[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52928-52929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21536]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 100813341-0341-01]
RIN 0648-XX56
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 90-Day
Finding for a Petition to List Georgia Basin Populations of China
Rockfish and Tiger Rockfish as Endangered or Threatened
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS) received a petition to list Georgia Basin
populations of China rockfish (Sebastes nebulosus) and tiger rockfish
(S. nigrocinctus) as endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). We determine that the petition does not
present substantial evidence to indicate that the petitioned action may
be warranted.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this petition regarding Georgia Basin
China rockfish and tiger rockfish should be submitted to Chief,
Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite
1100, Portland, OR 97232. The petition and supporting data are
available for public inspection, by appointment, Monday through Friday,
at this address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region,
(503) 231-2005 or Dwayne Meadows, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
(301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4 of the ESA contains provisions allowing interested
persons to petition the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) to add a species to or remove a species from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and to designate critical
habitat. On April 27, 2010, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright
of Olympia, WA, to list Georgia Basin populations of China rockfish and
tiger rockfish. For the purpose of this petition finding, we consider
the Georgia Basin to include the inland marine waters of Puget Sound,
the Strait of Georgia (north to the mouth of the Campbell River in
British Columbia), and the portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca east
of the Victoria Sill (see our determination to list three distinct
population segments of Puget Sound/Georgia Basin distinct population
segments of rockfish, 75 FR 22276 (April 28, 2010)).
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) requires that
we determine whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to
indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. In making this
determination, we consider information submitted with and referenced in
the petition, and all other information available in our files. To the
maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days
of the receipt of the petition, and the finding is to be published
promptly in the Federal Register.
In evaluating a petition, the Secretary considers whether it (1)
describes past and present numbers and distribution of the species and
any threats faced by the species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)); (2)
provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a
significant portion of its range (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(iii)); and (3) is
accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)(iv)).
The ESA defines ``species'' to include subspecies, or a distinct
population segment of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The
petitioner requested listing of the Georgia Basin populations of China
rockfish and tiger rockfish. We evaluated whether the information
provided or cited in the petition met our standard for ``substantial
information'' as defined in joint ESA implementing regulations issued
by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 424.14(b)). We
also reviewed other information
[[Page 52929]]
available to us (currently within our files).
Previous Petition to list Puget Sound China Rockfish and Tiger Rockfish
We have received numerous petitions from Mr. Wright. In 1999, he
petitioned us to list 18 species of Puget Sound marine fishes. Based on
the information presented in that petition, and available in our files,
we conducted status reviews on seven of those fishes. Information on
the other eleven fishes (including China rockfish and tiger rockfish)
was insubstantial and we therefore did not conduct status reviews (64
FR 33037; June 21, 1999).
Analysis of Petition
When reviewing a petition to list a species under the ESA, we
consider information provided in the petition as well as information
available in agency files. Mr. Wright's petition provides information
from SCUBA surveys conducted in the Georgia Basin from 1998 to 2009.
The petition points to the fact that there are few observations of
China rockfish and tiger rockfish in these surveys. The petition
provides no analysis to explain how these surveys can be interpreted to
indicate either a low abundance level or a declining trend in
abundance, either of which might be evidence of risk to the species. To
the contrary, the petitioner acknowledges that adults of these two
species tend to remain hidden in rocky habitats, which could make them
difficult for SCUBA divers to observe.
In the absence of any analysis in the petition, we independently
reviewed the information from these surveys and concluded they do not
provide evidence of low abundance or a declining trend in abundance.
The surveys are opportunistic sightings, reported by recreational or
professional divers. There is no research protocol associated with
these SCUBA reports, and the identification of individual fish species
cannot be independently verified. Because the area surveyed and the
level of effort are opportunistic and variable, because the reports are
not collected in a systematic sampling design, and because adults of
these species tend to hide in rocky habitats that could make them
difficult to observe, we concluded that these survey results do not
support inferences about population abundance.
The petition also provides a short description of the total
recreational catch of these species over a 12-year period. The
description appears under a heading in the petition entitled ``Low
Abundance Problem,'' but the petition provides no explanation of how
this information reveals anything about the abundance of these two
species. In the absence of an analysis in the petition, we
independently reviewed the information on recreational catches of these
two species available in our records. The proportion of these two
species in the recreational rockfish catch is low, approximately 1
percent over the 12-year period. Standing alone, however, this low
percentage does not indicate a low occurrence of these rockfish species
relative to others because, as noted above, adults of the petitioned
species tend to remain hidden in rocky habitat and are therefore less
available to anglers. Nor does this information reveal anything about
the absolute abundance of these two species. The catch information
therefore does not indicate that abundance of these species is low
enough to pose a threat to viability.
We agree with the petitioner's assertion that China rockfish and
tiger rockfish typically utilize a small home range and experience low
productivity. However, as the petitioner acknowledges, a small home
range causes individuals to remain hidden in rocky habitat, where they
may experience lower mortality, as a result of less frequent exposure
to predators. Low productivity can be a risk factor in some instances.
However, low productivity is not an indication of declining abundance
(another risk factor) since it reflects a life history trade-off
between fecundity and life span.
Finally, the petitioner fails to demonstrate how any of these
individual pieces of information could be integrated into a trend
analysis or some other type of analysis suggesting the two species are
at risk.
The petitioner states ``This would be an ideal time to conduct a
status review of these two species since most of the required
assessment work has already been done and there is an existing
Biological Review Team (BRT).'' While it is true that NMFS recently
completed an ESA review of five rockfish species in the Puget Sound/
Strait of Georgia (including the formation and use of a BRT), that is
not a basis to conduct additional reviews under ESA section 4(b)(3)(A).
NMFS did not look at information on China rockfish and tiger rockfish
during its review earlier in the year, and the BRT was subsequently
disbanded.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the petition, as well as information readily
available to us, we have determined that the petition does not present
substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action may
be warranted. If new information becomes available to suggest that
Georgia Basin populations of China rockfish and tiger rockfish may
warrant listing under the ESA, we will reconsider conducting a status
review.
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: August 24, 2010.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-21536 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S