82 FR 38672 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of a Status Review for Alewife and Blueback Herring Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 156 (August 15, 2017)

Page Range		38672-38674
FR Document		2017-17218

We, NMFS, announce the initiation of a new status review of alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) to determine whether listing either species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act is warranted. A comprehensive status review must be based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. Therefore, we are asking the public to provide such information on alewife and blueback herring that has become available since the listing determination in 2013.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38672-38674]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17218]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 170718681-7735-01]
RIN 0648-XF575


Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of a Status Review 
for Alewife and Blueback Herring Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

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

ACTION: Notice of initiation of a status review; request for 
information.

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

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the initiation of a new status review of 
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) 
to determine whether listing either species as endangered or threatened 
under the Endangered Species Act is warranted. A comprehensive status 
review must be based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available at the time of the review. Therefore, we are asking the 
public to provide such information on alewife and blueback herring that 
has become available since the listing determination in 2013.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we must 
receive your information no later than October 16, 2017.

[[Page 38673]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit information for us to use in our status 
review, identifying it as ``Alewife and Blueback Herring Status Review 
(NOAA-NMFS-2017-0094),'' by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=[NOAA-NMFS-2017-0094], click the ``Comment Now'' icon, 
complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
     Mail or hand-delivery: Submit written comments to Tara 
Trinko Lake, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great 
Republic Drive, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930.
    Instructions: Information sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All information received is a part of 
the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
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: Tara Trinko Lake at the above address, 
by phone at 978-282-8477 or [email protected], David Gouveia, 978-
281-9280 or [email protected], or Marta Nammack, 301-427-8469 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces our active review of 
alewife and blueback herring. On August 12, 2013, we determined that 
listing alewife and blueback herring as threatened or endangered under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) was not 
warranted (78 FR 48943). However, at that time, we committed to 
revisiting the status of both species in 3 to 5 years. The 3- to 5-year 
timeframe equated to approximately one generation time for these 
species, and allowed for time to complete ongoing scientific studies, 
including a river herring stock assessment update that was completed by 
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in August 2017.
    The Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the 
Plaintiffs) filed suit against us on February 10, 2015, in the U.S. 
District Court in Washington, DC, challenging our decision not to list 
blueback herring as threatened or endangered. The Plaintiffs also 
challenged our determination that the Mid-Atlantic stock complex of 
blueback herring is not a distinct population segment (DPS). On March 
25, 2017, the court vacated the blueback herring listing determination 
and remanded the listing determination to us. As part of a negotiated 
agreement with the Plaintiffs, we committed to publish a revised 
listing determination for blueback herring no later than January 31, 
2019. We also agreed to conduct a new status review and publish in the 
Federal Register a notice of the status review, soliciting new 
information.
    Background information about both species, including the 2013 
listing determination, is available on the NMFS Greater Atlantic 
Regional Fisheries Office Web site: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/pcp/soc/river_herring.html.

Determining if a Species Is Threatened or Endangered

    Paragraph (a)(1) of section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) requires 
that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based 
on one or more of the five following factors: (1) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. Paragraph (b) of ESA section 4 
requires that our determination be made on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available after taking into account 
those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, to 
protect such species.

Application of the Distinct Population Segment Policy

    In the application of the DPS policy, we are responsible for 
determining whether species, subspecies, or DPSs of marine and 
anadromous species are threatened or endangered under the ESA. If we 
are petitioned to list populations of a vertebrate species as DPSs, or 
if we determine that identifying DPSs may result in a conservation 
benefit to the species, we use the joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service-NMFS DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) to determine 
whether any populations of the species meet the DPS policy criteria. 
Under this policy, in order to be considered a DPS, a population must 
be discrete from other conspecific populations, and it must be 
significant to the taxon to which it belongs. A group of organisms is 
discrete if physical, physiological, ecological or behavioral factors 
make it markedly separate from other populations of the same taxon. 
Under the DPS policy, if a population group is determined to be 
discrete, the agency may then consider whether it is significant to the 
taxon to which it belongs. Considerations in evaluating the 
significance of a discrete population include: (1) Persistence of the 
discrete population in an unusual or unique ecological setting for the 
taxon; (2) evidence that the loss of the discrete population segment 
would cause a significant gap in the taxon's range; (3) evidence that 
the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural 
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere outside its 
historical geographic range; or (4) evidence that the discrete 
population has marked genetic differences from other populations of the 
species.

Public Solicitation of New Information

    With this notice, we commence a status review of alewife and 
blueback herring to determine whether listing the species as endangered 
or threatened under the ESA is warranted. To ensure that our review of 
alewife and blueback herring is informed by the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we are opening a 60-day public 
comment period to solicit information to support our status review.
    For the status review to be complete and based on the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we request information 
on these species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, 
the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. 
We seek information on: (1) Species abundance; (2) species 
productivity; (3) species distribution or population spatial structure; 
(4) patterns of phenotypic, genotypic, and life history diversity; (5) 
habitat conditions and associated limiting factors and threats; (6) 
ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and their 
habitats; (7) the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms and 
whether protections are being implemented and are proving effective in 
conserving the species; (8) data concerning the status and trends of 
identified limiting factors or threats; (9) information concerning the 
impacts of environmental variability and climate change on survival, 
recruitment, distribution, and/or extinction risk; and (10) other new 
information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, 
taxonomic or nomenclature changes, identification of erroneous 
information in the previous listing determination, and improved

[[Page 38674]]

analytical methods for evaluating extinction risk.
    In addition to the above requested information, we are interested 
in any information concerning protective efforts that have not yet been 
fully implemented or demonstrated as effective. Our consideration of 
conservation measures, regulatory mechanisms, and other protective 
efforts will be guided by the Services ``Policy for Evaluation of 
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions'' (PECE Policy) (68 
FR 15100; March 28, 2003). The PECE established criteria to ensure the 
consistent and adequate evaluation of formalized conservation efforts 
when making listing decisions under the ESA. This policy may also guide 
the development of conservation efforts that sufficiently improve a 
species' status so as to make listing the species as threatened or 
endangered unnecessary. Under the PECE the adequacy of conservation 
efforts is evaluated in terms of the certainty of their implementation, 
and the certainty of their effectiveness. Criteria for evaluating the 
certainty of implementation include whether: The necessary resources 
are available; the necessary authority is in place; an agreement is 
formalized (i.e., regulatory and procedural mechanisms are in place); 
there is a schedule for completion and evaluation; for voluntary 
measures, incentives to ensure necessary participation are in place; 
and there is agreement of all necessary parties to the measure or plan. 
Criteria for evaluating the certainty of effectiveness include whether 
the measure or plan: Includes a clear description of the factors for 
decline to be addressed and how they will be reduced; establishes 
specific conservation objectives; identifies necessary steps to reduce 
threats; includes quantifiable performance measures for monitoring 
compliance and effectiveness; employs principles of adaptive 
management; and is certain to improve the species' status at the time 
of listing determination. We request that any information submitted 
with respect to conservation measures, regulatory mechanisms, or other 
protective efforts that have yet to be implemented or show 
effectiveness explicitly address these criteria in the PECE.
    If you wish to provide your information for this status review, you 
may submit your information and materials electronically via email (see 
ADDRESSES section). We request that all information be accompanied by: 
(1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or 
reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, 
address, and any association, institution, or business that the person 
represents.

    Authority:  The authority for this action is the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 10, 2017.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17218 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

38672 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices

limits. IWC-set catch limits are, in turn, light of the stability of the IWC 2017. Please visit the NOAA Fisheries’
based on IWC Scientific Committee subsistence harvest allocations and the Alaska Regional Office’s Web page at
advice on the sustainability of proposed subsistence bowhead harvests by Alaska https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/
catch limits using a population model, Natives, the 2013 EIS estimated whales-bowhead for more information
referred to as a Strike Limit Algorithm. environmental consequences for a 25- or on this EIS. NMFS estimates the draft
The Strike Limit Algorithm used by the 30-year period, recognizing that every 5 EIS for 2019 onward will be available in
IWC is specific to this population of or 6 years, when new catch limits are May 2018.
bowhead whales and is the IWC’s considered by the IWC, NMFS would
formula for calculating sustainable Authority
prepare an Environmental Assessment
aboriginal subsistence whaling removal (EA) to determine whether any new The preparation of the EIS for the
levels, based on the size and circumstances would result in subsistence harvest of Western Arctic
productivity of a whale population, in significant environmental impacts bowhead whales by Alaska Natives will
order to satisfy subsistence need. The warranting a new EIS. be conducted under the authority and in
Strike Limit Algorithm also allows for NMFS decided to prepare an EIS accordance with the requirements of
an inter-annual variation of strikes up to rather than an EA in order to assess the NEPA, Council on Environmental
50 percent of the annual strike limit in impacts of issuing annual quotas for the Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–
order to provide flexibility for the hunt subsistence hunt by Alaska Natives from 1508), other applicable Federal laws and
while meeting the Commission’s 2019 onward. This decision was not regulations, and policies and procedures
conservation objectives. based on any new determination that of NMFS for compliance with those
Alternatives significant effects occur as a result of the regulations.
bowhead subsistence hunt, but rather to Dated: August 9, 2017.
NMFS preliminarily anticipates four take advantage of the greater
alternatives: John Henderschedt,
transparency and public involvement in
Alternative 1 (no action): Do not grant Director, Office of International Affairs and
decision-making afforded through an Seafood Inspection, National Marine
the AEWC a catch limit. EIS process.
Alternative 2: Grant the AEWC an Fisheries Service.
Major issues to be addressed in this
annual strike limit of 67 bowhead EIS include: The impact of subsistence
[FR Doc. 2017–17173 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am]
whales, not to exceed a total of 336 removal of bowhead whales from the
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
landed whales over any 6-year period, Western Arctic stock of bowhead
with no unused strikes from previous whales; the impacts of these harvest
years added to a subsequent annual DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
levels on the traditional and cultural
limit. values of Alaska Natives, and the
Alternative 3: Grant the AEWC an National Oceanic and Atmospheric
cumulative effects of the action when Administration
annual strike limit of 67 bowhead
considered along with environmental
whales, not to exceed a total of 336
conditions and past, present, and future [Docket No. 170718681–7735–01]
landed whales over any 6-year period,
actions potentially affecting bowhead
with unused strikes from previous years RIN 0648–XF575
whales.
carried forward and added to the annual
strike limit of subsequent years (subject Public Comment Endangered and Threatened Species;
to limits), provided that no more than We begin this NEPA process by Initiation of a Status Review for Alewife
15 additional strikes are added to any soliciting input from the public and and Blueback Herring Under the
one year’s allocation of strikes. This interested parties on the type of impacts Endangered Species Act (ESA)
alternative would maintain the status to be considered in the EIS, the range of
quo for any six-year period with respect AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
alternatives to be assessed, and any Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
to management of the hunt. other pertinent information.
Alternative 4: Grant the AEWC an Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Specifically, this scoping process is Commerce.
annual strike limit of 67 bowhead intended to accomplish the following
whales, not to exceed a total take of 336 ACTION: Notice of initiation of a status
objectives:
landed whales over any 6-year period, 1. Invite affected Federal, state, and review; request for information.
with unused strikes from previous years local agencies, Alaska Natives, and
carried forward and added to the annual SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the
other interested persons to participate in initiation of a new status review of
strike quota of subsequent years (subject the EIS process.
to limits), provided that no more than alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and
2. Determine the potential significant
50 percent of the annual strike limit is blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) to
environmental issues to be analyzed in
added for any one year. This would determine whether listing either species
the EIS.
maintain the status quo for any 6-year as endangered or threatened under the
3. Identify and eliminate issues
period with respect to management of Endangered Species Act is warranted. A
determined to be insignificant or
the hunt for landed whales and employ comprehensive status review must be
addressed in other documents.
the Commission’s 50 percent carryover 4. Allocate assignments among the based on the best scientific and
principle. lead agency and cooperating agencies commercial data available at the time of
NOAA prepared an EIS in 2013 that regarding preparation of the EIS, the review. Therefore, we are asking the
analyzed issuing annual strike limits to including impact analysis and public to provide such information on
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

the AEWC for a subsistence hunt on identification of mitigation measures. alewife and blueback herring that has
bowhead whales from 2013 through 5. Identify related environmental become available since the listing
2018. That analysis concluded that the documents being prepared. determination in 2013.
overall effects of human activities 6. Identify other environmental DATES: To allow us adequate time to
associated with subsistence whaling review and consultation requirements. conduct this review, we must receive
results in only minor impacts on the The official scoping period is from your information no later than October
western Arctic bowhead whale stock. In August 15, 2017, until September 14, 16, 2017.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Aug 14, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM 15AUN1

38674 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices

analytical methods for evaluating (2) the submitter’s name, address, and Dated: August 7, 2017.
extinction risk. any association, institution, or business A.M. Nichols,
In addition to the above requested that the person represents. Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate
information, we are interested in any Authority: The authority for this action is General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register
information concerning protective the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Liaison Officer.
efforts that have not yet been fully amended (16. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). [FR Doc. 2017–17140 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am]
implemented or demonstrated as BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
Dated: August 10, 2017.
effective. Our consideration of
conservation measures, regulatory Samuel D. Rauch, III,
mechanisms, and other protective Deputy Assistant Administrator for DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
efforts will be guided by the Services Regulatory Programs, National Marine
‘‘Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Fisheries Service. Department of the Navy
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions’’ [FR Doc. 2017–17218 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am]
(PECE Policy) (68 FR 15100; March 28, BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Notice of Redesignation of the
2003). The PECE established criteria to Environmental Impact Statement To
ensure the consistent and adequate Transition FA–18C Strike Fighter
evaluation of formalized conservation Squadrons to FA–18E Strike Fighter
efforts when making listing decisions DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Squadrons at Naval Air Station
under the ESA. This policy may also Oceana, Virginia, as an Environmental
guide the development of conservation Department of the Navy Assessment and Announcement of
efforts that sufficiently improve a Public Meetings
Notice of Availability of Record of
species’ status so as to make listing the AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.
Decision for the Final Environmental
species as threatened or endangered
Impact Statement for the Disposal and ACTION: Notice.
unnecessary. Under the PECE the
Reuse of Surplus Property at Naval
adequacy of conservation efforts is SUMMARY: The Department of Navy’s
Station Newport, Rhode Island
evaluated in terms of the certainty of (DoN) intent to prepare an
their implementation, and the certainty AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
of their effectiveness. Criteria for for the transition of the remaining F/A–
evaluating the certainty of ACTION: Notice. 18A/C/D (Hornet) aircraft, based at
implementation include whether: The Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, to the
necessary resources are available; the SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the F/A–18E/F (Super Hornet), published in
necessary authority is in place; an Navy (Navy), after carefully weighing the Federal Register on September 10,
agreement is formalized (i.e., regulatory the environmental consequences of the 2015 (80 FR 175), is hereby modified.
and procedural mechanisms are in proposed action, announces its decision The DoN is redesignating the EIS as an
place); there is a schedule for to implement Alternative 1, the Navy’s Environmental Assessment (EA). The
completion and evaluation; for preferred alternative as described in the DoN will hold public meetings on
voluntary measures, incentives to Final Environmental Impact Statement August 29 and 30, 2017, to inform the
ensure necessary participation are in (EIS) for the Disposal and Reuse of public and answer questions about the
place; and there is agreement of all Surplus Property at Naval Station Draft EA and the proposed action as
necessary parties to the measure or plan. (NAVSTA) Newport, Rhode Island. This well as provide opportunities for the
Criteria for evaluating the certainty of decision will make 158 acres of former public to comment on the Draft EA.
effectiveness include whether the NAVSTA Newport property available to
measure or plan: Includes a clear SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
the local communities of Aquidneck
description of the factors for decline to to the National Environmental Policy
Island for economic redevelopment.
be addressed and how they will be Act of 1969 and regulations
reduced; establishes specific SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Disposal implemented by the Council on
conservation objectives; identifies and reuse under the chosen alternative Environmental Quality, the DoN
necessary steps to reduce threats; is consistent with the Aquidneck Island published a Notice of Intent to prepare
includes quantifiable performance Reuse Planning Authority’s an EIS to transition Hornet aircraft to
measures for monitoring compliance ‘‘Redevelopment Plan for Surplus Super Hornet aircraft at NAS Oceana on
and effectiveness; employs principles of Properties at NAVSTA Newport’’ September 10, 2015, in the Federal
adaptive management; and is certain to (Redevelopment Plan) and Public Law Register (80 FR 175). The majority of
improve the species’ status at the time 101–510, the Defense Base Closure and aircraft based at NAS Oceana
of listing determination. We request that Realignment Act of 1990, as amended in transitioned to Super Hornet over a
any information submitted with respect 2005 (BRAC Law). The complete text of decade ago (as part of a separate
to conservation measures, regulatory the Record of Decision (ROD) is proposed action), and are currently
mechanisms, or other protective efforts available for public viewing on the conducting flight training operations at
that have yet to be implemented or project Web site at https:// NAS Oceana and Naval Auxiliary
show effectiveness explicitly address www.BRACPMO.Navy.mil along with Landing Field (NALF) Fentress. The
these criteria in the PECE. the Final EIS and supporting purpose of transitioning the remaining
If you wish to provide your documents. Single copies of the ROD Hornet aircraft to Super Hornet aircraft
information for this status review, you will be made available upon request by is to provide newer, more capable, and
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

may submit your information and contacting: Mr. Gregory Preston, BRAC more reliable aircraft to the NAS
materials electronically via email (see Program Management Office East, 4911 Oceana-based strike fighter community,
ADDRESSES section). We request that all South Broad Street, Building 679, which are needed to support the Navy’s
information be accompanied by: (1) Philadelphia, PA 19112–1303, national defense requirements under
Supporting documentation such as telephone 215–897–4900, facsimile Title 10 U.S. Code Section 5062.
maps, bibliographic references, or 215–897–4902, email gregory.preston@ During the development of the EIS,
reprints of pertinent publications; and navy.mil. the DoN’s analysis showed no

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:15 Aug 14, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM 15AUN1

Document Created: 2017-08-15 01:12:40
Document Modified: 2017-08-15 01:12:40

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		Notices
Action		Notice of initiation of a status review; request for information.
Dates		To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we must receive your information no later than October 16, 2017.
FR Citation		82 FR 38672
RIN Number		0648-XF57

82 FR 38672 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of a Status Review for Alewife and Blueback Herring Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 156 (August 15, 2017)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration