27948 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules

b. Under subsection (k)(2) of the

Privacy Act (5 USC 552a(k)(2)),

investigatory material compiled for law

enforcement purposes, other than

material encompassed within

subsection (j)(2), may be exempted from

these provisions, and DOT proposes to

exempt JMIE accordingly.

Analysis of regulatory impacts. This

amendment is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of Executive Order 12866. It is also not

significant within the definition in

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and

Procedures, 49 FR 11034 (1979), in part

because it does not involve any change

in important Departmental policies.

Because the economic impact should be

minimal, further regulatory evaluation

is not necessary. Moreover, I certify that

this proposal will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

This proposal does not significantly

affect the environment, and therefore an

environmental impact statement is not

required under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It has

also been reviewed under Executive

Order 12612, Federalism, and it has

been determined that it does not have

sufficient implications for federalism to

warrant preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Finally, the proposal does not contain

any collection of information

requirements, requiring review under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 10:

Penalties; Privacy.

In accordance with the above, DOT

proposes to amend 49 CFR part 10 as

follows:

PART 10—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation to part 10

would remain as follows:

Authority: 5 USC 552a; 49 USC 322.

2. Part I of Appendix A would be

amended by republishing the

introductory text and by adding a new

paragraph F; Part II.A would be

amended by adding a new paragraph 14;

and Part II.F would be amended by

adding a new paragraph 4, all to read as

follows:

Appendix A to Part 10—Exemptions

Part I. General exemptions. Those portions

of the following systems of records that

consist of (a) information compiled for the

purpose of identifying individual criminal

offenders and alleged offenders and

consisting only of identifying data and

notations of arrests, the nature and

disposition of criminal charges, sentencing,

confinement, release, and parole and

probation status; (b) information compiled

for the purpose of a criminal investigation,

including reports of informants and

investigators, and associated with an

identifiable individual; or (c) reports

identifiable to an individual compiled at any

stage of the process of enforcement of the

criminal laws from arrest or indictment

through release from supervision, are exempt

from all parts of 5 USC 552a except

subsections (b) (Conditions of disclosure);

(c)(1) and (2) (Accounting of certain

disclosures); (e)(4)(A) through (F)

(Publication of existence and character of

system); (e)(6) (Ensure records are accurate,

relevant, timely, and complete before

disclosure to person other than an agency

and other than pursuant to a Freedom of

Information Act request), (7) (Restrict

recordkeeping on First Amendment rights),

(9) (Rules of conduct), (10) (Safeguards), and

(11) (Routine use publication); and (i)

(Criminal penalties):

* * * * *

F. Joint Maritime Intelligence Element

(JMIE) Support System, maintained by the

Operations Systems Center, U.S. Coast Guard

(DOT/CG 642).

Part II. Specific exemptions.

A. The following systems of records are

exempt from subsection (c)(3) (Accounting of

Certain Disclosures), (d) (Access to Records),

(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I) (Agency Requirements),

and (f) (Agency Rules) of 5 USC 552a, to the

extent that they contain investigatory

material compiled for law enforcement

purposes in accordance with 5 USC

552a(k)(2):

* * * * *

14. Joint Maritime Intelligence Element

(JMIE) Support System, maintained by the

Operations Systems Center, U.S. Coast Guard

(DOT/CG 642).

* * * * *

F. Those portions of the following systems

of records that consist of information

properly classified in the interest of national

defense or foreign policy in accordance with

5 USC 552(b)(1) are exempt from sections

(c)(3) (Accounting of Certain Disclosures), (d)

(Access to Records), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I)

(Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency

Rules) of 5 USC 552a, to the extent that they

contain investigatory material compiled for

law enforcement purposes in accordance

with 5 USC 552a(k)(1):

* * * * *

4. Joint Maritime Intelligence Element

(JMIE) Support System, maintained by the

Operations Systems Center, U. S. Coast

Guard (DOT/CG 642).

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19,

1995.

Federico Pen ̃ a,

Secretary of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 95–12833 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket PS–140]

RIN 2137–AC34

Areas Unusually Sensitive to

Environmental Damage

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Public workshop notice.

SUMMARY: RSPA invites industry, State

and local government representatives

and the public to a workshop on

unusually sensitive environmental

areas. The workshop’s purpose is to

openly discuss the criteria being

considered by RSPA to determine areas

unusually sensitive to environmental

damage from a hazardous liquid

pipeline release. The criteria are needed

to carry out statutory requirements.

DATES: The workshop will be held on

June 15, 1995 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

and on June 16, 1995 from 8:30 a.m. to

12 p.m. Persons who want to participate

in the workshop should call (703) 267–

3666 or e-mail their name, affiliation,

and phone number to

jbusavag@walcoff.com as space is

limited. Persons who are unable to

attend may submit written comments in

duplicate by June 26, 1995. Interested

persons should submit as part of their

written comments all material that is

relevant to a statement of fact or

argument.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held

at the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Room 2230,

Washington, DC. Non-federal employee

visitors are admitted into the DOT

headquarters building through the

southwest entrance at Seventh and E

Streets, SW.

Written comments must be submitted

in duplicate and mailed or hand

delivered to the Dockets Unit, Room

8421, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001.

Please refer to the docket and notice

numbers stated in the heading of this

notice.

All comments and materials cited in

this document will be available for

inspection and copying in Room 8421

between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. each

business day. A transcript of the

workshop will be available from the

Dockets Unit about three weeks after the

workshop.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christina Sames, (202) 366–4561, about
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27949

this document, or the Dockets Unit,

(202) 366–5046, for copies of this

document or other materials in the

docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

49 U.S.C. 60109 and 60102

49 U.S.C. 60109 requires the Secretary

of Transportation (Secretary) to:

• Consult with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and describe

areas that are unusually sensitive to

environmental damage if there is a

hazardous liquid pipeline accident, and

• Establish criteria for identifying

each hazardous liquid pipeline facility

and gathering line, whether otherwise

subject to regulation, located in an area

unusually sensitive to environmental

damage in the event of a pipeline

accident.

In describing areas that are unusually

sensitive to environmental damage, the

Secretary is to consider:

• Earthquake zones and areas subject

to substantial ground movements, such

as landslides;

• Areas where ground water

contamination would be likely if a

pipeline facility ruptures;

• Freshwater lakes, rivers, and

waterways; and

• River deltas and other areas subject

to soil erosion or subsidence from

flooding or other water action, where

pipeline facilities are likely to be

exposed or undermined.

Identification of these unusually

sensitive environment areas will be

used by RSPA in future rulemakings

that are directed at such areas. For

instance, 49 U.S.C. 60109 (a)(2) directs

the Secretary to require operators to

identify unusually sensitive

environmental areas through maps and

pipeline inventories. 49 U.S.C.

60102(f)(2) requires the Secretary to

require each pipeline in an unusually

sensitive environmental area to be

inspected periodically and to prescribe

when an instrumented internal

inspection device should be used to

inspect the pipeline.

Purpose of Workshop

The purpose of the public workshop

is for RSPA and participants to

interactively discuss areas unusually

sensitive to environmental damage from

a hazardous liquid pipeline release and

will focus on the following:

1. How to establish criteria which will

narrow the number of unusually

sensitive environmental areas for

pipeline safety purposes.

2. How to establish a process which

operators can use to identify, using

readily available data, which of their

pipeline facilities are located in an

unusually sensitive environmental area.

3. How can RSPA and other Federal

and State agencies facilitate the

identification of pipeline facilities in

unusually sensitive environmental areas

in a timely and cost beneficial manner.

Problem

There is not a national process to

define environmentally sensitive areas

for Federal, State, and local

governments. Many Federal, State, and

local laws refer to environmentally

sensitive areas for protection from

various actions. The environmentally

sensitive area definitions these

government agencies have created could

be interpreted to include most of the

United States.

To meet the intent of 49 U.S.C. 60109

without creating an undue burden on

the pipeline industry, RSPA believes a

narrow, risk-based definition for

unusually sensitive areas is required.

Therefore, RSPA is considering an

approach that builds on values other

Federal agencies have established for

activities required under the Oil

Pollution Act of 1990, but that more

narrowly identifies areas that are

unusually sensitive to environmental

damage from a hazardous liquid

pipeline release.

RSPA believes operators should be

given credit for equipping their pipeline

systems to quickly detect and respond

to a hazardous liquid release. RSPA also

believes operators should be allowed to

determine the areas that could

reasonably be expected to be

significantly affected if there were a

hazardous liquid release from their

pipeline. Therefore, RSPA is

considering including only those areas

where a release of hazardous liquid

would reach the area before the release

was contained or before the area was

protected as unusually sensitive to

environmental damage from a

hazardous liquid pipeline release.

To establish clear priorities for

protecting a large number of areas,

RSPA is considering three tiers of

unusually sensitive areas. Tier One,

areas that could affect human health if

contaminated, would be considered the

most sensitive and the highest priority

areas. Tier Two, unusually sensitive

areas along surface water, would be the

second highest priority. Tier Three,

unusually sensitive areas within

terrestrial environments, would be the

third highest priority. RSPA believes the

three tiers could be phased in to give

operators more time to determine the

unusually sensitive areas that could be

affected by a hazardous liquid pipeline

release. This will reduce the burden on

industry and will give RSPA time to

work with other government agencies to

help determine unusually sensitive

areas.

The following explains the criteria

under each of the tiers being considered

for identifying areas unusually sensitive

to environmental damage from a

hazardous liquid pipeline release. RSPA

invites discussion on all topics

addressed in this public workshop

notice.

1. Tier One: Areas That Could Affect

Human Health if Contaminated

A. Intakes for Community Drinking

Water Systems

Public safety is RSPA’s number one

concern. A hazardous liquid pipeline

failure can threaten human health if the

hazardous liquid enters a community’s

drinking water system. Therefore,

intakes for community water systems, as

defined in the Safe Drinking Water Act

regulations, 40 CFR 141.2, that a

hazardous liquid pipeline accident

could reasonably be expected to affect,

are the highest priority in the definition

being considered.

The potential risk to a community

water system is greatly reduced when a

pipeline system is equipped to quickly

detect and respond to a hazardous

liquid release. A pipeline system’s

ability to contain a hazardous liquid

release before the liquid reaches a

community water system intake greatly

minimizes the contamination risk.

Prompt detection of a hazardous liquid

release and prompt notification of water

authorities allows for the shut down of

the community water intakes that could

reasonably be expected to be affected

until the danger of hazardous liquid

contamination passes. Therefore, only

community water system intakes where

water currents, topography, or other

factors could carry a hazardous liquid

release to the community water intake

zone before the hazardous liquid is

contained or before the community

water system intake is closed would be

considered unusually sensitive

environmental areas.

B. Sole Source Aquifers

EPA defines a sole source aquifer as

one that supplies at least half of the

drinking water consumed in the area

above the aquifer. EPA guidelines state

that designated sole source aquifer areas

have no alternative sources or

combination of sources that could

physically, legally, and economically

supply all those who get their drinking

water from the aquifer.

A hazardous liquid pipeline failure

can threaten human health if the

hazardous liquid enters a sole source

aquifer. Therefore, RSPA believes that
27950 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules

EPA designated sole source aquifers

should be considered when determining

areas unusually sensitive to

environmental damage from a

hazardous liquid pipeline accident.

RSPA realizes that not all sole source

aquifers could reasonably be expected to

be significantly affected by a hazardous

liquid pipeline accident. A hazardous

liquid release’s ability to affect a sole

source aquifer will depend on many

factors, including the aquifer’s depth,

the soil’s permeability, the geologic

formations surrounding the aquifer, and

the amount of hazardous liquid that

could be discharged. RSPA believes that

only sole source aquifers that a

hazardous liquid pipeline accident

could reasonably be expected to

significantly affect should be considered

areas unusually sensitive to

environmental damage from a

hazardous liquid pipeline accident.

2. Tier Two: Unusually Sensitive Areas

Along Surface Water

Surface water will carry a discharge

from a hazardous liquid pipeline to

community drinking water systems and

to other areas unusually sensitive to

environmental damage. Because surface

water covers a large portion of the

United States and not all areas in a body

of water and along the water’s edge have

the same environmental sensitivity,

RSPA is considering a risk-based

approach to identify the areas along

surface water that are unusually

sensitive to environmental damage from

a hazardous liquid pipeline release. In

order to prioritize areas of greatest

environmental concern, this approach

takes into account the surface water

habitat’s natural ability to restore itself

to the condition that existed before the

release, and the biological and human

use resources in the body of water and

along the water’s edge.

RSPA is considering two categories of

surface water to determine areas

unusually sensitive to environmental

damage: (A) intertidal, large and

medium rivers, and large lakes and (B)

small rivers and lakes, streams, ponds,

and other surface water. RSPA believes

that Tier Two could be phased in after

Tier One (The identification of areas

that could affect human health if

contaminated) is completed. This will

reduce the burden on industry and will

give RSPA time to work with other

government agencies to help determine

the unusually sensitive areas along

surface water.

A. Intertidal, Large and Medium Rivers,

and Large Lakes

The National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Association (NOAA) and

the EPA have developed a ten point

scale that ranks estuarine, lacustrine,

and medium and large sized riverine

shoreline habitat sensitivity to oil spills

(see Table 1). This scale is based on

their studies of oil spills’ effects on

shoreline habitats. The ten point scale

ranks habitats according to their

sensitivity to an oil spill, natural

persistence of oil, and ease of cleanup.

RSPA believes this criteria should be

used to rank the habitats along intertidal

waters, large and medium rivers, and

large lakes that a hazardous liquid

pipeline release could affect. NOAA and

EPA have identified large lakes as those

large enough to form natural, wave built

beaches (where the distance over which

the wind blows to generate waves is

long enough, and thus the windgenerated waves are large enough, to

form beaches along the shoreline).

Resource areas, including biological

and human-use, need to be considered

to narrowly determine areas that are

unusually sensitive to environmental

damage from a hazardous liquid

pipeline accident. Biological resource

areas may include critical habitats for

endangered or threatened species,

critical nesting and spawning areas, and

wilderness areas. Human-use resources

may include officially designated

natural resource management areas,

resource extraction sites, high

recreational use and access areas, and

archeological and cultural sites.

RSPA believes that the shoreline

habitat, the biological resource areas,

and the human use resources should be

evaluated to determine if an area is

unusually sensitive to environmental

damage. Table 2 outlines a list of areas

to be considered. Directly below each

area is a numerical sensitivity rating to

be considered. An operator would

determine if an area is unusually

sensitive to environmental damage by

determining the habitat’s sensitivity

ranking (Table 2, column 1), the

biological resource area ranking (Table

2, column 2), and the human-use

resource area ranking (Table 2, column

3). Combining the habitat, the biological

resource area, and the human use

resource area rankings determines if an

area is unusually sensitive. RSPA

believes that areas with a combined

numerical ranking of 15 points or more

should be considered unusually

sensitive.

B. Small Rivers and Lakes, Streams,

Ponds, and Other Surface Water

As one progresses landward up major

rivers, the streams, ponds, and wetlands

become so narrow and shallow that

even small spills may contaminate the

whole system. NOAA and EPA have

recommended as a cut off the point

where a 20,000 gallon spill would affect

the water body from bank to bank and

the entire water column. From this

point on upstream, it is not useful to

classify the habitat sensitivity of

sections along the water way. Therefore,

RSPA is considering the entire

watershed upstream of the point on the

main stream where the habitat

sensitivity ranking is no longer useful as

a single habitat sensitivity, and that the

entire watershed upstream of this point

be given a habitat ranking of 9 points.

RSPA believes that the biological

resource areas and the human use

resources within the watershed

upstream of the cutoff point should be

evaluated to determine if an area is

unusually sensitive to environmental

damage. Table 3 outlines a list of areas

to be considered. This list of areas is

identical to the list of areas in Table 2,

columns 2 and 3. Directly below each

area is a numerical sensitivity rating. An

operator would determine if an area is

unusually sensitive to environmental

damage by determining the biological

resource area ranking (Table 3, column

1) and human-use resource area ranking

(Table 3, column 2) within the

watershed area. Combining the habitat

ranking of 9 points, the biological

resource area ranking, and the human

use resource ranking determines if an

area is unusually sensitive; areas with a

combined numerical ranking of 15

points or more would be considered

unusually sensitive.

3. Unusually Sensitive Areas Within

Terrestrial Environments

RSPA is considering an approach for

identifying unusually sensitive

environmental areas in terrestrial

environments that is similar to the

approach for identifying unusually

sensitive environmental areas along

surface water. RSPA believes that the

biological resource areas and the human

use resources should be studied to

determine if a given area is unusually

sensitive to environmental damage from

a hazardous liquid pipeline accident.

However, RSPA believes the terrestrial

habitat’s sensitivity should not be

ranked for its natural ability to restore

itself to the condition that existed before

the release. Therefore, only the

biological resource areas and the human

use resource areas would be studied to

determine if a given area is unusually

sensitive to environmental damage from

a hazardous liquid pipeline release.

Table 4 recommends a list of areas to

consider. Directly below each area is a

numerical sensitivity rating. An

operator would determine if an area is

unusually sensitive to environmental
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27951

damage by evaluating the biological

resource area and the human-use

resource area rankings. Combining these

two rankings, biological resource area

ranking and human use resource area

ranking, determines if an area is

unusually sensitive. Areas with a

combined numerical ranking of 11

points or more would be considered

unusually sensitive to environmental

damage from a hazardous liquid

pipeline accident.

RSPA believes that Tier Three could

be phased in after Tier One (the

identification of areas that could affect

human health if contaminated) and Tier

Two (Unusually sensitive areas along

surface water) are completed. This will

reduce the burden on industry and will

give RSPA time to work with other

government agencies to help determine

the unusually sensitive areas within

terrestrial environments.

RSPA invites discussion on all topics

addressed in this public workshop

notice. Anticipated topics to be

discussed at the public meeting include,

but are not limited to:

(1) The three tiers of unusually

sensitive environmental areas.

(2) The criteria being considered for

community drinking water systems and

sole source aquifers.

(3) The sensitivity ranking of the

biological and human use resource

areas.

(4) Whether the criteria are specific

enough to allow operators to identify

areas unusually sensitive to

environmental damage from a release of

hazardous liquid from their pipeline.

(5) Whether additional criteria are

needed to identify unusually sensitive

environmental areas.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 22,

1995.

Cesar DeLeon,

Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline

Safety.

TABLE 1.—HABITAT RANKINGS BEING CONSIDERED

Habitat ranking Estuarine 1 Lacustrine 2 Riverine (Large rivers)

10A Saltwater marshes

10B Mangroves

10C Freshwater marshes ............................... Freshwater marshes ............................... Freshwater marshes.

10D Freshwater swamps ............................... Freshwater swamps ............................... Freshwater swamps.

9A Sheltered tidal flats ................................. Sheltered vegetated low banks .............. Vegetated low banks.

9B ................................................................. Sheltered sand/mud flats ....................... Muddy substances (unvegetated).

8A Sheltered rocky shores .......................... Sheltered scarps in bedrock .................. Vegetated, steeply sloping bluffs.

8B Sheltered man-made structures ............. Sheltered man-made structures ............. Sheltered man-made structures.

7 Exposed tidal flats .................................. Exposed flats .......................................... Not present.

6A Gravel beaches ...................................... Gravel beaches ...................................... Gravel bars and gently sloping banks.

6B Riprap structures .................................... Riprap structures .................................... Riprap structures.

5 Mixed sand and gravel beaches ............ Mixed sand and gravel beaches ............ Mixed sand and gravel beaches.

4 Course-grained sand beaches ............... Sand beaches ........................................ Sandy bars and gently sloping banks.

3 Fine-grained sand beaches .................... Eroding scarps in unconsolidated sediment.Exposed, eroding banks in unconsolidated sediments.

2 Wave-cut platforms in bedrock .............. Shelving bedrock shores ........................ Rocky shoals; bedrock ledges.

1A Exposed rocky shores ............................ Exposed rocky cliffs ............................... Exposed rocky banks.

1B Exposed seawalls ................................... Exposed, hard man-made structures ..... Vertical, solid revetments.

1Semi-enclosed coastal waters that are under tidal influence and have a free connection to the adjacent ocean waters.

2Generally standing water, with open water exceeding 30% of the system.

TABLE 2.—CRITERIA BEING CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING UNUSUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ALONG INTERTIDAL, LARGE

AND MEDIUM RIVERS, AND LARGE LAKES

Habitat rankings estuarine, lacustrine, and

riverine environments Biological resource areas Human use resource areas

Estuarine Environments:

Saltwater and freshwater marshes

Freshwater swamps

Mangroves

Critical habitats for Federally designated Endangered or Threatened Species as defined

in 50 CFR 424.02

Lacustrine and Riverine Environments:

Freshwater marshes and swamps

10 points 10 points

Estuarine Environments:

Sheltered tidal flats

Critical areas identified under the Clean Lakes

Program

Lacustrine Environments:

Sheltered vegetated low banks

Sheltered sand/mud flats

Sensitive areas identified under National Estuary Program or Near Coastal Waters Program

Riverine Environments:

Vegetated low banks

Muddy substances

9 points 9 points

Estuarine Environments:

Sheltered rocky shores

Sheltered man-made structures

Habitats Federal or State designated Endangered or Threatened Species are known to

use

Lacustrine Environments:

Sheltered scarps in bedrock

Sheltered man-made structures

Reverine Environments: Spawning areas critical for maintaining fish or

shellfish
27952 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2.—CRITERIA BEING CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING UNUSUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ALONG INTERTIDAL, LARGE

AND MEDIUM RIVERS, AND LARGE LAKES—Continued

Habitat rankings estuarine, lacustrine, and

riverine environments Biological resource areas Human use resource areas

Vegetated, steeply sloping bluffs

8 points 8 points

Estuarine Environments:

Exposed tidal flats

National Sanctuaries Officially designated natural resource managed areas: National Parks.

Lacustrine Environments:

Exposed flats

National State and Wildlife Refuges National Conservation Areas

Riverine Environments:

Not present

National Wildlife Management Areas Natural Heritage Areas.

Terrestrial areas large or dense groups or

numbers of animals use to breed

National Preserves and Reserves.

7 points 7 points

Estuarine and Lacustrine Environments:

Gravel beaches

Riprap structures

Designated Federal Wilderness Areas Archeological and cultural sites a Federal or

State government agency identifies and

protects.

Riverine Environments:

Gravel bars and gently sloping banks

Riprap structures

Federal or State designated Scenic or Wild

River

Native lands.

6 points 6 points

Estuarine and Lacustrine Environments:

Mixed sand and gravel beaches

State land designated for protecting and maintaining aquatic lifeResource extraction sites, such as subsistence sites, commercial fisheries areas,

aquaculture sites, reservoirs, and other

water resource areas.

5 points 5 points

Estuarine Environments:

Coarse-grained sand beaches

State land designated to manage wildlife or

game

High recreational use areas:

National Recreational Areas.

Lacustrine Environments:

Sand beaches

National Monuments.

Sandy bars and gently sloping banks

4 points 4 points

Estuarine Environments:

Fine-grained sand beaches

State designated natural areas

Lacustrine Environments:

Eroding scarps in unconsolidated sediment

National Forest System

Riverine Environments:

Exposed, eroding banks in unconcolidated

sediments

3 points 3 points

Estuarine Environments:

Wave-cut platforms in bedrock

Lacustrine Environments:

Shelving bedrock shores

Riverine Environments:

Rocky shoals, bedrock ledges

2 points

Estuarine Environments:

Exposed rocky shores

Exposed seawalls

Lacustrine Environments:

Exposed rocky cliffs

Exposed, hard man-made structures

Riverine Environments:

Exposed rocky banks

Vertical, solid revetments

1 point

TABLE 3.—CRITERIA BEING CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING UNUSUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ALONG SMALL RIVERS AND

LAKES, STREAMS, PONDS, ETC.

Biological resource areas Human use resource areas

Critical habitats for Federally designated Endangered or Threatened

Species as defined in 50 CFR 424.02

10 points

Critical areas identified under the Clean Lakes Program

Sensitive areas identified under National Estuary Program or Near

Coastal Waters Program
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27953

TABLE 3.—CRITERIA BEING CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING UNUSUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ALONG SMALL RIVERS AND

LAKES, STREAMS, PONDS, ETC.—Continued

Biological resource areas Human use resource areas

9 points

Habitats Federal or State designated Endangered or Threatened Species are known to use

Spawning areas critical for maintaining fish or shellfish

8 points

National Sanctuaries Officially designated natural resource management areas:

National Parks.

National Conservation Areas.

Natural Heritage Areas.

National Preserves and Reserves.

National and State Wildlife Refuges

National Wildlife Management Areas

Terrestrial areas large or dense groups or numbers of animals use to

breed

7 points 7 points

Designated Federal Wilderness Areas Archeological and cultural sites a Federal or State government agency

identifies and protects.

Federal or State designated Scenic or Wild River Native lands.

6 points 6 points

State land designated for protecting and maintaining aquatic life Resource extraction sites, such as subsistence sites, commercial fisheries areas, aquaculture sites, reservoirs, and other water resource

areas.

Research natural areas.

5 points 5 points

State land designated to manage wildlife or game High recreational use areas:

National Recreational Areas.

National Monuments.

State Parks.

4 points 4 points

State designated natural areas

National Forest System

3 points

TABLE 4.—CRITERIA BEING CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING UNUSUALLY SENSITIVE WITHIN TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTS

Biological resource areas Human use resource areas

Critical habitats for Federally designated Endangered or Threatened

Species as defined in 50 CFR 424.02

10 points

Habitats Federal or State designated Endangered or Threatened Species are known to use

Spawning areas critical for maintaining fish or shellfish

8 points

National Sanctuaries Officially designated natural resource management areas:

National and State Wildlife Refuges National Parks. National Conservation Areas.

National Wildlife Management Areas Natural Heritage Areas.

Terrestrial areas large or dense groups or numbers of animals use to

breed

National Preserves and Reserves.

7 points 7 points

Designated Federal Wilderness Areas Archeological and cultural sites a Federal or State government agency

identifies and protects.

Native lands.

6 points 6 points

Research natural areas

5 points

State land designated to manage wildlife or game High recreational use areas:

National Recreational Areas.

National Monuments.

State Parks.

4 points 4 points

State designated natural areas

National Forest System

3 points
27954 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 95–12964 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; 90-day Finding for a

Petition To List the Wood Turtle

(Clemmys Insculpta) as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition

finding.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) announces a 90-day

finding for a petition to list the wood

turtle (Clemmys insculpta) as a

threatened species throughout its

historic range in the coterminous United

States under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended. The Service

finds that the petition does not present

substantial scientific or commercial

information indicating that listing this

species may be warranted.

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was made on May 16, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit data, information,

comments or questions concerning this

petition to the Field Supervisor, New

England Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 22 Bridge Street,

Concord, New Hampshire 03301. The

petition finding, supporting data, and

comments are available for public

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the address

listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Amaral at the above address

(603–225–1411); Paul Nickerson at U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional

Office, 300 Westgate Center Drive,

Hadley, Massachusetts 01035 (telephone

413–253–8615); or Robert Adair, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal

Building, Fort Snelling, Twin Cities,

Minnesota, 55111 (telephone 612–725–

3500).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that the

Service make a finding on whether a

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a

species presents substantial scientific or

commercial information to demonstrate

that the petitioned action may be

warranted. This finding is to be based

on all information available to the

Service at the time. To the maximum

extent practicable, this finding is to be

made within 90 days of receipt of the

petition, and the finding is to be

published promptly in the Federal

Register.

The Service has made a 90-day

finding on a petition to list the wood

turtle (Clemmys insculpta) as threatened

and to determine critical habitat. The

petition, dated December 27, 1994, was

submitted to the Service by Restore The

North Woods of Concord,

Massachusetts, the Biodiversity Legal

Foundation, and six individual copetitioners and was received by the

Service on December 29, 1994. In a

letter dated January 10, 1995, Restore

provided two additional documents to

the petition record. This information

was received by the Service on January

12, 1995. The petitioners contend that

the species has undergone a precipitous

decline throughout its range, that there

are a number of threats to the species

which will cause further declines, and,

therefore, that urgent protective

measures are necessary.

The Service has carefully reviewed

the petition, the literature cited in the

petition, recent information submitted

by State wildlife agencies and other

knowledgeable individuals, and all

other information currently available in

the Service’s files. On the basis of the

best scientific and commercial

information available, the Service finds

the petition does not present substantial

information that listing this species may

be warranted. This finding is based on

the inadequacy of existing data to

support the contention that the wood

turtle has undergone rangewide decline

or that the threats identified in the

petition are affecting wood turtle

populations across all or a significant

portion of its range to the extent that the

species is likely to become an

endangered species in the foreseeable

future.

The following is a summary of the

information available on the species’

current status. The wood turtle occurs

in all of the States within its recent

historic range (colonial settlement to

present); appears to be well distributed

within a number of those States, i.e.,

Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maine,

Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts and

New York; and is considered as

threatened or endangered by State

wildlife agencies in only 5 of the 17

States in which it occurs.

The petitioners stated that habitat loss

and fragmentation, nest and hatchling

predation, and collection for

commercial markets, as well as other

factors, have resulted in the wood turtle

being ‘‘biologically threatened in its

native habitat in the United States’’

(Restore et. al. 1994). However,

information submitted by the petitioners

and information otherwise available to

the Service indicate that the status of

the wood turtle is not sufficiently

known for a significant portion of its

range to determine the species’ current,

versus historic, distribution. Similarly,

inadequate data was provided to

determine whether the threats identified

for specific study populations cited in

the petition are likely to be causing

rangewide declines in wood turtle

populations.

Wood turtles continue to be

widespread in a number of States, with

viable populations reported from rural

areas. In other States, numerous wood

turtle occurrence records are reported

but population and distribution data are

insufficient to substantiate the need for

State listing as threatened or

endangered. Thus, the wood turtle is not

State-listed as threatened or endangered

throughout the majority of its range in

the United States (Northeast Nongame

Technical Committee 1994).

The petitioners presented information

on the international trade in turtles of

the genus Clemmys, as well as the

domestic trade in wood turtles. This

species was added to Appendix II of the

Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Flora and

Fauna (CITES) on June 11, 1992. While

addition to Appendix II does not

prohibit all international trade in wood

turtles, it does provide a means for strict

regulation of trade in order to avoid use

incompatible with the species’ survival

in the wild. The Service shares the

concern of the petitioners that natural

populations cannot sustain indefinitely

the removal of adult, breeding-age

turtles for the domestic commercial pet

market. However, the Service finds that

the petition fails to present substantial

information indicating that the current

commercial trade in wood turtles is so

extensive that it threatens the species’

existence across its range. The Service

notes that with one exception, New

Hampshire, all States within the range

occupied by the wood turtle now have

laws either prohibiting or severely

restricting the collection of wood turtles

from the wild for commercial trade. The

State of New Hampshire is currently

drafting rules that will limit the

collection of wood turtles to educational

and scientific purposes (James

DiStefano, New Hampshire Department

of Fish and Game, in litt., 1995).

The petition provides information

that some wood turtle populations are

subject to high levels of predation on

eggs, hatchlings and adult turtles.

Raccoon, skunk, opossum, and fox are