Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66221

Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 203,

and part 61 of this chapter. Carriers

regulated as non-dominant, as defined

in § 61.3 of this chapter, and providing

detariffed interexchange services

pursuant to § 61.19 of this chapter must

comply with all applicable public

disclosure, and maintenance of

information requirements in §§ 42.10,

and 42.11 of this chapter.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–28060 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 224 and 226

[Docket No. 001025297-0297-01; I.D.

101000E]

RIN 0648-XA58

Listing Endangered and Threatened

Species and Designating Critical

Habitat: Petition To List Lower

Columbia River Coho Salmon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of finding and request for

information.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a petition

to list the lower Columbia River

populations of coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) on an

emergency basis and to designate

critical habitat under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). NMFS determines

that the petition presents substantial

scientific information indicating that a

listing may be warranted, but that there

is insufficient evidence to support an

emergency listing. NMFS solicits

information and comments pertaining to

these coho salmon populations and

their habitats, and seeks suggestions

from the public for peer reviewers for

any proposed listing determination that

may result from the agency’s status

review of the species.

DATES: Information and comments must

be received by January 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Information and comments

on this action should be submitted to

Chief, Protected Resources Division,

NMFS, 525 NE Oregon Street - Suite

500, Portland, OR 97232. Comments

will not be accepted if submitted via email or the Internet. However,

comments may be sent via fax to (503)

230-5435.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region,

(503) 231-2005 or Chris Mobley, NMFS,

Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-

1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Reference materials regarding this

rule can also be obtained from the

internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov.

Background

On July 24, 2000, NMFS received a

petition from Oregon Trout, Native Fish

Society, and Oregon Council of Trout

Unlimited to list wild populations of

lower Columbia River coho salmon as

endangered under the ESA. The

petitioners further requested that NMFS

list these populations on an emergency

basis and concurrently designate critical

habitat for them in accordance with the

ESA. Copies of this petition are

available from NMFS (See ADDRESSES).

Lower Columbia River coho salmon

populations have been the subject of

two previous ESA status reviews. The

first review resulted from a June 7, 1990,

petition from Oregon Trout and several

co-petitioners requesting ESA protection

for lower Columbia River coho salmon.

NMFS accepted the petition but later

determined that listing was not

warranted because available information

was inconclusive and did not allow the

agency to identify a distinct population

segment (hence a ‘‘species’’) under the

ESA (56 FR 29553, June 27, 1991). In

1993, NMFS received additional

petitions which prompted a more

comprehensive status review of coho

salmon in California, Oregon, Idaho,

Washington, and southern British

Columbia (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995).

This status review identified six distinct

population segments (referred to as

Evolutionarily Significant Units or

‘‘ESUs’’) of coho salmon, three of which

were subsequently listed as threatened

species–the central California coast ESU

(61 FR 56138, October 31, 1996);

southern Oregon/northern California

coasts ESU (62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997),

and Oregon coast ESU (63 FR 42587,

August 10, 1998). NMFS determined

that listing was not warranted for three

other ESUs - the Olympic Peninsula

ESU, Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia

ESU, and southwest Washington/lower

Columbia River ESU - but that the latter

two ESUs should be classified as

candidate species due to specific risk

factors and concerns about the overall

health of the ESUs. The agency

committed to re-assessing these

candidate ESUs to determine if listing

proposals were warranted (60 FR 38011,

38022, July 25, 1995).

In 1996, NMFS’ West Coast Coho

Salmon Biological Review Team (BRT)

updated the 1995 status review and

produced a draft document that was

distributed to co-managers for review

and comment in December 1996 (NMFS,

1996). In this draft update, the BRT

reached preliminary conclusions

regarding the stock structure of coho

populations in the candidate ESUs.

With respect to Columbia River coho

salmon populations, the BRT concluded

that the southwest Washington/lower

Columbia River ESU may warrant

splitting into separate southwest

Washington and lower Columbia River

ESUs, but the level of risk faced by these

separate ESUs was still in question.

Since the time of these preliminary

conclusions, NMFS has continued to

update and compile data via meetings

with comanagers and coho salmon

experts in the Pacific Northwest but has

not proposed any changes to the ESA

status of the candidate ESUs.

Analysis of Petition

Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains

provisions concerning petitions from

interested persons requesting the

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to

list species under the ESA (16 U.S.C.

1533(b)(3)(A)). Section 4(b)(3)(A)

requires that, to the maximum extent

practicable, within 90 days after

receiving such a petition, the Secretary

must make a finding whether the

petition presents substantial scientific

information indicating that the

petitioned action may be warranted.

This includes determining whether

there is evidence that the subject

populations may qualify as a ‘‘species’’

under the ESA, in accordance with

NMFS’ Policy on Applying the

Definition of Species under the

Endangered Species Act to Pacific

Salmon (56 FR 58612, November 20,

1991).

NMFS’ ESA implementing regulations

define ‘‘substantial information’’ as the

amount of information that would lead

a reasonable person to believe that the

measure proposed in the petition may

be warranted. In evaluating a petitioned

action, the Secretary considers several

factors, including whether the petition

contains detailed narrative justification

for the recommended measure,

describing, based on available

information, past and present numbers

and distribution of the species involved

and any threats faced by the species (50

CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)). In addition, the

Secretary considers whether the petition

provides information regarding the

status of the species over all or a

significant portion of its range (50 CFR

424.14(b)(2)(iii)).

66222 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

NMFS evaluated whether the petition

met the ESA’s standard for ‘‘substantial

information’’ and applied this standard

in determining whether to accept the

petition as well as whether to invoke an

emergency listing under the ESA. NMFS

believes it is appropriate to accept the

petition to list the species but to reject

the petitioner’s request for an

emergency listing as ‘‘endangered.’’ On

this latter issue the petition failed to

present new and substantial information

to resolve longstanding uncertainties

about ESU configuration and level of

risk to these populations. However, the

petition does highlight key issues

warranting consideration by NMFS,

including: (1) recent genetic evidence

bearing on the issue of whether to split

the southwest Washington/lower

Columbia River ESU; (2) viability

analyses indicating that Clackamas and

Sandy River coho salmon populations

are at high risk of extinction; and (3)

evidence that populations may persist

in other lower Columbia River

tributaries. NMFS believes that an

emergency listing should occur only

after the ESU structure has been

determined. NMFS will not presuppose

the outcome of a more rigorous status

review and BRT assessment.

Petition Finding

After reviewing the information

contained in the petition, as well as

information readily available to NMFS

scientists, the Secretary determines that

the petition presents substantial

scientific information indicating the

petitioned action may be warranted.

However, NMFS does not believe that

available information supports the

petitioner’s request for an emergency

listing. In accordance with section

4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA, the Secretary will

make his determination whether the

petitioned action is warranted for this

species within 12 months from the date

the petition was received (i.e., by July

24, 2001).

Listing Factors and Basis for

Determination

Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a

species can be determined to be

threatened or endangered based on any

of the following factors: (1) The present

or threatened destruction, modification,

or curtailment of a species’ 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 manmade factors affecting the

species continuing existence. Listing

determinations are based solely on the

best available scientific and commercial

data after taking into account any efforts

being made by any state or foreign

nation to protect the species.

Information Solicited

To ensure that the status review is

complete and based on the best

available scientific and commercial

data, NMFS solicits information and

comments concerning the status of

Columbia River basin coho salmon

populations (see DATES and ADDRESSES).

Specifically, the agency is seeking

updated information since 1994 on: (1)

abundance estimates and measures of

population productivity, including

spawner-recruit or spawner-spawner

survival data, smolt production

estimates, size and fecundity data, and

ocean survival rates; (2) impacts

associated with hatchery production

including estimates of hatchery fish

releases, straying rates, and proportions

of hatchery fish in spawner escapements

to lower Columbia River tributaries; (3)

estimates of hatchery fish survival and

their reproductive success in the wild;

(4) genetic, life history, habitat, and

other evidence distinguishing Columbia

River coho salmon populations from

coastal populations; (5) current or

planned activities and their possible

impact on this species (e.g., harvest

measures and habitat actions); and (6)

efforts being made to protect coho

salmon in Washington and Oregon.

NMFS also requests information

describing the quality and extent of

freshwater, estuarine and marine

habitats for Columbia River coho

salmon, as well as information on areas

that may qualify as critical habitat.

Areas that include the physical and

biological features essential to the

recovery of the species should be

identified. Essential features include,

but are not limited to, the following: (1)

Habitat 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 reproduction and rearing of

offspring; and (5) habitats that are

protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historic

geographical and ecological

distributions of the species. NMFS is

also seeking information and maps

describing natural and manmade

barriers within the species’ current and

historical range in the Columbia River

basin.

For areas potentially qualifying as

critical habitat, NMFS also requests

information describing (1) the activities

that affect the area or could be affected

by the designation, and (2) the economic

costs and benefits of additional

requirements of management measures

likely to result from the designation.

The economic cost to be considered in

a critical habitat designation under the

ESA is the probable economic impact

‘‘of the (critical habitat) designation

upon proposed or ongoing activities’’

(50 CFR 424.19). NMFS must consider

the incremental costs specifically

resulting from a critical habitat

designation that are above the economic

effects attributable to listing the species.

Economic effects attributable to listing

include actions resulting from section 7

consultations under the ESA to avoid

jeopardy to the species and from the

taking prohibitions under section 9 or

4(d) of the ESA. Comments concerning

economic impacts should distinguish

the costs of listing from the incremental

costs that can be directly attributed to

the designation of specific areas as

critical habitat.

On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

published a series of policies regarding

listings under the ESA, including a

policy for peer review of scientific data

(59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer

review policy is to ensure that listings

are based on the best scientific and

commercial data available. NMFS now

solicits the names of recognized experts

in the field who could take part in the

peer review process for the agency’s

status review of Columbia River coho

salmon. Peer reviewers may be selected

from academic and scientific

community, tribal and other Native

American groups, Federal and state

agencies, the private sector, and public

interest groups.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

Dated: October 30, 2000.

William T. Hogarth,

Deputy Administrator for Fisheries, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28306 Filed 11– 2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 091800K]

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; Public Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Cancellation of public hearings.