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

limits. IWC-set catch limits are, in turn, 

based on IWC Scientific Committee 

advice on the sustainability of proposed 

catch limits using a population model, 

referred to as a Strike Limit Algorithm. 

The Strike Limit Algorithm used by the 

IWC is specific to this population of 

bowhead whales and is the IWC’s 

formula for calculating sustainable 

aboriginal subsistence whaling removal 

levels, based on the size and 

productivity of a whale population, in 

order to satisfy subsistence need. The 

Strike Limit Algorithm also allows for 

an inter-annual variation of strikes up to 

50 percent of the annual strike limit in 

order to provide flexibility for the hunt 

while meeting the Commission’s 

conservation objectives. 

Alternatives 

NMFS preliminarily anticipates four 

alternatives: 

Alternative 1 (no action): Do not grant 

the AEWC a catch limit. 

Alternative 2: Grant the AEWC an 

annual strike limit of 67 bowhead 

whales, not to exceed a total of 336 

landed whales over any 6-year period, 

with no unused strikes from previous 

years added to a subsequent annual 

limit. 

Alternative 3: Grant the AEWC an 

annual strike limit of 67 bowhead 

whales, not to exceed a total of 336 

landed whales over any 6-year period, 

with unused strikes from previous years 

carried forward and added to the annual 

strike limit of subsequent years (subject 

to limits), provided that no more than 

15 additional strikes are added to any 

one year’s allocation of strikes. This 

alternative would maintain the status 

quo for any six-year period with respect 

to management of the hunt. 

Alternative 4: Grant the AEWC an 

annual strike limit of 67 bowhead 

whales, not to exceed a total take of 336 

landed whales over any 6-year period, 

with unused strikes from previous years 

carried forward and added to the annual 

strike quota of subsequent years (subject 

to limits), provided that no more than 

50 percent of the annual strike limit is 

added for any one year. This would 

maintain the status quo for any 6-year 

period with respect to management of 

the hunt for landed whales and employ 

the Commission’s 50 percent carryover 

principle. 

NOAA prepared an EIS in 2013 that 

analyzed issuing annual strike limits to 

the AEWC for a subsistence hunt on 

bowhead whales from 2013 through 

2018. That analysis concluded that the 

overall effects of human activities 

associated with subsistence whaling 

results in only minor impacts on the 

western Arctic bowhead whale stock. In 

light of the stability of the IWC 

subsistence harvest allocations and the 

subsistence bowhead harvests by Alaska 

Natives, the 2013 EIS estimated 

environmental consequences for a 25- or 

30-year period, recognizing that every 5 

or 6 years, when new catch limits are 

considered by the IWC, NMFS would 

prepare an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) to determine whether any new 

circumstances would result in 

significant environmental impacts 

warranting a new EIS. 

NMFS decided to prepare an EIS 

rather than an EA in order to assess the 

impacts of issuing annual quotas for the 

subsistence hunt by Alaska Natives from 

2019 onward. This decision was not 

based on any new determination that 

significant effects occur as a result of the 

bowhead subsistence hunt, but rather to 

take advantage of the greater 

transparency and public involvement in 

decision-making afforded through an 

EIS process. 

Major issues to be addressed in this 

EIS include: The impact of subsistence 

removal of bowhead whales from the 

Western Arctic stock of bowhead 

whales; the impacts of these harvest 

levels on the traditional and cultural 

values of Alaska Natives, and the 

cumulative effects of the action when 

considered along with environmental 

conditions and past, present, and future 

actions potentially affecting bowhead 

whales. 

Public Comment 

We begin this NEPA process by 

soliciting input from the public and 

interested parties on the type of impacts 

to be considered in the EIS, the range of 

alternatives to be assessed, and any 

other pertinent information. 

Specifically, this scoping process is 

intended to accomplish the following 

objectives: 

1. Invite affected Federal, state, and 

local agencies, Alaska Natives, and 

other interested persons to participate in 

the EIS process. 

2. Determine the potential significant 

environmental issues to be analyzed in 

the EIS. 

3. Identify and eliminate issues 

determined to be insignificant or 

addressed in other documents. 

4. Allocate assignments among the 

lead agency and cooperating agencies 

regarding preparation of the EIS, 

including impact analysis and 

identification of mitigation measures. 

5. Identify related environmental 

documents being prepared. 

6. Identify other environmental 

review and consultation requirements. 

The official scoping period is from 

August 15, 2017, until September 14, 

2017. Please visit the NOAA Fisheries’ 

Alaska Regional Office’s Web page at 

https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/ 

whales-bowhead for more information 

on this EIS. NMFS estimates the draft 

EIS for 2019 onward will be available in 

May 2018. 

Authority 

The preparation of the EIS for the 

subsistence harvest of Western Arctic 

bowhead whales by Alaska Natives will 

be conducted under the authority and in 

accordance with the requirements of 

NEPA, Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500– 

1508), other applicable Federal laws and 

regulations, and policies and procedures 

of NMFS for compliance with those 

regulations. 

Dated: August 9, 2017. 

John Henderschedt, 

Director, Office of International Affairs and 

Seafood Inspection, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17173 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 170718681–7735–01] 

RIN 0648–XF575 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Initiation of a Status Review for Alewife 

and Blueback Herring Under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of initiation of a status 

review; request for information. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the 

initiation of a new status review of 

alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and 

blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) to 

determine whether listing either species 

as endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act is warranted. A 

comprehensive status review must be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available at the time of 

the review. Therefore, we are asking the 

public to provide such information on 

alewife and blueback herring that has 

become available since the listing 

determination in 2013. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we must receive 

your information no later than October 

16, 2017. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Notices 38673 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information for us to use in our status 

review, identifying it as ‘‘Alewife and 

Blueback Herring Status Review 

(NOAA–NMFS–2017–0094),’’ by either 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=[NOAA-NMFS-2017- 

0094], click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail or hand-delivery: Submit 

written comments to Tara Trinko Lake, 

NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional 

Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930. 

Instructions: Information sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All information 

received is a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. We will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara 

Trinko Lake at the above address, by 

phone at 978–282–8477 or tara.trinko@

noaa.gov, David Gouveia, 978–281– 

9280 or david.gouveia@noaa.gov, or 

Marta Nammack, 301–427–8469 or 

marta.nammack@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice announces our active review of 

alewife and blueback herring. On 

August 12, 2013, we determined that 

listing alewife and blueback herring as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) was not warranted 

(78 FR 48943). However, at that time, 

we committed to revisiting the status of 

both species in 3 to 5 years. The 3- to 

5-year timeframe equated to 

approximately one generation time for 

these species, and allowed for time to 

complete ongoing scientific studies, 

including a river herring stock 

assessment update that was completed 

by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission in August 2017. 

The Natural Resources Defense 

Council and Earthjustice (the Plaintiffs) 

filed suit against us on February 10, 

2015, in the U.S. District Court in 

Washington, DC, challenging our 

decision not to list blueback herring as 

threatened or endangered. The Plaintiffs 

also challenged our determination that 

the Mid-Atlantic stock complex of 

blueback herring is not a distinct 

population segment (DPS). On March 

25, 2017, the court vacated the blueback 

herring listing determination and 

remanded the listing determination to 

us. As part of a negotiated agreement 

with the Plaintiffs, we committed to 

publish a revised listing determination 

for blueback herring no later than 

January 31, 2019. We also agreed to 

conduct a new status review and 

publish in the Federal Register a notice 

of the status review, soliciting new 

information. 

Background information about both 

species, including the 2013 listing 

determination, is available on the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 

Office Web site: https://

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

protected/pcp/soc/river_herring.html. 

Determining if a Species Is Threatened 

or Endangered 

Paragraph (a)(1) of section 4 of the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) requires that we 

determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened based on one 

or more of the five following factors: (1) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (2) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (3) disease or 

predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. Paragraph (b) of 

ESA section 4 requires that our 

determination be made on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available after taking into account those 

efforts, if any, being made by any State 

or foreign nation, to protect such 

species. 

Application of the Distinct Population 

Segment Policy 

In the application of the DPS policy, 

we are responsible for determining 

whether species, subspecies, or DPSs of 

marine and anadromous species are 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. If we are petitioned to list 

populations of a vertebrate species as 

DPSs, or if we determine that 

identifying DPSs may result in a 

conservation benefit to the species, we 

use the joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service-NMFS DPS policy (61 FR 4722; 

February 7, 1996) to determine whether 

any populations of the species meet the 

DPS policy criteria. Under this policy, 

in order to be considered a DPS, a 

population must be discrete from other 

conspecific populations, and it must be 

significant to the taxon to which it 

belongs. A group of organisms is 

discrete if physical, physiological, 

ecological or behavioral factors make it 

markedly separate from other 

populations of the same taxon. Under 

the DPS policy, if a population group is 

determined to be discrete, the agency 

may then consider whether it is 

significant to the taxon to which it 

belongs. Considerations in evaluating 

the significance of a discrete population 

include: (1) Persistence of the discrete 

population in an unusual or unique 

ecological setting for the taxon; (2) 

evidence that the loss of the discrete 

population segment would cause a 

significant gap in the taxon’s range; (3) 

evidence that the discrete population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of a taxon that may 

be more abundant elsewhere outside its 

historical geographic range; or (4) 

evidence that the discrete population 

has marked genetic differences from 

other populations of the species. 

Public Solicitation of New Information 

With this notice, we commence a 

status review of alewife and blueback 

herring to determine whether listing the 

species as endangered or threatened 

under the ESA is warranted. To ensure 

that our review of alewife and blueback 

herring is informed by the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we are opening a 60-day public 

comment period to solicit information 

to support our status review. 

For the status review to be complete 

and based on the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we request information on these species 

from governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. We seek information 

on: (1) Species abundance; (2) species 

productivity; (3) species distribution or 

population spatial structure; (4) patterns 

of phenotypic, genotypic, and life 

history diversity; (5) habitat conditions 

and associated limiting factors and 

threats; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to 

protect and restore the species and their 

habitats; (7) the adequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms and whether 

protections are being implemented and 

are proving effective in conserving the 

species; (8) data concerning the status 

and trends of identified limiting factors 

or threats; (9) information concerning 

the impacts of environmental variability 

and climate change on survival, 

recruitment, distribution, and/or 

extinction risk; and (10) other new 

information, data, or corrections 

including, but not limited to, taxonomic 

or nomenclature changes, identification 

of erroneous information in the previous 

listing determination, and improved 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

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

analytical methods for evaluating 

extinction risk. 

In addition to the above requested 

information, we are interested in any 

information concerning protective 

efforts that have not yet been fully 

implemented or demonstrated as 

effective. Our consideration of 

conservation measures, regulatory 

mechanisms, and other protective 

efforts will be guided by the Services 

‘‘Policy for Evaluation of Conservation 

Efforts When Making Listing Decisions’’ 

(PECE Policy) (68 FR 15100; March 28, 

2003). The PECE established criteria to 

ensure the consistent and adequate 

evaluation of formalized conservation 

efforts when making listing decisions 

under the ESA. This policy may also 

guide the development of conservation 

efforts that sufficiently improve a 

species’ status so as to make listing the 

species as threatened or endangered 

unnecessary. Under the PECE the 

adequacy of conservation efforts is 

evaluated in terms of the certainty of 

their implementation, and the certainty 

of their effectiveness. Criteria for 

evaluating the certainty of 

implementation include whether: The 

necessary resources are available; the 

necessary authority is in place; an 

agreement is formalized (i.e., regulatory 

and procedural mechanisms are in 

place); there is a schedule for 

completion and evaluation; for 

voluntary measures, incentives to 

ensure necessary participation are in 

place; and there is agreement of all 

necessary parties to the measure or plan. 

Criteria for evaluating the certainty of 

effectiveness include whether the 

measure or plan: Includes a clear 

description of the factors for decline to 

be addressed and how they will be 

reduced; establishes specific 

conservation objectives; identifies 

necessary steps to reduce threats; 

includes quantifiable performance 

measures for monitoring compliance 

and effectiveness; employs principles of 

adaptive management; and is certain to 

improve the species’ status at the time 

of listing determination. We request that 

any information submitted with respect 

to conservation measures, regulatory 

mechanisms, or other protective efforts 

that have yet to be implemented or 

show effectiveness explicitly address 

these criteria in the PECE. 

If you wish to provide your 

information for this status review, you 

may submit your information and 

materials electronically via email (see 

ADDRESSES section). We request that all 

information be accompanied by: (1) 

Supporting documentation such as 

maps, bibliographic references, or 

reprints of pertinent publications; and 

(2) the submitter’s name, address, and 

any association, institution, or business 

that the person represents. 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: August 10, 2017. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17218 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Availability of Record of 

Decision for the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Disposal and 

Reuse of Surplus Property at Naval 

Station Newport, Rhode Island 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the 

Navy (Navy), after carefully weighing 

the environmental consequences of the 

proposed action, announces its decision 

to implement Alternative 1, the Navy’s 

preferred alternative as described in the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the Disposal and Reuse of 

Surplus Property at Naval Station 

(NAVSTA) Newport, Rhode Island. This 

decision will make 158 acres of former 

NAVSTA Newport property available to 

the local communities of Aquidneck 

Island for economic redevelopment. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Disposal 

and reuse under the chosen alternative 

is consistent with the Aquidneck Island 

Reuse Planning Authority’s 

‘‘Redevelopment Plan for Surplus 

Properties at NAVSTA Newport’’ 

(Redevelopment Plan) and Public Law 

101–510, the Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment Act of 1990, as amended in 

2005 (BRAC Law). The complete text of 

the Record of Decision (ROD) is 

available for public viewing on the 

project Web site at https://

www.BRACPMO.Navy.mil along with 

the Final EIS and supporting 

documents. Single copies of the ROD 

will be made available upon request by 

contacting: Mr. Gregory Preston, BRAC 

Program Management Office East, 4911 

South Broad Street, Building 679, 

Philadelphia, PA 19112–1303, 

telephone 215–897–4900, facsimile 

215–897–4902, email gregory.preston@

navy.mil. 

Dated: August 7, 2017. 

A.M. Nichols, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17140 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Redesignation of the 

Environmental Impact Statement To 

Transition FA–18C Strike Fighter 

Squadrons to FA–18E Strike Fighter 

Squadrons at Naval Air Station 

Oceana, Virginia, as an Environmental 

Assessment and Announcement of 

Public Meetings 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Navy’s 

(DoN) intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the transition of the remaining F/A– 

18A/C/D (Hornet) aircraft, based at 

Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, to the 

F/A–18E/F (Super Hornet), published in 

the Federal Register on September 10, 

2015 (80 FR 175), is hereby modified. 

The DoN is redesignating the EIS as an 

Environmental Assessment (EA). The 

DoN will hold public meetings on 

August 29 and 30, 2017, to inform the 

public and answer questions about the 

Draft EA and the proposed action as 

well as provide opportunities for the 

public to comment on the Draft EA. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 and regulations 

implemented by the Council on 

Environmental Quality, the DoN 

published a Notice of Intent to prepare 

an EIS to transition Hornet aircraft to 

Super Hornet aircraft at NAS Oceana on 

September 10, 2015, in the Federal 

Register (80 FR 175). The majority of 

aircraft based at NAS Oceana 

transitioned to Super Hornet over a 

decade ago (as part of a separate 

proposed action), and are currently 

conducting flight training operations at 

NAS Oceana and Naval Auxiliary 

Landing Field (NALF) Fentress. The 

purpose of transitioning the remaining 

Hornet aircraft to Super Hornet aircraft 

is to provide newer, more capable, and 

more reliable aircraft to the NAS 

Oceana-based strike fighter community, 

which are needed to support the Navy’s 

national defense requirements under 

Title 10 U.S. Code Section 5062. 

During the development of the EIS, 

the DoN’s analysis showed no 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES