81 FR 43979 - 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 Amend the Listing Descriptions for the Yelloweye Rockfish DPS and Bocaccio DPS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 129 (July 6, 2016)

Page Range		43979-43985
FR Document		2016-15923

We, NMFS, are issuing a proposed 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 as recommended in the recent five-year review under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We propose these actions based on newly obtained genetic information 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 ESA. We also propose to 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 proposal 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 propose to update and amend the listing description for the bocaccio DPS based on a geographic description and to include fish within specified boundaries.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43979-43985]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15923]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 160524463-6544-01]
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 Amend 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: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, are issuing a proposed 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 as
recommended in the recent five-year review under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). We propose these actions based on newly obtained genetic
information 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 ESA.
We also propose to 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 proposal 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 propose to update and amend the listing description for the
bocaccio DPS based on a geographic description and to include fish
within specified boundaries.

DATES: Information and comments on the subject action must be received
by September 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Reference materials supporting this rulemaking can be
obtained via the Internet at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
or by submitting a request to Dan Tonnes, Protected Resources Division,
West Coast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point
Way NE., Seattle WA, 98115.
You may submit comments, identified by the code: NOAA-NMFS-2016-
0070 by either of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0070. Click the ``Comment Now'' icon,
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Send comments to Chris Yates, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, West Coast Regional
Office, Attn: Dan Tonnes, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115.
Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods
to ensure that we receive, document, and consider them. Comments sent
by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received
after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All
comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be
posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We
will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if
you wish to remain anonymous).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Tonnes, NMFS, West Coast Region,
Protected Resources Division, 206-526-4643; or Chelsey Young, NMFS,
Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8403.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

We have been petitioned several times to list various ``DPSs'' of
rockfish in the Puget Sound region. In response to a petition in 1999,
we conducted a status review of brown rockfish, copper rockfish, and
quillback rockfish (Stout et al. 2001). During this status review, the
Biological Review Team (BRT) that we established determined that the
available genetic information for each species demonstrated population
structure and supported a determination of discreteness as defined by
the joint NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1996 DPS
Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Based on this examination, the
BRT identified a DPS for each of the three rockfish species in Puget
Sound proper that can be considered a species under the ESA, and
concluded that none of the identified DPSs were at risk of extinction
(Stout et al. 2001).
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 BRT used the best scientific and
commercial data available at that time, including environmental and
ecological features of

[[Page 43980]]

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
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.
In 2014 and 2015, we partnered with the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, several local fishing guides, and Puget Sound
Anglers to collect samples and compare the genetic structure of the
species' populations between the different basins of the Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin DPSs area and the outer coast.
In 2015, we announced a five-year review (80 FR 6695; February 6,
2015) for the three rockfish DPSs. The five-year review was completed
on May 5, 2016 (NMFS 2016), 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 the
newly obtained genetic information. This newly obtained genetic
information and the five-year review inform the conclusions in this
proposed rule.

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) below.
A population may be considered significant if it satisfies any one
of 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 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

[[Page 43981]]

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)).

DPS and Status Determinations

Genetics Data Collection and Analysis Methods

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.
To address the need for specific genetic data from yelloweye
rockfish, canary rockfish and bocaccio within the inland Puget Sound/
Georgia Basin area to compare to genetic data from rockfish in coastal
areas as defined during recovery planning, 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,
calculation of FST (fixation index; measure of population
differentiation) among geographic groups, and a population genetics
based model clustering analysis (termed STRUCTURE) (NMFS 2016).
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. The
results are summarized below.

Yelloweye Rockfish Findings

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 these new data represent the
best available science 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). In addition, yelloweye rockfish from Hood Canal
were genetically differentiated from other Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
fish, indicating a previously unknown degree of population
differentiation within the DPS.
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. 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, Seigle et al. 2013). Based on this
information and the five-year review, this proposed rule would correct
the previous description of the northern boundary of the threatened
Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus) DPS to
include this area. This proposed rule would 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). We propose 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.

Canary Rockfish Findings

These same analytical methods were used to analyze population
structure in canary rockfish. These current 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 (NMFS 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 that 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. 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. 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, and best available science
and commercial information, and in accordance with the DPS policy, we
have determined that the canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/

[[Page 43982]]

Georgia Basin do not meet the criteria to be considered a DPS. The new
genetic data reveal that canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin are part of the larger population occupying the Pacific Coast.
Canary rockfish of the Pacific Coast was declared overfished in 2000
and a rebuilding plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act was put in place in 2001. NMFS determined the stock
to be ``rebuilt'' in 2015 (Thorson and Wetzel 2015, NMFS 2016).
Based on the discussion above and the recommendation of the five-
year review, we are proposing 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. Under section 4(c)(1) of the ESA and the implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d)(3), we may propose to 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 Findings

Bocaccio are rare within the DPS area and we were able to obtain
only a few samples of them in the genetic study. Because of their
rarity, the genetic analysis for bocaccio included only two samples
from within the DPS area, and this is not sufficient information to
change our prior status review 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. However, the BRT concluded that the new information was not
sufficient to change the conclusions of the previous BRT documented in
Drake et al. (2010). This is consistent with the five-year review
recommendation (NMFS 2016) and is based upon best available scientific
data and commercial information.
Similar to yelloweye rockfish, we propose 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.

Effects of the New Determinations

Based on the new information and the BRT's determination, we
propose that Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish be removed 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 also propose to remove designated critical habitat for canary
rockfish. The critical habitat designation for the Puget Sound/Georgia
Basin yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio DPSs will 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 propose to update and amend 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.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 43983]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JY16.000

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
If the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish DPS is delisted,
then the requirements under section 7 of the ESA would no longer apply.
Federal agencies would be 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, 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 will remain
in place for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish and
bocaccio DPSs. Recovery planning efforts will continue for these listed
DPSs as well.

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.
Prior to a final rule, and during the public comment period, NMFS will
solicit the expert opinions of three qualified specialists selected
from the academic and scientific community, Federal and state agencies,
or the private sector to review our five-year review and underlying
science supporting this action, to ensure the best biological and
commercial information is being used in the decision-making process.

[[Page 43984]]

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 proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. This proposed 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 proposed
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 proposed
rule will be shared with the relevant state agencies in Washington
state.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 223

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.

50 CFR Part 224

Endangered and threatened species.

Dated: June 23, 2016.
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 and 224
are proposed to be 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)'', to read as
follows:

Sec. 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

* * * * *
(e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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'', W. 123 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) * * *

[[Page 43985]]

* * * * * * *
Fishes
Bocaccio (Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Sebastes paucispinis.... Bocaccio residing within the 75 FR 22276, Apr 28, 226.224 NA
DPS). Puget Sound/Georgia Basin to 2010.
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'', W. 123 17'15'' in a
straight line to the
Canadian side at N. 48
24'40'', 123 17'38''.

[FR Doc. 2016-15923 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

43980 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, but the listed rockfish species. Through the physical, physiological, ecological, or
noted that the limited genetic and process of recovery planning, priority behavioral factors; or (2) it is delimited
demographic data for the five petitioned research and recovery actions emerged. by international governmental
rockfish species populations created One such action was to seek specific boundaries within which differences in
some uncertainty in the DPS genetic data for each of these rockfish control of exploitation, management of
determinations (Drake et al. 2010). The species to better evaluate and determine habitat, conservation status, or
BRT assessed genetic data from the whether differences exist in the genetic regulatory mechanisms exist that are
Strait of Georgia (inside waters of structure of the listed species’ significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)
eastern Vancouver Island) for yelloweye populations between inland basins of the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7,
rockfish (Yamanaka et al. 2006), that where the DPSs occur and the outer 1996). According to the policy,
indicated a distinct genetic cluster that coast. quantitative measures of genetic or
differed consistently from coastal In 2014 and 2015, we partnered with morphological discontinuity can be
samples of yelloweye rockfish, but also the Washington Department of Fish and used to provide evidence for item (1)
observed that genetic data from Puget Wildlife, several local fishing guides, below.
Sound were not available for this and Puget Sound Anglers to collect A population may be considered
species. The BRT also noted there was samples and compare the genetic significant if it satisfies any one of the
genetic information for canary rockfish structure of the species’ populations following conditions: (1) Persistence of
(Wishard et al. 1980) and bocaccio between the different basins of the Puget the discrete segment in an ecological
(Matala et al. 2004, Field et al. 2009) in Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs area and the setting unusual or unique for the taxon;
coastal waters, but no genetic data for outer coast. (2) evidence that loss of the discrete
either species from inland Puget Sound In 2015, we announced a five-year segment would result in a significant
waters. The BRT found that in spite of review (80 FR 6695; February 6, 2015) gap in the range of the taxon; (3)
these data limitations there was other for the three rockfish DPSs. The five- evidence that the discrete segment
evidence to conclude that each noted year review was completed on May 5, represents the only surviving natural
population of rockfish within inland 2016 (NMFS 2016), and is available at: occurrence of a taxon that may be more
waters of the Puget Sound/Georgia http:// abundant elsewhere as an introduced
Basin was discrete from its coastal www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/ population outside its historical range;
counterpart. Specifically, the BRT noted publications/protected_species/other/ or 4) evidence that the discrete segment
similar life histories of rockfish and rockfish/5.5.2016_5yr_review_report_ differs markedly from other populations
based their determinations, in part, on rockfish.pdf. To complete the review, of the species in its genetic
the status review of brown rockfish, we collected, evaluated, and characteristics.
copper rockfish, and quillback rockfish incorporated all information on the The ESA gives us clear authority to
(Stout et al. 2001) and the genetic species that has become available since make listing determinations and to
information for those species that April 2010, the date of the listing, revise the Federal list of endangered and
supported separate DPSs for inland including the 2014 final critical habitat threatened species to reflect these
compared to coastal populations (Drake designation and the newly obtained determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the
et al. 2010). Thus, based on information genetic information. This newly ESA authorizes us to determine by
related to rockfish life history, genetic obtained genetic information and the regulation whether ‘‘any species,’’
variation among populations, and the five-year review inform the conclusions which is defined to include species,
environmental and ecological features of in this proposed rule. subspecies, and DPSs, is an endangered
Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin, the species or a threatened species based on
Policies for Delineating and Listing
BRT identified Puget Sound/Georgia certain factors. Review of a species’
Species Under the ESA
Basin DPSs for yelloweye rockfish, status may be commenced at any time,
canary rockfish, and bocaccio, and a Under the ESA, the term ‘‘species’’ either on the Services’ own initiative—
Puget Sound proper DPS for means a species, a subspecies, or a DPS through a status review or in connection
greenstriped rockfish and redstripe of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C. with a five-year review under Section
rockfish (Drake et al. 2010). 1532(16)). A joint NMFS–USFWS policy 4(c)(2)—or in response to a petition.
Informed by the BRT clarifies the Services’ interpretation of Because a DPS is not a scientifically
recommendations and our interpretation the phrase ‘‘Distinct Population recognized entity, but rather one created
of best available scientific and Segment,’’ or DPS (61 FR 4722; February under the language of the ESA and
commercial data, on April 28, 2010, we 7, 1996). The DPS Policy requires the effectuated through our DPS Policy (61
listed the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin consideration of two elements when FR 4722; February 7, 1996), we have
DPSs of yelloweye rockfish and canary evaluating whether a vertebrate some discretion to determine whether
rockfish as threatened under the ESA, population segment qualifies as a DPS populations of a species should be
and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS under the ESA: (1) Discreteness of the identified as DPSs and, based upon their
of bocaccio as endangered (75 FR population segment in relation to the range and propensity for movement,
22276). The final critical habitat rule for remainder of the species/taxon; and, if what boundaries should be recognized
the listed DPSs of rockfishes was discrete, (2) the significance of the for a DPS. Section 4(c)(1) of the ESA
published in the Federal Register on population segment to the species/taxon gives us authority to update the Federal
November 1, 2014 (79 FR 68041). We to which it belongs. Thus, under the list of threatened and endangered
determined that greenstriped rockfish DPS policy a population segment is species to reflect these determinations.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

(S. elongatus) and redstripe rockfish (S. considered a DPS if it is both discrete This can include revising the list to
proriger) within Puget Sound proper from other populations within its taxon remove a species or reclassify the listed
each qualified as a DPS, but these DPSs and significant to its taxon. entity.
were not at risk of extinction throughout A population may be considered Under sections 4(c)(1) and 4(a)(1) of
all or a significant portion of their discrete if it satisfies either one of the the ESA, the Secretary shall undertake
ranges (Drake et al. 2010). following conditions: (1) It is markedly a five-year review of a listed species and
In 2013, we appointed a recovery separated from other populations of the consider, among other things, whether a
team and initiated recovery planning for same taxon as a consequence of species’ listing status should be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:12 Jul 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM 06JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 43981

continued. Pursuant to implementing NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science DPS as fish residing within certain
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d), a Center’s Fisheries Resource Division, boundaries (including this geographic
species shall be removed from the list if and the NMFS Northwest Fisheries area farther north in the Strait of Georgia
the Secretary of Commerce determines, Science Center’s West Coast groundfish waters in Canada). We propose this
based on the best scientific and bottom trawl survey. Samples collected change because this description better
commercial data available after from these sources were used to aligns with yelloweye rockfish life-
conducting a review of the species’ examine the population structure for history and their sedentary behavior as
status, that the species is no longer each species. Population structure was adults, rather than the current
threatened or endangered because of examined using three methods: description of fish originating from the
one or a combination of the section principal components analysis, Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.
4(a)(1) factors. A species may be calculation of FST (fixation index;
Canary Rockfish Findings
delisted only if such data substantiate measure of population differentiation)
that it is neither endangered nor among geographic groups, and a These same analytical methods were
threatened for one or more of the population genetics based model used to analyze population structure in
following reasons: clustering analysis (termed canary rockfish. These current analyses
(1) Extinction. Unless all individuals STRUCTURE) (NMFS 2016). indicate a lack of genetic differentiation
of the listed species had been previously NMFS’ Puget Sound/Georgia Basin of canary rockfish between coastal and
identified and located, and were later rockfish BRT reviewed the results from inland Puget Sound/Georgia Basin
found to be extirpated from their the new genetic information. Their samples. FST values, a metric of
previous range, a sufficient period of recommendations (Ford 2015) informed population differentiation, among
time must be allowed before delisting to and were further evaluated during the groups were not significantly different
indicate clearly that the species is five-year review. The results are from zero among geographic regions,
extinct. summarized below. and STRUCTURE analysis did not
(2) Recovery. The principal goal of the provide evidence supporting population
Yelloweye Rockfish Findings structure in the data. None of these
Services is to return listed species to a
point at which protection under the Several different analytical methods analyses provided any evidence of
ESA is no longer required. A species indicated significant genetic genetic differentiation between canary
may be delisted on the basis of recovery differentiation between the inland and rockfish along the coast from the canary
only if the best scientific and coastal samples of yelloweye rockfish at rockfish within the boundaries of the
commercial data available indicate that a level consistent with the limited Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (NMFS
genetic data for this species (Yamanaka 2016).
it is no longer endangered or threatened.
(3) Original data for classification in et al. 2006) that were available at the The BRT noted that the very large
error. Subsequent investigations may time of the 2010 status review. The BRT number of loci provided considerable
show that the best scientific or concluded that these new data represent power to detect differentiation among
the best available science and sample groups and concluded that the
commercial data available when the
commercial data and are consistent with lack of such differentiation indicated
species was listed, or the interpretation
and confirm the existence of an inland that it is unlikely that the inland Puget
of such data, were in error (50 CFR
population of Puget Sound/Georgia Sound/Georgia Basin samples are
424.11(d)).
Basin yelloweye rockfish that is discrete discrete from coastal areas (Ford 2015).
DPS and Status Determinations from coastal yelloweye rockfish (Ford In the context of this newly obtained
2015). In addition, yelloweye rockfish genetic information, the BRT considered
Genetics Data Collection and Analysis
from Hood Canal were genetically whether other factors that supported the
Methods
differentiated from other Puget Sound/ original discreteness determination,
Analysis of the geographical Georgia Basin fish, indicating a such as oceanography and ecological
distribution of genetic variation is a previously unknown degree of differences among locations, continue to
powerful method of identifying discrete population differentiation within the support a finding of discreteness for this
populations (Drake et al. 2010); thus, DPS. population. In considering this newly
genetic analysis provides useful The BRT also found that new genetic obtained genetic data in the context of
information to address the uncertainties information from Canada demonstrates the other evidence, the BRT found that
associated with the limited information that yelloweye rockfish occurring in the their original interpretation of the
that informed our initial discreteness northern Johnstone Strait and Queen scientific data informing discreteness is
determinations for yelloweye rockfish, Charlotte Channel clustered genetically no longer supported. Rather, they
canary rockfish and bocaccio. with yelloweye rockfish occurring in the concluded that the lack of genetic
To address the need for specific northern Strait of Georgia, the San Juan differentiation indicates sufficient
genetic data from yelloweye rockfish, Islands, and Puget Sound. This is dispersal to render a discreteness
canary rockfish and bocaccio within the consistent with additional genetic determination based on environmental
inland Puget Sound/Georgia Basin area analysis identifying a population of factors implausible. The BRT found that
to compare to genetic data from rockfish yelloweye rockfish inside the waters of current genetic data evaluated and
in coastal areas as defined during eastern Vancouver Island (Yamanaka et. interpreted in the context of all
recovery planning, we collected al. 2006, COSEWIC 2008, Yamanaka et available scientific information now
biological samples for genetic analysis al. 2012, Seigle et al. 2013). Based on provides strong evidence that canary
several ways. Over the course of 74 this information and the five-year rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

fishing trips, biological samples were review, this proposed rule would Basin are not discrete from coastal area
gathered from listed rockfishes using correct the previous description of the canary rockfish. Based on the BRT
hook-and-line recreational fishing northern boundary of the threatened findings, the five-year review, and best
methods in Puget Sound and the Strait Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye available science and commercial
of Juan de Fuca. Additional samples rockfish (S. ruberrimus) DPS to include information, and in accordance with the
were gathered from archived sources this area. This proposed rule would also DPS policy, we have determined that
from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the update and amend the description of the the canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:12 Jul 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM 06JYP1

$43982 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules Georgia Basin do not meet the criteria to need for a post-delisting monitoring originating from the Puget Sound/ be considered a DPS. The new genetic plan. Georgia Basin. data reveal that canary rockfish of the Bocaccio Findings Effects of the New Determinations Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are part of the larger population occupying the Bocaccio are rare within the DPS area Based on the new information and the Pacific Coast. Canary rockfish of the and we were able to obtain only a few BRT’s determination, we propose that Pacific Coast was declared overfished in samples of them in the genetic study. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary 2000 and a rebuilding plan under the Because of their rarity, the genetic rockfish be removed from the Federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery analysis for bocaccio included only two List of Threatened and Endangered Conservation and Management Act was samples from within the DPS area, and Species. The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin put in place in 2001. NMFS determined this is not sufficient information to yelloweye rockfish DPS shall remain the stock to be ‘‘rebuilt’’ in 2015 change our prior status review threatened under the ESA, and the (Thorson and Wetzel 2015, NMFS determination that Puget Sound/Georgia Puget Sound/Georgia Basin bocaccio 2016). Basin bocaccio are discrete from coastal DPS shall remain endangered. fish (Ford, 2015). Based on the discussion above and The BRT noted that bocaccio have a We also propose to remove designated the recommendation of the five-year propensity for greater adult movement critical habitat for canary rockfish. The review, we are proposing to remove than more benthic rockfish species, critical habitat designation for the Puget Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary similar to the case for canary rockfish. Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish rockfish from the Federal List of The BRT considered that the lack of and bocaccio DPSs will remain in place. Threatened and Endangered Species genetic differentiation between coastal The area removed as designated critical because the new genetic data evaluated and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary habitat for canary rockfish will continue and interpreted in the context of all best rockfish might suggest a similar lack of to be designated critical habitat for available science indicate they are not a genetic differentiation for bocaccio bocaccio and, thus, there will be no discrete population. Under section because of similarities in the life history change to the spatial area that was 4(c)(1) of the ESA and the implementing of the two species. However, the BRT originally designated. Maps of critical regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d)(3), we concluded that the new information was habitat can be found on our Web site at may propose to delist canary rockfish if, not sufficient to change the conclusions http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov among other things, subsequent of the previous BRT documented in and in the final critical habitat rule (79 investigation demonstrates that our Drake et al. (2010). This is consistent FR 68041; November 13, 2014). interpretation of best scientific or with the five-year review Additionally, we propose to update commercial information was in error. recommendation (NMFS 2016) and is and amend the listing description of the After considering this newly obtained based upon best available scientific data yelloweye rockfish DPS to define genetic data in the context of the other and commercial information. geographical boundaries including an evidence supporting discreteness, we Similar to yelloweye rockfish, we area farther north of the Johnstone Strait determined that our original propose to update and amend the listing in Canada (Figure 1). This boundary interpretation of discreteness for Puget description of the bocaccio DPS to would not have an effect on critical Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish is describe boundaries to include fish habitat, because we do not designate no longer supported and was in error. residing within the Puget Sound/ critical habitat outside U.S. territory. Based on this reasoning, there is no Georgia Basin rather than fish BILLING CODE 3510–22–P ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:12 Jul 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM 06JYP1$

43984 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Classification collection of information requirement Dated: June 23, 2016.
for the purposes of the Paperwork Samuel D. Rauch, III,
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Reduction Act. Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in Executive Order 13122, Federalism Fisheries Service.
section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the In accordance with E.O. 13132, we For the reasons set out in the
information that may be considered determined that this proposed rule does preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 are
when assessing species for listing. Based proposed to be amended as follows:
not have significant federalism effects
on this limitation of criteria for a listing
and that a federalism assessment is not
decision and the opinion in Pacific PART 223—THREATENED MARINE
required. In keeping with the intent of
Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded the Administration and Congress to
that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing provide continuing and meaningful ■ 1. The authority citation for part 223
actions. (See NOAA Administrative dialogue on issues of mutual state and continues to read as follows:
Order 216–6.) Federal interest, this proposed rule will
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; subpart
be shared with the relevant state B, § 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory agencies in Washington state. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for
Flexibility Act, and Paperwork § 223.206(d)(9).
Reduction Act List of Subjects
■ 2. In § 223.102, in the table in
As noted in the Conference Report on 50 CFR Part 223 paragraph (e), under the subheading
the 1982 amendments to the ESA, ‘‘Fishes’’, remove the entry for
economic impacts cannot be considered Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Transportation. ‘‘Rockfish, canary (Puget Sound/Georgia
when assessing the status of a species. Basin DPS)’’; and revise the table entries
Therefore, the economic analysis 50 CFR Part 224 for ‘‘Rockfish, yelloweye (Puget Sound/
requirements of the Regulatory Georgia Basin DPS)’’, to read as follows:
Flexibility Act are not applicable to the Endangered and threatened species.
listing process. In addition, this § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened
proposed rule is exempt from review marine and anadromous species.
under Executive Order 12866. This * * * * *
proposed rule does not contain a (e) * * *

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

* * * * * * *
FISHES

* * * * * * *
Rockfish, yelloweye Sebastes Yelloweye rockfish residing within the 75 FR 22276, Apr 226.224 NA
(Puget Sound/ ruberrimus. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, inclusive 28, 2010.
Georgia Basin of the Queen Charlotte Channel to
DPS). Malcom Island, in a straight line be-
tween 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″, W. 123 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 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16 table entry for ‘‘Bocaccio (Puget Sound/
AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES U.S.C. 1361 et seq. Georgia Basin DPS)’’ to read as follows:
■ 3. The authority citation for part 224 ■ 4. In § 224.101, paragraph (h), under § 224.101 Enumeration of endangered
continues to read as follows: the subheading ‘‘Fishes’’, revise the marine and anadromous species.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

* * * * *
(h) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:12 Jul 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM 06JYP1

$Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 43985 Species 1 Citation(s) for listing Critical habitat ESA rules determination(s) Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity * * * * * * * FISHES Bocaccio (Puget Sebastes Bocaccio residing within the Puget 75 FR 22276, Apr 226.224 NA Sound/Georgia paucispinis. Sound/Georgia Basin to the Northern 28, 2010. Basin DPS). Boundary of the Northern Strait of Georgia along the southern contours of Quadra Island, Maurelle Island and Sonora Island, all of Bute Inlet. The Western Boundary of the U.S. side in the Strait of Juan de Fuca is N. 48 7′16″, W. 123 17′15″ in a straight line to the Canadian side at N. 48 24′40″, 123 17′38″. * * * * * * * 1 Speciesincludes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). [FR Doc. 2016–15923 Filed 7–5–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:12 Jul 05, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06JYP1.SGM 06JYP1$

Document Created: 2016-07-06 07:55:48
Document Modified: 2016-07-06 07:55:48

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule; request for comments.
Dates		Information and comments on the subject action must be received by September 6, 2016.
Contact		Dan Tonnes, NMFS, West Coast Region, Protected Resources Division, 206-526-4643; or Chelsey Young, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8403.
FR Citation		81 FR 43979
RIN Number		0648-XE65
CFR Citation		50 CFR 223 50 CFR 224
CFR Associated		Endangered and Threatened Species; Exports; Imports and Transportation

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 129 (July 6, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration