        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [CGD01-06-052]
        RIN 1625-AA11
        Regulated Navigation Area: Narragansett Bay, RI and Mount Hope Bay, MA, Including the Providence River and Taunton River

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard proposes to revise some provisions of the existing Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) in the Providence River, Narragansett Bay, RI and Mount Hope Bay, MA. Specifically, the purposes of this proposed rulemaking are to: First, modify provisions in the current RNA that were originally implemented to address severe shoaling in the Providence River; second, address navigational challenges associated with the two Brightman Street bridges; and third, introduce new measures to improve navigation safety in all of Narragansett Bay and Mount Hope Bay, including the Providence and Taunton Rivers, respectively.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 23, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may mail comments and related material to U.S. Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, Prevention Department, 20 Risho Avenue, East Providence, RI, 02914-1208. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and documents will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at U.S. Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, 401-435-2351.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Request for Comments
        We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-06-052), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
        Public Meeting

        We do not plan to hold a public meeting but you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to U.S. Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that a public meeting would aid the Coast Guard in determining what type of rulemaking (if any) is appropriate, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
        Background and Purpose
        On May 1, 1994, the Coast Guard established a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) in the Providence River, Providence, Rhode Island, described at 33 CFR 165.122 (59 FR 18487, April 19, 1994). It was designed to protect the maritime community from hazards to navigation resulting from the extreme shoaling that occurred in the northern section of the Providence River Channel.
        Generally, the current RNA imposes certain navigation restrictions in various segments of the Providence River including, among other requirements, a maximum draft of 35 feet for most vessels, one-way vessel traffic, and a requirement that vessels over 65 feet in length make periodic SECURITE calls via VHF radio. In September 2005 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) completed a major maintenance dredging of the Providence River to remove most shoaling and restore the channel to a depth of 40 feet at Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), and a minimum channel width of 600 feet. (The USACE “Results of Survey” dated September 16, 2005, is available for review in the docket, CGD01-06-052.)
        The restoration of the Providence River Channel to the above described dimensions should permit sufficient depth and width for most commercial and recreational vessels to navigate safely within the channel. Consequently, because the primary conditions that warranted the RNA no longer exist, the Coast Guard is considering making modifications to it.

        Construction of a new Brightman Street bridge (“The New Brightman Street Bridge”) approximately 1100 feet north of the existing Brightman Street Bridge (“The Old Brightman Street Bridge”) presents navigational challenges, particularly for larger self-propelled tank vessels. The opening of the Old Brightman Street Bridge is only 98 feet while the opening of the New Brightman Street Bridge is 200 feet. There is an approximate centerline offset of 100 feet between the two bridges.

        This configuration requires larger commercial vessels to transit through one opening, stop, be pushed transversely (sideways) by tugs for approximately 100 feet to align with the next bridge opening, and then proceed forward. The Coast Guard proposes to address the challenges in transiting between the bridges by codifying some navigational safety measures already practiced by local marine pilots. The Coast Guard elaborates on those navigational challenges in the Discussion of Proposed Rule section below.
        On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59). Section 1948 of that law prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds for the demolition of the Old Brightman Street Bridge. Specifically, that Section states: “Notwithstanding any Federal law, regulation, or policy to the contrary, no Federal funds shall be obligated or expended for the demolition of the existing Brightman Street Bridge connecting Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts, and the existing Brightman Street Bridge shall be maintained for pedestrian and bicycle access, and as an emergency service route.”
        The unique maneuvers required to navigate safely between these two bridges concern the Coast Guard and consequently, certain measures to mitigate those navigation challenges are suggested in this proposed rule. The safety measures suggested are currently being practiced voluntarily by the maritime community. Given that the configuration of the two bridges now appears to be the status quo, the Coast Guard proposes that modifying the existing RNA in the Providence River, Narragansett Bay, RI and Mount Hope Bay, MA, is an appropriate method to address the respective navigation safety issues.
        Concurrently, the Coast Guard proposes to implement certain navigation safety measures applicable to the waterways that encompass Narragansett Bay and Mount Hope Bays (“The Bays”) in their entirety, including the Providence River and Taunton River.
        On September 7, 2004 and September 8, 2004, the Coast Guard sponsored a Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA) of Narragansett Bay, which was conducted by a cross-section of waterways users and stakeholders. The report produced by the PAWSA participants identified several issues and areas within the Bays where navigational safety was of particular concern. (A copy of the PAWSA report is available in the docket, CGD01-06-052.) Although the Coast Guard has taken several non-regulatory actions to improve navigational safety, such as public outreach, education and improved aids to navigation, the Coast Guard is considering additional navigational safety regulations within the Bays.
        On November 21, 2005, the Coast Guard published a notice requesting public comments on “Navigation and Waterways Management Improvements, Providence River Regulated Navigation Area; Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and Mount Hope Bay, MA” (See 70 FR 70052). The Coast Guard invited comments on several specific questions regarding navigational safety within the Bays, and solicited any other comments regarding navigational safety concerns and potential impacts of any new navigational safety measures. Three comments were submitted.
        Two of the three comments addressed navigational concerns related to the waterway configuration resulting from the proximity of the Old Brightman Street Bridge to the New Brightman Street Bridge that span the Taunton River between Somerset and Fall River, Massachusetts. Specifically, there is only 1100 feet between the bridges, the opening of the Old Brightman Street Bridge is only 98 feet while the opening of the New Brightman Street Bridge is 200 feet, and the openings of the two bridges are not aligned with each other. As noted previously, this configuration requires a vessel to transit through one opening, stop, be pushed transversely (sideways) by tugs for approximately 100 feet to align with the next bridge opening, and then proceed forward. Local marine pilots, working with vessel operators, have devised a method of transiting the two bridges that involves the use of a marine pilot, three tugs (in most cases), and navigating only within certain weather parameters. The Coast Guard proposes to codify those voluntary practices in this NPRM.
        The first two comments are more aptly addressed via the mechanisms contemplated by 33 CFR part 116, “Alterations of Unreasonably Obstructive Bridges.” That part describes the procedures by which the Coast Guard determines a bridge to be an unreasonable obstruction to navigation. Consequently, the Commander, First Guard District (dpb) forwarded a letter on April 3, 2006, to Commandant (G-PWB), Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, DC, to begin the 33 CFR part 116 process regarding the Old Brightman Street Bridge.
        The third comment pertained specifically to the current RNA described at 33 CFR 165.122 and recommended:
        • A reduction in several voice reporting requirements via VHF radio in Narragansett Bay and the Providence River;
        • Removal of the one-way traffic restriction in the Providence River;
        • Addition of a voice reporting requirement via VHF radio in Mount Hope Bay;
        • Addition of an under-keel clearance requirement for deep draft vessels in both Narragansett Bay and Mount Hope Bay.
        The recently-completed major dredging project by the USACE has reduced the need for voice reporting requirements in Narragansett Bay and the Providence River, and obviated the need for one-way traffic restrictions in the river. Consequently, the recommendations made with respect to a reduction in several voice reporting requirements via VHF radio in Narragansett Bay and the Providence River and a removal of the one-way traffic restriction in the Providence River, as described above, have already been incorporated and addressed in this proposed rule. Given the type and frequency of marine traffic in Mount Hope Bay and the Taunton River, combined with the location of three bridges in close proximity to each other (the Braga Bridge, the Old Brightman Street bridge, and the New Brightman Street Bridge (under construction)), the Coast Guard believes that voice reporting requirements are prudent and should enhance navigation safety, and those reporting requirements are also included in this proposed rule.

        The recommendation for an under-keel clearance requirement was considered, but is not included as part of the proposed rule in this NPRM. The under-keel clearance is subject to many variables, such as wave height, squat, accuracy of tidal predictions, water density, etc., and is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Rather, we propose to revise the existing maximum draft restriction for the Providence River as described below in our proposed regulatory text.

        Discussion of Proposed Rule
        The proposed modifications to the current RNA at 33 CFR 165.122 would:
        • Remove certain navigation restrictions and minimum visibility requirements in the Providence River, especially for vessels with drafts of 35 feet or greater;
        • Remove the one-way-traffic restriction for vessels over 65 feet in length that currently exists in certain areas of the Providence River;
        • Reduce the number of required Safety Signal (SECURITE) calls while transiting Narragansett Bay and the Providence River;
        • Require a SECURITE call for certain vessels transiting Mount Hope Bay and the Taunton River;
        • Define maximum draft allowances for vessels transiting within the RNA;
        • Define certain weather parameters, and require a federally licensed pilot and assist tugs, for commercial vessels transiting through the Old and New Brightman Street bridges.
        This proposed rule was prompted by the completion of a major dredging project in the Providence River. Navigation safety measures implemented to address the shoaling in that river are no longer required. Based upon the 2004 PAWSA report, however, the public response to the Coast Guard November 21, 2005 notice requesting comments (See 70 FR 70052), and recent Federal legislation that will result in both the Old and New Brightman Street bridges being retained, (Pub. L. 109-59, described above) there is a need for certain navigation safety measures to be implemented in order to better protect people, property, waterways users, the environment, and the economy from the adverse affects of a marine accident or incident.
        Vessels or persons violating this section would be subject to the civil or criminal penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232.
        Regulatory Evaluation
        This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
        The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The effect of this proposed rule would not be significant as it removes some previously imposed and more restrictive navigation safety measures, and modifies already-existing voice reporting requirements in the affected waterways. Navigating within certain weather parameters and requiring federally licensed pilots and assist tugs for commercial vessels transiting the Old and New Brightman Street bridges are already standard practices and will not be an additional economic burden. Should this proposed rule become final, it would be entered into the local notice to mariners, and maritime advisories will be broadcast.
        Small Entities
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
        The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels 65 feet in length or greater transiting the waterways of Narragansett Bay and Mount Hope Bay, including the Providence and Taunton rivers, respectively.
        This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This proposed rule only modifies current regulations and/or codifies current navigation practices. It does not impose new requirements which would affect vessels' schedules or their ability to transit the RNA, nor does it require the purchase of any new equipment or the hiring of any additional crew.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES above) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.
        Assistance for Small Entities
        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please contact Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc of U.S. Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England at 401-435-2351. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
        Federalism
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        Taking of Private Property
        This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
        Civil Justice Reform

        This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

        Protection of Children
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
        Indian Tribal Governments
        This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
        Energy Effects
        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
        Technical Standards
        The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
        This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
        Environment

        We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it would change a Regulated Navigation Area. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
          Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

          PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
          1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

          2. Revise § 165.122 to read as follows:

            § 165.122
            Regulated Navigation Area: Narragansett Bay, RI and Mount Hope Bay, MA, Including the Providence River and Taunton River.
            (a) Description of the regulated navigation area. The Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) encompasses all of the navigable waters of Narragansett Bay and Mount Hope Bay north of the COLREGS demarcation line defined in 33 CFR 80.155, and all of the navigable waters of the Providence River from Conimicut Point to the Providence hurricane barrier, and the Taunton River from Brayton Point northeast to Breeds Cove north of the New Brightman Street Bridge.
            (b) Regulations. (1) The following restrictions apply:
            (i) No vessel may transit the Providence River (the entire channel from Sandy Point to Fox Point Reach):
            (A) With a draft greater than 37 feet, 6 inches (37′6″) when water depth is below mean low water.
            (B) With a draft greater than 41 feet (41′) when water depth is below mean high water.
            (ii) For the purposes of this section, water depth for the Providence River is the water depth at the time a vessel enters the river as recorded at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Physical Ocean Real Time System (PORTS) depth recording device located at Conimicut Point. If this device is not operating properly or its information cannot be obtained, water depth will be determined using NOAA-published tide tables.
            (iii) No vessel may transit the Mount Hope Bay/Taunton River channel (the entire channel from Sandy Point to Breeds Cove north of the New Brightman Street Bridge):
            (A) With a draft greater than 31 feet, 6 inches (32′6″) when water depth is below mean low water.
            (B) With a draft greater than 34 feet, 6 inches (34′ 6″) when water depth is below mean high water.
            (iv) For the purposes of this section, water depth for the Taunton River is the water depth at the time a vessel enters the river as recorded at the NOAA's Physical Ocean Real Time System (PORTS) depth recording device located at Borden Flats, Fall River. If this device is not operating properly or its information cannot be obtained, water depth will be determined using NOAA-published tide tables.
            (v) No vessel may transit the Quonset Point/Davisville Channel (the entire channel from Sandy Point to Davisville):
            (A) With a draft greater than 28 feet, 6 inches (28′6″) when water depth is below mean low water.
            (B) With a draft greater than 30 feet (30′) when water depth is below mean high water.
            (vi) For the purposes of this section, water depth for the Quonset Point/Davisville channel is the water depth at the time a vessel enters the channel as recorded at the NOAA's Physical Ocean Real Time System (PORTS) depth recording device located at Quonset Point. If this device is not operating properly or its information cannot be obtained, water depth will be determined using NOAA-published tide tables.
            (2) All commercial vessels greater than 200 gross tons must:

            (i) Have at least 1 mile of visibility to transit the Providence River between Conimicut Light (LLNR 18305) and Channel Light 42 (LLNR 18580, Fuller Rock Light); and
            (ii) Transit through the Old and New Brightman Street bridges only:
            (A) During daylight;
            (B) On a flood tide when outbound;
            (C) When a federally licensed pilot is aboard;
            (D) When winds are no greater than 15 knots; and
            (E) Accompanied by at least three assist tugs, each of sufficient capability to push, tow, or stop the commercial vessel to avoid grounding, collision, or allision, except that:
            (i) Only two assist tugs are required when the commercial vessel is equipped with a properly operating bow thruster of at least 1000 horsepower.
            (ii) Only one assist tug is required when a barge is being pushed by a primary towing vessel. For the purposes of this regulation, “primary towing vessel” is as defined in 33 CFR 157.03.
            (3) Vessels over 65 feet in length inbound for berths in the Providence River, are required to make Safety Signal (SECURITE) calls on both VHF channels 13 and 16 at the following geographic locations: Pilot Boarding Area, abeam of Castle Hill, abeam of Sandy Point, abeam of Conimicut Point Light (LLNR 18305), abeam of Sabin Point and upon mooring.
            (4) Vessels over 65 feet in length inbound for berths in Mount Hope Bay or in the Taunton River, are required to make Safety Signal (SECURITE) calls on both VHF channels 13 and 16 at the Mount Hope Bay Junction Lighted Gong Buoy “MH” (LLNR 18790).
            (5) Vessels over 65 feet in length outbound for sea down the Providence River Channel shall make SECURITE calls on VHF channels 13 and 16 at the following geographic locations:
            (i) One-half hour prior to departure from the berth;
            (ii) At departure from the berth;
            (iii) Abeam of Sabin Point;
            (iv) Abeam of Gaspee Point; and
            (v) Abeam of Conimicut Light (LLNR 18305).
            (6) Vessels over 65 feet in length outbound for sea down the Taunton River or Mount Hope Bay are required to make SECURITE calls on VHF channels 13 and 16 at the following geographic locations:
            (i) One-half hour prior to departure from the berth;
            (ii) At departure from the berth; and
            (iii) At the Mount Hope Bay Junction Lighted Gong Buoy “MH” (LLNR 18790).
            (7) Vessels 65 feet and under in length and all recreational vessels when meeting deep draft commercial vessel traffic in all locations within this RNA shall keep out of the way of the oncoming deep draft commercial vessel.
            (8) The Captain of the Port, Southeastern New England, may authorize a deviation from these regulations.
            (c) Enforcement. As stated in § 165.13(b), no person may cause or authorize the operation of a vessel in an RNA contrary to the regulations in this part. Violations of regulations in this section should be reported to the Captain of the Port, Southeastern New England, at 508-457-3211. Persons in violation of regulations in this section will be subject to civil or criminal penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232.

            Dated: May 16, 2006.
            David P. Pekoske,
            Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.

       [FR Doc. E6-8075 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [I.D. 041801B]
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Applications for Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notification of a proposal for EFPs to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has received a proposal to conduct experimental fishing and has made a preliminary determination that the subject EFP application contains all the required information and warrants further consideration.  A preliminary determination has also been made that the activities authorized under the EFP will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and within the scope of earlier analyses of impacts.  However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue an EFP.  Therefore, NMFS announces that the Regional Administrator is considering whether to issue an EFP that would allow a single vessel to conduct fishing operations otherwise restricted by regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States.  The University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth and Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (Manomet) have submitted an application for an EFP to allow them to target multispecies in order to investigate the selectivity of various shapes and sizes of knotless trawl mesh, and the selectivity of finfish excluder grates with two different bar-spacings and configurations.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by May 15, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be sent to Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Mark on the outside of the envelope “Comments on Proposed Experimental Fishery.”

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tom Warren, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9347.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The regulations that govern exempted experimental fishing, at 50 CFR 600.745, allow the Regional Administrator to authorize for certain purposes the targeting or incidental harvest of managed species that would otherwise be prohibited.  An EFP to authorize such activity may be issued, provided there is adequate opportunity for the public to comment on the EFP application, and the conservation goals and objectives of the FMP are not compromised.
        The University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth and Manomet, submitted to NMFS on April 5, 2001, an application for an EFP to conduct research in the multispecies fishery on Georges Bank.  The research would target multispecies in the Georges Bank Seasonal Closure area, with the objective of investigating the selectivity of various shapes and sizes of knotless trawl mesh, and the selectivity of finfish excluder grates with two different bar-spacings and configurations.  Specifically, the research would utilize a standard 6.0-inch (15.3-cm) diamond mesh as control, and compare its selectivity to 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) hexagon, 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) square, and 6.0-inch (15.3-cm) hexagon, knotless mesh.  The two configurations of finfish excluder grates to be tested on separate tows would be horizontal bars spaced at 3 inches (7.6-cm) and vertical bars spaced at 4 inches (10.2-cm).  A double cod-end trawl design will be utilized on both the mesh and excluder grate trials.  The goal of the research is to develop trawl gear designed to target flatfish that allows greater escapement of gadoids (e.g., cod and haddock), than the flatfish trawls that are currently utilized by the industry.
        A single vessel would be issued an EFP to allow a total of 42 tows.  EFPs would be required to exempt the vessel from the Days-at-Sea, closed area, and mesh restrictions of the FMP.  The proposed timing and location of the research, and the applicant’s justification for requesting an exemption to the Georges Bank Seasonal Closure Area is that the relatively high numbers of flatfish and gadoids that are available in that area would allow conclusive results to be obtained in a cost-effective manner.  The applicant estimates that the research will take 6 to 8 days to complete.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated:  April 24, 2001.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-10653 Filed 4-27-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [RTID 0648-XA603]
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 20 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Announcement of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 20 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for review by the Secretary of Commerce. If approved, Amendment 20 would modify the preseason schedule for implementing annual management measures and would move the southern boundary of the Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) 5 nautical miles (nmi) (9.3 km) north of its current location. In addition, Amendment 20 would update out-of-date language in the FMP. NMFS will consider public comments in deciding whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 20. NMFS also announces the availability for public review and comment of a draft environmental assessment (EA) analyzing the environmental impacts of implementing the actions under Amendment 20.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 20 must be received by April 12, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0161, by any of the following method:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0161, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

            Instructions: Comments must be submitted by the above method to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          The draft FMP as amended through Amendment 20, with notations showing how Amendment 20 would change the FMP, if approved, is available on the NMFS website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-20-pacific-coast-salmon-fishery-management-plan-changes-preseason-schedule-and.

          The Council and NMFS prepared a draft EA. An electronic copy of this document may be obtained from the West Coast Regional Office website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/laws-and-policies/west-coast-region-national-environmental-policy-act-documents.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The ocean salmon fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (3-200 nmi) (5.6-370.4 km) off Washington, Oregon, and California are managed under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP or plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). The MSA also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, immediately publish a notice that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 20 to the FMP.
        Amendment 20 was developed by the Council to address two primary issues: The preseason schedule for setting annual management measures and the southern boundary of the KMZ in California. Under Amendment 20, the Council also recommended updating outdated language, typographical errors, and references.
        Preseason Schedule

        Chapter 9 of the FMP contains the schedule and procedures for preseason modification of regulations (preseason schedule). The annual preseason schedule extends from March to May. The schedule in the FMP includes the timing of announcement of meeting dates and locations for Council meetings and public hearings, the timing of Council meetings at which the Council develops its recommended management measures, and the availability of the Salmon Technical Team's (STT) analytical documents (the annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) document and the STT's Preseason Reports). Under the preseason schedule currently in the FMP, the Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting in early to mid-April, adopts and recommends annual management measures to NMFS for approval. If NMFS determines the management measures are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and other applicable law, NMFS then publishes the annual management measures in the Federal Register during the first week of May, which corresponds with the traditional May 1 start date for many ocean salmon fisheries. However, it has become increasingly challenging for the Council and NMFS to complete the necessary environmental and economic analyses and regulatory documentation following the April Council meeting in time for the Secretary of Commerce to approve and implement the Council's annual recommendation by May 1.

        At its September 2020 meeting, the Council adopted, as part of Amendment 20, a change in the schedule such that NMFS would publish the annual management measures in the Federal Register in the second or third week of May with an anticipated effective date of May 16. The annual management measures will include expected salmon fisheries for the following March through early May, pending modification through inseason action as needed in response to updated stock abundance forecasts. This has been the practice for March and April salmon fisheries since at least 1994.
        Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) Southern Boundary

        The Council uses management boundaries and zones to manage the ocean salmon harvest consistent with the objectives in the FMP. These boundaries or zones are specified in the annual management measures and may change from year to year. Some management boundaries remain relatively constant and, as described in the FMP, changes to these boundaries or zones may require special justification and documentation. The KMZ is one of these relatively constant zones and is described in section 6.1 of the FMP as extending from Humbug Mountain, OR, to Horse Mountain, CA.
        Beginning in 2016, the Council received multiple requests from participants in the commercial ocean salmon fishery to move the southern boundary of the KMZ from Horse Mountain (Lat. 40°05′ N) 5 nmi north to Lat. 40°10′ N. Proponents argued this would align the salmon management boundary with an existing management boundary in the groundfish fishery, allowing for increased efficiency in fishery operations and enforcement as well as the potential to provide economic benefit to the Port of Eureka.

        The Council considered the analysis of the STT regarding the impacts of the boundary change on the affected salmon stocks, developed during the 2019 methodology review, and economic analysis of the proposed boundary change during its deliberations for Amendment 20.1 2
           The Council also considered the assessment of the Enforcement Consultants regarding any enforcement or safety concerns.3
           At its September 2020 meeting, the Council recommended, as part of Amendment 20, moving the boundary between the KMZ and Fort Bragg management area from Lat. 40°05′ N to Lat. 40°10′ N.

            1 The STT's analysis document is available on the Council's website at: https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2019/10/agenda-item-e-2-attachment-1-potential-implications-of-moving-the-california-klamath-management-zone-fort-bragg-salmon-fishery-management-line-from-horse-mountain-north-to-latitude-40-10.pdf/.

            2 The economic analysis of the proposed boundary change can be found in chapter 9 of the analysis document available on the Council's website at: https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2019/10/agenda-item-e-2-attachment-1-potential-implications-of-moving-the-california-klamath-management-zone-fort-bragg-salmon-fishery-management-line-from-horse-mountain-north-to-latitude-40-10.pdf/.

            3 The comments of the Enforcement Consultants can be found on the Council's website at: https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2020/06/e-3-a-supplemental-ec-report-1.pdf/.

        FMP Language Updates
        In 2015, the Council adopted management reference points for three stocks of salmon managed under the FMP: Southern Oregon coastal Chinook salmon, Grays Harbor fall Chinook salmon, and Willapa Bay natural coho salmon. These changes were implemented through rulemaking (80 FR 19564, April 13, 2015). The reference points included in that action have been used in salmon fishery management since the final rule implementing them was promulgated. However, the current text of the FMP includes the prior reference point values that the 2015 reference points superseded. This action proposes updating the reference points.
        Other updates to the FMP included in Amendment 20 include: Updates to reflect the 2013 merger of NMFS' Northwest and Southwest Regions, updates to the status and terminology of Endangered Species Act-listed salmon evolutionarily significant units, dates for updated management agreements and treaties, and updated references.
        There are no implementing regulations associated with Amendment 20, therefore NMFS will not promulgate a proposed rule to implement this amendment.

        All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 20 (see DATES and ADDRESSES above) will be considered in the Secretary's decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve this amendment. To be considered in this decision, comments must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period; that does not mean postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: February 4, 2021.
          Jennifer M. Wallace,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2021-02674 Filed 2-8-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Petition To List the Douglas County Pocket Gopher as Threatened or Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Douglas County pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides macrotis) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Douglas County pocket gopher may be warranted. This finding is based on our determination that the Douglas County pocket gopher is more widespread than indicated in the petition, that substantially more sites are currently occupied, and that many of these occupied sites are protected from development by being part of county-administered open space, Lowry Military Reservation lands, or various State-owned lands in Douglas, Arapahoe, and Elbert Counties, Colorado. Therefore, we will not initiate a status review in response to this petition. However, the public may submit to us new information concerning the status of or threats to the Douglas County pocket gopher at any time.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on February 14, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          The complete file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 645, Lakewood, Colorado 80228. Submit new information, materials, comments or questions regarding the status of or threats to this taxon at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bob Dach, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 (see
            ADDRESSES) (telephone 303-236-4264; facsimile 303-236-0027).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a finding as to whether the Petitioners (Center for Native Ecosystems [CNE], Forest Guardians, Michael C. McGowan, and Jacob Smith) presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Douglas County pocket gopher as threatened or endangered may be warranted. Our regulations require that we make this finding, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and then promptly publish it in the Federal Register. Although this notice has been delayed, it represents our 90-day finding.
        This 90-day finding is not intended to determine whether the Douglas County pocket gopher should be listed. It is only intended to determine whether substantial scientific or commercial information indicates that listing may be appropriate. “Substantial scientific or commercial information” is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information exists, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the species. The status review would ultimately lead to a listing determination.
        In accordance with the Act's requirement that we use the best available information to support our finding, we reviewed additional information readily available in our files to clarify certain points raised in the petition, including preliminary information regarding the genetic distinctness of the Douglas County pocket gopher. Also, although we did not conduct research or subject the petition to rigorous critical review, we did consider additional information in our files concerning more recent field observations. In total, the information available to us indicates that the Douglas County pocket gopher is more widespread than indicated in the petition, substantially more sites are currently occupied, and many of these occupied sites are protected from development by being part of county-administered open space, Lowry Military Reservation lands, or various State-owned lands in Douglas, Arapahoe, and Elbert Counties, Colorado.
        Previous Federal Action
        On March 27, 2003, we received a formal petition from the CNE, Forest Guardians, Michael C. McGowan, and Jacob Smith to list the Douglas County pocket gopher as a threatened or endangered species pursuant to section 4 of the Act and to designate critical habitat. The petition cited threats from rapid commercial and residential development, exotic species, herbicide use, modifications to natural water runoff patterns, predation, lack of regulatory mechanisms, poisoning, and environmental and genetic stochasticity. The petition also requested an emergency rule based on immediate threats from development.

        In a letter dated May 20, 2003, we denied emergency listing because, after reviewing available data and risks to the subspecies, we determined that there was not a significant and immediate risk to its continued existence. On May 5, 2003, and April 1, 2004, the Petitioners sent notices of intent to sue for our failure to make 90-day and 12-month findings, respectively, and on February 2, 2005, we received a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. In light of these legal actions, we discussed various options with the plaintiffs and agreed to submit a completed 90-day finding to the Federal Register by February 3, 2006.
        Species Information

        The pocket gopher is a fossorial (adapted to digging) rodent measuring 225-230 millimeters (8.9-9 inches). It is 1 of 58 northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides) subspecies, 9 of which are located within Colorado (Hall 1981). Pocket gophers have a small, flattened head, short neck, and muscular shoulders and forearms. Fur-lined cheek pouches (pockets), which open externally, distinguish them from other rodents. Adult pocket gophers are solitary, territorial, and have very small home ranges. The northern pocket gopher is short-lived, with a maximum lifespan of approximately 5 years.
        Distribution and Population Status

        The northern pocket gopher has the widest distribution of all pocket gophers—from Manitoba to Colorado, and from the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges eastward to Minnesota. Disjunct populations occur in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Local populations are separated by unsuitable habitat, usually attributed to soil type, and by major geographic barriers (Culver and Mitton, in litt., 2004). The northern pocket gopher inhabits a variety of habitat types, including deep, tractable soils, heavily compacted soils, and shallow gravels (CNE et al. 2003). The Douglas County pocket gopher in particular seems able to tolerate a variety of soil types, utilizing areas not preferred by adjacent northern pocket gopher subspecies.

        Douglas County pocket gopher life history characteristics (including their strong territoriality and solitary nature) and their discontinuous distributions (based on local habitat characteristics) lead to small population sizes. The historic distribution of the Douglas County pocket gopher is limited to parts of southwestern Arapaho, northern Douglas, and northwestern Elbert Counties in Colorado (CNE et al. 2003). The Petitioners identified five sites where the Douglas County pocket gopher had recently been known to occur, all in Douglas County. Their petition was based largely on threats to these remaining colonies.

        The petition estimated the current global population of the Douglas County pocket gopher at 501 to 1,000 individuals or “unknown, but thought to be small.” This estimate was taken from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Vertebrate Ranking System—a proactive tool to help identify potential wildlife conservation needs in the State. However, the Vertebrate Ranking System is not intended to provide accurate population estimates of individual species or subspecies (Gary Skiba, CDOW, pers. comm., 2003). Although CDOW is aware of potential conservation concerns, they emphasize that population size is “unknown” (Skiba 2003).

        Field studies conducted by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) in 2002 identified 5 additional northern pocket gopher colonies in southern Douglas, eastern Elbert, and southern Arapahoe Counties that were not identified in the petition, extending the known range of the gopher to the east and south of the type locality (Jeremy Siemers, CNHP, pers. comm. April 4, 2003). Although these populations have not been positively identified to the subspecific level, they were within or near the Douglas County pocket gopher's range as delimited by Armstrong (1972) (Siemers 2003). In addition, field observations conducted in 2003 by the Service, CDOW, Douglas County, David Armstrong (mammalogist, University of Colorado), and Chris Pague (The Nature Conservancy) identified Douglas County pocket gopher spoil mounds, soil casts, and eskers in an additional 36 locations, at least six of which are currently protected as open space, are on State park lands, or are currently being held in trust (that is, Lowry Military Reservation) (Elliott Sutta, Service, in litt., May 20, 2003). The location and soil type of these colonies supports their assignment to Thomomys talpoides macrotis. The 2003 observations were very limited in duration and scope, indicating that a more thorough analysis of the gopher's range is necessary to fully understand its current distribution. No other subspecies of pocket gopher has been reported in the area of these additional colony sites. Based on the proximity of these additional locations to known Douglas County pocket gopher populations, as well as the distance from other pocket gopher subspecies populations, there is no reason to believe these additional colonies may be other than Thomomys talpoides macrotis. The best available scientific and commercial information suggests that there are at least 41 more colonies than identified in the petition.
        Classification

        The taxonomy of the northern pocket gopher has not been revised since 1915, and only recently have genetic data been collected to evaluate the phylogenetic relationships among the subspecies (Culver and Mitton, in litt. 2004). Thomomys talpoides macrotis was named by F.W. Miller in 1930 and characterized by its larger body and paler, more grayish color (when compared to adjacent populations of T. t. rostralis and T. t. retrorsus). Existing taxonomy, based on pelage color and morphology alone, suggests that variation between subspecies of northern pocket gophers is often less than variation seen within a single subspecies (Culver and Mitton, in litt., 2004). Available information further suggests that the taxon includes more than one species (Culver and Mitton, in litt., 2004). Based on this information, we concur with assertions made by Culver and Mitton (in litt., 2004) that the available information brings into question the species' current subspecific taxonomy.

        The Petitioners provided some information regarding the Douglas County pocket gopher's subspecific status, but their justification relied largely on its existing, widely accepted taxonomy as described by Miller (1930) and the lack of compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. However, a recent mitochondrial DNA analysis found no diagnostic differences among the three contiguous subspecies of the northern pocket gopher in the Douglas County area (Thomomys talpoides macrotis, T. t. rostralis, and T. t. retrorsus) (Culver and Mitton 2005 in litt., 2004). Although this study calls into question the species' current taxonomy, we consider the findings preliminary given certain methodology limitations (for example, limited number of specimens sampled [115], small amount of genome sampled [305 basepairs], reliance on museum specimens [including skin and liver tissue]). Also, the study has not been peer-reviewed and published.
        Discussion
        In the following discussion, we respond to each of the major assertions made in the petition, organized by the Act's listing factors. According to section 4(a)(1) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424), a species may be added to the Federal list of endangered and threatened species due to one or more of the following five factors—(1) The present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The Petitioners provided information regarding these 5 factors, but they only addressed 5 of 46 known sites (that is, there was no information provided on 41 sites and no information provided in the petition, or readily available in our files, to assume that the threats identified in the petition are consistent throughout the Douglas County pocket gopher's range).
        Fundamental to the threats discussion is the need for substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that a reduction in range and/or population size has been, or is likely, occurring. We have reviewed the information provided in the petition and did not find substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that limited range and small population size were a threat to this species. Although the Douglas County pocket gopher has a comparatively small range (with respect to other northern pocket gopher subspecies), there is no indication that its geographic range is becoming smaller. When comparing field studies and observations from 2002 and 2003 with its historic range, range size may be stable—although as indicated above, a more thorough analysis of the gopher's geographic range is necessary to fully understand its current distribution. We do not have information concerning historical or current population abundance at any sites to address the question of whether the overall population has experienced a decline.
        A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petition stated that the limited range and small population size of the Douglas County pocket gopher makes it vulnerable to disturbance; rapid commercial and residential development are resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation; habitat is being degraded from exotic species and herbicide use; and modifications to natural water runoff patterns are altering soil moisture content and limiting habitat availability (related to both site-specific development and climate change). The Petitioners further state that Douglas County pocket gophers are currently limited to five sites in Douglas County, Colorado—the Willow Creek, Lincoln Avenue, McArthur Ranch, Newlin Gulch, and Grandview Estates sites (CNE et al. 2003). These sites were surveyed in 1993 and 1994 by CNHP, and subsequently visited in January 2003 (CNE et al. 2003).

        In 1993, the Willow Creek site was heavily disturbed and fragmented by Interstate C-470 and County Line Road, ephemeral streams and ravines had been cut off, streams had been channelized, bike paths had been built through the site, and there were many exotic plant species (CNE et al. 2003). By 2003, colonies north of C-470 had been lost to construction of a strip mall and car dealerships, and habitat to the south had been severely fragmented from other development (that is, the land had been graded and seeded with nonnative grasses) (CNE et al. 2003). Although some gopher habitat remained, the Petitioners stated that it was currently being managed for recreational cyclists. Threats to this site included commercial development, altered hydrology, noxious weeds, habitat fragmentation, loss of native forage species, and recreational disturbances from the adjacent bike path (CNE et al. 2003).

        The Lincoln Avenue site is located approximately 2 miles (3 kilometers) south of the Willow Creek site and could possibly have been part of the Willow Creek colony (CNE et al. 2003). In 1993 and 1994, the Lincoln Avenue site showed signs of two gopher concentrations, although by 2003 one concentration had been completely lost to development and the other had been severely isolated. Threats to this site included development, fragmentation, rodenticides, herbicides (associated with a neighboring golf course), other pesticides, loss of native forage, altered hydrology, and recreational disturbance (CNE et al. 2003).

        In 1993, the McArthur Ranch site had abundant signs of Douglas County pocket gopher use, but by 2003 all areas previously described by CNHP had been developed, were undergoing development, or had been reserved for future housing, schools, and recreational facilities (CNE et al. 2003). The petition stated that threats to this site included loss of native forage, fragmentation, road disturbance, and development.

        The Newlin Gulch site was largely open prairie used for cattle grazing in 1994 (when CNE last observed the site). Four groups of mounds, each likely representing one or two individual Douglas County pocket gophers, were reported in the area (CNE et al. 2003). The land has since been sold to the Parker Water and Sanitation District, where a 205,622,616-hectoliter (16,670-acre-foot) reservoir is under construction with a planned expansion of 670,154,574 hectoliters (54,330 acre-feet). At least one set of mounds observed in 1994 would be destroyed from this development (CNE et al. 2003). The petition stated that threats to this site also included changes in hydrology, disturbance associated with the construction and maintenance of the reservoir, disturbance associated with recreational opportunities around the reservoir, habitat fragmentation, noxious weeds, and soil removal.

        The Grandview Estates site consisted largely of disturbed grasslands where only sporadic gopher mounds had been observed. There has been no development on this site, but the area has been zoned for commercial development (CNE et al. 2003). Therefore, the petition identified development, loss of native forage, and habitat fragmentation as threats.
        In general, the petition stated that habitat destruction was the primary threat to the Douglas County pocket gopher. Douglas County pocket gopher concentrations at three of the five sites reviewed in the petition had already been destroyed, and development of the Rueter-Hess Project and commercial development proposed for Grandview Estates threatened the remaining two sites. In addition, the petition identified habitat fragmentation (leading to inbreeding and loss of gene flow) and degradation (noxious weeds and an increase in fire frequency) as significant threats for the remaining isolated colonies. The Petitioners included some information on the effects of herbicides and suggested that disruptions in natural runoff patterns may alter soil moisture content.
        Evaluation of Information in the Petition Regarding Factor A
        The petition presented compelling information regarding habitat loss as a result of commercial and residential development, and specific colonies have undoubtedly been lost. We found this discussion undeniable for those sites completely covered by concrete and asphalt, where they may have been lost due to the construction of recreational facilities (for example, baseball diamonds, football or soccer fields, golf courses), or covered by water (as may be for the Reuter-Hess Project). However, we were unable to conclude that these threats were common throughout a significant portion of the pocket gopher's range or a significant factor at the subspecific level based upon the new information we have about additional occupied sites. We did not find substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that bike path construction posed a risk to the subspecies. Also, the petition presented information indicating that certain sites had been heavily impacted by exotic plant species. However, it also identified pocket gopher populations occurring within these disturbed areas, and it did not include information demonstrating an effect on the pocket gopher.
        The petition also provided information regarding the effects of herbicide applications on pocket gophers in general but did not provide substantial scientific or commercial information regarding the actual use of herbicides on Douglas County pocket gopher habitats (that is, although the petition stated that herbicides were bad for pocket gophers, it did not provide substantial scientific or commercial information regarding whether, where, or how they were being applied). Without this information, we cannot determine whether threats from the application of herbicides are significant. With respect to runoff patterns and soil moisture content, the petition recognized the lack of available information regarding potential effects to the Douglas County pocket gopher and provided no substantial scientific or commercial information to support possible effects from flooding in urban areas caused by disrupted runoff patterns. No information was presented to demonstrate, for example, possible effects from urban runoff on any pocket gopher species, which are generally adapted to avoiding seasonal runoff (Chapman and Feldhamer 1982). Although not provided in the petition, information enabling review of local hydrology, frequency of high water events, or effects on specific colonies (for example, proximity of pocket gopher colonies to streambanks or number of locations potentially affected) may help to support this claim.
        B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Education Purposes
        Information Provided in the Petition
        Regarding Listing Factor B, the petition restated commercial and residential development as threats and stated that pocket gophers were killed for agricultural purposes, and destroyed to make way for recreational facilities (for example, baseball fields, bike paths, golf courses). The Petitioners provided information to show that pocket gophers were widely regarded as agricultural pests and that a division under the U.S. Department of Agriculture manufactured and disseminated toxicants to control pocket gopher populations in areas used for agriculture and silviculture. The petition stated that these toxicants were available to area landowners and managers.
        Evaluation of Information in the Petition Regarding Factor B

        Commercial and residential development, including baseball fields, bike paths, and golf courses was considered under Listing Factor A, above, and as stated, there was not substantial scientific or commercial information presented to warrant further status review. In addition, the petition did not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that poisoning is a threat to the subspecies—only that pocket gopher control has occurred and that toxicants are readily available. Control is largely related to agricultural areas, which are not representative of currently known pocket gopher localities. No information was provided to support widespread (or even limited) use of poisons on pocket gopher colonies by State, city, or local officials or suggestions that eradication programs are under way in certain areas.
        The petition did not present any information indicating that the Douglas County pocket gopher is being overutilized (pursuant to the intent of this listing factor) and we are not aware of any organized use of the subspecies for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (that is, they are not a game species, provide no commercial value, are not prone to target shooting, and we have no information to suggest that scientific or educational collections are widespread).
        C. Disease or Predation
        Information Provided in the Petition

        Predation has not been documented as limiting Douglas County pocket gopher numbers or range (CNE et al. 2003). However, the petition suggested that population growth may modify traditional predator-prey relationships with a deleterious effect to Douglas County pocket gophers. The Petitioners suggested that construction would lead to additional raptor perches, referencing a Bureau of Land Management Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for oil and gas development in the Powder River basin, Wyoming, and that residential development would increase predation from domestic dogs and cats. The petition also suggested that coyote control would lead to an increase in smaller predator populations (such as bobcats, badgers, foxes, and skunks) that could have an increased effect on Douglas County pocket gophers.
        Evaluation of Information in the Petition Regarding Factor C
        The petition did not provide substantial scientific or commercial information that would allow an objective review of its hypotheses. We are unaware of any studies that demonstrate an increase in raptor densities corresponding to increased residential and commercial construction in urban areas, and information contained in the referenced EIS is largely inapplicable given the substantially different ecosystems being discussed (that is, large expanses of open prairie with intermittent raptor perches versus urban development and the associated negative effects to raptor colonization and use). No information was provided to assess the likelihood or potential magnitude of the effects from domestic dogs and cats and, although coyote control efforts and other factors would likely have an effect on the prevalence of smaller predators, there was no information presented that would enable an assessment of the impact of these factors across the pocket gopher's range. Disease was not identified as a potential threat in the petition.
        D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
        Information Provided in the Petition

        The petition stated that there are no specific regulatory mechanisms in place to protect the Douglas County pocket gopher and that only one site, Willow Creek, is being managed as open space. Even at the Willow Creek site, the South Suburban Parks and Recreation District is not actively managing for pocket gophers, but focuses their efforts on recreational use (CNE et al. 2003).
        Evaluation of Information in the Petition Regarding Factor D
        Recent surveys have identified at least six additional pocket gopher sites that are either managed as open space, on State park lands, or currently being held in trust (that is, Lowry Military Reservation). It is not clear from the information presented in the petition or readily available to us, what threats may be pertinent to these populations, or if specific regulatory protections are needed.
        E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence
        Information Provided in the Petition
        The petition identified global climate change, demographic, environmental and genetic stochasticity, stress, and population growth as threats under this listing factor. Regarding climate change, the petition stated that human-caused climate change may lead to increases in the frequency and intensity of drought and flooding and stated that winter and spring precipitation in Colorado may increase by as much as 70 percent. These changes would affect Douglas County pocket gophers by increasing soil moisture content.

        Regarding demographic stochasticity, the petition stated that the extremely short lifespan of the Douglas County pocket gopher, its vulnerability upon dispersal, and its relatively low rate of reproduction all exacerbate its susceptibility to extinction, given its very small population size (CNE et al. 2003). Because all five of the populations identified in the petition are threatened by development, the Petitioners stated that the potential for demographic bottlenecks and consequent extinction is great.
        Issues pertinent to environmental stochasticity, as presented in the petition, generally include fire, disease, resource availability, and predation—factors more pertinent to smaller geographic distributions (less important to population size because entire populations are usually affected). The petition specifically stated that drought, excessive levels of water in snow pack, and atypical snow melts contribute to declines in Douglas County pocket gophers. The Petitioners also identified inbreeding depression and a resulting loss of fitness as potential genetic stochastic events.
        The petition also stated that many of the factors previously discussed could lead to increased stress levels, subsequently leading to reduced reproduction and survival rates, and the petition provided various census data demonstrating high levels of population growth in Arapahoe and Douglas Counties.
        Evaluation of Information in the Petition Regarding Factor E
        The Petitioners discussed the effects of climate change on survival and recruitment, but presented information largely inapplicable to the Douglas County pocket gopher. It was not clear based on the information presented in the petition how climate change has affected the pocket gopher's habitat. Climate change has been linked to a number of conservation issues and observed changes in animal populations and ranges. However, direct evidence that climate change is the cause of these alterations is often lacking (McCarty 2001). To our knowledge, specific analysis regarding potential effects of climate change on the Douglas County pocket gopher has not been conducted. The information provided in the petition is speculative in nature and does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information of threats to the pocket gopher from climate change.

        Stochastic, or random, changes in a wild population's demography or genetics can threaten its persistence (Pimm et al. 1988). A stochastic demographic change, such as a skewed age or sex ratio (such as a sudden loss of adult females) could negatively affect reproduction, especially in small populations (that is, Allee effects; Allee 1931). Northern pocket gophers are subject to intermittent fluctuations in population size (Chapman and Feldhamer 1982), and the impacts could be more pronounced in the Douglas County pocket gopher given its comparatively smaller historic range and population.
        However, we did not find substantial scientific or commercial information in the petition to indicate whether the factors necessary for such stochastic events are present (decreasing population densities, decreasing reproduction rates, unreliable sources of immigration). Information related to these metrics is vital for determining whether demographic or genetic stochastic events are likely to occur given threats to the subspecies. In all cases, the Petitioners supported their claims with 2 fundamental assertions, that there are less than 5 remaining colonies of Douglas County pocket gophers and that the subspecies' population size is between 501 and 1,000 individuals and declining. As we have noted previously, there appear to be many more colonies than those identified in the petition and there has not been substantial scientific or commercial information provided to support estimates of the subspecies population size or status. Because information pertaining to the 41 colonies not recognized in the petition was unavailable to us, we could not conclude that “all of the remaining populations are threatened by development” as stated in the petition. In addition, the Petitioners presented no information to support their claims that environmental stochasticity presents a threat to pocket gophers; there was no information provided to demonstrate that fire would be more likely to occur as a result of development, disease is not considered a threat to this subspecies, and there was not substantial scientific or commercial information presented to support weather fluctuations or predation as threats.
        The Petitioners relied on the fact that the Douglas County pocket gopher was only known from five sites to show that stochastic events threaten the species. Given what is now known about the additional 41 populations, we do not think that stochastic events would threaten the species throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
        The petition did not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to demonstrate that a reduction in reproduction and survival had occurred, was occurring, or was a threat at the subspecific level. This information could be used to support the claim that stress was a significant threat. Also, we do believe that development could pose a long-term threat to this species, but there was not substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that development would be a threat across the Douglas County pocket gopher's range in the foreseeable future.
        Summary
        The Petitioners presented information on potential threats that could be affecting the Douglas County pocket gopher. However, there was insufficient information presented to determine whether these threats were substantially occurring or what degree of impact they may be having at the subspecific level, largely because the Petitioners' assessment was limited to only five populations. Also, there was insufficient information demonstrating a declining range or population trend. Most limiting was a necessary consideration of how the potential threats recognized by the Petitioners applied to the 41 additional sites identified through field observations and studies in 2002 and 2003. Based on the limited information presented in the petition and readily available in our files, we were unable to extrapolate the Petitioners' claims to those populations.
        Finding

        On the basis of our review, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Douglas County pocket gopher may be warranted. This finding is based on our determination that the pocket gopher is more widespread than indicated in the petition, that substantially more sites are currently occupied, and that many of these occupied sites are protected from development by being part of county-administered open space, Lowry Military Reservation lands, or various State-owned lands in Douglas, Arapahoe, and Elbert Counties, Colorado. Therefore, we will not initiate a status review in response to this petition. However, we will continue to monitor the taxon's population status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management actions that might be important with regard to the conservation of the Douglas County pocket gopher across its range. We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will assist with these conservation efforts. New information should be submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
          ADDRESSES).
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
          ADDRESSES).
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is Bob Dach, Region 6 Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
          ADDRESSES).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: February 3, 2006.
          Marshall P. Jones,
          Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 06-1288 Filed 2-13-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P