5976 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Notices 

materials through the EPA Docket 

Center. 

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit 

Scientific Information? 

You may submit scientific 

information as provided in the 

ADDRESSES section. Please submit 

scientific information within 60 days of 

this notice, provide all information 

(studies, reports, articles, etc.) you wish 

to submit. Please ensure that your 

submissions are submitted within the 

specified period. Information received 

after the close of the submission period 

will be marked ‘‘late.’’ Late submissions 

may be considered if time permits. Your 

submission should specify the chemical 

substance to which your information 

pertains, CASRN (Chemical Abstract 

Service Registry Number), and the topic 

or aspect of the assessment that is being 

addressed (e.g., carcinogenicity, mode of 

action). In addition, when you submit 

results of new health effects studies 

concerning existing substances on IRIS, 

you should include a specific 

explanation of how the study results 

could change the information in IRIS. 

All citations should be listed in 

scientific citation format, that is, 

author(s), title, journal, and date. 

Include names, addresses and telephone 

numbers of person(s) to contact for 

additional information. 

If you submit electronic information, 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name, mailing address, and an e-mail 

address or other contact information in 

the body of your submission and with 

any disk or CD ROM you submit. This 

ensures that you can be identified as the 

submitter of the information and allows 

EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot 

read your information due to technical 

difficulties or needs further information 

on the substance of your submission. 

Any identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of submitted 

information will be included as part of 

the submission information that is 

placed in the official public docket, and 

made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

information due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

information. 

Your use of EPA’s electronic public 

docket to submit information to EPA 

electronically is EPA’s preferred method 

for receiving submissions. The 

electronic public docket system is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity, 

e-mail address, or other contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your submission. In contrast to 

EPA’s electronic public docket, EPA’s 

electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If you 

send e-mail directly to the Docket 

without going through EPA’s electronic 

public docket, your e-mail address is 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the submission that is placed in 

the official public docket, and made 

available in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. 

You may also request to augment your 

submission with a scientific briefing to 

EPA staff. Such requests should be 

made directly to Amy Mills, IRIS 

Program Director (see For Further 

Information).

Dated: February 3, 2004. 

Peter Preuss, 

Director, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment.

[FR Doc. 04–2711 Filed 2–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7619–4] 

Adoption of the CEC Strategic Plan for 

North American Cooperation in the 

Conservation of Biodiversity; 

Response to Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On March 21, 2003, EPA 

published a Notice of Availability (68 

FR 13930) for review of the final draft 

of the Strategic Plan for North American 

Cooperation in the Conservation of 

Biodiversity (Strategic Plan). Final 

preparation of the Strategic Plan was 

based on negotiations with counterparts 

in Canada and Mexico, discussions with 

representatives of the United States 

Biodiversity Conservation Working 

Group (BCWG), the United States BCWG 

interagency working group, and 

consideration of comments received 

under the March 2003 Notice of 

Availability. The Strategic Plan was 

adopted by the Commission for 

Environmental Cooperation’s (CEC) 

Council on June 25, 2003, as specified 

in CEC Resolution 03–07, under the 

North American Agreement on 

Environmental Cooperation. The 

Strategic Plan will be used to guide the 

CEC Council, its BCWG, and the CEC 

Secretariat in their work with 

stakeholders in cooperatively defining 

and implementing mutually beneficial 

biodiversity conservation activities in 

North America. 

This Federal Register document 

provides responses to comments that 

were received during the comment 

period for the March 2003 notice of 

availability. All comments received on 

the notice of availability were 

considered by the United States 

delegation in the development of the 

final Strategic Plan. However, final 

negotiations for the Strategic Plan, 

initiation of a ranking process for 

priority areas for action listed in the 

Strategic Plan, and other program 

commitments caused a delay in 

publishing the United States 

government responses. 

Responses to Comments: During the 

comment period on the notice of 

availability, EPA received 6 comment 

letters and noted oral comments during 

a meeting held in Washington, DC on 

April 3, 2003. The comments covered 

several categories. The following 

responses to the comments have been 

prepared by category: 

1. Compliments and praise for the 

draft Strategic Plan. The United States 

delegation appreciates the support and 

positive feedback expressed by 

commenters for the draft Strategic Plan. 

Resolution 03–07 of the CEC Council 

also recognized ‘‘* * * the guidance of 

the Biodiversity Conservation Working 

Group in the development of the CEC 

Biodiversity Strategic Plan and the 

input from governmental and 

nongovernmental organizations, 

indigenous and local communities, 

academia, and the private sector * * *’’

in reaching final agreement on the 

Strategic Plan. 

2. The Strategic Plan should be set 

forth in an action plan. Now that the 

Strategic Plan has been approved by the 

CEC Council, representatives of Canada, 

Mexico and the United States will work 

closely with the CEC Secretariat to 

develop a 5-year action plan. The action 

plan will be implemented in the CEC’s 

annual work plan. 

3. Increase the CEC budget to support 

the Strategic Plan. The CEC’s budget for 

all programs and administrative 

activities is limited to the annual 

contributions agreed by the Parties. 

Though many commenters as for a 

budget increase, including 

representatives of the Trilateral 

Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem 

Conservation and Management in a May 

2003 resolution and representatives of 

the CEC’s Biodiversity Conservation 

Working Group, the Parties will have to 

work with the CEC Secretariat to 

determine how project funds are 

allocated. In Resolution 03–07, the CEC 

Council directed the Secretariat ‘‘* * * 

to coordinate and seek partners, 

additional funds, and diverse input 

regarding the implementation of the 

CEC Biodiversity Strategic Plan, keeping 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Notices 5977

the BCWG informed of developments.’’

The United States delegation will work 

with the other Parties to assist the 

Secretariat in achieving the CEC 

Council’s directive. 

4. Use existing priority setting systems 

and greater stakeholder involvement.

The United States delegation has been 

sensitive to these comments. 

Incorporation of comments from 

nongovernmental organizations on the 

Strategic Plan through the March 2003 

notice of availability and coordination 

with state agencies as direct members of 

the United States BCWG is a positive 

step forward in stakeholder 

involvement. We have increased our 

efforts to inform tribal governments in 

the United States and to seek input from 

nongovernmental organizations to rank 

the 29 priority areas for action that are 

listed in the Strategic Plan. 

5. Include a flow diagram of the 

BCWG’s relationship to the CEC 

management structure in the Strategic 

Plan. The United States delegation 

made this request to the CEC Secretariat. 

However, the CEC Secretariat was not 

prepared to provide such a figure in the 

Strategic Plan because program 

management changes are planned. An 

organizational chart is proposed for the 

CEC’s 2004 Operational Plan. 

6. Avoid duplication of management 

efforts with existing programs and 

committees. In May 2003, the BCWG 

met with the members of the Trilateral 

Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem 

Conservation and Management at their 

Albuquerque, NM meeting. This 

meeting was effective in coordinating 

the activities of these two organizations 

involved in North American 

biodiversity issues. The BCWG intends 

to hold its annual meetings to coincide 

with future Trilateral Committee 

meetings, which will facilitate 

coordination on North American 

biodiversity issues. The BCWG will also 

coordinate its activities with other 

organizations that are concerned with 

transboundary biodiversity issues. 

Avoiding duplication of environmental 

management efforts is essential given 

the limited resources that the parties 

have to address continental biodiversity 

problems.

7. Elevate the role of States and take 

advantage of State agency expertise to 

promote decentralized natural resource 

management. One of the cornerstones of 

the United States BCWG is a 

representative from a State wildlife 

management agency. Through our State 

representative, contact with other State 

wildlife management agencies is 

promoted and comments are channeled 

to the other three Representatives of the 

BCWG and corresponding Federal 

agencies. Both State and Federal 

environmental managers and their 

personnel, working directly in the field, 

are a significant resource in the 

conservation of biodiversity for North 

America. The United States BCWG 

appreciates the dedication of State and 

Federal field personnel to the protection 

of transboundary and domestic 

biological resources. 

8. Insert a reference to the 

International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) in the 

Strategic Plan. References to specific 

organizations, such as the IAFWA, were 

initially considered in the development 

of the Strategic Plan. However, the list 

of agencies grew so large, and there was 

concern that one or more agencies might 

be left out inadvertently, that the 

decision of the parties was to mention 

agencies and organizations in a generic 

sense. Therefore, a reference to the 

IAFWA was not included in the 

Strategic Plan. 

9. Emphasize the role of private lands 

in the conservation of biodiversity. In 

the discussion about Ecologically 

Significant Regions, the following 

statement was added to support the role 

of private lands in the conservation of 

biodiversity: ‘‘The three countries 

recognize that public and private 

multiple-use and other non-preservation 

lands can play a variety of roles in 

conservation of biodiversity.’’ This 

broad statement demonstrates 

agreement by the Parties that networks 

of protected areas and private lands are 

important components in protection of 

North American biodiversity. 

10. Provide an assessment of wildlife 

protection legislation and address 

international agreements and legislation 

to support biodiversity. The United 

States delegation did not request 

including an assessment of each party’s 

wildlife protection legislation in the 

Strategic Plan because this CEC’s 

Conservation of Biodiversity Program is 

an international program under the 

North American Agreement on 

Environmental Cooperation (NAACE). 

Each country is responsible for 

implementing its own domestic laws 

and for complying with its 

commitments under ratified 

international conventions or agreements 

for which they are a party. This 

Strategic Plan is focused on the 

agreements of the parties under NAACE. 

An assessment of all wildlife protection 

legislation and other treaties that 

address biodiversity was not considered 

appropriate for this document. 

11. Think continentally or regionally 

and act locally. The success of regional 

conservation efforts is measured by the 

degree to which the composite of local 

actions have achieved success. Ideally 

local and regional objectives support 

each other. The United States delegation 

acknowledges the concern that largescale objectives might miss small-scale 

detailed priorities. We agree that a suite 

of approaches and tactics will produce 

a comprehensive conservation plan. For 

the CEC Conservation of Biodiversity 

Program, there is a bias towards 

regionally shared ecosystems and 

transboundary species because the CEC 

program has a large-scale and regional 

focus. The BCWG is aware of this issue. 

As the Biodiversity Program is 

developed, the BCWG will consider 

environmental management alternatives 

that address transboundary species and 

their habitats, as well as sensitive 

species or ecosystems that may 

influence the richness of North 

America’s biodiversity. 

12. Specific comments on the CEC’s 

Priority Ecoregion Report. The United 

States delegation agrees that there are 

numerous priority setting processes 

designed to refine priority areas for 

conservation. We agree that the CEC 

Biodiversity Conservation Working 

Group would do well to consider the 

contributions made in identifying 

priority regions by Conservation 

International, World Wildlife Fund, The 

Nature Conservancy, and other 

conservation initiatives. Previous work 

completed by the CEC was presented in 

the Strategic Plan to document work 

accomplished and to provide a baseline. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

concerns regarding specific areas of 

interest, including the Klamath-Siskiyou 

forests and watersheds of northern 

California and southern Oregon. We 

agree with your comments that ongoing 

biodiversity surveys and inventories 

being conducted by leading NGOs 

should be used by CEC Programs, and 

we agree that, with scant resources, it 

makes no sense to repeat any process or 

study, unless a comparison of the 

success of a selected management 

option is the intended result. 

Regarding questions about gap 

analyses, the wording on ER–1 is 

designed to allow flexibility and broad 

interpretation to preserve options for 

future work. Future refinements to 

priority regions of North America will 

evaluate the need to include other 

significant regions. Also, Comments 

regarding the potential values of 

connective corridors are acknowledged. 

The language in the Strategic Plan is 

general enough to accommodate such, 

without listing all specifics. Since the 

U.S. has not signed the Convention on 

Biological Diversity, directly mirroring 

the work of the CBD is not a 

requirement, though it is a 

5978 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Notices 

consideration. We feel that the thrust of 

the Strategic Plan is fully compatible 

within ecosystem approaches to 

conservation.

13. The Strategic Plan should 

conserve all species, especially 

threatened resident species, not just 

migratory or transboundary species, and 

species with large ranges may tend to be 

adaptable generalists. The United States 

supports collaborative efforts to 

conserve and restore cross-boundary 

populations of species, especially 

species of common conservation 

concern. Selected marine and terrestrial 

species of common conservation 

concern have been identified for 

conservation activities by the parties. In 

the future, other species may be added 

to the lists based on criteria developed 

by the BCWG and agreed to by the 

parties. The following tables contain the 

current lists of the CEC’s Species of 

Common Conservation Concern:

TERRESTRIAL SPECIES OF COMMON CONSERVATION CONCERN

Ferruginous hawk ..................................................................................................................................... Buteo regalis

Peregrine falcon ....................................................................................................................................... Falco peregrinus

Loggerhead shrike ................................................................................................................................... Lanius ludovicianus

Piping plover ............................................................................................................................................ Charadrius melodus

Mountain plover ........................................................................................................................................ Charadrius montanus

Burrowing owl ........................................................................................................................................... Athene cunicularia

Northern spotted owl ................................................................................................................................ Strix occidentalis caurina

Mexican spotted owl ................................................................................................................................ Strix occidentalis lucida

Golden-cheeked warbler .......................................................................................................................... Dendroica chrysoparia

Whooping crane ....................................................................................................................................... Grus Americana

California condor ...................................................................................................................................... Gymnogyps californianus

Black-tailed prairie dog ............................................................................................................................ Cynomys ludovicianus

Sonoran pronghorn .................................................................................................................................. Antilocapra Americana sonoriensis

Lesser long-nosed bat ............................................................................................................................. Leptonycteris curasoae

Mexican long-nosed bat ........................................................................................................................... Leptonycteris nivalis

Black bear ................................................................................................................................................ Ursus americanus

Gray wolf .................................................................................................................................................. Canis lupus

MARINE SPECIES OF COMMON CONSERVATION CONCERN

Leatherback turtle .................................................................................................................................... Dermochelys coriacea

Hawksbill turtle ......................................................................................................................................... Eretmochelys imbricata

Kemp’s ridley turtle .................................................................................................................................. Lepidochelys kempii

East Pacific green/black turtle ................................................................................................................. Chelonia mydas agassizii

Loggerhead turtle ..................................................................................................................................... Caretta caretta

Pink-footed shearwater ............................................................................................................................ Puffinus creatopus

Short-tailed albatross ............................................................................................................................... Phoebastria albatrus

Xantus’s murrelet ..................................................................................................................................... Synthlibiramphus hypoleucus

North Atlantic right whale ......................................................................................................................... Eubalaena glacialis

North Pacific right whale .......................................................................................................................... Eubalaena japonica

Gray Whale .............................................................................................................................................. Eschrichtius robustus

Humpback whale ...................................................................................................................................... Megaptera novaeangliae

Blue whale ................................................................................................................................................ Balaenoptera musculus

Killer whale ............................................................................................................................................... Orcinus orca

Vaquita ..................................................................................................................................................... Phocoena sinus

Guadalupe fur seal ................................................................................................................................... Arctocephalus townsendi

Sea otter ................................................................................................................................................... Enhydra lutris

14. Support the North American 

Information Network (NABIN) and 

better describe its linkages with partners 

and its complementary role with other 

networks and databases. The United 

States BCWG acknowledges the value of 

NABIN, and particularly the need for 

linking it to other networks and 

clearinghouses. We agree with many 

commenters regarding the value of 

working with existing programs such as 

the Natural Heritage Program, Nature 

Serve, and ConserveOnline. By building 

upon existing networks and databases, 

some of which are quite ambitious, 

NABIN reduces the potential for 

redundancy. In response to the request 

for a description of NABIN in the 

Strategic Plan, the NABIN Web site URL 

has been inserted to direct the reader to 

additional information. In response to a 

request that all significant NABIN 

partners be listed, we refrained from 

such a list, for the same reasons we have 

avoided similar lists in other contexts. 

They are dynamic not static, they are 

rarely comprehensively inclusive, and 

the requests for additions/insertions 

never end. While in concept such lists 

are valuable recognition to key actors 

and collaborators, in practice they 

become unmanageable, with only the 

time of printing providing any static 

picture. 

15. Trinational development and 

assessment of scientific data. The 

United States BCWG acknowledges 

encouragement for trinational 

development and interpretation of 

scientific data based on actions 

supported by the Strategic Plan, 

including joint studies to complement 

existing data. The latter seems to urge 

research that generates data 

complementary to existing data, but also 

implies cross-border complementarities, 

which begin with complementary field 

methods and reporting units. The 

Strategic Plan mentions this in general 

terms in the following Priority Area for 

Action: 

ER–4: ‘‘Promote the complementarity 

of tools, which assess the ecological 

integrity of habitats and transboundary 

ecosystems;’’

CS–5: ‘‘Promote the establishment of 

common monitoring parameters and 

assessment mechanisms for marine, 

freshwater, and terrestrial populations 

of regional concern;’’

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2004 / Notices 5979

AI–3 ‘‘Contribute to the establishment 

and strengthening of scientific and 

technical networks;’’ and 

RT–3 ‘‘Facilitate the development of 

regional analyses, transboundary 

partnerships, actions, and monitoring.’’

16. The Strategic Plan should include 

evaluation of pesticide effects on 

biodiversity. The Responding to Threats 

(RT) section of the Strategic Plan, in 

particular RT–3, identifies threats 

associated with pesticide use as a 

Priority Area for Action. In addition, 

cross-program coordination with the 

CEC’s Sound Management of Chemicals 

(SMOC) program will also aid in 

evaluating these effects on biodiversity. 

Such cross-program coordination within 

the CEC is being discussed as an 

important management tool and the 

United States BCWG supports this type 

of coordination. 

17. The Strategic Plan should include 

an evaluation of global warming and 

climate change effects on biodiversity.

United States climate change policy is 

in the hands of dedicated specialized 

national negotiating teams outside the 

scope of our nation’s BCWG. More 

significantly, the CEC budget is not 

adequate to address the complexity of 

this topic. Other international fora are 

more appropriate to address the climate 

change subject. For example, a task 

force to the Convention for Biological 

Diversity is examining the effects of 

climate change on biodiversity. The 

United States BCWG recognizes the 

possible effects that changes in climate 

might generate, but agreed that this 

topic should be addressed through other 

international conventions. 

18. The Strategic Plan should support 

work on invasive species and link to the 

CEC’s Law and Policy Program. The 

United States BCWG acknowledges 

commenter’s appreciation for the 

inclusion of invasive species in the 

Strategic Plan. Invasive species will be 

an important focus for the CEC. We also 

agree that it is desirable to link 

management activities to address threats 

from invasive species through 

coordination with CEC’s other 

programs.

19. The Strategic Plan should address 

loss and degradation of habitat, 

specifically due to oil and gas 

development. The threat of oil and gas 

development is partly addressed in 

Priority Area for Action RT–3 

(‘‘Facilitate the development of regional 

analyses, transboundary partnerships, 

actions, and monitoring that will 

address the problems caused by the 

release of substances to land, air and 

water in North America as they impact 

important habitats and migratory and 

transboundary species, and facilitate the 

development of recovery actions in a 

collaborative fashion.’’). In addition, oil 

and gas development concerns may also 

be address under RT–1 (‘‘Support and 

promote trinational or regional efforts to 

identify threats facing North American 

ecosystems, habitats, and species; and 

establish priorities for responding to 

these threats.’’). The United States 

BCWG appreciates the commenter’s 

perspective on this topic. 

20. The Strategic Plan neglects 

agricultural policy and its effects of 

trade policy. Given the finite resources 

and the CEC’s fixed budget, it may be 

desirable to not commit to every 

complex policy issue available. 

Agricultural policy, often contentious 

among governments, even without 

factoring in environmental aspects, is a 

complex arena. The CEC may be 

stretched to address this sensitive and 

dynamic landscape of issues in which 

its impact may be constrained. It may be 

difficult to influence each party’s 

domestic agricultural policy. It may be 

impossible to alter trinational 

agricultural policies. However, there is 

room in the Strategic Plan, and through 

linkages with other CEC programs to 

examine agricultural policy effects on 

the environment. Considerations of 

agricultural policy potentially fit into 

the Biodiversity Conservation and Trade 

goal (BT 1–5). The CEC Environment, 

Economy, and Trade program, which 

has invested in analyses of the 

environmental effects of the trade 

liberalization, is a logical linkage for 

this subject. 

21. Analyze the importance of the 

effects of trade on North American 

Biodiversity. The United States BCWG 

appreciates interest in evaluations of the 

impacts of Trade on biodiversity. We 

draw the commenter’s attention to 

CEC’s report titled: ‘‘The Environmental 

Effects of Free Trade,’’ http://cec.org/

pubs_docs/scope/

index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=14, http:/

/cec.org/files/PDF/ECONOMY/111–03–

05_en.pdf. The CEC has already been 

working on this issue, albeit in general 

terms as far as the parameters 

representing the environment. It is 

difficult to extract the effects of trade 

liberalization from multiple alternative 

social, economic, and environmental 

factors that also influence biodiversity. 

Also, biodiversity has not been 

quantified in adequate detail or scale to 

allow rigorous regional evaluations, 

which forces investigators to rely on 

extremely broad indices. The CEC’s 

Conservation of Biodiversity Program 

will coordinate closely with the 

Environment, Economy, and Trade 

Program to address this multivariate and 

important topic. 

Access to the Document: The Strategic 

Plan may be viewed on the CEC’s Web 

site at: http://www.cec.org/

programs_projects/conserv_biodiv.

Copies of the Strategic Plan may be 

obtained by contacting Patrick Cotter via 

mail at: Office of International Affairs 

(2260R), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; via fax at 

(202) 565–2409; or via e-mail at 

Cotter.Patrick@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patrick Cotter by telephone at (202) 

564–6414 or by e-mail at 

Cotter.Patrick@epa.gov.

C. Thomas McCully, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for 

International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 04–2713 Filed 2–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7619–6] 

Integrating Ecological Risk 

Assessment and Economic Analysis in 

Watersheds: a Conceptual Approach 

and Three Case Studies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of a final report titled, 

Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment 

and Economic Analysis in Watersheds: 

a Conceptual Approach and Three Case 

Studies (EPA/600/R–03/140R), which 

was prepared by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) National 

Center for Environmental Assessment 

(NCEA) of the Office of Research and 

Development (ORD).

ADDRESSES: The document will be made 

available electronically through the 

NCEA Web site (http://www.epa.gov/

ncea). A limited number of paper copies 

will be available from the EPA’s 

National Service Center for 

Environmental Publications (NSCEP), 

PO Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242; 

telephone: 1–800–490–9198 or 513–

489–8190; facsimile: 513–489–8695. 

Please provide your name, your mailing 

address, the title and the EPA number 

of the requested publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Technical Information Staff, National 

Center for Environmental Assessment/

Cincinnati Office (MS–117), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 26 

W. Martin Luther King Drive, 

Cincinnati, OH 56428; Telephone: 513–