuals in the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin is relatively small. One reviewer acknowledged that
canary rockfish in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin do not appear to be a
DPS, but expressed concern that fish in this area may nonetheless
become extirpated. Another reviewer stated our decision to propose
delisting should have been more precautionary because of the ``. . .
dearth of information for canary rockfish and scarcity of available
data''

[[Page 7717]]

regarding their abundance. Similarly, in the five-year review we noted
that six canary rockfish were observed during recent ROV surveys, and
one peer reviewer asked in how many years of surveys these six fish
were observed.
Response: We agree that there is little data regarding canary
rockfish abundance in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, as described in
our five-year review, and that it appears that canary rockfish in this
area declined significantly in the latter half of the 20th century (as
described in Drake et al., 2010). However, the determination to delist
canary rockfish is based not on abundance information, but rather on
determining if canary rockfish in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin meet
the criteria of a DPS (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), which allows them
to be listed under the ESA.
Though we are not required to implement a post-delisting monitoring
plan for canary rockfish, there are research projects underway that
will help us understand the numbers and distribution of rockfish in the
Puget Sound, including canary rockfish. We have contracted with the
Washington State Department of Wildlife to conduct an ROV survey within
the Puget Sound. This two-year survey will be completed in early 2017
and data analysis and report writing will likely take a year or two
after the completion date. This research will eventually provide
additional data about rockfish abundance and distribution. In our five-
year review we reported that this ROV survey had documented six canary
rockfish; most of these fish were documented in the first year of the
survey (2015) because the data from the second year of the survey is
not yet fully available. In addition to the ROV survey, we have begun
to seek information on where recreational divers observe juvenile
yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish and bocaccio. Similarly, the NWFSC
is developing a young-of-the-year rockfish monitoring plan for the
Puget Sound. As this monitoring plan is implemented we will gather
additional information regarding the abundance and recruitment of
rockfish, including canary rockfish.
Comment 17: One peer reviewer stated that the declaration of the
canary rockfish stock as ``rebuilt'' under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as
documented in Thorson and Wetzel (2015) and NMFS (2016b), was a ``major
consideration for the recommendation to delist'' the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin DPS.
Response: The reviewer is incorrect. Our removal of canary rockfish
of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin from the Federal List of Threatened
and Endangered Species is based on the best available science and
commercial information. In accordance with the DPS Policy (61 FR 4722;
February 7, 1996), we have determined that the canary rockfish of the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin do not meet the criteria to be considered a
DPS based on genetic information documented in the five-year review
(NMFS 2016a), Ford (2015) and Andrews and Nichols (2016).
Comment 18: One peer reviewer stated that information in the five-
year review indicated that canary rockfish are rare in Puget Sound, and
questioned how they could be declared ``rebuilt'' under the authority
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Response: The peer reviewers were not tasked with evaluating the
previous agency decision to declare canary rockfish of the Pacific
coast as ``rebuilt'' subject to the criteria defined in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Federal canary rockfish stock assessments performed
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act do not include data regarding
canary rockfish in Puget Sound waters within the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin. Rather the 2015 canary rockfish stock assessment under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act was conducted with data collected along the
Pacific coast (outside of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin).
Comment 19: One peer reviewer asked how canary rockfish in the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are going to be protected if they are removed
from the ESA.
Response: Since the listing of yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish
and bocaccio in 2010, WDFW has changed fisheries regulations for
several non-tribal commercial fisheries in Puget Sound in order to
protect rockfish populations. The WDFW closed the active set net, set
line, and bottom trawl fisheries, and the inactive pelagic trawl and
bottomfish pot fishery. As a precautionary measure, WDFW closed the
above commercial fisheries westward of the ESA-listed rockfish DPSs'
boundary to Cape Flattery. WDFW extended the closure west of the
rockfish DPSs' boundary to prevent applicable commercial fishers from
concentrating gear in that area. The WDFW also implemented a rule that
recreational anglers targeting bottomfish not fish deeper than 120
feet. These fisheries regulations are unlikely to change, and will
benefit canary rockfish and nearly all rockfish species within the
Puget Sound.
On August 16, 2016, we released a Draft Recovery Plan for yelloweye
rockfish and bocaccio (listed rockfish) of the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin (81 FR 54556). The Draft Recovery Plan identifies approximately
45 research and recovery actions for listed rockfish, and though these
actions are not specifically designed for canary rockfish, they would
nonetheless benefit from Plan implementation because of the similarity
of habitats occupied for each species.
We expect the Plan to inform section 7 consultations with Federal
agencies under the ESA and to support other ESA decisions, such as
considering permits under section 10. Mitigation incorporated into
section 7 and section 10 actions to reduce impacts on listed rockfish
will also likely reduce impacts to canary and other rockfish species.
We have already begun implementation of several actions as described in
the Plan, such as partnering with the WDFW to conduct ROV surveys to
assess listed rockfish abundance, distribution, and habitat use.
After the adoption of the Final Recovery Plan, we will continue to
implement actions for which we have authority, work cooperatively on
implementation of other actions, and encourage other Federal and state
agencies to implement recovery actions for which they have
responsibility and authority. Collectively, the management of
fisheries, section 7 and 10 actions, and implementation of the listed-
rockfish Recovery Plan will also benefit many species of non-listed
rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, including canary rockfish.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Listing Rule

We reviewed the best available scientific and commercial
information, including the information in the peer reviews of the
proposed rule (81 FR 43979; July 6, 2016), public comments, and
information and analysis (Andrews and Nichols 2016) that have become
available since the publication of the proposed rule. Based on this
information, we have made no changes in this final rule.

Final DPS and Status Determinations

As proposed on July 6, 2016 (81 FR 43979), in this final rule we:
(1) Correct the previous description of the northern boundary of the
threatened Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish DPS to include
an area farther north of the Johnstone Strait in Canada. We also update
and amend the description of the DPS as fish residing within certain
boundaries (including this geographic area farther north in the Strait
of Georgia waters in Canada); (2) we remove Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
canary rockfish DPS from the Federal List of Threatened

[[Page 7718]]

and Endangered Species and their critical habitat, and (3) similar to
yelloweye rockfish, we update and amend the listing description of the
bocaccio DPS to describe boundaries to include fish residing within the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rather than fish originating from the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin.

Effects of the New Determinations

Based on the new information and the BRT's determination, and
consideration of public and peer review comments, we are removing
canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin from the Federal List
of Threatened and Endangered Species. The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
yelloweye rockfish DPS shall remain threatened under the ESA, and the
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin bocaccio DPS shall remain endangered.
We are also removing designated critical habitat for canary
rockfish. The critical habitat designation for the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio DPSs remain in place. The area
removed as designated critical habitat for canary rockfish will
continue to be designated critical habitat for bocaccio and, thus,
there will be no change to the spatial area that was originally
designated. Maps of critical habitat can be found on our Web site at
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov and in the final critical
habitat rule (79 FR 68041; November 13, 2014).
Additionally, we correct the listing description of the yelloweye
rockfish DPS to define geographical boundaries including an area
farther north of the Johnstone Strait in Canada (Figure 1). This
boundary would not have an effect on critical habitat, because we do
not designate critical habitat outside U.S. territory.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.002

With the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish DPS delisting,
the requirements under section 7 of the ESA no longer apply. Federal
agencies are relieved of the need to consult with us on their actions
that may affect Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish and their
designated critical habitat and to insure that any action they
authorize,

[[Page 7719]]

fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of canary rockfish or adversely modify their critical habitat. ESA
section 7 consultation requirements remain in place for the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio DPSs. Recovery
planning efforts will continue for these listed DPSs and a Draft
Recovery Plan was released on August 16, 2016 (81 FR 54556).

References Cited

The complete citations for the references used in this document can
be obtained by contacting NMFS (See ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) or on our Web page at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.

Information Quality Act and Peer Review

In December 2004, OMB issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin
for Peer Review pursuant to the Information Quality Act. The Bulletin
was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2005 (70 FR 2664).
The Bulletin established minimum peer review standards, a transparent
process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and
opportunities for public participation with regard to certain types of
information disseminated by the Federal Government. Peer review under
the OMB Peer Review Bulletin ensures that our listing determinations
are based on the best available scientific and commercial information.
To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained
independent peer review of the proposed rule and underlying scientific
information by three independent scientists with expertise in rockfish
biology and/or genetics. All peer review comments were addressed in
this final rule (see the Summary of Comments heading in this preamble).

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the
information that may be considered when assessing species for listing.
Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the
opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 829 (6th Cir.
1981), we have concluded that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing
actions. (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.).

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork
Reduction Act

As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the
ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of
a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process.
In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This final rule does not contain a collection of
information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.

Executive Order 13122, Federalism

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule
does not have significant federalism effects and that a federalism
assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the
Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful
dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this final
rule will be shared with the relevant state agencies in Washington
state.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

The longstanding and distinctive relationship between the Federal
and tribal governments is defined by treaties, statutes, executive
orders, judicial decisions, and co-management agreements, which
differentiate tribal governments from the other entities that deal
with, or are affected by, the Federal government. This relationship has
given rise to a special Federal trust responsibility involving the
legal responsibilities and obligations of the United States toward
Indian Tribes. E.O. 13175--Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments--outlines the responsibilities of the Federal
Government in matters affecting tribal interests.
We have coordinated with tribal governments that may be affected by
the action.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 223

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.

50 CFR Part 224

Endangered and threatened species.

50 CFR Part 226

Designated Critical Habitat.

Dated: January 9, 2017.
Samuel D Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223. 224, and
226 are amended as follows:

PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, Sec. 223.201-202
also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
Sec. 223.206(d)(9).

0
2. In Sec. 223.102, in the table in paragraph (e), under the
subheading ``Fishes,'' remove the entry for ``Rockfish, canary (Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin DPS)''; and revise the table entries for
``Rockfish, yelloweye (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS).''
The revision reads as follows:

Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
(e) * * *

[[Page 7720]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Citation(s) for listing Critical ESA rules
Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity determination(s) habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Rockfish, yelloweye (Puget Sound/ Sebastes ruberrimus.... Yelloweye rockfish residing 75 FR 22276, Apr 28, 226.224 NA
Georgia Basin DPS). within the Puget Sound/ 2010.
Georgia Basin, inclusive of
the Queen Charlotte Channel
to Malcom Island, in a
straight line between the
western shores of Numas and
Malcom Islands--N 50
50'46'', W 127 5'55'' and N
50 36'49'', W 127 10'17''.
The Western Boundary of the
U.S. side in the Strait of
Juan de Fuca is N 48
7'16'', W123 17'15'' in a
straight line to the
Canadian side at N 48
24'40'', 123 17'38''.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February, 1996), and
evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).

PART 224--ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES.

0
3. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

0
4. In Sec. 224.101, paragraph (h), under the subheading ``Fishes,''
revise the table entry for ``Bocaccio (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS)''
to read as follows:

Sec. 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

* * * * * * *
Bocaccio (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Sebastes paucispinis... Bocaccio residing within the 75 FR 22276, Apr 28, 226.224 NA
DPS). Puget Sound/Georgia Basin 2010.
to the Northern Boundary of
the Northern Strait of
Georgia along the southern
contours of Quadra Island,
Maurelle Island and Sonora
Island, all of Bute Inlet.
The Western Boundary of the
U.S. side in the Strait of
Juan de Fuca is N 48
7'16'', W123 17'15'' in a
straight line to the
Canadian side at N 48
24'40'', 123 17'38''.

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

0
5. The authority citation for Part 226 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

0
6. In Sec. 226.224:
0
a. Revise the section heading;
0
b. Remove the entry for canary rockfish in the table in paragraph (a);
and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (b), (c), and (d).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 226.224 Critical habitat for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS
of yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), and Bocaccio (S.
paucispinus).

* * * * *
(b) Critical habitat boundaries. In delineating nearshore
(shallower than 30 m (98 ft)) areas in Puget Sound, we define critical
habitat for bocaccio, as depicted in the maps below, as occurring from
the shoreline from extreme high water out to a depth no greater than 30
m (98 ft) relative to mean lower low water. Deepwater critical habitat
for yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio occurs in some areas, as depicted
in the maps below, from depths greater than 30 m (98 ft). The critical
habitat designation includes the marine waters above (the entire water
column) the nearshore and deepwater areas depicted in the maps in this
section.
(c) Essential features for juvenile bocaccio. (1) Juvenile
settlement habitats located in the nearshore with substrates such as
sand, rock and/or

[[Page 7721]]

cobble compositions that also support kelp are essential for
conservation because these features enable forage opportunities and
refuge from predators and enable behavioral and physiological changes
needed for juveniles to occupy deeper adult habitats. Several
attributes of these sites determine the quality of the area and are
useful in considering the conservation value of the associated feature
and in determining whether the feature may require special management
considerations or protection. These features also are relevant to
evaluating the effects of an action in an ESA section 7 consultation if
the specific area containing the site is designated as critical
habitat. These attributes include:
(i) Quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support
individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities;
and
(ii) Water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to
support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities.
(2) Nearshore areas are contiguous with the shoreline from the line
of extreme high water out to a depth no greater than 30 meters (98 ft)
relative to mean lower low water.
(d) Essential features for adult bocaccio and adult and juvenile
yelloweye rockfish. Benthic habitats and sites deeper than 30 m (98 ft)
that possess or are adjacent to areas of complex bathymetry consisting
of rock and or highly rugose habitat are essential to conservation
because these features support growth, survival, reproduction, and
feeding opportunities by providing the structure for rockfish to avoid
predation, seek food and persist for decades. Several attributes of
these sites determine the quality of the habitat and are useful in
considering the conservation value of the associated feature, and
whether the feature may require special management considerations or
protection. These attributes are also relevant in the evaluation of the
effects of a proposed action in an ESA section 7 consultation if the
specific area containing the site is designated as critical habitat.
These attributes include:
(1) Quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support
individual growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities;
(2) Water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to
support growth, survival, reproduction, and feeding opportunities; and
(3) The type and amount of structure and rugosity that supports
feeding opportunities and predator avoidance.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 7722]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.003

[[Page 7723]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.004

[[Page 7724]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.005

[[Page 7725]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.006

[[Page 7726]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.007

[[Page 7727]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.008

[[Page 7728]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.009

[[Page 7729]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.010

[[Page 7730]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.011

[[Page 7731]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JA17.012

[FR Doc. 2017-00559 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C