18516 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

effectiveness of the Letter of 

Authorization; 

(4) A summary of take levels, 

monitoring efforts and findings at the 

Port of Anchorage to date. 

(d) The National Marine Fisheries 

Service will review an application for a 

Letter of Authorization in accordance 

with § 217.206 and, if adequate and 

complete, issue a Letter of 

Authorization. 

§ 217.207 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization, unless 

suspended or revoked, will be valid for 

a period of time not to exceed the period 

of validity of this subpart, but must be 

renewed annually subject to annual 

renewal conditions in § 217.208. 

(b) Each Letter of Authorization will 

set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; and 

(2) Requirements for mitigation, 

monitoring and reporting, including, but 

not limited to, means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

species, its habitat, and on the 

availability of the species for 

subsistence uses. 

(c) Issuance and renewal of the Letter 

of Authorization will be based on a 

determination that the total number of 

marine mammals taken by the activity 

as a whole will have no more than a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stock of marine mammal(s), and that 

the total taking will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of species or stocks of 

marine mammals for taking for 

subsistence uses. 

(d) Notice of issuance or denial of an 

application for a Letter of Authorization 

will be published in the Federal 

Register within 30 days of a 

determination. 

§ 217.208 Renewal of Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) A Letter of Authorization issued 

under § 216.106 and § 217.207 of this 

chapter for the activity identified in 

§ 217.200(a) will be renewed annually 

upon: 

(1) Notification to NMFS that the 

activity described in the application 

submitted under § 217.206 will be 

undertaken and that there will not be a 

substantial modification to the 

described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming 12 months; 

(2) Timely receipt of the monitoring 

reports required under § 217.205(d) and 

(e), and the Letter of Authorization 

issued under § 217.207, which has been 

reviewed and accepted by NMFS; and 

(3) A determination by NMFS that the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting 

measures required under §§ 217.204 and 

217.205 and the Letter of Authorization 

issued under §§ 216.106 and 217.207 of 

this chapter, were undertaken and will 

be undertaken during the upcoming 

annual period of validity of a renewed 

Letter of Authorization; and 

(4) A determination by NMFS that the 

number of marine mammals taken 

during the period of the Letter of 

Authorization will be small, that the 

total taking of marine mammals by the 

activities specified in § 217.200(a), as a 

whole will have no more than a 

negligible impact on the species or stock 

of affected marine mammal(s), and that 

the total taking will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of species or stocks of 

marine mammals for subsistence uses. 

(b) If a request for a renewal of a 

Letter of Authorization issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 217.208 of this chapter 

indicates that a substantial modification 

to the described work, mitigation or 

monitoring undertaken during the 

upcoming season will occur, NMFS will 

provide the public a period of 30 days 

for review and comment on the request. 

(c) Notice of issuance or denial of a 

renewal of a Letter of Authorization will 

be published in the Federal Register 

within 30 days of a determination. 

§ 217.209 Modifications of Letters of 

Authorization. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, no substantive 

modification (including withdrawal or 

suspension) to the Letter of 

Authorization by NMFS, issued 

pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 217.207 of 

this chapter and subject to the 

provisions of this subpart, shall be made 

until after notification and an 

opportunity for public comment has 

been provided. For purposes of this 

paragraph, a renewal of a Letter of 

Authorization under § 217.208, without 

modification (except for the period of 

validity), is not considered a substantive 

modification. 

(b) If the Assistant Administrator 

determines that an emergency exists 

that poses a significant risk to the wellbeing of the species or stocks of marine 

mammals specified in § 217.202(b), a 

Letter of Authorization issued pursuant 

to §§ 216.106 and 217.207 of this 

chapter may be substantively modified 

without prior notification and an 

opportunity for public comment. 

Notification will be published in the 

Federal Register within 30 days 

subsequent to the action. 

[FR Doc. E9–9369 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 080229341–9330–02] 

RIN 0648–XF89 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants: Proposed Endangered, 

Threatened, and Not Warranted Status 

for Distinct Population Segments of 

Rockfish in Puget Sound 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12–month 

petition finding; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the NMFS, have 

completed Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) status reviews for five species of 

rockfish (Sebastes spp.) occurring in 

Puget Sound, Washington, in response 

to a petition submitted by Mr. Sam 

Wright of Olympia, Washington, to list 

these species in Puget Sound as 

threatened or endangered species. We 

reviewed best available scientific and 

commercial information on the status of 

these five stocks and considered 

whether they are in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

their ranges, or are likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of their ranges. For bocaccio (S. 

paucispinis), we have determined that 

the members of this species in the 

Georgia Basin are a distinct population 

segment (DPS) and are endangered 

throughout all of their range. We 

propose to list this bocaccio DPS as 

endangered. We have determined that 

yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus) and 

canary rockfish (S. pinniger) in the 

Georgia Basin are DPSs and are likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of their 

range. We propose to list the Georgia 

Basin DPSs of yelloweye and canary 

rockfish as threatened. We determined 

that populations of greenstriped 

rockfish (S. elongatus) and redstripe 

rockfish (S. proriger) occurring in Puget 

Sound Proper are DPSs but are not in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of their ranges or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. We find that listing the 

greenstriped rockfish Puget Sound 

Proper DPS and the redstripe rockfish 

Puget Sound Proper DPS is not 

warranted at this time. 

Any protective regulations 

determined to be necessary and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18517 

advisable for the conservation of 

threatened yelloweye and canary 

rockfish under ESA section 4(d) would 

be proposed in a subsequent Federal 

Register notice. We solicit information 

to inform these listing determinations 

and the development of proposed 

protective regulations and designation 

of critical habitat in the event these 

species are listed. 

DATES: Comments on this proposal must 

be received by June 22, 2009. A public 

hearing will be held promptly if any 

person so requests by June 8, 2009. 

Notice of the location and time of any 

such hearing will be published in the 

Federal Register not less than 15 days 

before the hearing is held. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Chief, Protected Resources Division, 

Northwest Region, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., 

Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. 

INSTRUCTIONS: All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. We will accept 

anonymous comments (enter N/A in the 

required fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. The rockfish 

petition, draft status report, and other 

reference materials regarding this 

determination can be obtained via the 

Internet at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ or 

by submitting a request to the Assistant 

Regional Administrator, Protected 

Resources Division, Northwest Region, 

NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 

1100, Portland, OR 97232. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Murray, NMFS, Northwest Region (503) 

231–2378; or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, 

Office of Protected Resources (301) 713– 

1401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 9, 2007, we received a 

petition from Mr. Sam Wright of 

Olympia, Washington, to list stocks of 

bocaccio, canary rockfish, yelloweye 

rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, and 

redstripe rockfish in Puget Sound as 

endangered or threatened species under 

the ESA and to designate critical 

habitat. We declined to initiate a review 

of the species’ status under the ESA, 

finding that the petition failed to 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information to suggest that 

the petitioned actions may be warranted 

(72 FR 56986; October 5, 2007). On 

October 29, 2007, we received a letter 

from Sam Wright presenting 

information that was not included in the 

April 2007 petition, and requesting that 

we reconsider our October 5, 2007, 

decision not to initiate a review of the 

species’ status. We considered the 

supplemental information provided in 

the letter and the information submitted 

previously in the April 2007 petition as 

a new petition to list these species and 

to designate critical habitat. The 

supplemental information included 

additional details on the life histories of 

bocaccio and greenstriped rockfish 

supporting the case that individuals of 

these species occurring in Puget Sound 

may be unique. There was also 

additional information on recreational 

harvest indicating significant declines of 

rockfish abundance. On March 17, 2008, 

we provided notice of our determination 

that the petition presented substantial 

scientific information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted and 

requested information to assist with a 

status review to determine if these five 

species of rockfish in Puget Sound 

warranted listing under the ESA (73 FR 

14195). Copies of the April and October 

2007 petitions and our October 2007 

and March 2008 petition findings are 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES, 

above). 

ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy 

Provisions 

The ESA defines species to include 

subspecies or a DPS of any vertebrate 

species which interbreeds when mature 

(16 U.S.C. 1532(16); 50 CFR 424.02 (k)). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

NMFS have adopted a joint policy 

describing what constitutes a DPS of a 

taxonomic species (61 FR 4722; 

February 7, 1996). The joint DPS policy 

identifies two criteria for making DPS 

determinations: (1) The population must 

be discrete in relation to the remainder 

of the taxon (species or subspecies) to 

which it belongs; and (2) the population 

must be significant to the remainder of 

the taxon to which it belongs. 

A population segment of a vertebrate 

species 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. Quantitative measures of genetic 

or morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation≥; 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. 

If a population segment is found to be 

discrete under one or both of the above 

conditions, its biological and ecological 

significance to the taxon to which it 

belongs is evaluated. This consideration 

may include, but is not limited to: (1) 

‘‘persistence of the discrete population 

segment in an ecological setting unusual 

or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence 

that the loss of the discrete population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence 

that the discrete population segment 

represents the only surviving natural 

occurrence of a taxon that may be more 

abundant elsewhere as an introduced 

population outside its historic range; 

and (4) evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics.’’ 

The ESA defines an endangered 

species as one that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, and a threatened 

species as one that is likely to become 

an endangered species in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532 (6) 

and (20)). The statute requires us to 

determine whether any species is 

endangered or threatened because of 

any of the following factors: the present 

or threatened destruction of its habitat, 

overexploitation, disease or predation, 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, or any other natural or 

manmade factors (16 U.S.C. 1533). We 

are to make this determination based 

solely on the best available scientific 

information after conducting a review of 

the status of the species and taking into 

account any efforts being made by states 

or foreign governments to protect the 

species. The steps we follow in 

implementing this statutory scheme are 

to review the status of the species, 

analyze the threats facing the species, 

assess whether certain protective efforts 

mitigate these threats, and then make 

our best determination about the 

species’ future persistence. 

Status Review 

To assist in the status review, we 

formed a Biological Review Team (BRT) 

comprised of Federal scientists from our 

Northwest and Southwest Fisheries 

Science Centers. We also requested 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18518 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

technical information and comments 

from State and Tribal co-managers in 

Washington, as well as from scientists 

and individuals having research or 

management expertise pertaining to 

rockfishes in the Pacific Northwest. We 

asked the BRT to review the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, including the technical 

information and comments from comanagers, scientists and others, first to 

determine whether the five species of 

rockfish warrant delineation into one or 

more DPSs, using the criteria in the joint 

DPS policy. We then asked the BRT to 

assess the level of extinction risk facing 

any DPSs they identified, describing 

their confidence that the species is at 

high risk, moderate risk, or not at risk 

of extinction. We described a species 

with high risk as one that is at or near 

a level of abundance, productivity, and/ 

or spatial structure that places its 

persistence in question. We described a 

species at moderate risk as one that 

exhibits a trajectory indicating that it is 

more likely than not to be at a high level 

of extinction risk in the foreseeable 

future, with the appropriate time 

horizon depending on the nature of the 

threats facing the species. In evaluating 

the extinction risk, we asked the BRT to 

describe the threats facing the species, 

according to the statutory factors listed 

under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. 

The BRT used structured decision 

making to guide its consideration of the 

questions presented. To allow for 

expressions of the level of uncertainty, 

the BRT adopted a ‘‘likelihood point’’ 

method. Each BRT member distributed 

10 ‘‘likelihood points’’ among DPS 

scenarios and risk categories. This 

approach has been widely used by 

NMFS BRTs in previous DPS 

determinations (e.g., Pacific Salmon, 

Southern Resident Killer Whale). The 

BRT presented its findings in a draft 

status review report (hereafter ‘‘draft 

status report’’) for the five species of 

rockfish (Drake et al., 2008). Information 

from the draft status report and findings 

of the BRT inform our proposed 

determinations. 

Distribution and Life-History Traits of 

Rockfishes 

Rockfishes are a diverse group of 

marine fishes (about 102 species 

worldwide and at least 72 species in the 

northeastern Pacific (Kendall, 1991)) 

and as a group are among the most 

common of bottom and mid-water 

dwelling fish on the Pacific coast of 

North America (Love et al., 2002). Adult 

rockfish can be the most abundant fish 

in various coastal benthic habitats, such 

as kelp forests, rocky reefs, and rocky 

outcrops in submarine canyons at 

depths greater than 300 m (980 feet) 

(Yoklavich, 1998). The life history of 

rockfishes is different than that of most 

other bony fishes. Whereas most bony 

fishes fertilize their eggs externally, 

fertilization and embryo development in 

rockfishes is internal, and female 

rockfish give birth to live larval young. 

Larvae are found in surface waters and 

may be distributed over a wide area 

extending several hundred miles 

offshore (Love et al., 2002). Larvae and 

small juvenile rockfish may remain in 

open waters for several months. The 

dispersal potential for larvae varies by 

species depending on the length of time 

larvae remain in the pelagic 

environment (i.e., ’’pelagic larval 

duration’’) and the fecundity of females 

(i.e., the more larval propagules a 

species produces, the greater the 

potential that some larvae will be 

transported long distances). Dispersal 

potential may also be influenced by the 

behavior of pre-settlement fish. For 

example, diel, tidal, or vertical 

migration can affect dispersal. 

Larval rockfish feed on diatoms, 

dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and 

cladocerans, and juveniles consume 

copepods and euphausiids of all life 

stages (Sumida and Moster, 1984). 

Survival and subsequent recruitment of 

young rockfishes exhibit considerable 

interannual variability (Ralston and 

Howard, 1995). Juveniles and subadults 

may be more common than adults in 

shallow water and are associated with 

rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial 

structures such as piers and oil 

platforms (Love et al., 2002). Adults 

generally move into deeper water as 

they increase in size and age (Garrison 

and Miller, 1982; Love, 1996), and many 

species exhibit strong site fidelity to 

rocky bottoms and outcrops (Yoklavich 

et al., 2000). 

Adults eat bottom and mid-water 

dwelling invertebrates and small fishes, 

including other species of rockfish 

associated with kelp beds, rocky reefs, 

pinnacles, and sharp drop-offs (Love, 

1996; Sumida and Moser, 1984). Many 

species of rockfishes are slow-growing, 

long-lived (50 140 years; Archibald et 

al., 1981), and late maturing (6 12 yrs; 

Wyllie-Echeverria, 1987). 

Environmental History and Features of 

Puget Sound 

Puget Sound is a fjord-like estuary 

located in northwest Washington State 

and covers an area of about 2,330 km2

(900 sq miles), including 4,000 km 

(2500 miles) of shoreline. Puget Sound 

is part of a larger inland system, the 

Georgia Basin, situated between 

southern Vancouver Island and the 

mainland coasts of Washington State 

and British Columbia. This extensive 

system is a series of interconnected 

basins separated by shallow sills. Puget 

Sound can be subdivided into five major 

basins: (1) North Puget Sound, (2) Main 

Basin, (3) Whidbey Basin, (4) South 

Puget Sound, and (5) Hood Canal. In 

this Notice, we use the term ‘‘Puget 

Sound’’ or ‘‘greater Puget Sound’’ to 

refer to these five basins. Each of the 

basins differs in features such as 

temperature regimes, water residence 

and circulation, biological conditions, 

depth profiles and contours, processes, 

species, and habitats (Drake et al., 

2008). We use the term ‘‘Puget Sound 

Proper’’ in this Notice to refer to all of 

these basins except North Puget Sound 

(Figure 1). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18519 

In the Puget Sound system, net 

seaward outflow in the upper portion of 

the water column is driven by winter 

rainfall and summer snowmelt, and net 

landward inflow of high salinity ocean 

water occurs in the deeper portion of 

the water column (Masson, 2002; 

Thomson, 1994). Shallow sills within 

Puget Sound substantially reduce the 

flushing rate of freshwater, sediments, 

nutrients, contaminants, and many 

organisms. Concentrations of nutrients 

(i.e., nitrates and phosphates) are 

consistently high throughout most of the 

greater Puget Sound, largely due to the 

flux of oceanic water into the basin 

(Harrison et al., 1994) and input of 

nutrients from freshwater runoff 

(Embrey and Inkpen, 1998). 

Coastal areas within Puget Sound 

generally are characterized by high 

levels of rainfall and river discharge in 

the winter, while inland mountains are 

characterized by heavy snowfall in the 

winter and high snowmelt in late spring 

and early summer. Puget Sound’s 

shorelines range from rocky sea cliffs to 

coastal bluffs and river deltas. Most of 

Puget Sound’s shorelines are coastal 

bluffs, which are composed of erodable 

gravel, sand, and clay deposited by 

glaciers over 15,000 years ago (Downing, 

1983; Shipman, 2004). Extensive 

development of coastal bluffs along the 

Sound has led to the widespread use of 

engineered structures designed to 

protect upland properties, railroads, and 

roads. These modifications have 

increased rapidly since the 1970s, with 

demonstrated negative impacts on the 

health of the ecosystem (Thom et al., 

1994). 

Characteristics of the physical habitat 

such as depth, substrate, wave exposure, 

salinity, and gradient largely determine 

the plants and animals that can use 

particular areas of Puget Sound and the 

entire Georgia Basin. Eight major 

nearshore habitats have been 

characterized and quantified: rocky 

reefs, kelp beds, mixed sediment 

intertidal beaches, saltmarsh, tide flats, 

subtidal soft sediments, eelgrass beds, 

and open water/pelagic habitats 

(Dethier, 1990; Levings and Thom, 1994; 

NMFS, 2007). The shallow nearshore 

areas of Puget Sound contain eelgrass 

and seaweed habitats that support many 

marine fish and invertebrate 

populations at some time during their 

life cycle. Kelp beds and eelgrass 

meadows cover the largest area; floating 

kelps are found primarily over hard 

substrate along the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca and San Juan Islands, whereas 

eelgrass beds are estimated to cover 200 

km2 (77 mi2) throughout Puget Sound, 

with the exception of South Sound 

(Nearshore Habitat Program, 2001; 

Mumford, 2007). Other major habitats 

include subaerial and intertidal 

wetlands (176 km2)(68 mi2), and 

mudflats and sandflats (246 km2)(95 

mi2). In pelagic areas, the euphotic zone 

(zone that receives enough light for 

photosynthesis) extends to about 20 m 

(66 feet) depth in the relatively clear 

regions of North Puget Sound, and to 10 

m (33 feet) depth in the more turbid 

waters of the South Sound basin. Most 

of the bottom of Puget Sound is 

comprised of soft sediments, ranging 

from coarse sands to fine silts and clays. 

Rocky reefs, composed of bedrock or a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALSEP23AP09.000</GPH>
18520 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

mixture of boulder and cobble 

substrates, are often characterized by 

strong currents and tidal action and 

support benthic suspension feeders and 

multiple species of fish, including 

several species of rockfish (Sebastes 

spp.). Approximately 95 percent of the 

rocky reef habitat in greater Puget 

Sound is located in North Puget Sound 

(Palsson et al., 2008). 

The human population in the greater 

Puget Sound region has increased 

rapidly over the last 2 decades. In 2005, 

the area housed approximately 4.4 

million people, a 25 percent increase 

from 1991. According to the State Office 

of Management, the population is 

expected to grow to 4.7 to 6.1 million 

residents by 2025 (OFM, 2005). 

Freshwater, marine, nearshore, and 

upland habitats throughout the greater 

Puget Sound region have been affected 

by a variety of human activities, 

including agriculture, heavy industry, 

timber harvest, and the development of 

sea ports and residential property 

(Sound Science, 2007). 

Environmental History and Features of 

the Strait of Georgia 

The Strait of Georgia is that portion of 

the Georgia Basin that lies in Canada 

(Figure 1). The coastal drainage of the 

Strait of Georgia is bounded to the west 

and south by the Olympic and 

Vancouver Island mountains and to the 

north and east by the Cascade and Coast 

mountains. At sea level, the Strait has 

a mild maritime climate and is dryer 

than other parts of the coast because of 

the rain shadow effect of the Olympic 

and Vancouver Island mountains. 

The Strait of Georgia has a mean 

depth of 156 m (420 m maximum) and 

is bounded by narrow passages 

(Johnstone Strait and Cordero Channel 

to the north and Haro and Rosario straits 

to the south) and shallow submerged 

sills (minimum depth of 68 m (223 feet) 

to the north and 90 m (295 feet) to the 

south). The Strait of Georgia covers an 

area of approximately 6,800 km2 (2625 

sq miles)(Thomson, 1994), is 

approximately 220 km (137 miles) long, 

and varies from 18.5 to 55 km (12 to 34 

miles) in width (Tully and Dodimead, 

1957; Waldichuck, 1957). Both southern 

and northern approaches to the Strait of 

Georgia are through a maze of islands 

and channels, the San Juan and Gulf 

islands to the south and a series of 

islands to the north that extend for 240 

km (149 miles) to Queen Charlotte Strait 

(Tully and Dodimead, 1957). Both 

northern channels (Johnstone Strait and 

Cordero Channel) are from 1.5 to 3 km 

(0.9 to 1.9 miles) wide and are 

effectively two-way tidal falls, in which 

currents of 22–28 km/hr (12–15 knots) 

occur at peak flood (Tully and 

Dodimead, 1957). 

Freshwater inflows are dominated by 

the Fraser River, which accounts for 

roughly 80 percent of the freshwater 

entering the Strait of Georgia. Fraser 

River run-off and that of other large 

rivers on the mainland side of the Strait 

are driven by snow and glacier melt, 

and their peak discharge period is 

generally in June and July. Discharges 

from rivers that drain into the Strait of 

Georgia off Vancouver Island (such as 

the Chemainus, Cowichan, Campbell, 

and Puntledge rivers) peak during 

periods of intense precipitation, 

generally in November (Waldichuck, 

1957). 

Circulation in the Strait of Georgia 

occurs in a general counter-clockwise 

direction (Waldichuck, 1957). Tides, 

winds, and freshwater run-off are the 

primary forces for mixing, water 

exchange, and circulation. Tidal flow 

enters the Strait of Georgia 

predominantly from the south, creating 

vigorous mixing in the narrow, shallow 

straits and passes of the Strait of 

Georgia. The upper, brackish water layer 

in the Strait of Georgia is influenced by 

large freshwater run-off, and salinity in 

this layer varies from 5 to 25 practical 

salinity units (psu). Deep, high-salinity 

(33.5 to 34 psu), oceanic water enters 

the Strait of Georgia from the Strait of 

Juan de Fuca. The surface outflowing 

and deep inflowing water layers mix in 

the vicinity of the sills, creating the 

deep bottom layer in the Strait of 

Georgia. The basic circulation pattern in 

the southern Strait of Georgia is a 

southerly outflow of low-salinity surface 

water through the Rosario and Haro 

Straits (Crean et al., 1988), with the 

northerly inflow of high salinity oceanic 

water from the Strait of Juan de Fuca at 

the lowest depths. 

Marine habitat present in the Strait of 

Georgia includes two of the same types 

present in Puget Sound (kelp beds and 

eel grass beds) and five new habitat 

types. Total area of each habitat type is: 

estuarine marshes (3.82 km2 (1.47 mi2)), 

sandflats (90.4 km2 (34.9 mi2)), mudflats 

(155.1 km2 (59.9 mi2), rock-gravel 93.4 

km2 (36.1 mi2)), kelp beds (313.8 km2

(121.2 mi2), eel grass beds (659 km2 (254 

mi2)), and intertidal algae (93.4 km2

(36.1 mi2)) (Levings and Thom, 1994). 

Although much of the land draining 

into the Strait of Georgia is sparsely 

populated, the densely populated cities 

of Vancouver and Victoria are located 

here. Environment Canada (2005) 

reports that the population of the 

Georgia Basin has doubled between 

1970 and 2005. As in Puget Sound, 

human development of the area has 

caused ecosystem stress, including 

degraded water quality and loss of 

marsh and eel grass habitat 

(Transboundary Georgia Basin-Puget 

Sound Environmental Indicators 

Working Group, 2002). Filling, diking, 

water quality changes, and watershed 

modification have led to decreases in 

the amount of all habitat types (Levings 

and Thom, 1994). 

Life History, Biology, and Status of the 

Petitioned Species 

The life history, biology, and status of 

the petitioned species, summarized 

below, are described in detail in the 

draft status report (Drake et al., 2008) 

and Palsson et al. (2008). 

Bocaccio 

Bocaccio range from Punta Blanca, 

Baja California, to the Gulf of Alaska off 

Krozoff and Kodiak Islands, Alaska 

(Chen, 1971; Miller and Lea, 1972). 

Within this range, they are most 

common from Oregon to northern Baja 

California (Love et al., 2002). Bocaccio 

are elongate, laterally compressed fish 

with very large mouths (Love et al., 

2002). Their appearance often varies 

among individuals, with several 

common color variations. They are most 

frequently found between 50 and 250 m 

(160 and 820 feet) depth, but may be 

found as deep as 475 m (1,560 feet) (Orr 

et al., 2000). 

Copulation and fertilization occur in 

the fall, generally between August and 

November. Bocaccio larvae have 

relatively high dispersal potential, with 

a pelagic larval duration of 

approximately 155 days (Shanks and 

Eckert, 2005) and fecundity ranging 

from 20,000 to over 2 million eggs, 

considerably more than many other 

rockfish species (Love et al., 2002). 

Larvae and pelagic juveniles tend to be 

found close to the surface, occasionally 

associated with drifting kelp mats. Most 

bocaccio remain pelagic for 3.5 months 

prior to settling to shallow areas, 

although some may remain pelagic as 

long as 5.5 months. Several weeks after 

settlement, fish move to deeper waters 

in the range of 18 30 m (60 100 feet) 

where they are found on rocky reefs 

(Carr, 1983; Feder, 1974; Johnson, 2006; 

Love, 2008). Adults inhabit waters from 

12 478 m (40 1570 feet) depth but are 

most common at depths of 50–250 m 

(Feder, 1974; Love, 2002). While 

generally associated with hard substrata, 

adults do wander into mud flats. 

Bocaccio are also typically found well 

off the bottom (as much as 30 m (98 

feet)) (Love et al., 2002). Approximately 

50 percent of adults mature in 4 to 6 

years (MBC, 1987). 

Large adult bocaccio have more 

movement potential than smaller, more 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18521 

sedentary species of rockfishes, but their 

occurrence in the Georgia Basin seems 

to be limited to certain areas. Bocaccio 

made up 8 9 percent of the Puget Sound 

recreational catch in the late–1970s 

(Palsson et al., 2008), with the majority 

of fish caught in the areas around Point 

Defiance and the Tacoma Narrows in 

the South basin. Bocaccio have always 

been rare in the North Puget Sound 

surveys of the recreational shery (Drake 

et al., 2008). In the Strait of Georgia, 

bocaccio have been documented in 

some inlets, but records are sparse, 

isolated, and often based on anecdotal 

reports (COSEWIC, 2002). Although the 

relationship between bocaccio habitat 

preference and distribution in the 

Georgia Basin is not fully understood, 

the available information indicates that 

they are frequently found in areas 

lacking hard substrate. This may be due 

to their pelagic behavior (willingness to 

occupy areas higher in the water 

column) or availability of prey items. 

Adults are difficult to age, but are 

suspected to live as long as 54 years 

(Drake et al., 2008). Bocaccio have low 

productivity because successful 

recruitment requires rare climatic and 

oceanic conditions. Tolimeri and Levin 

(2005) estimate that these conditions 

occur only about 15 percent of the time. 

Bocaccio larvae are planktivores that 

feed on larval krill, diatoms, and 

dinoflagellates. Pelagic juveniles are 

opportunistic feeders, taking fish larvae, 

copepods, krill, and other prey. Larger 

juveniles and adults are primarily 

piscivores, eating other rockfishes, hake, 

sablefish, anchovies, lanternfishes, and 

squid. Chinook salmon, terns, and 

harbor seals are known predators of 

smaller bocaccio (Love et al. 2002). The 

main predators of adult bocaccio are 

marine mammals (COSEWIC, 2002). 

Yelloweye Rockfish 

Yelloweye rockfish range from 

northern Baja California to the Aleutian 

Islands, Alaska, but are most common 

from central California northward to the 

Gulf of Alaska (Clemens and Wilby, 

1961; Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Hart, 

1973; Love, 1996). They are among the 

largest of the rockfishes, up to 11 kg (25 

pounds), and easily recognizable by 

their bright yellow eyes and red-orange 

color (Love et al., 2002). Yelloweye 

rockfish occur in waters 25 to 475 m (80 

to 1,560 feet) deep (Orr et al., 2000), but 

are most commonly found between 91 

to 180 m (300 to 590 feet) depth (Love 

et al., 2002). Yelloweye rockfish are 

among the longest lived of rockfishes, 

living up to at least 118 years (Love, 

1996; Love et al., 2002; O’Connell and 

Funk, 1987). Yelloweye rockfish 

juveniles settle primarily in shallow, 

high relief zones, crevices, and sponge 

gardens (Love et al., 1991; Richards et 

al., 1985). As they grow and move to 

deeper waters, adults continue to 

associate with rocky, high relief areas 

(Carlson and Straty, 1981; Love et al., 

1991; O’Connell and Carlisle, 1993; 

Richards et al., 1985). Yelloweye 

rockfish can be found infrequently in 

aggregations, but are generally solitary, 

demersal residents with small home 

ranges (Coombs 1979; DeMott, 1983; 

Love et al., 2002). 

Yelloweye rockfish are less frequently 

observed in South Puget Sound than 

North Puget Sound (Miller and Borton, 

1980), likely due to the larger amount of 

rocky habitat in North Puget Sound. 

Yelloweye rockfish are distributed 

throughout the Strait of Georgia in 

northern Georgia Basin including areas 

around the Canadian Gulf Islands and 

the numerous inlets along the British 

Columbia coast (Yamanaka et al., 2006). 

Their distribution in these areas most 

frequently coincides with high relief, 

complex rocky habitats (Yamanaka et al. 

2006). 

Approximately 50 percent of adults 

are mature by 41 cm (16 inches) total 

length (about 6 years) (Love, 1996). 

Yelloweye rockfish store sperm for 

several months until fertilization occurs, 

commonly between the months of 

September and April, though fertilized 

individuals may be found in most 

months of the year, depending on where 

they are observed (Wyllie- Echeverria, 

1987). Fertilization periods tend to get 

later as one moves from south to north 

in their range (DeLacy et al., 1964; Hitz, 

1962; Lea et al., 1999; O’Connell 1987; 

Westrheim, 1975). Estimates of pelagic 

larval duration are not available for 

yelloweye rockfish, though we expect 

that it would be similar to or lower than 

that for bocaccio or canary rockfish (116 

155 days; Varanasi, 2007). Fecundity 

ranges from 1.2 to 2.7 million eggs, 

considerably more than many other 

rockfish species (Love et al., 2002). In 

Puget Sound, yelloweye rockfish are 

believed to fertilize eggs during the 

winter to summer months, giving birth 

early spring to late summer (Washington 

et al., 1978). Although yelloweye 

rockfish are generally thought to spawn 

once a year (MacGregor, 1970), a study 

in Puget Sound offered evidence of at 

least two spawning periods per year 

(Washington et al., 1978). 

Yelloweye rockfish are opportunistic 

feeders, targeting different food sources 

during different phases of their life 

history, with the early life stages having 

typical rockfish diets as described for 

bocaccio above. Because adult 

yelloweye attain such large sizes, they 

are able to handle much larger prey, 

including smaller yelloweye, and are 

preyed upon less frequently (Rosenthal 

et al., 1982). Typical prey of adult 

yelloweye rockfishes include sand 

lance, gadids, flatfishes, shrimps, crabs, 

and gastropods (Love et al., 2002; 

Yamanaka et al., 2006). Predators of 

yelloweye rockfish include salmon and 

orcas (Ford et al., 1998; Love et al., 

2002). 

Canary Rockfish 

Canary rockfish range between Punta 

Colnett, Baja California, and the 

Western Gulf of Alaska (Boehlert, 1980; 

Mecklenburg et al., 2002). Within this 

range, canary rockfish are most common 

off the coast of central Oregon 

(Richardson and Laroche, 1979). Adults 

are primarily orange with a pale grey or 

white background (Love et al., 2002). 

Canary rockfish primarily inhabit waters 

50 to 250 m (160 to 820 feet) deep (Orr 

et al., 2000), but may be found up to 425 

m (1,400 feet) depth (Boehlert, 1980). 

They can live to be 84 years old (Drake 

et al., 2008). Canary rockfish were once 

considered fairly common in the greater 

Puget Sound area (Holmberg, 1967). 

Female canary rockfish produce 

between 260,000 and 1.9 million eggs 

per year with larger females producing 

more eggs. Along the Pacific Coast, the 

relationship between egg production 

and female size does not seem to vary 

with geography (Gunderson, 1980; Love, 

2002). Canary rockfish larvae have 

relatively high dispersal potential, with 

a pelagic larval duration of 

approximately 116 days (Shanks and 

Eckert, 2005). Fertilization occurs as 

early as September off central California 

(Lea, 1999) but peaks in December 

(Phillips, 1960; Wyllie-Echeverria, 

1987), and parturition (birth) occurs 

between January and April and peaks in 

April (Phillips, 1960). Off the Oregon 

and Washington coasts, parturition 

occurs between September and March, 

with peaks in December and January 

(Barss, 1989; Wyllie Echeverria, 1987). 

In British Columbia, parturition occurs 

slightly later with the peak in February 

(Hart, 1973; Westrheim, 1975). Canary 

rockfish spawn once per year 

(Guillemot, 1985). 

Female canary rockfish grow larger 

and more quickly than do males 

(Lenarz, 1991; STAT, 1999), and growth 

does not vary with latitude (Boehlert, 

1980). A 58–cm (23–inch) long female is 

approximately 20 years of age; a male of 

the same age is about 53 cm (21 inches). 

Fish tend to move to deeper water as 

they grow larger (Vetter, 1997). While 

canary rockfish appear to be generally 

sedentary (Miller, 1973), tagging studies 

have shown that some individuals move 

up to 700 km (435 miles) over several 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18522 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

years (Lea, 1999; Love, 2002). Canary 

rockfish larvae are planktivores, feeding 

primarily on nauplii (crustacean larvae), 

other invertebrate eggs, and copepods 

(Moser, 1991; Love, 2002). Juveniles are 

zooplanktivores, feeding on crustaceans 

such as harpacticoids (an order of 

copepods), barnacle cyprids (final larval 

stage), and euphasiid eggs and larvae. 

Predators of juvenile canary rockfish 

include other fishes, especially 

rockfishes, lingcod, cabezon and 

salmon, as well as birds and porpoises 

(Ainley, 1981; Love, 1991; Miller, 1973; 

Morejohn, 1978; Roberts, 1979). Adult 

canary rockfish are planktivores/ 

carnivores, consuming euphasiids and 

other crustaceans and small fishes 

(Cailliet, 2000; Love, 2002). Predators of 

adult canary rockfish include yelloweye 

rockfish, lingcod, salmon, sharks, 

dolphins, seals (Antonelis Jr., 1980; 

Merkel, 1957; Morejohn, 1978; 

Rosenthal, 1982), and possibly river 

otters (Stevens, 1983). 

Miller and Borton (1980) describe 

canary rockfish as being associated with 

the various rocky and coarse habitats 

that occur throughout the basins of 

Puget Sound. The Committee on the 

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

(COSEWIC) (2007) reports that canary 

rockfish are broadly distributed 

throughout the Strait of Georgia. 

Greenstriped Rockfish 

Greenstriped rockfish range from 

Cedros Island, Baja California, to Green 

Island in the Gulf of Alaska. Within this 

range, greenstriped rockfish are 

common between British Columbia and 

Punta Colnett in northern Baja 

California (Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Hart, 

1973; Love et al., 2002). They are slim 

fish, with a distinctive color, and are 

unlikely to be mistaken for other 

rockfishes (Love et al., 2002). 

Greenstriped rockfish is a deep-water 

species that can inhabit waters from 52 

to 828 m (170 to 2,715 feet) in depth, 

but is most common between 100 and 

250 m (330 and 820 feet) depth (Orr et 

al., 2000). They are solitary fish, most 

often found resting on the bottom (Love 

et al., 2002). Male greenstriped rockfish 

can live to approximately 37 years of 

age, and females to approximately 28 

years of age (Love et al., 1990). 

Greenstriped rockfish females store 

sperm for several months until 

fertilization occurs, commonly between 

the months of February and May in 

areas north of California (O’Connell and 

Carlisle, 1993). Fertilized individuals 

are found earlier in more southerly areas 

(Lea et al., 1999). Greenstriped rockfish 

are generally believed to spawn once a 

year (Shaw and Gunderson, 2006), but 

some evidence of multiple spawnings 

has been reported (Love et al., 1990). 

Larvae are extruded at about 5 mm (0.2 

inch) length (Matarese et al., 1989) and 

remain pelagic for up to 2 months 

(Moser and Boehlert, 1991); settling at 

around 30 mm (1.2 inches) length 

(Johnson et al., 1997). Individual 

greenstriped rockfish of both sexes start 

to mature at 150 mm (6 inches) length 

and 5 years of age, with 50 percent 

maturity occurring at 230 mm (9 inches) 

and 7–10 years (Shaw and Gunderson, 

2006; Wyllie Echeverria, 1987). Females 

produce 11,000 to 300,000 eggs 

annually. 

Greenstriped rockfish are active and 

opportunistic feeders, targeting different 

food sources during different phases of 

their life history. Larvae are diurnal, 

with nauplii, eggs, and copepods 

representing important food sources 

(Moser and Boehlert, 1991; Sumida et 

al., 1985). Greenstriped rockfish adults 

are generally considered to be 

residential and may feed nocturnally, 

consuming bigger crustaceans, fishes, 

and cephalopods during those times 

(Allen, 1982). Juveniles are preyed upon 

by birds, nearshore fishes, salmon, and 

porpoises (Ainley et al., 1993; Love et 

al., 1991; Morejohn et al., 1978). Adults 

have been recovered in the stomachs of 

sharks, porpoises, salmon, seals, and 

possibly river otters (Antonelis Jr. and 

Fiscus, 1980; Merkel, 1957; Morejohn et 

al., 1978). 

Greenstriped rockfish are distributed 

throughout Puget Sound, often 

associated with sand and coarse 

substrate (Miller and Borton, 1980; 

Palsson et al., 2008). Palsson et al. 

(2008) report that greenstriped rockfish 

are occasionally caught in the western 

Strait of Juan de Fuca. Greenstriped 

rockfish are occasionally reported from 

North Puget Sound, but the low 

occurrence of reports may be due to the 

difficulty in surveying the rocky 

habitats of this area by conventional 

trawl sampling. COSEWIC has not 

undertaken a greenstriped rockfish 

status review in Canada. 

Redstripe Rockfish 

Redstripe rockfish occur from 

southern Baja California to the Bering 

Sea, Alaska (Hart, 1973; Love et al., 

2002). They are a streamlined fish with 

a red, pink, or tan color (Love et al., 

2002). Redstripe rockfish have been 

reported between 12 and 425 m (39 and 

1,400 feet) in depth, but 95 percent 

occur between 150 and 275 m (490 and 

900 feet) (Love et al., 2002). 

Redstripe rockfish may reach 55 years 

of age (Munk, 2001). They are most 

commonly found on a variety of 

substrates, from hard, high-relief reefs to 

sand-cobble interfaces. Juveniles settle 

to the bottom of sand-cobble substrates 

(Moser and Boehlert, 1991) and move as 

adults onto deeper rocky reefs and lowrelief rubble bottoms. Redstripe rockfish 

can be found alone or in aggregations, 

usually near the sea-floor bottom (Love 

et al., 2002b). 

Estimates of pelagic larval duration 

and fecundity with which to infer 

dispersal potential are not available for 

redstripe rockfish, though we expect 

that larval duration would be similar to 

or slightly lower than that for bocaccio 

or canary rockfish (116 155 days; 

Varanasi, 2007). Approximately 50 

percent of adults mature at 28 to 29 cm 

(11 to 11.5 inches) total length (Garrison 

and Miller, 1982). Redstripe rockfish 

females store sperm for several months 

until fertilization. Fertilization occurs 

between the months of April and May 

in areas north of California (O’Connell, 

1987; Shaw, 1999; Wyllie-Echeverria, 

1987). Larvae are extruded after a 

typical gestation period of a couple of 

months, peaking in July for British 

Columbia (Westrheim, 1975) and in 

June for Oregon (Shaw, 1999; WyllieEcheverria, 1987). Redstripe rockfish 

spawn once per year (Shaw, 1999). 

Larvae are extruded at about 5.4 mm 

length (0.2 inches) (Matarese et al., 

1989) and remain pelagic for up to 2 

months (Moser and Boehlert, 1991). 

Recorded size at first maturity for 

redstripe rockfish is 210 to 220 mm (8.2 

to 8.6 inches) length (Shaw, 1999). Size 

at 50 percent maturity was recorded in 

the 1970s to be 280 and 290 mm (11.0 

and 11.4 inches) (Westrheim, 1975) for 

males and females, respectively, 

differing from samples collected in the 

1990s (243 and 262 mm (9.5 and 10.0 

inches)) for males and females (about 7 

years old), respectively (Shaw, 1999). It 

is not known whether this represents 

changes in size at maturity over time or 

differential representation of 

individuals that geographically mature 

at larger sizes. 

Redstripe rockfish are active and 

opportunistic feeders, and show feeding 

habits similar to the greenstriped 

rockfish. Larvae are diurnal, with 

nauplii, eggs, and copepods 

representing important food sources 

(Moser and Boehlert, 1991; Sumida et 

al., 1985). Juveniles are diurnal 

zooplanktivores and feed mainly on 

calanoid copepods and barnacle cyprids 

(Allen, 1982; Gaines and Roughgarden, 

1987; Love et al., 1991). Adults may also 

feed nocturnally, consuming bigger 

crustaceans, fishes, and cephalopods 

(Allen, 1982). Juvenile redstripe 

rockfish are preyed upon by birds, 

nearshore fishes, salmon, and porpoises 

(Ainley et al., 1993; Love et al., 1991; 

Morejohn et al. 1978). Redstripe 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18523 

rockfish adults have been recovered in 

the stomachs of sharks, porpoises, 

salmon, seals, and possibly river otters 

(Antonelis Jr. and Fiscus, 1980; Merkel, 

1957; Morejohn et al., 1978). 

Redstripe rockfish are associated with 

a wide range of rocky and coarse 

habitats in a broad range of depths 

throughout most basins of Puget Sound 

(Palsson et al., 2008). Palsson et al. 

(2008) report that redstripe rockfish are 

commonly caught during trawl surveys 

in the central Strait of Juan de Fuca, 

channels of the San Juan Archipelago, 

in the central Strait of Georgia, and in 

Admiralty Inlet. COSEWIC has not 

undertaken a redstripe rockfish status 

review in Canada. 

DPS Consideration 

As described above, 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. The 

population segment may be considered 

discrete if it is markedly separated from 

other populations of the same taxon as 

a consequence of physical, 

physiological, ecological, or behavioral 

factors. Quantitative measures of genetic 

differences may provide powerful direct 

evidence of this separation, because the 

presence of distinct genetic traits 

indicates that a population segment may 

be reproductively isolated. In addition 

to genetic information, various aspects 

of a population segment’s biology, life 

history, and habitat may provide 

evidence of discreteness. For example, 

populations of a sedentary species may 

have limited reproductive exchange 

with other populations, and populations 

occupying habitat that is physically 

isolating may have little reproductive 

exchange with other isolated 

populations. This reproductive isolation 

over time may result in discreteness. For 

example, Yamanaka et al. (2006) 

concluded that for yelloweye rockfish, 

there are at least two distinct 

populations with limited genetic 

exchange occupying coastal North 

American waters between southeast 

Alaska and Oregon. The authors 

identified one population occupying the 

entire Pacific Coast and an inland 

population occupying the Strait of 

Georgia and possibly other inland 

marine waters including the Queen 

Charlotte Strait and Puget Sound. 

There is limited direct genetic 

information comparing coastal 

populations of the petitioned rockfish 

species to populations within the 

Georgia Basin. In addition to that 

limited information, where available, 

we considered several lines of evidence 

to inform the consideration of 

discreteness of population segments 

within the Georgia Basin. These 

included genetic information from 

coastal populations of the petitioned 

species and the degree to which such 

information indicates stock structure 

among coastal populations; genetic 

information comparing Georgia Basin 

and coastal populations of other west 

coast rockfish species with life histories 

similar to the petitioned species; lifehistory traits of the petitioned species 

that could lead to reproductive 

isolation, and thus discreteness, of 

Georgia Basin populations (such as livebearing of young, internal fertilization, 

short-pelagic larval stages, and fidelity 

to habitat); and characteristics of the 

species’ habitat that could lead to 

physical isolation and thus discreteness 

of Georgia Basin populations (such as 

discontinuity of rocky habitats, 

bathymetric barriers, and current 

patterns and physical barriers that limit 

exchange of coastal and inland waters). 

The discussion below describes 

evidence of discreteness that may be 

relevant to any of the five rockfish 

species. The later discussion of 

individual species describes the 

considerations relevant to the 

discreteness of each individual species. 

As described above under the DPS 

policy, in addition to being discrete, a 

population segment must also be 

significant to qualify as a DPS. The 

discussion of the policy above describes 

four characteristics that may make a 

discrete population segment significant. 

In the case of the petitioned rockfish 

species, the most relevant of these 

characteristics is the persistence of the 

discrete population segment in a unique 

ecological setting. The discussion below 

describes evidence of significance that 

may be relevant to any of the five 

rockfish species. The later discussion of 

individual species describes any 

additional considerations relevant to the 

significance of each individual species. 

DPS Considerations Relevant to 

Discreteness of All Petitioned Species 

Because there is little direct genetic 

information on the discreteness of most 

of the petitioned species in Puget Sound 

or the Georgia Basin, we considered 

genetic information on other rockfish 

species in Puget Sound and Georgia 

Basin with life histories similar to the 

petitioned species. In particular, NMFS’ 

2001 status review of copper, quillback, 

and brown rockfish (Stout et al., 2001) 

concluded that there were DPSs of these 

rockfish in Puget Sound Proper based 

on genetic information. For copper 

rockfish, allozyme and DNA data from 

Seeb (1998) showed no particular 

genetic divergence for Puget Sound 

Proper specimens, but microsatellite 

data from Wimberger (in prep.) and 

Buonaccorsi et al. (2002) showed large 

differences between populations from 

within Puget Sound Proper and 

populations found outside Puget Sound 

Proper. Wimberger sampled copper 

rockfish from California, British 

Columbia, the San Juan Islands, the 

Canadian Gulf Islands, Admiralty Inlet, 

Central Puget Sound, and Hood Canal 

(the latter three populations are found 

within Puget Sound Proper). Wimberger 

found significant divergence between 

both Central Puget Sound and 

Admiralty Inlet populations, and all 

populations found outside of Puget 

Sound Proper. Equal divergence was 

found among Puget Sound Proper 

populations compared with San Juan, 

Gulf Island, and coastal populations as 

well. 

Buonaccorsi et al. (2002) used a 

different set of microsatellite loci to 

compare populations of copper rockfish 

from Puget Sound Proper, Canadian 

Gulf Islands, Queen Charlotte Islands, 

and coastal California. They also found 

highly significant divergence among all 

sampling sites, indicating a clear 

divergence between populations within 

Puget Sound Proper and the Canadian 

Gulf Islands (in the Strait of Georgia). 

Buonaccorsi et al. (2002) also identified 

unique alleles in Puget Sound Proper, 

further evidence for isolation of Puget 

Sound Proper populations from other 

neighboring regions. 

In addition to genetic information, 

Stout et al. (2001) pointed out that 

copper rockfish are live-bearing and 

have internal fertilization, a short 

pelagic larval stage, and high habitat 

fidelity. Copper rockfish are also 

considered to be non-migratory 

(Buonaccorsi et al., 2002). All of these 

traits, combined with the physical 

isolation of Puget Sound Proper, could 

lead to reproductive isolation of copper 

rockfish in Puget Sound Proper. 

For quillback rockfish, Seeb (1998) 

sampled four sites within Puget Sound 

Proper, one in the San Juan Islands (in 

the North Basin of Puget Sound), and 

coastal sites from California, 

Washington, and Alaska. Like copper 

rockfish, quillback rockfish are 

sedentary and show high fidelity to 

their home sites (Love et al., 2002). Both 

allozyme and RFLP analyses indicated 

large differences in allele frequencies 

between Puget Sound Proper and the 

San Juan Islands. When the Puget 

Sound Proper samples were removed 

from the analysis, however, no 

significant divergence was found among 

the remaining populations (suggesting 

reproductive exchange among 

populations in California, Washington, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18524 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Alaska, and the San Juan Islands, but 

reproductive isolation of the Puget 

Sound proper population). Wimberger 

(in prep.) found significant differences 

in microsatellite allele frequencies 

between Puget Sound Proper and the 

San Juan Islands. The San Juan Island 

population was more similar to Sitka, 

Alaska, than it was to Puget Sound 

Proper. 

Brown rockfish have a distribution 

that is very different from copper and 

quillback rockfishes, as they are found 

in Puget Sound Proper but only rarely 

occur in North Puget Sound, Georgia 

Basin, or the Washington and Oregon 

coastline (Stout et al., 2001). Genetic 

data support a divergence between 

Puget Sound Proper and California 

populations (Seeb, 1998). Buonaccorsi 

et al. (2002) sampled three sites within 

Puget Sound Proper, and compared 

them to coastal populations ranging 

from California to Mexico. They found 

significant divergence among the 

populations, and even between two of 

the Puget Sound Proper populations. 

Tagging studies indicate that juveniles 

and subadults may have relatively small 

home ranges (Love et al., 2002). Puget 

Sound Proper populations exhibited 

extremely low genetic divergence 

compared to coastal samples, which 

suggested to the authors a potential 

founder effect combined with 

reproductive isolation, and/or a low 

effective population size. 

In addition to genetic information for 

copper, quillback, and brown rockfish, 

there is genetic information available 

regarding some of the petitioned species 

that can help inform consideration of 

DPS structure of the other petitioned 

species. For the petitioned species, there 

is genetic information for yelloweye 

rockfish (Yamanaka et al., 2006 and R. 

Withler (unpublished data as cited in 

Drake et al., 2008)) indicating genetic 

differences between fish from inland 

marine waters (Queen Charlotte Strait 

and Georgia Basin) and the outer coast. 

In addition to genetic information that 

is available for some rockfish species in 

the Georgia Basin, there are physical 

features of the Georgia Basin that affect 

all rockfish species in similar ways, 

potentially contributing to reproductive 

isolation and thus discreteness. The 

waters of the Georgia Basin are isolated 

from coastal waters by land masses (the 

Olympic Peninsula and Vancouver 

Island); underwater sills limit the 

movement of water, sediment, and 

bottom-dwelling species such as 

rockfish; and internal currents limit the 

exchange of water between the Basin 

and coastal areas. These geographic 

features tend to contain the dispersal of 

larval fish and the migration of adult 

fish within the Basin, and even within 

smaller areas within the Basin, such as 

Puget Sound Proper. 

When the available genetic 

information was considered in concert 

with the ecological features of Puget 

Sound and the Georgia Basin and the 

life histories of the petitioned 

rockfishes, the BRT drew two general 

conclusions. First, the petitioned 

rockfishes in the inland marine waters 

(Puget Sound and the greater Georgia 

Basin) are likely to be reproductively 

isolated and genetically distinct from 

rockfish from the rest of the Pacific 

Coast. Second, and consistent with the 

findings of Stout et al. (2001), the more 

sedentary rockfishes are likely to be 

further reproductively isolated within 

Puget Sound Proper (the area that was 

the focus of the original listing petition). 

The more mobile rockfish are likely to 

be reproductively isolated within the 

Georgia Basin, but are not likely to be 

reproductively isolated within Puget 

Sound Proper. 

DPS Considerations Relevant to 

Significance of All Petitioned Species 

As described above in more detail, all 

five of the petitioned rockfish species 

occupy marine waters from California to 

Alaska, including coastal waters and the 

inland waters of the Georgia Basin. 

Throughout this range, the Georgia 

Basin is unique, for several reasons. The 

waters of the Georgia Basin are less 

saline than coastal waters because of the 

quantity of fresh water flowing into the 

Basin, particularly from the Fraser 

River. The greater amount of fresh water 

also results in stratification of water by 

salinity in the Georgia Basin to a greater 

extent than in coastal waters. Land 

masses and shallow sills limit the 

movement of deep-dwelling fish among 

subbasins within the Georgia Basin, as 

well as the movement of sediments and 

nutrients to a much greater extent than 

in coastal waters. In addition, the inland 

waters of the Georgia Basin are 

protected by the land features of the 

Olympic Peninsula and Vancouver 

Island, and by numerous islands within 

the Basin, which interrupts waves and 

currents and results in a less energetic 

environment than the coast. These 

features make the ecological setting of 

the Georgia Basin region substantially 

different than other regions in the range 

of these rockfish species. 

While the Straits of Georgia and Juan 

de Fuca and North Puget Sound are 

relatively wide bodies of water with 

numerous islands, Puget Sound Proper 

is composed of narrow basins separated 

by shallow sills. The geographic and 

bathymetric features that constrain 

rockfish movement in the Georgia Basin 

are even more pronounced in Puget 

Sound Proper. The presence of rocky 

habitat is very limited in Puget Sound 

Proper, with most bottom substrates 

comprised of soft sediments, ranging 

from coarse sands to fine silts and clay. 

Rockfish in Puget Sound Proper are 

either limited to the small amount of 

rocky habitat or, like bocaccio, 

greenstriped rockfish, and redstripe 

rockfish, make use of habitat with softer 

bottom substrates. 

DPS Conclusions by Species 

Bocaccio 

In 2002, our Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center conducted a status 

review for bocaccio (MacCall and He, 

2002), focusing on a Southern DPS 

occupying the coastal area from the 

Oregon/California border to 

approximately 322 km (200 miles) south 

of the Mexico/U.S. border. The status 

review concluded that at least two DPSs 

of bocaccio were present off the coast of 

the Western United States and Mexico, 

the Southern DPS and at least one 

additional DPS (the Northern) to the 

north. The authors (MacCall and He, 

2002) did not consider whether inland 

stocks of bocaccio in the northern 

portion of this species range might be 

separate DPSs or what their extinction 

risk might be, because only the southern 

DPS was the subject of an ESA petition 

at that time. That review resulted in a 

determination that listing of the 

southern DPS of bocaccio was not 

warranted. 

No published studies have compared 

genetic characteristics of bocaccio from 

Puget Sound and outer coastal areas, but 

there have been several studies of 

genetic variation in bocaccio along the 

outer coast. Wishard et al. (1980) 

examined allozyme variation in nine 

coastal sampling locations ranging from 

Baja California to southern Oregon, with 

sample sizes ranging from 12 to over 

100 individuals per locality. They found 

two highly polymorphic loci and three 

others with low levels of variation. They 

found overlapping confidence intervals 

for allele frequencies across sampling 

locations and no evidence for 

population differentiation. More 

recently, Matala et al. (2004) examined 

genetic variation in bocaccio at seven 

microsatellite loci in samples from eight 

locations from Baja California to British 

Columbia, including both sides of Point 

Conception. Samples were adults, 

except in the Santa Barbara channel 

where age–0 fish were taken. The results 

indicate that coastal bocaccio are not a 

single breeding population. A largescale pattern of isolation by distance 

was not observed in the data. However, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18525 

using a series of comparisons of smaller, 

geographically contiguous subsets of 

samples, the authors found some 

evidence that geographically proximate 

samples tended to be more similar 

genetically. The authors suggested that 

these results might best be explained by 

the interacting effects of oceanographic 

patterns and the species’ life history, 

both of which result in some exchange 

between populations in close proximity, 

but limit exchange over larger distances. 

Some aspects of bocaccio life history 

indicate that populations in the Georgia 

Basin might not be discrete from coastal 

populations, in particular the ability of 

adult bocaccio to move over long 

distances and the modest levels of 

differentiation among coastal 

populations described above. For this 

reason, and because of the lack of direct 

genetic information comparing inland 

and coastal populations, the BRT 

considered it possible that Georgia 

Basin populations are not discrete from 

coastal populations, that their presence 

in the Georgia Basin might be the result 

of a rare recruitment/migration event 

from coastal stocks. If that were the 

case, bocaccio age structure in the Basin 

would be dominated by a single year 

class. However, available size frequency 

data provide evidence that there are 

multiple year classes spread out over 

the available time series (MacCall, 

2008). In addition, coastal bocaccio are 

dominated by a strong 1999 year class, 

but bocaccio in the Georgia Basin are 

not, providing further evidence against 

a hypothesis of a single population with 

frequent reproductive exchange. 

The BRT concluded that the best 

available scientific information instead 

suggests that bocaccio populations in 

the Georgia Basin are discrete from 

coastal populations. Information 

supporting this conclusion includes the 

presence of multiple year classes within 

the Georgia Basin (indicating that 

bocaccio in the Basin are an 

independently reproducing entity and 

not the result of a rare recruitment/ 

migration event from coastal stocks); the 

lack of a strong 1999 year class in the 

Georgia Basin, compared to coastal 

populations which do have a strong 

1999 year class (suggesting separate 

recruitment regimes acting on Georgia 

Basin populations compared to coastal 

populations and also suggesting 

demographic independence); and the 

presence of large sexually mature 

individuals (suggesting the capacity for 

independent reproduction). 

Inferences from the genetic evidence 

for discreteness of copper, quillback, 

brown, and yelloweye rockfish in the 

Georgia Basin also supports a 

conclusion that bocaccio in the Georgia 

Basin are discrete from coastal 

populations. Similarities in life histories 

between bocaccio and the four species 

for which we do have genetic 

information include: live-bearing of 

young, pelagic larval and juvenile 

stages, and eventual settlement to 

benthic habitats as fish reach adulthood. 

All of these species also consume 

similar prey items and spend at least 

some time in association with coarse 

substrates. 

For the above reasons, the BRT 

concluded that the weight of the 

evidence supports the existence of a 

discrete population segment of bocaccio 

in the Georgia Basin more than it 

supports the existence of a single 

coastal/Georgia Basin population. 

The BRT concluded there was no 

available information to support a 

conclusion that population segments of 

bocaccio within the Georgia Basin are 

discrete from one another. The factors 

supporting a conclusion that there are 

not discrete population segments of 

bocaccio within the Georgia Basin 

include the apparent similarity in age 

structure across the Basin, the fact that 

mature reproductive age adults have 

been found throughout the Basin, the 

fact that suitable habitat is spread 

throughout the Basin in a pattern that 

would allow movement of adults within 

the Basin, and the fact that bocaccio 

adults are able to move over relatively 

long distances (i.e., relative to other 

rockfish species). Because of this 

species potential for movement and 

wide habitat availability throughout 

Georgia Basin, the BRT did not feel that 

the evidence of within Georgia Basin 

genetic differences for copper, 

quillback, and brown rockfishes 

discussed above was relevant to 

bocaccio. 

Under the DPS policy, having 

concluded that there is likely a discrete 

population segment of Georgia Basin 

bocaccio we must next consider 

whether the discrete population 

segment is significant to the species to 

which it belongs. As described above, 

the Georgia Basin is a unique ecological 

setting for all west coast rockfish. In 

addition, unlike coastal bocaccio, which 

are most frequently found in association 

with rocks and boulder fields, bocaccio 

in the Georgia Basin have been 

frequently found in areas with sand and 

mud substrate. We therefore conclude 

that the discrete population segment of 

boccacio in the Georgia Basin is also 

significant and thus a DPS (Figure 1). 

In its previous status review, 

described above, NMFS identified two 

DPSs of coastal bocaccio (MacCall and 

He, 2002). The Georgia Basin bocaccio 

DPS identified in this draft status 

review would represent a third bocaccio 

DPS, distinct from both the southern 

and northern coastal DPSs identified in 

the previous review. 

Yelloweye Rockfish 

No published studies have compared 

genetic characteristics of yelloweye 

rockfish from Puget Sound and outer 

coastal areas. A Canadian study 

(Yamanaka et al., 2006) using nine 

microsatellite loci in yelloweye rockfish 

collected from Oregon to southeast 

Alaska found small allele frequency 

differences among all the coastal 

samples; however, three samples from 

the inside waters of the Strait of Georgia 

and Queen Charlotte Strait had 

significantly reduced levels of genetic 

variability and formed a distinctive 

genetic cluster. The authors suggested 

that these results imply restricted gene 

flow between inland and coastal 

populations and a lower effective size 

for populations within the Strait of 

Georgia. Subsequently, samples taken in 

2005 2007 from waters between 

Vancouver Island and Mainland British 

Columbia have been screened at the 

same nine polymorphic microsatellite 

loci (R. Withler, personal 

communication, July 2008). Preliminary 

analysis of these new samples shows 

that these patterns remain consistent: all 

the samples from inland waters form a 

coherent genetic cluster, and insideoutside comparisons typically yield 

much higher values of genetic 

differentiation than do comparisons of 

two coastal samples or two inland 

samples. In the north, there appears to 

be a fairly sharp transition between 

inland and coastal forms in the vicinity 

of the Gordon Channel. Whether a 

similar pattern occurs in the south is not 

known, as no samples from Puget Sound 

have been analyzed and only a single 

fish was collected from the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca. Nevertheless, these results 

suggest that yelloweye rockfish from the 

rest of the Georgia Basin are also likely 

to be genetically differentiated from the 

coastal population. 

Several other lines of evidence 

support a conclusion that yelloweye 

rockfish in the Georgia Basin are 

discrete from coastal populations of 

yelloweye rockfish. Two aspects of the 

life history of yelloweye rockfish 

discussed earlier favor genetic and 

potentially demographic isolation from 

coastal populations. First, as both adults 

and juveniles, yelloweye rockfish are 

tightly associated with rocky substrata 

(or invertebrate prey associated with 

hard substrate). Such substrata are 

infrequent and patchy in distribution in 

North Puget Sound and the Georgia 

Strait, and are very rare in Puget Sound 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18526 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Proper. Second, yelloweye rockfish 

show very limited movement as adults. 

These two aspects of their life history, 

combined with the retentive patterns of 

circulation of the Georgia Basin, support 

a conclusion that yelloweye rockfish in 

the Georgia Basin are discrete from 

coastal populations of yelloweye 

rockfish. 

Inferences from the genetic evidence 

for discreteness of copper, quillback, 

and brown rockfish in the Georgia Basin 

also support a conclusion that 

yelloweye rockfish in the Georgia Basin 

are discrete from coastal populations. 

Similarities in life histories between 

yelloweye and the three species for 

which we do have genetic information 

include: live-bearing of young, pelagic 

larval and juvenile stages, and eventual 

settlement to benthic habitats as fish 

reach adulthood. All of these species 

also consume similar prey items and 

spend at least some time in association 

with coarse substrates. 

For the above reasons, the BRT 

concluded that the weight of the 

evidence supports the existence of a 

discrete population segment of 

yelloweye in the Georgia Basin more 

than it supports the existence of a single 

coastal/Georgia Basin population. 

The BRT concluded there was no 

available information to support a 

conclusion that population segments of 

yelloweye within the Georgia Basin are 

discrete from one another. The BRT also 

concluded that it was unlikely that the 

small amount of rocky habitat within in 

Puget Sound Proper would be able to 

support a self sustaining population of 

yelloweye rockfish. Since the majority 

of yelloweye habitat occurs in North 

Puget Sound and in the Strait of Georgia 

, the BRT did not feel that the evidence 

of within Georgia Basin genetic 

differences for copper, quillback, and 

brown rockfishes discussed above was 

relevant to yelloweye rockfish. 

Under the DPS policy, having 

concluded that there is likely a discrete 

population segment of Georgia Basin 

yelloweye, we must next consider 

whether the discrete population 

segment is significant to the species to 

which it belongs. As described above, 

the Georgia Basin is a unique ecological 

setting for all west coast rockfish, 

satisfying the significance criterion of 

the DPS policy and supporting a 

conclusion that the discrete population 

segment of yelloweye in the Georgia 

Basin is also significant and thus a DPS. 

Although the BRT did not examine 

additional DPS delineations among 

coastal populations of yelloweye 

rockfish, the BRT findings support a 

conclusion that the coastal populations 

constitute at least one additional DPS. 

As the BRT concluded, coastal 

populations are discrete from Georgia 

Basin populations. Because coastal 

populations occupy the majority of the 

species’ range (as described above under 

Life History, Biology, and Status of the 

Petitioned Species), they would also 

certainly meet the DPS requirement of 

being significant to the taxon. Therefore, 

we conclude that coastal populations 

constitute at least one additional 

yelloweye rockfish DPS. 

Canary Rockfish 

No published studies have compared 

genetic characteristics of canary rockfish 

from Puget Sound and outer coastal 

areas. The allozyme study mentioned 

above (Wishard et al., 1980), which 

examined large samples from 8 eight 

coastal locations in northern California, 

Oregon, and Washington, found low 

levels of heterozygosity in this species 

and some evidence for stock structure. 

In particular, samples taken south of 

Cape Blanco (southern Oregon) lack an 

allele that occurs at low frequency in 

populations to the north. 

The BRT concluded that the best 

available scientific information suggests 

that canary rockfish populations in the 

Georgia Basin are discrete from coastal 

populations. Canary rockfish 

populations were historically most 

abundant in South Puget Sound, which 

is the basin in Puget Sound furthest 

from coastal waters, and is separated 

from coastal waters by three sills, which 

can present barriers to migration. 

Inferences from the genetic evidence for 

discreteness of copper, quillback, 

brown, and yelloweye rockfish in the 

Georgia Basin also support a conclusion 

that canary rockfish in the Georgia Basin 

are discrete from coastal populations. 

Similarities in life histories between 

canary rockfish and the four species for 

which we do have genetic information 

include: live-bearing of young, pelagic 

larval and juvenile stages, and eventual 

settlement to benthic habitats as fish 

reach adulthood. All of these species 

also consume similar prey items and 

spend at least some time in association 

with coarse substrates. 

For the above reasons, the BRT 

concluded that the weight of the 

evidence supports the existence of a 

discrete population segment of canary 

rockfish in the Georgia Basin more than 

it supports the existence of a single 

coastal/Georgia Basin population. 

The BRT concluded there was no 

available information to support a 

conclusion that population segments of 

canary rockfish within the Georgia 

Basin are discrete from one another. 

Because of this species potential for 

movement, the BRT did not feel that the 

evidence of within Georgia Basin 

genetic differences for copper, 

quillback, and brown rockfishes 

discussed above was relevant to canary 

rockfish. 

Under the DPS policy, having 

concluded that there is likely a discrete 

population segment of Georgia Basin 

canary rockfish we must next consider 

whether it is significant to the species 

to which it belongs. As described above, 

the Georgia Basin is a unique ecological 

setting for all west coast rockfish, 

satisfying the significance criterion of 

the DPS policy and supporting a 

conclusion that the discrete population 

segment of canary rockfish in the 

Georgia Basin is also significant and 

thus a DPS. 

Although the BRT did not examine 

additional DPS delineations among 

coastal populations of canary rockfish, 

the BRT findings support a conclusion 

that the coastal populations constitute at 

least one additional DPS. As the BRT 

concluded, coastal populations are 

discrete from Georgia Basin 

populations. Because coastal 

populations occupy the majority of the 

species’ range (as described above under 

Life History, Biology, and Status of the 

Petitioned Species), they would also 

certainly meet the DPS requirement of 

being significant to the taxon. Therefore, 

we conclude that coastal populations 

constitute at least one additional canary 

rockfish DPS. 

Redstripe Rockfish 

No published studies have examined 

population genetic structure of redstripe 

rockfish in the Northeast Pacific. The 

BRT concluded that the best available 

scientific information supported a 

conclusion that the redstripe rockfish 

population segment in Puget Sound 

Proper is discrete from other redstripe 

rockfish populations in the rest of 

Georgia Basin and in coastal waters. 

Compared to other rockfish species, 

redstripe rockfish tend to occur in the 

mud/sand habitat that characterizes 

much of Puget Sound Proper. Due to the 

relatively deep habitat occupied by 

adult redstripe rockfish, the shallow 

sills of Puget Sound Proper would 

present an obstacle to northward 

migration of this species. Inferences 

from the genetic evidence for 

discreteness of copper, quillback, and 

brown rockfish in the Georgia Basin also 

support a conclusion that redstripe 

rockfish in Puget Sound Proper are 

discrete from other populations in the 

Georgia Basin. Similarities in life 

histories between redstripe rockfish and 

those three species, for which we do 

have genetic information include: livebearing of young, pelagic larval and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18527 

juvenile stages, and eventual settlement 

to benthic habitats as fish reach 

adulthood. All of these species also 

consume similar prey items and spend 

at least some time in association with 

coarse substrates. 

Under the DPS policy, having 

concluded that there is likely a discrete 

population segment of Puget Sound 

Proper redstripe rockfish we must next 

consider whether the discrete 

population segment is significant to the 

species to which it belongs. As 

described above, Puget Sound Proper is 

a unique ecological setting for all west 

coast rockfish. In addition, the BRT 

noted that historical records indicated a 

long-standing presence of this species in 

Puget Sound Proper, lending further 

support to the conclusion that the Puget 

Sound Proper population segment is 

significant to the redstripe rockfish 

species. We therefore conclude that 

restripe rockfish in Puget Sound Proper 

satisfy the significance criterion of the 

DPS policy and should thus be 

considered a DPS (Figure 1). 

Although the BRT did not examine 

additional DPS delineations among 

coastal populations of redstripe 

rockfish, the BRT findings support a 

conclusion that the coastal populations 

constitute at least one additional DPS. 

As the BRT concluded, coastal 

populations are discrete from Georgia 

Basin populations. Because coastal 

populations occupy the majority of the 

species’ range (as described above under 

Life History, Biology, and Status of the 

Petitioned Species), they would also 

certainly meet the DPS requirement of 

being significant to the taxon. Therefore, 

we conclude that coastal populations 

constitute at least one additional 

redstripe rockfish DPS. 

Greenstriped Rockfish 

Very little genetic information is 

available for greenstriped rockfish. A 

preliminary study of mitochondrial 

DNA control region sequences (J. Hess, 

unpublished data) compared data from 

coastal samples (British Columbia, 

Washington, and California) and 

samples collected from the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca. Preliminary results are 

consistent with those for coastal 

populations of other rockfish species: 

most haplotypes shared by more than 

one individual were found in all 

populations sampled, and the only 

significant pair wise comparison was 

Washington coast vs. California. 

However, sample sizes were low (12–40 

individuals), so power to detect 

differences was also low. Furthermore, 

because no samples were available from 

Puget Sound Proper, this preliminary 

study provided no information about 

the relationship between greenstriped 

rockfish in Puget Sound and the Pacific 

coast. 

Like redstripe rockfish, greenstriped 

rockfish tend to occur in the mud/sand 

habitat that characterizes much of Puget 

Sound Proper. Also similar to redstripe 

rockfish, the BRT felt that the shallow 

sills of Puget Sound Proper might 

present a migration obstacle to 

greenstriped rockfish. Some available 

information supports this conclusion, 

while other information suggests the 

sills might not present a migration 

obstacle to this species. Other 

information supporting a Puget Sound 

Proper DPS includes the fact that this 

species does not appear to occur in a 

large area north of Admiralty Inlet and 

south of the San Juan Islands, suggesting 

a distribution gap between the Puget 

Sound Proper area and the rest of the 

Georgia Basin and the coast. The BRT 

also found no compelling information to 

suggest that populations of greenstriped 

rockfish in Puget Sound Proper would 

be any less discrete from other Georgia 

Basin populations than was the case for 

the previously reviewed species (Stout 

et al., 2001). The only information that 

was contrary to a Puget Sound Proper 

DPS was the possibility that the large 

intra-annual variation in the apparent 

abundance of the species in Puget 

Sound Proper could reflect periodic 

immigration from other areas. 

Ultimately, the BRT largely relied on the 

information from the other rockfish 

species, particularly the previous status 

review of copper, quillback, and brown 

rockfish (Stout et al., 2001), to conclude 

there is likely a Puget Sound Proper 

DPS of greenstriped rockfish. 

Similarities in life histories between 

greenstriped rockfish and those three 

species, for which we do have genetic 

information include: live-bearing of 

young, pelagic larval and juvenile 

stages, and eventual settlement to 

benthic habitats as fish reach adulthood. 

All of these species also consume 

similar prey items and spend at least 

some time in association with coarse 

substrates. Thus for greenstriped 

rockfish, Puget Sound Proper is discrete 

from other greenstriped rockfish 

populations in the rest of Georgia Basin 

and in coastal waters. 

Consistent with the earlier 

conclusions of Stout et al. (2001), Puget 

Sound Proper is an ecologically unique 

environment that differs from other 

parts of Georgia Basin, thus satisfying 

the significance criterion of the DPS 

policy and should thus be considered a 

DPS. 

Although the BRT did not examine 

additional DPS delineations among 

coastal populations of greenstriped 

rockfish, the BRT findings support a 

conclusion that the coastal populations 

constitute at least one additional DPS. 

As the BRT concluded, coastal 

populations are discrete from Georgia 

Basin populations. Because coastal 

populations occupy the majority of the 

species’ range (as described above under 

Life History, Biology, and Status of the 

Petitioned Species), they would also 

certainly meet the DPS requirement of 

being significant to the taxon. Therefore, 

we conclude that coastal populations 

constitute at least one additional 

greenstriped rockfish DPS. 

Western Boundary of the Georgia Basin 

DPS 

The BRT noted that the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca is a transition zone between the 

oceanic waters of the California Current 

and inland waters of Georgia Basin. 

There was general agreement among 

BRT members that there is unlikely to 

be a sharp boundary that separates 

populations residing in these two 

systems (Drake et al., 2008). The BRT 

considered two possible western 

boundaries, the mouth of the Sekiu 

River and the Victoria Sill. The Sekiu 

River is used as the western boundary 

in the Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (WDFW) assessment of 

rockfishes (Palsson et al., 2008). The 

BRT considered the Sekiu River a 

precautionary boundary in that it is very 

unlikely that any biologically relevant 

divisions would occur west of that 

point. The Victoria Sill bisects the Strait 

of Juan de Fuca and runs from east of 

Port Angeles north to Victoria. This sill 

is a significant oceanographic feature in 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The deep 

oceanic water in the Juan de Fuca Strait 

extends up to a depth of about 100 m 

(328 feet) at the Pacific end of the strait, 

and its thickness diminishes along the 

strait to just a few meters at the Victoria 

Sill (Masson, 2002). Patterns of 

circulation created by the sill create 

discontinuities in temperature, salinity 

(Masson and Cummins, 2000), nitrogen 

(Mackas and Harrison, 1997), primary 

production (Foreman et al., 2008), and 

water column organic carbon 

(Johannessen et al., 2008). The Victoria 

Sill also appears to have the potential to 

restrict larval dispersal (Engie and 

Klinger, 2007; Paul Chittaro, NWFSC, 

unpublished data). Using the FEMAT 

voting procedure described previously, 

BRT members distributed their votes 

among the two western boundary 

options. Victoria Sill received 72 

percent of the votes. Thus, the BRT 

concluded that the Victoria Sill likely 

represents the western boundary in this 

DPS scenario. We concur. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18528 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Extinction Risk Assessment 

The ESA (Section 3) defines 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ ‘‘Threatened species’’ is 

defined as ‘‘any species which is likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ We 

consider a variety of factors in 

evaluating the level of risk faced by a 

DPS, including: (1) absolute numbers of 

fish and their spatial and temporal 

distributions, (2) current abundance and 

carrying capacity of the habitat in 

relation to historical abundance and 

carrying capacity, (3) trends in 

abundance, based on indices such as 

catch statistics, catch per unit effort 

(CPUE), and spawner-recruit ratios, (4) 

climate variability, and (5) size 

distribution of adult fish. Additional 

risk factors, such as disease prevalence 

or evolution in life-history traits, also 

may be considered in the evaluation of 

risk to a population. The discussion that 

follows describes each of these 

considerations, which we then 

incorporate in the risk discussion below 

for each species, as relevant. 

Absolute Numbers 

The absolute number of individuals in 

a population is important in assessing 

two aspects of extinction risk. First, 

small populations may not be 

sustainable in the face of environmental 

fluctuations and small-population 

stochasticity, even if the population 

currently is stable or increasing (Gilpin 

and Soule, 1986; Thompson, 1991). 

Second, present abundance in a 

declining population is an indicator of 

the time expected until the population 

reaches critically low numbers 

(Caughley and Sinclair, 1994). In 

addition to absolute numbers, the 

spatial and temporal distributions of 

adult population sizes are important in 

assessing risk to a DPS. 

Assessments of marine fish 

populations have focused on 

determining abundance and trends from 

models fit to catch, survey, and 

biological data. Catch records, fishery 

and survey catch per unit effort (CPUE), 

and biomass estimates from research 

cruises constitute most of the data 

available to estimate population 

abundance. The estimated numbers of 

reproductive adults is the most 

important measure of abundance in 

assessing the status of a population. 

Data on other life-history stages can be 

used as a supplemental indicator of 

abundance. In the case of the five 

petitioned species, very little 

information is available on their 

absolute abundance in the Georgia Basin 

and Puget Sound. Though the BRT did 

estimate the size of the five petitioned 

rockfish species using estimates of total 

rockfish abundance presented in 

Palsson et al. (2008), the BRT focused 

largely on trends in various abundance 

indices. 

Historical Abundance and Carrying 

Capacity 

An understanding of historical 

abundance and carrying capacity can 

provide insights into a population’s 

sustainability under current conditions. 

For example, estimates of historical 

abundance provide the basis for 

establishing long-term abundance trends 

and also provide a benchmark for an 

abundance that was presumably 

sustainable. A comparison of past and 

present habitat capacity can also 

indicate long-term population trends 

from habitat loss, as well as potential 

habitat fragmentation, which can affect 

population viability. For a species that 

is at low abundance or has experienced 

declines in abundance, a comparison of 

current abundance to current carrying 

capacity may provide insight into the 

causes for decline and the potential for 

recovery. 

Trends in Abundance 

Short- and long-term trends in 

abundance serve as primary indicators 

of risk in natural populations. Trends 

may be calculated with a variety of 

quantitative data, including catch, 

CPUE, and survey data. Trend analyses 

for the five species considered in this 

status review are limited by the lack of 

long time series of abundances in 

greater Puget Sound for these species. In 

addition, although abundance time 

series are available for other, more 

common, Puget Sound rockfish species, 

these time series are characterized by a 

lack of regular sampling, by use of 

different survey methods for each 

species, and, for harvest data, by the 

effect of frequently revised harvest 

regulations. The BRT took several 

approaches to utilize the best available 

data in order to estimate the abundance 

trends, and these are discussed in 

greater detail below. 

Climate Variability 

Coupled changes in atmospheric and 

ocean conditions have occurred on 

several different time scales and have 

influenced the geographical 

distributions, and hence local 

abundances, of marine fishes. On time 

scales of hundreds of millennia, 

periodic cooling produced several 

glaciations in the Pleistocene Epoch 

(Imbrie et al., 1984; Bond et al., 1993). 

The central part of greater Puget Sound 

was covered with ice about 1 km (0.6 

miles) thick during the last glacial 

maximum about 14,000 years ago 

(Thorson, 1980). Since the end of this 

major period of cooling, several 

population oscillations of pelagic fishes, 

such as anchovies and sardines, have 

been noted on the West Coast of North 

America (Baumgartner et al., 1992). 

These oscillations, with periods of about 

100 years, have presumably occurred in 

response to climatic variability. On 

decadal time scales, climatic variability 

in the North Pacific and North Atlantic 

Oceans has influenced the abundances 

and distributions of widespread species, 

including several species of Pacific 

salmon (Francis et al., 1998, Mantua et 

al., 1997) in the North Pacific, and 

Atlantic herring (Alheit and Hagen, 

1997) and Atlantic cod (Swain, 1999) in 

the North Atlantic. Recent declines in 

marine fish populations in greater Puget 

Sound may reflect recent climatic shifts. 

However, we do not know whether 

these climatic shifts represent long-term 

changes or short-term fluctuations that 

may reverse in the near future. Although 

recent climatic conditions appear to be 

within the range of historical 

conditions, the risks associated with 

climatic changes may be exacerbated by 

human activities (Lawson, 1993). 

Size Distributions 

Fisheries often target larger, older, 

more mature fish, resulting in a 

population with fewer such individuals 

than an unfished population would 

have. Older females generally produce 

more larvae, and their larvae survive at 

higher rates, than those of younger 

females. Thus their removal can 

decrease the productivity of the overall 

population, particularly for slowgrowing, long-lived species such as 

rockfish. 

The BRT reported that size-frequency 

distributions for bocaccio in the 1970s 

included a wide range of sizes, with 

recreationally caught individuals from 

25 to 85 cm (10 to 33 inches) in length. 

This broad size distribution suggests a 

spread of ages, with some successful 

recruitment over multiple years. A 

similar range of sizes is also evident in 

data from the 1980s. These patterns are 

more likely to result from a selfsustaining population within the 

Georgia Basin rather than sporadic 

immigration or recruitment from coastal 

populations. The temporal trend in size 

distributions for bocaccio also suggests 

size truncation of the population, with 

larger fish becoming less common over 

time until the 1990s. By the decade of 

the 2000s, no bocaccio data were 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18529 

available, so the BRT was not able to 

determine if the size truncation 

continued in this decade. 

The BRT reported that canary rockfish 

exhibited a broad spread of sizes in the 

1970s. However, by the 2000s, there 

were far fewer size classes represented 

and no fish greater than 55 cm (22 

inches) were recorded in the 

recreational data. Although some of this 

truncation may be a function of the 

overall lower number of sampled fish, 

the data in general suggest few older 

fish remain in the population. 

For yelloweye rockfish, the BRT 

reported that recreationally caught fish 

in the 1970s spanned a broad range of 

sizes. By the decade of the 2000s, there 

was some evidence of fewer older fish 

in the population. However, overall 

numbers of fish in the database were 

also much lower, making it difficult to 

determine if size truncation occurred. 

For greenstriped and redstripe 

rockfish, the BRT noted that these 

species have a small maximum size. 

Although common in the recreational 

catch data for the 1970s and 1980s, 

greenstriped rockfish are represented by 

few individuals in catch data from the 

1990s and 2000s. Size distributions do 

not suggest any size truncation over this 

time period. Low numbers reported in 

the catch may be a function of 

decreasing bag limits over time, and the 

likelihood of discarding of this less 

desired species by recreational 

fishermen. Large numbers of redstripe 

were retained by fishermen in the 

1980s, but very few were available in 

the database for the 1990s and 2000s. 

There was no evidence of size 

truncation in this species over time, but 

too few fish were measured in the later 

decades to provide a meaningful 

analysis. 

Risk Assessment Methods 

In assessing risk, NMFS BRTs 

consider the best scientific information 

available, which often includes both 

qualitative and quantitative information. 

In previous NMFS status reviews, BRTs 

have used a ‘‘risk matrix’’ method to 

organize and summarize the 

professional judgment of a panel of 

professional scientists regarding the 

degree of risk facing a species based on 

the available information. This 

approach is described in detail by 

Wainright and Kope (1999) and has 

been used for over 10 years in Pacific 

salmonid status reviews (e.g., Good et 

al., 2005; Hard et al., 2007), as well as 

in reviews of Pacific hake, walleye 

pollock, Pacific cod (Gustafson et al., 

2000), Puget Sound rockfishes (Stout et 

al., 2001b), Pacific herring (Stout et al. 

2001a; Gustafson et al., 2006), and black 

abalone (Butler et al., 2008). In this risk 

matrix approach, the collective 

condition of individual populations is 

summarized at the DPS level according 

to four demographic risk criteria: 

abundance, growth rate/productivity, 

spatial structure/connectivity, and 

diversity. These viability criteria, 

outlined in McElhany et al. (2000), 

reflect concepts that are well founded in 

conservation biology and are generally 

applicable to a wide variety of species. 

These criteria describe demographic 

risks that individually and collectively 

provide strong indicators of extinction 

risk. The summary of demographic risks 

and other pertinent information 

obtained by this approach is then 

considered by the BRT in determining 

the species’ overall level of extinction 

risk. 

After reviewing all relevant biological 

information for the species, each BRT 

member assigns a risk score to each of 

the four demographic criteria. The 

scoring for the risk criteria correspond 

to the following values: 1–very low risk, 

2–low risk, 3–moderate risk, 4–high 

risk, 5–very high risk. The scores were 

tallied (means, modes, and range of 

scores), reviewed, and the range of 

perspectives discussed by the BRT 

before making its overall risk 

determination. Although this process 

helps to integrate and summarize a large 

amount of diverse information, the risk 

matrix scores do not always translate 

directly into a determination of overall 

extinction risk. Other factors must be 

considered. For example, a DPS with a 

single extant sub-population might be at 

a high level of extinction risk because of 

high risk to spatial structure/ 

connectivity, even if it exhibited low 

risk for the other demographic criteria. 

Another species might be at risk of 

extinction because of moderate risks to 

several demographic criteria. 

After completing the risk matrix 

approach for each DPS, the BRT 

evaluated their overall extinction risk. 

The BRT was asked to use three 

categories of risk to describe the species’ 

status ‘‘high risk’’ of extinction; 

‘‘moderate risk’’ of extinction; or ‘‘not at 

risk’’ of extinction. To allow individuals 

to express uncertainty in determining 

the overall level of extinction risk facing 

the species, the BRT adopted the 

‘‘likelihood point’’ method referred to 

previously. 

Abundance Trends Data Reviewed by 

the BRT 

The main data available on Puget 

Sound rock sh trends are from surveys 

of recreational anglers conducted by 

WDFW. These data are collected from 

punch cards sent in by licensed anglers 

and from dockside surveys. WDFW 

extrapolates the rock sh per angler data 

up to total catch using an estimate of 

number of trips derived from the salmon 

recreational shery. The data are reported 

both for the targeted catch (targeting 

bottom sh) and the incidental catch 

(targeting salmon). For the trend 

analyses conducted by the BRT, only 

the data from the shery targeting 

bottomfish were used because the 

bottomfish information was recorded in 

an inconsistent fashion in the salmon 

catch report (Drake et al., 2008). The 

BRT utilized data covering the time 

period from 1965–2007. 

The recreational data have numerous 

limitations. In particular, during 1994 to 

2003, the total catch was still estimated 

using salmon shery data, yet restrictions 

on the salmon shery resulted in limited 

information. In addition, the bag limit 

on rock sh was lowered from 15 sh in 

1983 to 1 rock sh per trip in both the 

north Puget Sound and Puget Sound 

Proper in 2000. Reductions in bag limits 

both directly reduce the sh per trip by 

capping the maximum and may lead to 

changes in angler targeting leading to 

reductions in the number of rock sh 

taken per trip. To correct for the effects 

of bag limits and changes in angler 

targeting, the trend analyses conducted 

by the BRT treated each bag limit period 

as a separate dataset and a scaling 

parameter to adjust the mean for each 

period was estimated. 

Data from commercial fisheries were 

also examined by the BRT. Commercial 

data with effort information is available 

from records on the bottom trawl shery 

operating until 1988. Effort data (hours 

trawled) are available from 1955. Due to 

some concerns in the sheries literature 

about CPUE data from commercial 

sheries not correlating with actual 

population abundances, these data were 

not used for the trend analyses. 

Data from the WDFW trawl survey (a 

shery independent survey) were 

included in the trend analysis 

conducted by the BRT. The survey is 

described in detail by Palsson et al. 

(2008). These trawl surveys cover 1987 

to 2000, are depth stratified, and done 

in twelve regions. The rocky habitat 

used by bocaccio, canary rockfish and 

yelloweye rockfish is not effectively 

sampled by trawl gear, while the 

unconsolidated habitat used by 

redstripe rockfish and greenstriped 

rockfish can be trawled effectively. As a 

result, the BRT used the WDFW trawl 

survey data primarily with respect to 

the latter two species. 

Another data source included in the 

BRT analysis is sightings of rock sh by 

recreational SCUBA divers throughout 

the Puget Sound as part of a program by 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18530 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the Reef Environmental Education 

Foundation (REEF, 2008), which trains 

recreational divers to identify and 

record sh species during recreational 

dives. The data are reported in relative 

abundance categories: single = single sh, 

few = 2–10 sh, many = 11–100 sh, and 

abundant = 100+ sh. The REEF database 

was used to determine presence/absence 

per dive (at any abundance) and also to 

determine minimum and maximum 

rock sh abundance by using the upper 

and lower ends of the categories to 

convert the categorical levels to 

numerical levels. 

In addition to the data sources 

described above, the BRT reviewed 

numerous historical documents, shortterm research projects, and graduate 

theses from regional universities. In 

general, historical reports confirm that 

the five petitioned species have 

consistently been part of the Puget 

Sound fish fauna. For example, Kincaid 

(1919) noted that the family 

Scorpaenidae (which includes 

rockfishes) constituted ‘‘one of the most 

important and valuable groups of fishes 

found on the Pacific Coast.’’ He 

produced an annotated list of Puget 

Sound fishes that documented 13 

species of rockfish that were known to 

inhabit Puget Sound, including two of 

the petitioned species reported with 

different common nanmes: the ‘‘orange 

rockfish’’ (S. pinniger) that was 

‘‘abundant in deep water’’, and the ‘‘red 

rockfish or red snapper’’ (S. 

ruberrimus), the largest of this group, 

‘‘common in deep water’’ and ‘‘brought 

to market in considerable quantities.’’ 

Smith (1936) provided one of the first 

scientific reports on Puget Sound 

commercial fisheries focused on the 

fleet of otter trawlers which targeted 

flatfish landed for market in Seattle. The 

fishery occurred primarily over 

relatively soft-bottom areas. Seven 

rockfish species were indicated as being 

taken by this fishery, including three of 

the petitioned species ‘‘orange rockfish’’ 

(S. pinniger), ‘‘red snapper’’ (S. 

ruberrimus), and ‘‘olive-banded rock 

cod’’ (S. elongatus). Haw and Buckley’s 

(1971) text on saltwater fishing in 

Washington marine waters, including 

Puget Sound, was designed to 

popularize recreational sport (hook and 

line) fishing in the region to the general 

public. Fishing locations and habitat 

preferences were indicated for three 

species of rockfish: canary, yelloweye, 

and bocaccio. Canary rockfish were 

found at depths over 150 feet (46 m) and 

were not restricted to rocky bottom 

areas. This species occurred in certain 

locations as far south as Point Defiance 

and was taken in large numbers at 

Tacoma Narrows, but was considered 

more abundant in the San Juan Islands, 

North Puget Sound, and Strait of Juan 

de Fuca. Rockfish were found at depths 

over 150 feet (46 m) on rocky bottoms, 

and primarily occurred in north Puget 

Sound, the Strait, and the outer coast. 

Finally, bocaccio were frequently caught 

in the Tacoma Narrows. 

Two documents (Delacy et al., 1972; 

Miller and Borton, 1980) compiled all 

available data on Puget Sound fish 

species distributions and relative 

number of occurrences since 1971 and 

1973, respectively, from the literature 

(including some records noted above), 

fish collections, unpublished log 

records, and other sources. Twentyseven representatives of the family 

Scorpaenidae are listed in these 

documents, including all five species 

considered in this status review (total 

records indicated in parentheses): 

greenstriped rockfish (54): most records 

occur in Hood Canal, although they 

were also collected near Seattle, 

primarily associated with otter trawls; 

bocaccio (110): most records occur from 

the 1970’s in Tacoma Narrows and 

Appletree Cove (near Kingston) 

associated with sport catch; canary 

rockfish (114): most records occur from 

the 1960s to 1970s in Tacoma Narrows, 

Hood Canal, San Juan Islands, 

Bellingham, and Appletree Cove 

associated with sport catch; redstripe 

rockfish (26): most records are from 

Hood Canal sport catch, although a few 

were also taken in Central Sound/ 

Seattle; yelloweye rockfish (113): most 

records occur from the early 1970’s in 

the San Juan Islands (Sucia Island) and 

Bellingham Bay associated with the 

sport catch. 

Summary of Previous Risk Analyses 

The WDFW conducted an extensive 

review of the current status of all Puget 

Sound rockfishes (Palsson et al., 2008). 

The authors examined historic patterns 

of abundance, results of WDFW surveys, 

and ecosystem stressors to produce a 

qualitative risk assessment. Palsson et 

al. (2008) note a precipitous decline in 

several species of rockfish, including 

bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, and 

canary rockfish. They concluded that 

fishery removals (including bycatch 

from other fisheries) are highly likely to 

limit recovery of depleted rockfish 

populations in Puget Sound. In 

addition, they concluded that habitat 

disruption, derelict fishing gear, low 

dissolved oxygen, chemical toxicants, 

and predation are moderate threats to 

Puget Sound rockfish populations. 

WDFW evaluated the status of 

rockfishes in Puget Sound using 

information on fishery landings trends, 

surveys, and species composition trends 

(Musick et al., 2000). Their evaluation 

was based on the American Fisheries 

Society’s Criteria for Marine Fish Stocks 

(Musick et al., 2000). This method uses 

biological information and life history 

parameters such as population growth 

rates, age at maturity, fecundity, 

maximum age, etc. These parameters in 

concert with information regarding 

population trends are used to classify 

populations as depleted, vulnerable, 

precautionary or healthy. WDFW 

interpreted ‘‘depleted’’ to mean that 

there is a high risk of extinction in the 

immediate future, while ‘‘vulnerable’’ 

was considered to be likely to be 

endangered or threatened in the near 

future. ‘‘Precautionary’’ was interpreted 

to mean that populations were reduced 

in abundance, but that population size 

was stable or increasing. After applying 

the criteria, WDFW concluded that 

yelloweye rockfish were depleted in 

both North and South Puget Sound. 

Canary rockfish were also considered 

depleted in North and South Puget 

Sound. Greenstriped rockfish and 

redstripe rockfish were both considered 

to be healthy. Bocaccio were considered 

to have a precautionary status. The 

precautionary status of bocaccio was the 

result of a lack of information for 

bocaccio, as well as their increased 

rarity in South Puget Sound. 

An evaluation on the status of 

yelloweye rockfish was prepared for the 

Canadian Committee on the Status of 

Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

(COSEWIC). COSEWIC concluded that 

there are two designatable units of 

yelloweye rockfish in Canada: an 

‘‘inside’’ designatable unit that 

encompasses the Strait of Georgia, 

Johnstone Strait and Queen Charlotte 

Strait, and an ‘‘outside’’ designatable 

unit that extends from southeast Alaska 

to northern Oregon. The two 

designatable units are distinguished on 

the basis of genetic information 

indicating restricted gene flow, and age 

at maturity. For the inside designatable 

unit, submersible surveys in 1984 and 

2003 showed statistically nonsignificant 

declines in mean, median and 

maximum sightings per transect. 

Commercial handline and longline 

CPUEs declined 59 percent and 49 

percent respectively from 1986 to 2004. 

Age and length information indicates 

that the proportion of old individuals 

declined from the 1980s into the early 

1990s. Overall, the COSEWIC report 

concluded that yelloweye rockfish 

abundance has declined more than 30 

percent in a third of a yelloweye 

generation. COSEWIC also conducted 

status reviews for canary rockfish and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18531 

bocaccio; however, these reports 

focused on coastal populations. In both 

cases, populations were determined to 

be threatened. 

Coastal populations of yelloweye 

rockfish, canary rockfish and bocaccio 

are considered ‘‘overfished’’ by the U.S. 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 

Current Abundance 

Because of a lack of systematic 

sampling targeting rare rockfishes, 

absolute estimates of population size of 

the petitioned species cannot be 

generated with any accuracy. However, 

a rough estimate of the order of 

magnitude of population size can be 

determined from information assembled 

by WDFW. Palsson et al. (2008) 

extrapolated results from a video survey 

to estimate the population size of the 

common rockfish species (copper 

rockfish, quillback rockfish, black 

rockfish and brown rockfish) in Puget 

Sound Proper as about 40,683 and in 

North Puget Sound as 838, 944. The 

BRT applied the percent frequency of 

the petitioned species in the 

recreational catch to these numbers to 

conclude that the population sizes of 

boccacio, yelloweye rockfish, and 

canary rockfish are quite small, 

probably less than 10,000 in Georgia 

Basin and less than 1,000 in Puget 

Sound Proper. The absolute abundance 

of greenstriped and redstripe rockfish 

are unknown, but these species appear 

highly abundant in certain areas (Drake 

et al., 2008). 

Abundance Trends 

The BRT did not generate quantitative 

estimates of trend in abundance for the 

ve species in the current petition 

because the low sampling of the catches 

in many years, particularly the early 

years, provides insufficient yearly 

estimates. Because of the nature of the 

available data, the BRT used the overall 

trend in all rockfishes (heavily 

influenced by common species such as 

copper, brown, and quillback 

rockfishes) to make inferences about the 

magnitude of trend in the petitioned 

species. They did this by looking for 

changes in the frequency of the 

petitioned species relative to the 

common species. The BRT examined 

this evidence for changes in the 

frequency of the petitioned species in 

the recreational catch, WDFW trawl 

surveys, and REEF dive surveys. If the 

petitioned species are not declining as 

fast as the ‘‘total rock sh’’ time series, 

then their frequency should be 

increasing relative to other more 

common species. On the other hand, 

they should become less frequent if they 

are declining more quickly. 

The three most common species 

during 1965–2007 in the North Puget 

Sound (black rockfish, copper rockfish 

and quillback rockfish) and Puget 

Sound Proper (brown rockfish, copper 

rockfish, and quillback rockfish) 

increased in proportion of the total from 

1980 through 1990, and currently 

comprise approximately 90 percent of 

the recreational catch. Four of the ve 

petitioned species (boccacio, canary 

rockfish, greenstriped rockfish, and 

yelloweye rockfish) became 

progressively less frequent in the 

recreational catch during the same time 

period. 

Estimates of the declining trend in the 

total population of rockfish in Puget 

Sound were approximately 3 percent 

per year, although this figure varied 

depending on what assumptions were 

included in the model estimating the 

trend (see Drake et al., 2008 for details). 

This rate of annual decline corresponds 

to an average decline of about 70 

percent over the 1965–2007 time period 

the BRT examined. Since the relative 

frequency of the petitioned species 

declined, the BRT concluded that the 

decline of the petitioned species must 

have been greater than the 70 percent 

observed in the total rockfish 

population. 

Extinction Risk Assessment Conclusions 

Bocaccio 

The BRT concluded that the bocaccio 

Georgia Basin DPS is at ‘‘high risk’’ of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Bocaccio appear to have declined in 

frequency in Puget Sound Proper, 

relative to other species, from the 1970s 

to the present. From 1975–1979, 

bocaccio were reported as an average of 

4.63 percent of the total rockfish catch. 

From 1980–1989, they were 0.24 

percent of the rock sh identified, and 

from 1996 to 2007, bocaccio have not 

been observed out of the 2238 rock sh 

identified in the dockside surveys of the 

recreational catches. In a sample this 

large, the probability of observing at 

least 1 bocaccio would be 99.5 percent 

assuming it was at the same frequency 

(0.24 percent) as in the 1980s. The BRT 

concluded that there is strong support 

in the data for a decline in the frequency 

of bocaccio relative to other species in 

Puget Sound Proper. The BRT noted 

that other data sources (SCUBA surveys) 

indicate that although rare, bocaccio 

rock sh were present in Puget Sound 

Proper as recently as 2001. Relying on 

the estimate of Palsson et al. (2008) of 

40,683 rockfish in Puget Sound Proper, 

a 0.24 percent frequency rate would 

mean there were about 100 individual 

bocaccio in Puget Sound Proper in the 

1980’s. In North Puget Sound, bocaccio 

have always been rare in the surveys of 

the recreational shery. In the Strait of 

Georgia, bocaccio have been 

documented in some inlets, but records 

are sparse, isolated, and often based on 

anecdotal reports (COSEWIC, 2002). 

A majority of the BRT concluded that 

the downward population size trend 

was, by itself, sufficient to indicate that 

the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio had 

a high risk of extinction. The BRT was 

also concerned that bocaccio as a 

species have a very low intrinsic rate of 

population growth, even in the absence 

of harvest or other threats that may limit 

productivity, and the size distribution of 

bocaccio in Puget Sound appeared to be 

trending toward smaller, less productive 

sizes (see above). Bocaccio are also 

characterized by highly variable 

recruitment that may be largely driven 

by environmental conditions which may 

occur only infrequently (Tolimieri and 

Levin, 2005). Even in the absence of 

continued exploitation, the BRT 

therefore concluded that Georgia Basin 

bocaccio were at risk due to their low 

abundance and low intrinsic population 

growth rate. 

Threats to this DPS include areas of 

low dissolved oxygen within their 

range, the potential for continued losses 

as bycatch in recreational and 

commercial harvest, and the reduction 

of kelp habitat necessary for juvenile 

recruitment. The BRT’s conclusions 

regarding the overall risk to the Georgia 

Basin bocaccio DPS were weighted to 

‘‘high risk’’ (66 percent) with 

substantially less support for ‘‘moderate 

risk’’ (32 percent) and almost no support 

for ‘‘not at risk’’ (2 percent). 

Although there have been no 

confirmed observations of bocaccio in 

Georgia Basin for approximately 7 years, 

the BRT concluded that there was no 

compelling reason to believe that the 

DPS has been extirpated. In particular, 

although it has disappeared from the 

recreational catch, the recreational 

fishery does not provide a complete 

sampling of Georgia Basin. Given the 

lack of an intensive effort to completely 

enumerate bocaccio, and the long lifespan of the species, the BRT concluded 

that it is likely that the DPS still exists 

at a very low abundance and would be 

observed with a sufficiently intensive 

observation program. 

Yelloweye Rockfish 

The BRT concluded that the 

yelloweye rockfish Georgia Basin DPS is 

at ‘‘moderate risk’’ of extinction 

throughout all of its range. The 

frequency of yelloweye rock sh in Puget 

Sound Proper does not show a 

consistent trend, with percent 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18532 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

frequencies less than 1 in the 1960s and 

1980s and about 3 percent in the 1970s 

and 1990s. Relying on the estimate of 

Palsson et al. (2008) of 40,683 rockfish 

in Puget Sound Proper, a 3 percent 

frequency rate would mean there are 

about 1,200 individual canary rockfish 

in Puget Sound Proper. In North Puget 

Sound, however, the frequency of 

yelloweye rock sh decreased from a high 

of greater than 3 percent in the 1970s to 

a frequency of 0.65 percent in the most 

recent samples. Based on this decline in 

frequency in North Puget Sound, 

combined with the overall decline in 

rockfish abundance in Puget Sound, the 

BRT concluded that the current trend in 

abundance contributes significantly to 

the extinction risk of the DPS. Like 

bocaccio and canary rockfish, the BRT 

also noted that the low intrinsic 

productivity combined with continuing 

threats from bycatch in commercial and 

recreational harvest, loss of near shore 

habitat, chemical contamination, and 

areas of low dissolved oxygen, increase 

the extinction risk of this species. The 

BRT further noted the downward trends 

in the size of yelloweye rockfish in 

Puget Sound (see above). The BRT’s 

conclusions regarding the overall risk to 

the Georgia Basin canary rockfish DPS 

were heavily weighted toward 

‘‘moderate risk’’ (59 percent), with 

minority support for ‘‘high risk’’ (23 

percent) and ‘‘not at risk’’ (18 percent). 

Canary Rockfish 

The BRT concluded that the canary 

rockfish Georgia Basin DPS is at 

‘‘moderate risk’’ of extinction 

throughout all of its range. There 

appears to be a steep decline in the 

abundance of canary rockfish in the 

Georgia Basin, reflected in the species 

becoming less frequent in the 

recreational rockfish catch data since 

1965. In Puget Sound Proper, canary 

rockfish occurred at frequencies above 2 

percent of the total rockfish catch in the 

1960s and 1970s, but by the late 1990s 

had declined to about 0.76 percent. 

Relying on the estimate of Palsson et al. 

(2008) of 40,683 rockfish in Puget 

Sound Proper, a 0.76–percent frequency 

rate would mean there are about 300 

individual canary rockfish in Puget 

Sound Proper. In North Puget Sound, 

the frequency of canary rockfish 

exceeded 6 percent in the 1960s and 

declined to 0.56 percent in the 1990s. 

Based on this decline in frequency, 

combined with the overall decline in 

rockfish abundance in Puget Sound, the 

BRT concluded that the current trend in 

abundance contributes significantly to 

the extinction risk of the DPS. 

The BRT also noted that the species’ 

low intrinsic productivity combined 

with continuing threats from bycatch in 

commercial and recreational harvest, 

loss of near shore habitat, chemical 

contamination, and areas of low 

dissolved oxygen, increase the 

extinction risk of this species. The BRT 

further noted the downward trends in 

the size of the canary rockfish in Puget 

Sound (see above). The BRT noted that 

this species is more mobile than many 

other rockfish species, which may help 

preserve genetic diversity by increasing 

connectivity among breeding 

populations. However, the BRT noted 

the lack of specific information on 

canary rockfish population structure 

within the Georgia Basin, and that there 

does not appear to be a stronghold for 

canary rockfish anywhere within the 

range of the DPS. The BRT’s 

conclusions regarding the overall risk to 

the Georgia Basin canary rockfish DPS 

were heavily weighted toward 

‘‘moderate risk’’ (56 percent), with 

minority support for ‘‘high risk’’ (24 

percent) and ‘‘not at risk’’ (20 percent). 

Greenstriped Rockfish 

The BRT concluded that the 

greenstriped rockfish Puget Sound 

Proper DPS is ‘‘not at risk’’ of extinction 

throughout all of its range. Greenstriped 

rock sh do not occur in the recreational 

catch data from North Puget Sound and 

occur very infrequently in the Puget 

Sound Proper recreational catch data, 

presumably due to the low value 

attached to this species. Bag limits were 

imposed in 1983 and the bag limit was 

further reduced in 1994 and 2000. Since 

greenstriped rock sh are smaller than 

other species, the bag limit may lead to 

discarding and thus underrepresentation of greenstriped rockfish 

in the recreational catch. Greenstriped 

rock sh appear in a low frequency in the 

WDFW sheries independent trawl 

survey, but they were caught in the most 

recent years of the WDFW trawl survey 

in Puget Sound Proper (in both 2002 

and 2005). Thus, although greenstriped 

rock sh have not been reported from the 

recreational catch from 1999–2007, they 

are still present in Puget Sound Proper. 

The BRT noted the lack of information 

on the abundance trends of greenstriped 

rockfish, but noted that Puget Sound 

Proper has large areas of the 

unconsolidated habitats that are used by 

this species, and that this species has 

somewhat higher intrinsic productivity 

than other rockfish species. The BRT 

noted that this species is not preferred 

by recreational anglers, and may 

therefore be less susceptible to 

overharvest. Because this species is also 

more of a habitat generalist than many 

other rockfish, the BRT concluded it 

was not at risk from habitat loss or 

reduced diversity. Size distributions do 

not suggest any size truncation since the 

1970s. The BRT did note that areas of 

low dissolved oxygen are a potential 

risk factor. The BRT conclusions 

regarding the overall risk the DPS were 

weighted toward ‘‘not at risk’’ (59 

percent), with ‘‘moderate risk’’ receiving 

minority support (32 percent) and ‘‘high 

risk’’ receiving very little support (9 

percent). 

Redstripe Rockfish 

The BRT concluded that the redstripe 

rockfish Puget Sound Proper DPS is 

‘‘not at risk’’ of extinction throughout all 

of its range. Redstripe rockfish do not 

occur in the catch data from North Puget 

Sound. In Puget Sound Proper, 

however, redstripe rock sh appeared 

frequently in the recreational catch 

(between 1–14 percent) from 1980 to 

1985. Previous to that, from 1965 to 

1979, redstripe rockfish appeared much 

less frequently (less than 1 percent). 

After 1985, the frequency of redstripe 

rockfish declined in the recreational 

data, and since 1996 it does not appear 

in the catch data. A bag limit was 

imposed in 1983 and the bag limit was 

further reduced in 1994 and 2000. Since 

redstripe rockfish are smaller than other 

species, bag limits may lead to 

discarding and thus underrepresentation of redstripe rockfish in 

the recreational catch. In the 1980s and 

1990s, redstripe rockfish appeared at a 

low frequency (less than 1.5 percent) in 

the WDFW trawl survey. The frequency 

increased dramatically in 2002 and 

2005, with redstripe rockfish making up 

39 and 48 percent of the individuals 

caught. The BRT concluded that these 

high estimates may be statistical 

outliers, however, and are not 

necessarily indicative of an actual 

increase in abundance in recent years. 

However, the biomass of redstripe 

rockfish in the Puget Sound trawls was 

significantly higher in 2008 than in 

1995, indicating a potential increase in 

abundance. The BRT also noted that the 

presence of redstripe rockfish in the 

WDFW trawl survey indicates that 

redstripe rockfish are present in Puget 

Sound but are no longer being recorded 

in the dockside surveys of the 

recreational catch, for undetermined 

reasons. Overall, the BRT noted that the 

total abundance and trends in 

abundance for this species were not 

well known, but concluded that the 

available data indicated that the species 

was at least locally abundant within 

Puget Sound. 

The BRT also noted that this species 

has a shorter generation time and higher 

intrinsic rate of productivity than many 

other rockfish species. The BRT noted 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18533 

that this species is not preferred by 

recreational anglers, and may therefore 

be less susceptible to overharvest. 

Because this species is also more of a 

habitat generalist than many other 

rockfish, the BRT concluded it was not 

at risk from habitat loss or reduced 

diversity. The BRT did note that areas 

of low dissolved oxygen and chemical 

contamination are potential risk factors 

for this species. There was no evidence 

of size truncation in this species over 

time, but too few fish were measured in 

the later decades to provide a 

meaningful analysis. The BRT 

conclusions regarding the overall risk to 

the DPS were weighted toward ‘‘not at 

risk’’ (58 percent), with ‘‘moderate risk’’ 

receiving minority support (32 percent), 

and ‘‘high risk’’ receiving little support 

(10 percent). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the Five 

DPSs of Rockfish 

As described above, section 4(a)(1) of 

the ESA and NMFS implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 424) state that we 

must determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened because of 

any one or a combination of the 

following factors: (1) the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (5) other natural or 

man-made factors affecting its 

continued existence. The primary 

factors responsible for the decline of 

these five DPSs of rockfishes are 

overutilization for commercial and 

recreational purposes, water quality 

problems including low dissolved 

oxygen, and inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. The factors for 

decline are so similar for the petitioned 

DPSs of rockfish that they are addressed 

collectively in the following section. 

This section briefly summarizes 

findings regarding threats to the five 

DPSs of rockfishes. More details can be 

found in the draft status report (Drake 

et al., 2008) and Palsson et al. (2008). 

The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of its 

Habitat or Range 

The BRT identified habitat 

destruction as a threat to petitioned 

rockfish. In particular, loss of rocky 

habitat, loss of eelgrass and kelp, 

introduction of non-native species that 

modify habitat, and degradation of 

water quality were identified as specific 

threats to rockfish habitat in the Georgia 

Basin. 

Adults of bocaccio, canary rockfish, 

and yelloweye rockfish are typically 

associated with rocky habitats. Palsson 

et al. (2008) report that such habitat is 

extremely limited in Puget Sound, with 

only 10 km2 (3.8 sq miles) of such 

habitat in Puget Sound Proper, and 207 

km2 (80 sq miles) in North Puget Sound. 

Rocky habitat is more common in the 

Strait of Georgia and Strait of Juan de 

Fuca. Palsson et al. (2008) note that this 

habitat is threatened by, or has been 

impacted by, construction of bridges, 

sewer lines and other structures, 

deployment of cables and pipelines, and 

burying from dredge spoils and natural 

subtidal slope failures. 

Eelgrass, kelp, and other submerged 

vegetation provide important rockfish 

habitat, particularly for juveniles. In 

2006, there were about 20,234 hectares 

(78 sq miles) of eelgrass in Puget Sound, 

with about a third of this in Padilla and 

Samish bays. Monitoring of eelgrass 

began in 2000, and although coverage 

declined until 2004, since that time it 

has remained unchanged throughout 

Puget Sound. Localized declines have 

occurred, with local losses in Hood 

Canal ranging from 1 to 22 percent per 

year ( Puget Sound Action Team, 2007). 

Kelp cover is highly variable and has 

shown long-term declines in some 

regions, while kelp beds have increased 

in areas where artificial substrate 

provides additional kelp habitat 

(Palsson et al., 2008). 

Non-indigenous species are an 

emerging threat to biotic habitat in 

Puget Sound. Sargassum muiticum is an 

introduced brown alga that is now 

common throughout much of the 

Sound. The degree to which Sargassum 

influences native macroalgae, eelgrass, 

or rockfish themselves is not presently 

understood. Several species of nonindigenous tunicates have been 

identified in Puget Sound. For example, 

Ciona savignyi was initially seen in one 

location in 2004, but within 2 years 

spread to 86 percent of sites surveyed in 

Hood Canal ( Puget Sound Action Team, 

2007). The exact impact of invasive 

tunicates on rockfish or their habitats is 

unknown, but results in other regions 

(e.g., Levin et al., 2002) suggest the 

potential for introduced invertebrates to 

have widespread impacts on rocky-reef 

fish populations. 

Over the last century, human 

activities have introduced a variety of 

toxins into Puget Sound and the Georgia 

Basin at levels that may affect rockfish 

populations or the prey that support 

them. Several urban embayments in the 

Sound have high levels of heavy metals 

and organic compounds (Palsson et al., 

2008). About 32 percent of the 

sediments in Puget Sound are 

considered to be moderately or highly 

contaminated (Puget Sound Action 

Team, 2007). Organisms that live in or 

eat these sediments are consumed, thus 

transferring contaminants up the food 

web to higher level predators like 

rockfishes, and to a wider geographic 

area. 

Not surprisingly, contaminants such 

as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

chlorinated pesticides (e.g., DDT), and 

polybrominated diphenyl ethers 

(PBDEs) appear in rockfish collected in 

urban areas (Palsson et al., 2008). 

However, while the highest levels of 

contamination occur in urban areas, 

toxins can be found in the tissues of 

animals in all regions of the sound 

(Team, 2007). Indeed, rockfish collected 

in rural areas of the San Juan Islands 

revealed high levels of mercury and 

hydrocarbons (West et al., 2002). 

Although risks from contaminants can 

affect all life history stages of rockfish, 

few studies have investigated the effects 

of toxins on rockfish ecology or 

physiology. Contaminants may 

influence growth rates of rockfish. For 

example, Palsson et al. (2008) describe 

a case in which male rockfish have 

lower growth rates than females an 

unusual pattern for rockfish since males 

typically grow faster than females. The 

explanation may be that male rockfish 

tend to accumulate PCBs while female’s 

body burden does not increase with 

time since they reduce their toxin level 

when they release eggs. Thus, the 

observed difference in growth rate may 

result from the higher contaminant 

concentration in males versus females. 

Rockfish may also experience 

reproductive dysfunction as a result of 

contaminant exposure. Although no 

studies have shown an effect on 

rockfish, other fish in Puget Sound that 

have been studied do show a substantial 

impact. For instance, in English sole, 

reproductive function is reduced in 

animals from contaminated areas, and 

this effectively decreases the 

productivity of the species (Landahl et 

al., 1997). 

The full effect of contaminants on 

rockfish in the Georgia Basin remains 

unknown, but there is clearly a potential 

for impact. Unfortunately, good physical 

rockfish habitat is located in areas that 

are now subject to high levels of 

contaminants. This is evidenced by the 

fact that rockfish were historically 

captured in great numbers in these areas 

(compare Palsson et al., 2008 and Puget 

Sound Action Team, 2007). Palsson et 

al. (2008) suggest that these areas, often 

in urban embayments, have become de 

facto no-take zones because people 

avoid fishing there. Now, many of the 

areas where rockfish are not subjected to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18534 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

fishing pressure are contaminated, 

potentially creating a barrier to 

recovery. 

In addition to chemical 

contamination, water quality in Puget 

Sound is also influenced by sewage, 

animal waste, and nutrient inputs. The 

Washington Department of Ecology has 

been monitoring water quality in Puget 

Sound for several decades. Monitoring 

includes fecal coliform, nitrogen, 

ammonium, and dissolved oxygen. In 

2005, of the 39 sites sampled, 8 were 

classified as highest concern, and 10 

were classified as high concern. Low 

levels of dissolved oxygen have been an 

increasing concern. Hood Canal has 

seen persistent and increasing areas of 

low dissolved oxygen since the mid 

1990s. Typically, rockfish move out of 

areas with dissolved oxygen less than 2 

mg/l; however, when low dissolved 

oxygen waters were quickly upwelled to 

the surface in 2003, about 26 percent of 

the rockfish population was killed 

(Palsson et al., 2008). In addition to 

Hood Canal, Palsson et al. (2008) report 

that periods of low dissolved oxygen are 

becoming more widespread in waters 

south of Tacoma Narrows. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific or Educational 

Purposes 

The BRT and WDFW (Palsson et al. 

2008) identify overutilization for 

commercial and recreational purposes 

as the most severe threat to petitioned 

rockfish in the Georgia Basin. Because 

individual species of rockfish were 

historically not indentified in fisheries 

statistics, it is impossible to estimate 

rates of fishing mortality and thus 

impossible to conduct a detailed 

quantitative analysis of the effects of 

fishing on rockfish populations. 

Nonetheless, there is little doubt that 

overfishing played a major role in the 

declines of rockfish in Puget Sound 

(Drake et al., 2008; Palsson et al., 2008). 

Moreover, the life histories of the 

petitioned species (especially bocaccio, 

canary rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish) 

make them highly susceptible to 

overfishing and, once populations are at 

a low level, recovery can require 

decades (Levin et al., 2006; Love et al., 

2002; Parker et al., 2000). In particular, 

rockfish grow slowly, have a long life 

span and low natural mortality rates, 

mature late in life, often have sporadic 

reproductive success from year to year, 

may display high fidelity to specific 

habitats and locations, and require a 

diverse genetic and age structure to 

maintain healthy populations (Love et 

al., 2002). 

Estimates of rockfish harvest in Puget 

Sound are available for the last 87 years 

(Palsson et al., 2008). Commercial 

harvest was very low prior to World 

War II, rose during the War, and then 

averaged 125,000 pounds (56,700 kg) 

between 1945 and 1970. In the 1970s, 

harvest increased dramatically, peaking 

in 1980 at 880,000 pounds (399,200 kg). 

Catches remained high until the early 

1990s and then declined dramatically 

(Palsson et al., 2008). From 1921–1970 

a total of 3,812,000 pounds (1,729,000 

kg) of rockfish were landed in Puget 

Sound, while nearly this same level of 

harvest (3,968,000 pounds; 1,800,000 

kg) was achieved in only 7 years (from 

1977–1983). The average annual harvest 

from 1977–1990 was nearly four times 

pre–1970 levels. 

Although an estimate of fishing 

mortality is not available, some 

available evidence suggests that the 

fishing mortality experienced by the 

petitioned species would have been 

very high. Palsson et al. (2008) provide 

a rough estimate of the total rockfish 

biomass in Puget Sound during the 

1999–2004 time period of 3,205,521 

pounds (1,454,000 kg) less than the total 

harvest from 1977–1983. Although the 

BRT considered the estimate provided 

by Palsson et al. (2008) as only a coarse 

estimate of biomass, it is clear that 

fishing removed a substantial fraction of 

the rockfish biomass during the 1977– 

1990 time frame. For comparison, 

exploitation rates for canary rockfish 

during the 1980s and 1990s along the U. 

S. Pacific Coast ranged from 5–19 

percent (Stewart, 2007), bocaccio ranged 

from 5–31 percent (MacCall, 2008), and 

yelloweye rockfish ranged from less 

than 5 percent to about 17 percent 

(Wallace, 2007). In each of these cases, 

these high exploitation rates were 

followed by dramatic declines in 

population size (Sewart, 2007; Wallace, 

2007; MacCall, 2008). Given the life 

history of rockfish and the level of 

harvest in Puget Sound, the BRT 

concurred with WDFW (Palsson et al., 

2008) and identified overutilization for 

commercial and recreational purposes 

as the most severe threat to petitioned 

rockfish in the Georgia Basin. 

Fishery removals can affect both the 

absolute abundance of rockfish as well 

as the relative abundance of larger fish. 

Palsson et al. (2008) examined studies 

comparing rockfish populations in 

marine reserves in Puget Sound to 

populations outside reserves, and 

related this information to long-term 

trends in rockfish catch data, to draw 

conclusions about the effects of fishing 

on Puget Sound rockfish. They noted 

that rockfish in marine reserves in Puget 

Sound generally are at higher densities 

than rockfish outside reserves. They 

considered this information in the 

context of steep declines in the catch of 

rockfish after the early 1980s to 

conclude that the current low 

abundance of rockfish in Puget Sound is 

likely the result of overfishing. They 

further noted that rockfish in marine 

reserves in Puget Sound are larger than 

rockfish outside the reserves. Coupled 

with information that the size of 

rockfish in Puget Sound has declined in 

recent decades, they concluded that 

fishing has also likely altered the age 

structure of rockfish populations by 

removing larger older individuals. 

Age truncation (the removal of older 

fish) can occur at even moderate levels 

of fishing for rockfish (Berkeley et al., 

2004b). Age truncation has been widely 

demonstrated for Sebastes populations 

all along the west coast (Mason, 1998; 

Harvey et al., 2006), even for species not 

currently categorized as overfished by 

the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council. It can have ‘‘catastrophic’’ 

effects for long-lived species such as 

rockfish (Longhurst, 2002). For Puget 

Sound rockfish, it is likely that the age 

truncation effects of past overfishing are 

long-lasting and may constitute an 

ongoing threat, particularly because 

older, larger, older females are likely to 

be more fecund. 

In addition, fishing can have dramatic 

impacts on the size or age structure of 

the population, with effects that can 

influence ongoing productivity. 

Notably, declines in size and age of 

females can significantly impact 

reproductive success. Below, we outline 

the evidence for maternal effects on 

reproductive success and discuss the 

possibility that such effects occur in the 

petitioned species. 

Because most rockfish females release 

larvae on only one day each year (with 

a few exceptions in southern 

populations), the timing of parturition 

can be crucial in terms of matching 

favorable oceanographic conditions for 

larvae. Larger or older females release 

larvae earlier in the season compared to 

smaller or younger females in black, 

blue, yellowtail, kelp, and darkblotched 

rockfish (Sogard et al., 2008; Nichol and 

Pikitch, 1994). Maternal effects on larval 

quality have been documented for black, 

blue, gopher, and yellowtail rockfish 

(Berkeley et al., 2004; Sogard et al., 

2008). The mechanism for maternal 

effects on larval quality across species is 

the size of the oil globule provided to 

larvae at parturition, which provides the 

developing larva with energy insurance 

against the risks of starvation (Berkeley 

et al., 2004; Fisher et al., 2007), and in 

black rockfish enhances early growth 

rates (Berkeley et al., 2004). An 

additional maternal effect in black 

rockfish indicates that older females are 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18535 

more successful in producing progeny 

that recruit from primary oocyte to fully 

developed larva (Bobko and Berkeley, 

2004). 

In a broad span of species, there is 

evidence that age or size truncation is 

associated with increased variability in 

recruitment (e.g., Icelandic cod 

(Marteinsdottir and Thorarinsson, 

1998), striped bass (Secor, 2000), Baltic 

cod (Wieland et al., 2000), and a broad 

suite of California Current species 

(Hsieh et al., 2006)). For long-lived 

species, reproduction over a span of 

many years is considered a bet-hedging 

strategy that has a buffering effect at the 

population level, increasing the 

likelihood of some successful 

reproduction over a period of variable 

environmental conditions (Longhurst, 

2002). When reproductive effort is 

limited to younger ages, this buffering 

capacity is lost and populations more 

closely follow short-term fluctuations in 

the environment (Hsieh, 2006). 

In summary, it is likely that past 

overfishing has reduced the abundance 

of the petitioned DPSs, leading to the 

current low abundance levels that place 

their future viability at risk. In addition, 

it is likely that past overfishing has 

reduced the proportion of large females 

in the petitioned DPSs, harming the 

productivity of the populations and 

affecting their ability to recover from 

current low levels of abundance. 

Ongoing fisheries also create risks for 

the petitioned DPSs, and are discussed 

below under The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms. 

Disease or Predation 

The BRT identified predation as a 

threat to the five DPSs of rockfishes. 

Rockfish are important prey items of 

lingcod (Beaudreau and Essington, 

2007). Populations of lingcod have been 

low in Puget Sound, but are increasing 

in recent years (Palsson et al., 2008). 

Ruckelshaus et al. (in press) examined 

the potential effect of predation by 

lingcod on rockfish recovery. Their 

models indicate that even very small 

increases in predation mortality within 

marine protected areas (i.e., 1.2 percent) 

are sufficient to negate the benefit of 

zero fishing pressure that occurs within 

the protected areas. 

Predation by pinnipeds may be 

locally significant. Four pinniped 

species are found in the waters of the 

State of Washington: harbor seals, 

California sea lions, Steller sea lions, 

and northern elephant seals. Harbor seal 

populations have increased from in the 

100s during the 1970s to more than 

10,000 at present (Jeffries et al., 2003). 

The harbor seal is the only pinniped 

species that breeds in Washington 

waters, and is the only pinniped with 

known haul-out sites in the San Juan 

Islands (Jeffries et al., 2000). Harbor 

seals are considered a threat to local 

fisheries in many areas (Bjorge et al., 

2002; Olesiuk et al., 1990), and in 

Washington, Oregon, and California, 

consumption of rockfishes by California 

sea lions and harbor seals is estimated 

to be almost half of what is harvested in 

commercial fisheries (NMFS 1997). In 

Puget Sound, harbor seals are 

considered opportunistic feeders that 

consume seasonally and locally 

abundant prey (London et al., 2001; 

Olesiuk et al., 1990). 

About 2,000 Steller sea lions occur 

seasonally in Washington waters, with 

dozens found in Puget Sound, 

particularly in the San Juan Islands 

(Palsson et al., 2008). About 8 percent 

of the Steller sea lion diet is rockfish 

(Lance and Jeffries, 2007). Though not 

abundant, their large size and 

aggregated distribution suggest that their 

local impact on rockfish could be 

significant. 

Fifteen species of marine birds breed 

along the Washington coast; seven of 

these have historically been found 

breeding in the San Juan Islands/Puget 

Sound area (Speich and Wahl, 1989). 

The predominant breeding marine birds 

in the San Juan Islands are pigeon 

guillemots, double-crested cormorants, 

pelagic cormorants, and members of the 

western gull/glaucous-winged gull 

complex (Speich and Wahl, 1989). The 

first three species are locally abundant. 

Although these avian predators can 

consume juvenile rockfish, whether 

they have a significant impact on 

rockfish populations is unknown. 

Rockfish are susceptible to diseases 

and parasites (Love et al., 2002), but 

disease and parasite impacts on the 

petitioned species are not known. 

Palsson et al. (2008) suggest that stress 

associated with poor water quality may 

exacerbate the incidence and severity of 

naturally occurring diseases to the point 

of directly or indirectly decreasing 

survivorship of the petitioned species. 

The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Sport and Commercial Fishing 

Regulations 

Significant efforts to protect rockfish 

in Puget Sound from overharvest began 

in 1982 when the Washington 

Department of Fisheries (now the 

WDFW) published the Puget Sound 

Groundfish Management Plan. This plan 

identified rockfish as an important 

commercial and recreational resource in 

the Sound and established acceptable 

biological catch levels to control harvest 

(Palsson et al., 2008). The acceptable 

biological catch levels were based on 

recent average catches and initially set 

at 304,360 kg (671,000 total pounds) of 

rockfish for Puget Sound. This plan 

emphasized recreational fisheries for 

rockfish while limiting the degree of 

commercial fishing. During the 1980s, 

WDFW continued to collect information 

on rockfish harvest with an emphasis on 

increasing the amount of information 

available on rockfish bycatch in nontargeted fisheries (e.g., salmon fishery). 

In 1983, rockfish recreational harvest 

limits were reduced from 15 fish to 10 

fish in North Puget Sound and to 5 fish 

in South Puget Sound. The 1982 

Groundfish Management Plan was 

updated in 1986 and extended the 

preference for recreational fisheries over 

commercial fishing for rockfish to the 

San Juan Islands and the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca (Palsson et al., 2008). During 

this same time, WDFW received a 

Federal grant to monitor recreational 

catches of rockfish and collect biological 

data on rockfish populations in the 

Sound. Information was collected, and 

new management scenarios for rockfish 

were developed but never implemented. 

In 1991, WDFW adopted a significant 

change in strategy for rockfish 

management in Puget Sound. The 

strategy, called ‘‘passive management,’’ 

ended all monitoring of commercial 

fisheries for groundfish and collection 

of biological data (Palsson et al., 2008). 

The switch in strategy was at least 

partially due to the closing by the State 

legislature of commercial fishing in 

Puget Sound south of Foulweather 

Bluff. The termination of monitoring 

created a data gap in rockfish biological 

data for the 1990s. In 1994, the 

recreational daily bag limit for rockfish 

was reduced to 5 fish in North Puget 

Sound and 3 fish in South Puget Sound. 

In addition, WDFW adopted regulations 

to close remaining trawl fisheries in 

Admiralty Inlet. 

In 1996, the Washington State Fish 

and Wildlife Commission established a 

new policy for Puget Sound Groundfish 

management. The policy stated that the 

commission would manage Puget Sound 

groundfish, especially Pacific cod, in a 

conservative manner in order to 

minimize the risk of overharvest and to 

ensure the long-term health of the 

resource. During the next two years, 

WDFW developed a groundfish 

management plan (Palsson et al., 1998) 

that identified specific goals and 

objectives to achieve the commission’s 

precautionary approach (Palsson et al., 

2008). The plan also called for the 

development of species-specific 

(including many rockfishes) 

conservation and use plans. To date, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18536 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

plans for the various species of 

rockfishes have not been developed. In 

2000, WDFW established a one rockfish 

daily bag limit for all of Puget Sound, 

and in 2002 and 2003, prohibited the 

retention of canary and yelloweye 

rockfishes. In 2004, WDFW promulgated 

additional protective regulations 

limiting harvest of rockfish to the open 

salmon and lingcod seasons, prohibiting 

spearfishing for rockfish east of Sekiu, 

and only allowing the retention of the 

first rockfish captured. Monitoring of 

recreational fisheries has also increased, 

with estimates of total rockfish catches 

by boat-based anglers now available. 

Bycatch and subsequent discarding of 

rockfish is currently thought to be quite 

high in the recreational fishery (Palsson 

et al., 2008). WDFW reported bycatch 

rates of greater than 20 percent (20 

percent of rockfish caught are released) 

prior to the 1980s, but in recent years 

bycatch rates are in excess of 50 percent. 

The recent increase is ostensibly the 

outcome of the reduction in the 

allowable daily catch of rockfish 

(Palsson et al., 2008). Palsson et al. 

(2008) reports that for every rockfish 

landed in Puget Sound, 1.5 are released. 

WDFW records (as summarized in 

Palsson et al., 2008) show that between 

2004 and 2007, an average of 23 kg/yr 

(50 pounds) of canary rockfish were 

harvested and 160 kg/yr (353 pounds) 

were released in North Puget Sound, 

while an average of 82 kg/yr (181 

pounds) were harvested and 151 kg/yr 

(333 pounds) were released in South 

Puget Sound. An average of 6 kg/yr (13 

pounds) of yelloweye rockfish were 

harvest and 189 kg/yr (417 pounds) 

were released in North Puget Sound 

while no yelloweye rockfish were 

harvest and an average of 14 kg/yr (30 

pounds) were released in South Puget 

Sound. These data show that despite the 

ban on retention of canary and 

yelloweye rockfish, a small number of 

fish were harvested in years following 

the ban. Although the reported harvest 

levels may appear low, canary and 

yelloweye rockfish are currently at low 

abundance and removal of individuals, 

particularly large females, may limit 

recovery. Although no data is presented 

for bocaccio, this species is present at 

such low abundance that removal of any 

individuals would be detrimental to 

recovery. As discussed earlier, most 

released rockfish will also die. 

The current fishery regulations may 

inadequately protect bocaccio, canary, 

and yelloweye rockfish. Fishers 

targeting other species of rockfish or 

other types of popular fishes such as 

salmon and lingcod are likely to hook 

the occasional bocaccio, canary, or 

yelloweye rockfish. This is because all 

of the aforementioned fishes’ 

distributions overlap within the Georgia 

Basin. They also consume similar or 

identical prey items, making them 

vulnerable to fishing lures or baits 

imitating these prey items. The 

continued decline in these three 

petitioned species is further evidence 

that the current fishery regulations are 

inadequate. 

Almost no greenstriped or redstripe 

rockfish were reported as harvested or 

released from North or South Puget 

Sound during the period from 2004 to 

2007. These fishes are not popular 

among recreational fishers and inhabit 

water deeper than is typically fished 

with currently available recreational 

fishing gear. Although it is likely the 

occasional greenstriped and redstripe 

rockfish are discarded during 

recreational fisheries and not reported, 

current recreational fishery regulations 

appear adequate to protect these 

species. 

During each year from 2004 to 2007, 

a large number of rockfish harvested or 

released were recorded as unidentified. 

Although the canary, yelloweye, 

greenstriped, and redstripe rockfish are 

among the more easily identified 

rockfishes, it is likely that some 

additional harvested or released fish 

from these species are recorded in the 

unidentified category. The same 

situation likely exists for bocaccio, and 

some fish may be harvested or released 

without being recorded. Information 

about shore-based catches, and bycatch 

of rockfish in salmon fisheries, is still 

not available and these may be 

significant sources of mortality for the 

petitioned species. Rockfish discard 

levels vary among fisheries targeting 

different species about 60 percent in the 

bottomfish fishery, 76 percent in the 

salmon fishery, and nearly 50 percent in 

other fisheries (Palsson et al. 2008). 

Commerical catch data do not include 

information on bycatch, and there is a 

lack of an effective program to make 

direct observations of bycatch aboard 

fishing vessels operating in Puget 

Sound. Given the very high mortality 

rate of discarded rockfish (Parker et al., 

2006), and the low resiliency of rockfish 

populations to exploitation, the BRT 

concluded that current levels of bycatch 

are an important threat to the petitioned 

species. 

Tribal Fishing 

Several species of rockfish have been 

historically harvested by Native 

Americans. Since 1991, rockfishes 

harvested by tribal fishers have 

represented less than 2 percent of total 

Puget Sound rockfish harvest (Palsson et 

al., 2008). Information from the 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

indicates that total reported rockfish 

catches by member tribes from 2000 to 

2005 range between 10.9 and 368 kg (24 

and 811 pounds). Tribal regulations in 

Puget Sound vary by tribe from a ban on 

commercial harvest of rockfish to a 15– 

fish bag limit for personal use. The 

currently low rockfish abundance in 

this area has significantly decreased the 

interest in harvest of rockfish by tribal 

fishers (William Beattie, Northwest 

Indian Fisheries Commission, personal 

communication). 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Rockfishes are known to compete 

interspecifically for resources (Larson, 

1980). Harvey et al., (2006) documented 

the decline of bocaccio in the California 

Current, and used bioenergetic models 

to suggest that recovery of coastal 

populations of bocaccio may be 

inhibited by other more common 

rockfishes. In Puget Sound, more 

abundant species such as copper 

rockfish and quillback rockfish may 

interact with juvenile bocaccio, canary 

rockfish, or yelloweye rockfish and limit 

the ability of these petitioned species to 

recover from perturbations. However, 

evidence documenting competition in 

Puget Sound is generally lacking and 

most species abundances are declining, 

which implies that competition is 

currently less significant. 

Chinook and coho salmon consume 

larval and juvenile rockfish, and they 

also compete for prey with small size 

classes of rockfish (Buckley, 1997). 

Thus, large releases of hatchery salmon 

have the potential to influence the 

population dynamics of the petitioned 

species. Total hatchery releases in Puget 

Sound have mirrored those in the 

California Current region (Naish et al., 

2007), with about 2 million fish released 

in the early 1970s, reaching a peak of 

over 8 million in the early 1990s. 

Current annual releases are around 4 

million (Palsson et al., 2008). Although 

releases of hatchery salmon have the 

potential to affect the petitioned 

rockfishes, considerable uncertainty 

remains about how detrimental the 

effect may be. 

Rockfish are unintentionally captured 

as part of fishing activities targeting 

other species (e.g., the lingcod fishery 

and the setnet fishery for spiny dogfish 

(Squalus acanthias), particularly in 

South Puget Sound (Drake et al., 2008)). 

Although fishers may return rockfish to 

the water, the mortality rate of these fish 

is extremely high (Parker et al., 2006). 

Although there are some methods 

available that could lower the mortality 

rates of discarded rockfish (summarized 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18537 

by Palsson et al., 2008), application of 

these methods in the Puget Sound 

fishery would be difficult (Palsson et al., 

2008). WDFW considers bycatch of 

rockfish to be a ‘‘high impact stressor’’ 

on rockfish populations (Palsson et al., 

2008). 

Palsson et al. (2008) report that more 

than 3,600 pieces of abandoned fishing 

gear (especially gillnets) have been 

located in Puget Sound. About 35 

percent of this derelict gear has been 

removed. Derelict nets continue fishing 

and are known to kill rockfish (Palsson 

et al., 2008). While the total impact of 

this abandoned gear has not been fully 

evaluated, WDFW has concluded that 

derelict gear is likely to moderately 

affect local populations of rockfish 

(Palsson et al., 2008). 

Patterns of circulation and 

productivity in Puget Sound are 

fundamentally influenced by climate 

conditions. Changes in the timing of 

freshwater input affect stratification and 

mixing in the Sound, while changes in 

wind pattern influence the amount of 

biologically important upwelled water 

that enters the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

from the coast (Snover et al., 2005). 

Direct studies on the effect of climate 

variability on rockfish are rare, but all 

the studies performed to date suggest 

that climate plays an extremely 

important role in population dynamics. 

The negative effect of the warm water 

conditions associated with El Nin ̃o 

appear to be common across rockfishes 

(Moser et al., 2000). Field and Ralston 

(2005) noted that recruitment of all 

species of rockfish appeared to be 

correlated at large scales and 

hypothesized that such synchrony was 

the result of large-scale climate forcing. 

Exactly how climate influences the 

petitioned species in Puget Sound is 

unknown; however, given the general 

importance of climate to Puget Sound 

and to rockfish, it is likely that climate 

influences the dynamics of the 

petitioned species. Any future changes 

in climate patterns could affect the 

ability of rockfishes in Puget Sound to 

recover. 

Efforts Being Made to Protect Rockfish 

in Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin 

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires 

the Secretary of Commerce to take into 

account efforts being made to protect a 

species that has been petitioned for 

listing. Accordingly, we will assess 

conservation measures being taken to 

protect these five rockfish DPSs to 

determine whether they ameliorate the 

species’ extinction risks (50 CFR 

424.11(f)). In judging the efficacy of 

conservation efforts that have not yet 

been implemented, or have been 

implemented but have not yet 

demonstrated their effectiveness, we 

consider the following: the substantive, 

protective, and conservation elements of 

such efforts; the degree of certainty that 

such efforts will reliably be 

implemented; the degree of certainty 

that such efforts will be effective in 

furthering the conservation of the 

species (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003); 

and the presence of monitoring 

provisions that track the effectiveness of 

recovery efforts, and that inform 

iterative refinements to management as 

information is accrued. 

Habitat Protection 

In the Puget Sound ecosystem, several 

Federal laws protect marine habitat as 

well as the watersheds that flow into the 

Sound. Federal programs carried out 

under the Clean Water Act (CWA) help 

ensure that water quality is maintained 

or improved and that discharge of fill 

material into rivers and streams is 

regulated. Several sections of this law, 

such as section 404 (discharge of fill 

into wetlands), section 402 (discharge of 

pollutants into water bodies), and 

section 404(d) (designation of water 

quality limited streams and rivers), 

regulate activities that might degrade 

waters flowing into Puget Sound. In 

addition, the Puget Sound region 

contains hundreds of CWA 303(d) 

designated waters, where high levels of 

pollutants, such as Polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs), have already been 

documented. Although programs carried 

out under the CWA are well funded and 

enforcement of this law occurs, it is 

generally accepted that Puget Sound has 

ongoing water quality problems, 

particularly due to storm water runoff, 

that are not currently adequately 

mitigated by this law. This is evidenced 

by recent low oxygen events in Puget 

Sound that killed large numbers of 

rockfish (Drake et al., 2008). 

The Coastal Zone Management Act 

and Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 

Amendments of 1990 encourage states 

and tribes to preserve, protect, develop, 

and where possible, restore or enhance 

valuable natural coastal resources such 

as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, 

beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and 

coral reefs, as well as the fish and 

wildlife using those habitats. Despite 

these provisions, the status of rockfishes 

and other species continues to decline. 

In Puget Sound and elsewhere along 

the west coast, governments and nongovernmental organizations are working 

to restore depressed salmon stocks. 

Rockfish in Puget Sound benefit from 

these efforts indirectly, primarily 

through improved water quality in 

streams that flow into Puget Sound. As 

part of these efforts, the State of 

Washington established the Puget 

Sound Partnership in 2007, a new 

agency consisting of an executive 

director, an ecosystem coordination 

board, and a Puget Sound science panel. 

The Partnership was created to oversee 

the restoration of the environmental 

health of Puget Sound by 2020, and was 

directed to create a long-term plan 

called the 2020 Action Agenda released 

in December 2008. The Partnership met 

this deadline, but does not presently 

have a track record to support a 

conclusion that the control or reduction 

of pollutants into Puget Sound is 

reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, it is 

not possible to draw conclusions about 

Partnership efforts and how they may 

reduce pollution and contamination or 

other threats to rockfish populations. 

There are also local efforts underway 

to identify and protect important 

habitats in Puget Sound. In 2004, the 

San Juan County Board of 

Commissioners designated the entire 

marine waters of the county as a Marine 

Stewardship Area. Under the Marine 

Stewardship Area designation, the 

county is working with other 

government agencies and using public 

input from Indian Tribes, county 

residents, non-resident landowners, 

visitors, and others with an interest in 

the county’s marine ecosystems to 

closely examine adopted goals, develop 

specific objectives, and determine what 

additional protections are necessary to 

achieve those objectives. The results of 

this work will be the designation of 

specific locations within the marine 

stewardship area where different levels 

of voluntary or regulatory protection 

could be established in a coordinated 

effort by marine site managers in the 

County waters to meet the goals. It is 

unclear what impact these actions may 

have. 

In Canada, the Georgia Basin Action 

Plan is a multi-partnered initiative 

describing its mission as working to 

improve sustainability in the Georgia 

Basin. This group conducts physical 

and biological monitoring throughout 

the basin and funds collaborative 

restoration and enhancement projects. 

This group’s progress reports indicate 

that most projects that would benefit 

rockfishes focus on improving water 

quality. These projects are expected to 

benefit rockfishes by reducing the level 

of contaminants, but given the current 

water quality problems throughout the 

basin, it is likely to take many years to 

make significant progress. 

After 2000, WDFW began to expand 

the role of marine reserves in rockfish 

management (Palsson et al., 2008). 

Fourteen of these marine reserves in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Puget Sound are occupied by rockfish 

(Palsson et al., 2008). Reserves include 

conservation areas where all non-tribal 

harvest of rockfish is prohibited, and 

marine preserve areas where bottom fish 

and shellfish harvest is prohibited, but 

salmon fishing is allowed during open 

seasons. Analysis by WDFW indicates 

that marine reserves may help restore 

abundance of rockfish species, but it is 

unclear how rockfish assemblages and 

their predators and prey are affected by 

the establishment of these reserves 

(Palsson et al., 2008). 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has 

developed an extensive network of 

rockfish conservation areas off the coast 

of British Columbia (Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada, 2007). Many of these 

conservation areas fall within the range 

of the bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, and 

canary rockfish Georgia Basin DPSs. 

None of them are located within the 

range of the greenstriped and redstripe 

rockfish Puget Sound Proper DPSs. 

Within the Canadian conservation areas, 

recreational fishing is limited to 

harvesting invertebrates by hand 

picking or SCUBA, harvesting crab by 

trap, harvesting shrimp and prawn by 

trap, and capturing smelt by gillnet. 

These restrictions reduce rockfish 

mortality by eliminating directed 

harvest of rockfish and restricting 

fishing methods that may have 

significant rockfish bycatch. For 

commercial fisheries, invertebrates can 

be taken by hand picking or SCUBA; 

crabs by trap; prawns by trap; scallops 

by trawl; salmon by seine or gillnet; 

herring by gillnet, seine, and spawn-onkelp; sardine by gillnet, seine, and trap; 

smelt by gillnet; euphausiid (krill) by 

mid-water trawl; opal squid by seine; 

and groundfish by mid-water trawl. For 

commercial groundfish fishing, methods 

that may result in rockfish bycatch are 

still permissible. Thus, these actions 

may still harm rockfish populations, 

and populations continue to decline. 

Proposed Determinations 

Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires 

that the listing determination be based 

solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, after 

conducting a review of the status of the 

species and after taking into account 

those efforts, if any, being made by any 

state or foreign nation to protect and 

conserve the species. We have reviewed 

the best scientific and commercial 

information available including the 

petition, the reports of the BRT (Drake 

et al., 2008), co-manager comments, and 

other available published and 

unpublished information, and we have 

consulted with species experts and 

other individuals familiar with the 

rockfishes. 

For the reasons stated above, and as 

summarized below, we conclude: (1) 

bocaccio, canary rockfish, and 

yelloweye rockfish inhabiting the 

Georgia Basin meet the discreteness and 

significance criteria for DPSs; (2) 

redstripe and greenstriped rockfish 

inhabiting Puget Sound Proper meet the 

discreteness and significance criteria for 

DPSs; (3) Georgia Basin bocaccio are in 

danger of extinction throughout their 

range; (4) Georgia Basin canary rockfish 

and yelloweye rockfish are likely to 

become endangered throughout their 

ranges in the foreseeable future; and 

redstripe and greenstriped rockfish in 

Puget Sound Proper are not likely to 

become endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of their ranges in the 

foreseeable future. 

Bocaccio occurring in the Georgia 

Basin are discrete from other members 

of their species based on the following: 

(1) Information from other rockfish 

species shows genetic differences 

between rockfish inhabiting coastal 

waters and inland marine waters of the 

Pacific Northwest; (2) differences in 

bocaccio age structure between coastal 

and inland stocks support the 

conclusion that these populations are 

isolated; (3) unlike coastal bocaccio, 

which are most frequently found in 

association with rocks and boulder 

fields, bocaccio in the Georgia Basin 

have been frequently found in areas 

with sand and mud substrate. 

Yelloweye rockfish occurring in the 

Georgia Basin are discrete from other 

members of their species based on the 

following: (1) Information from 

yelloweye studies and studies of other 

rockfish species shows genetic 

differences between rockfish inhabiting 

coastal waters and inland marine waters 

of the Pacific Northwest; (2) although 

yelloweye rockfish have the potential to 

move large distances as adults, they 

generally remain sedentary as adults, 

limiting gene flow between coastal and 

inland populations; (3) lack of suitable 

habitat for yelloweye rockfish in Puget 

Sound Proper indicates that a larger 

geographic area including the Georgia 

Basin would be needed to support a 

viable DPS of this species. Canary 

rockfish occurring in the Georgia Basin 

are discrete from other members of their 

species based on the following: (1) 

Information from other rockfish species 

shows genetic differences between 

rockfish inhabiting coastal waters and 

inland marine waters of the Pacific 

Northwest; (2) canary rockfish were 

historically abundant in South Puget 

Sound and their movement potential as 

adults would allow some interactions 

with fish in North Puget Sound, but 

bathymetry and current patterns most 

likely limit interactions with coastal 

populations. These DPSs meet the 

significance criteria because they 

occupy the unique ecological setting of 

the Georgia Basin. The current patterns 

of the inland marine waters, interactions 

between fresh and saltwater, the 

protection afforded by the land features 

of the Olympic Peninsula and 

Vancouver Island, and sill-dominated 

bathymetry make the Georgia Basin 

different from other coastal areas 

occupied by these species and likely 

lead to unique adaptations in these 

species. 

We conclude that greenstriped and 

redstripe rockfish occupying Puget 

Sound Proper (inland waters south of 

Admiralty Inlet) meet the discreteness 

and significance criteria for DPSs. 

Members of these species occurring in 

this area are discrete from other 

members of their species based on the 

following: (1) Information from other 

rockfish species shows genetic 

differences between rockfish inhabiting 

coastal waters and inland marine waters 

of the Pacific Northwest (e.g., Puget 

Sound, Georgia Basin, etc.) and 

additional genetic differences between 

some rockfish species occupying Puget 

Sound Proper and those occupying the 

rest of the Georgia Basin; (2) suitable 

mud/sand habitat for these two species 

is abundant in Puget Sound Proper but 

less common in the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca and North Puget Sound; (3) there 

is a large geographic break between 

greenstriped rockfish populations 

occupying Puget Sound Proper and 

those occupying the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca; (4) greenstriped and redstripe 

rockfish tend to occupy deeper habitat 

(Love et al., 2002) than the other 

petitioned species and they very rarely 

travel over the shallow sills of Puget 

Sound Proper, likely limiting 

interactions between populations in 

Puget Sound Proper and the rest of the 

Georgia Basin. These discrete 

population segments meet the 

significance criteria because they 

occupy a unique ecological setting. The 

current patterns, interactions between 

fresh and saltwater, sill-dominated 

bathymetry, and abundance of mud/ 

sand habitat make Puget Sound Proper 

different from other areas in the Georgia 

Basin and coastal waters occupied by 

these species. 

On the basis of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we have determined that the Georgia 

Basin DPS of bocaccio is currently in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range. Factors supporting this 

conclusion include: (1) reduced 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18539 

abundance, to the point where it is 

almost undetectable; (2) infrequent 

recruitment events dependent on rare 

weather and ocean conditions; (3) high 

susceptibility to overfishing; (4) high 

mortality rate (resulting in further 

reduction of population productivity 

and abundance) associated with 

incidental capture in fisheries (due to 

the inability of its swim bladder to 

accommodate the rapid change in 

pressure when brought to the surface), 

despite improvements (summarized in 

the previous sections) in current 

commercial, recreational, and tribal 

fishing regulations; and (5) exposure to 

continuing water quality problems 

within the range of the Georgia Basin. 

Therefore, we propose to list the Georgia 

Basin DPS of bocaccio as endangered. 

We have determined that the Georgia 

Basin DPSs of canary and yelloweye 

rockfish are not presently in danger of 

extinction, but are likely to become so 

in the foreseeable future throughout all 

of their range. Factors supporting a 

conclusion that these DPSs are not 

presently in danger of extinction 

include: (1) These DPS’s abundances 

have been greatly reduced from historic 

levels, but fish are still present in 

significant enough numbers to be caught 

in recreational fisheries and research 

trawls; (2) large female members of 

these species are highly fecund, and, if 

allowed to survive and reproduce 

successfully, can produce large numbers 

of offspring; and (3) WDFW has 

prohibited retention of these species. 

Factors supporting a conclusion that 

these DPSs are likely to become in 

danger of extinction in the foreseeable 

future include: (1) These DPS’s 

abundances have greatly decreased from 

historic levels and abundance trends are 

negative; (2) individuals of these species 

appear to be absent in areas where they 

were formerly abundant (i.e., canary 

rockfish in South Puget Sound); (3) 

although these species were formerly 

abundant in the catch, they are less 

frequent now; (4) although current 

commercial, recreational, and tribal 

fishing regulations have been changed 

to offer more protection to these DPSs, 

these species are still vulnerable to 

being hooked in salmon and lingcod 

fisheries in the Georgia Basin and 

almost always die after release, further 

reducing population productivity and 

abundance; and (5) current protective 

measures for habitat in the Georgia 

Basin are insufficient to ameliorate the 

threats to these species as evidenced by 

continuing water quality problems in 

this area. We propose to list the Georgia 

Basin DPSs of yelloweye and canary 

rockfish as threatened. 

We conclude that the Puget Sound 

Proper DPSs of greenstriped and 

redstripe rockfishes are not presently in 

danger of extinction, nor are they likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

their ranges. Factors supporting this 

conclusion include: (1) Abundances for 

these DPSs are lower than historical 

levels, but seem to have been constant 

over recent years; (2) these species have 

patchy but wide distributions, 

indicating that connectivity remains 

high; (3) redstripe rockfish are very 

abundant in some areas within Puget 

Sound Proper; (4) these species are 

generally not targeted by recreational 

fishers; (5) exposure to continuing water 

quality problems within the range of the 

Georgia Basin; and (6) these species are 

habitat generalists and are not reliant on 

the rock habitats that are rare in Puget 

Sound Proper. Therefore, we conclude 

that listing the Puget Sound Proper 

greenstriped and redstripe rockfish 

DPSs as threatened or endangered under 

the ESA is not warranted at this time. 

Take Prohibitions and Protective 

Regulations 

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain 

activities that directly or indirectly 

affect endangered species. These section 

9(a) prohibitions apply to all 

individuals, organizations, and agencies 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction. In the case 

of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) 

requires the Secretary to issue 

regulations he deems necessary and 

appropriate for the conservation of the 

species. We have flexibility under 

section 4(d) to tailor protective 

regulations based on the needs of and 

threats to the species. The section 4(d) 

protective regulations may prohibit, 

with respect to threatened species, some 

or all of the acts which section 9(a) of 

the ESA prohibits with respect to 

endangered species. We will evaluate 

protective regulations pursuant to 

section 4(d) for the threatened rockfish 

DPSs and propose any considered 

necessary and advisable for 

conservation of these species in a future 

rulemaking. In order to inform our 

consideration of appropriate protective 

regulations for these DPSs, we seek 

information from the public on the 

threats to yelloweye and canary rockfish 

in the Georgia Basin and possible 

measures for their conservation. 

Other Protections 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and NMFS/ 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

regulations require Federal agencies to 

confer with us on actions likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

species proposed for listing or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of proposed critical habitat. If a 

proposed species is ultimately listed, 

Federal agencies must consult on any 

action they authorize, fund, or carry out 

if those actions may affect the listed 

species or its critical habitat. Examples 

of Federal actions that may affect the 

proposed rockfish DPSs include: point 

and non-point source discharge of 

persistent contaminants, contaminated 

waste disposal, dredging in marine 

waters, development of water quality 

standards, fishery management 

practices, and transportation 

management. 

Peer Review 

In December 2004, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued 

a Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review establishing minimum peer 

review standards, a transparent process 

for public disclosure of peer review 

planning, and opportunities for public 

participation. The OMB Bulletin, 

implemented under the Information 

Quality Act (Public Law 106–554), is 

intended to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Federal Government’s 

scientific information, and applies to 

influential or highly influential 

scientific information disseminated on 

or after June 16, 2005. To satisfy our 

requirements under the OMB Bulletin, 

we are obtaining independent peer 

review of the draft status report, which 

supports this proposal to list three DPSs 

of rockfish in Puget Sound and Georgia 

Basin as threatened or endangered; all 

peer reviewer comments will be 

addressed prior to dissemination of the 

final report and publication of the final 

rule. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the ESA as: ‘‘(i) the specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of this Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed in accordance with the 

provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon 

a determination by the Secretary that 

such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1532(5)(A)). ‘‘Conservation’’ means the 

use of all methods and procedures 

needed to bring the species to the point 

at which listing under the ESA is no 

longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires 

that, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, critical habitat be 

designated concurrently with the listing 

of a species (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)). 

Section 4(b)(2) requires that designation 

of critical habitat be based on the best 

scientific data available, after taking into 

consideration the economic, national 

security, and other relevant impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)). 

Once critical habitat is designated, 

section 7 of the ESA requires Federal 

agencies to ensure that they do not fund, 

authorize, or carry out any actions that 

are likely to destroy or adversely modify 

that habitat. This requirement is in 

addition to the section 7 requirement 

that Federal agencies ensure that their 

actions do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species. 

At this time, critical habitat is not 

determinable for bocaccio, canary 

rockfish, or yelloweye rockfish. We are 

currently compiling information to 

prepare a critical habitat proposal for 

bocaccio, canary rockfish, and 

yelloweye rockfish in the Puget Sound 

and the Georgia Basin. Therefore, we 

seek public input and information to 

assist in gathering and analyzing the 

best available scientific data to support 

a critical habitat designation. After 

considering all available information, 

we will initiate rulemaking with the 

publication of a proposed designation of 

critical habitat in the Federal Register, 

opening a period for public comment 

and providing the opportunity for 

public hearings. 

Joint NMFS/FWS regulations for 

listing endangered and threatened 

species and designating critical habitat 

at 50 CFR 424.12(2)(b) state that the 

agency ‘‘shall consider those physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of a given species 

and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection.’’ Pursuant to the regulations, 

such requirements include, but are not 

limited to the following: (1) space for 

individual and population growth, and 

for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; (3) cover or 

shelter; (4) sites for breeding, 

reproduction, rearing of offspring, 

germination, or seed dispersal; and 

generally; (5) habitats that are protected 

from disturbance or are representative of 

the historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. The 

regulations also state that the agency 

shall focus on the principal biological or 

physical constituent elements within 

the specific areas considered for 

designation. These constituent elements 

may include, but are not limited to: 

spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal 

wetland or dryland, water quality or 

quantity, geological formation, 

vegetation type, tide, and specific soil 

types. While we have not yet analyzed 

the habitat needs of these rockfish DPSs, 

essential features of rockfish habitat 

may include free passage, forage, 

benthic substrate, and water quality. 

In accordance with the Secretarial 

Order on American Indian Tribal Rights, 

Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 

and the ESA, we will coordinate with 

federally recognized American Indian 

Tribes on a Government-to-Government 

basis to determine how to make critical 

habitat assessments in areas that may 

impact Tribal trust resources. In 

accordance with our regulations at 50 

CFR 424.13, we will consult as 

appropriate with affected states, 

interested persons and organizations, 

other affected Federal agencies, and, in 

cooperation with the Secretary of State, 

with the country or countries in which 

the species concerned are normally 

found or whose citizens harvest such 

species from the high seas. 

Public Comments Solicited 

To ensure that the final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and effective as possible, we 

solicit comments and suggestions from 

the public, other governmental agencies, 

the Government of Canada, the 

scientific community, industry, 

environmental groups, and any other 

interested parties. Comments are 

encouraged on this proposal (See DATES

and ADDRESSES). Specifically, we are 

interested in information regarding: (1) 

population structure of bocaccio, 

yelloweye rockfish, and canary rockfish; 

(2) biological or other relevant data 

concerning any threats to the rockfish 

DPSs we propose for listing; (3) the 

range, distribution, and abundance of 

these rockfish DPSs; (4) current or 

planned activities within the range of 

the rockfish DPSs we propose for listing 

and their possible impact on these 

DPSs; and (5) efforts being made to 

protect rockfish DPSs we propose to list. 

Critical Habitat 

We also request quantitative 

evaluations describing the quality and 

extent of marine habitats for the 

proposed rockfish DPSs as well as 

information on areas that may qualify as 

critical habitat for the proposed DPSs. 

Specific areas that include the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the DPSs, where such 

features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection, should be identified. We are 

requesting information about these 

areas, particularly information 

indicating whether these unoccupied 

areas may be essential to conservation of 

these species. Although the range of 

these DPSs extends into Canada, ESA 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(h) specify that critical habitat 

shall not be designated within foreign 

countries or in other areas outside of 

U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, we request 

information only on potential areas of 

critical habitat within the United States 

or waters within U.S. jurisdiction. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the 

Secretary to consider the ‘‘economic 

impact, impact on national security, and 

any other relevant impact’’ of 

designating a particular area as critical 

habitat. Section 4(b)(2) authorizes, but 

does not require, the Secretary to 

exclude from a critical habitat 

designation those particular areas where 

the Secretary finds that the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

designation, unless excluding that area 

will result in extinction of the species. 

We seek information regarding the 

conservation benefits of designating 

areas in Puget Sound as critical habitat 

for the rockfish DPSs we propose to list 

under the ESA. We also seek 

information on the economic benefit of 

excluding areas from the critical habitat 

designation, and the economic benefits 

of including an area as part of the 

critical habitat designation. In keeping 

with the guidance provided by the OMB 

(2000; 2003), we seek information that 

would allow us to monetize these effects 

to the extent possible, as well as 

information on qualitative impacts to 

economic values. We also seek 

information on impacts to national 

security and any other relevant impacts 

of designating critical habitat in these 

areas. 

Data reviewed may include, but are 

not limited to: (1) scientific or 

commercial publications, (2) 

administrative reports, maps or other 

graphic materials, information received 

from experts, and (3) comments from 

interested parties. Comments and data 

particularly are sought concerning: (1) 

maps and specific information 

describing the amount, distribution, and 

use type (e.g., spawning, rearing, or 

migration) of habitat areas for the 

proposed rockfish DPSs, including 

information on whether such areas are 

currently occupied; (2) information 

regarding the benefits of designating 

particular areas as critical habitat; (3) 

information regarding the benefits of 

excluding particular areas from critical 

habitat designation (4) current or 

planned activities in the areas that 

might be proposed for designation and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18541 

their possible impacts; (5) any 

foreseeable economic, national security, 

or other potential impacts resulting from 

designation, in particular, any impacts 

on small entities; (6) whether specific 

unoccupied areas (e.g., areas where 

bocaccio, yelloweye rockfish, or canary 

rockfish have been extirpated) may be 

essential to the conservation of these 

DPSs; and (7) potential peer reviewers 

for a proposed critical habitat 

designation, including persons with 

biological and economic expertise 

relevant to the species, region, and 

designation of critical habitat. We seek 

information regarding critical habitat for 

these three Georgia Basin rockfishes as 

soon as possible, but by no later than 

June 22, 2009. 

Public Hearings 

If requested by the public by June 8, 

2009, hearings will be held within the 

range of the proposed Georgia Basin 

rockfishes. If hearings are requested, 

details regarding location(s), date(s), and 

time(s) will be published in a 

forthcoming Federal Register notice. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

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, 675 F. 2d 

825 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded 

that ESA listing actions are not subject 

to the environmental assessment 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (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. 

Federalism 

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 given 

to the relevant state agencies in each 

state in which the species is believed to 

occur, and those states will be invited 

to comment on this proposal. We have 

conferred with the State of Washington 

in the course of assessing the status of 

the petitioned populations of rockfishes, 

and considered, among other things, 

Federal, state and local conservation 

measures. As we proceed, we intend to 

continue engaging in informal and 

formal contacts with the states, and 

other affected local or regional entities, 

giving careful consideration to all 

written and oral comments received. 

List of Subjects 

50 CFR Part 223 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Transportation. 

50 CFR Part 224 

Endangered and threatened species. 

Dated: April 15, 2009. 

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 

1. The authority citation for part 223 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, 

§ 223.201–202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for 

§ 223.206(d)(9) et seq. 

2. In § 223.102 paragraph (c) is 

amended by adding and reserving 

paragraphs (c)(25) through (c)(26) and 

adding new paragraphs (c)(28) and 

(c)(29) to read as follows: 

§ 223.102 Enumeration of threatened 

marine and anadromous species. 

(c) * * * 

Species1

Where Listed Citation(s) for listing determination(s) Citation(s) for critical habitat designation(s) 

Common name Scientific 

name 

* * * * * * * 

(28)Georgia 

Basin/Puget 

Sound DPS – 

Rockfish, 

Yelloweye Sebastes 

ruberrimus.

Washington, 

and British 

Columbia.

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS A FINAL RULE].

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS A FINAL RULE].

(29)Georgia 

Basin/Puget 

Sound DPS – 

Rockfish, Canary Sebastes 

pinniger.

Washington, 

and British 

Columbia.

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS A FINAL RULE].

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS A FINAL RULE].

* * * * * * * 

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments 9DPSs) (for a policy statement; see 61 FR4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement; see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
18542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 77 / Thursday, April 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE 

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 

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. 

4. Amend the table in § 224.101, by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Georgia Basin/ 

Puget Sound DPS – Bocaccio’’ at the end 

of the table in § 224.101(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered 

marine and anadromous species. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

Species1

Where Listed Citation(s) for listing determination(s) Citation(s) for critical habitat designation(s) 

Common name Scientific 

name 

* * * * * * * 

Georgia Basin/ 

Puget Sound 

DPS–Bocaccio Sebastes 

paucispinis.

Washington, 

and British 

Columbia.

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS A FINAL RULE].

[INSERT FR CITATION & DATE WHEN 

PUBLISHED AS A FINAL RULE].

* * * * * * * 

1Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments 9DPSs) (for a policy statement; see 61 FR4722, February 7, 

1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement; see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 

[FR Doc. E9–9354 Filed 4–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS