        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0059; MO 92210-0-0008]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Snowy Plover and Reclassify the Wintering Population of Piping Plover

          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 snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) as endangered or threatened and to reclassify the wintering population of piping plover (Charadrius melodus) as 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 the petitioned actions may be warranted. This finding is based on our determination that the petition did not identify listable entities. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review for either species in response to this petition. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the snowy plover or the piping plover or their respective habitats at any time.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on September 8, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          This finding is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2011-0059. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Don Imm, Project Leader, Panama City Field Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone at 850-769-0552 ext. 238, or by facsimile to 850-763-2177. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time that the petition was submitted to us. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and to publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding 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)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently summarize in a 12-month finding.
        Petition History

        On September 5, 2000, we received a petition dated September 4, 2000, from Robert R. Reid, Jr., on behalf of the Alabama Audubon Council, Alabama Environmental Council, and Alabama Ornithological Society (petitioners), requesting that the snowy plover be listed as threatened or endangered, and that the wintering population of piping plover be reclassified from threatened to endangered under the Act, and that critical habitat be designated under the Act for both species. The petition was submitted concurrently with comments in response to the request for public comments contained in our proposal to designate critical habitat for wintering piping plover (July 6, 2000; 65 FR 41782) and our extension of the comment period for that proposal (65 FR 64414; October 27, 2000). We responded to the petitioner's comments related to the critical habitat rulemaking in the final rule for the designation of critical habitat for wintering piping plover (66 FR 36038; July 10, 2001).
        The petition mentions common threats to both species, provides brief examples of potential population declines, and discusses the petitioners' views on how consultations would benefit from critical habitat designations. The petition also discusses the petitioners' views on the economic advantages of critical habitat and mentions that “inhabited” and “uninhabited” lands should be included in the critical habitat designations. Few references were provided to support the statements in the petition.
        The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a); however, no scientific name for either species was included in the petition. In an October 11, 2000, letter to the petitioners, we acknowledged receipt of the petition. We determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing either species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We notified the petitioners that, due to court orders and judicially approved settlement agreements for other listing and critical habitat determinations under the Act that required nearly all of our listing and critical habitat funding for fiscal year 2001, we would not be able to further address the petition at that time, but we anticipated addressing the action when workload and funding allowed. Funding limitations have prevented the Service from responding to the petition until now. This finding addresses the petition. In separate sections below, we address the petitioners' requests to list the snowy plover as threatened or endangered and to reclassify the wintering population of piping plover as endangered.
        Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus)
        Species Information
        Snowy plovers are small shorebirds, about 6.7 inches (17 centimeters (cm)) long. The plumage is pale gray or brown above, and pure white below. Their bills and legs are dark (Gore 1996, p. 73). Snowy plovers require expansive, open dry sandy beaches for breeding, and both dry and tidal sand flats for foraging (Woolfenden 1978, p. 9). They primarily feed on small crustaceans, mollusks, worms, and insects that they glean from beaches and sand flats. They nest on open, dry white sand where a typical clutch of three eggs is laid in a slight depression, sometimes lined with bits of shell (Woolfenden 1978, p. 9). In Florida, nests have been documented as early as February, with pair bonding reported as early as January (Gore and Chase 1989, p. 8).

        Two subspecies of snowy plover that nest in North America were recognized by the American Ornithological Union (AOU) in 1957 (5th edition of its Check-list, pp. 168-169): The western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) and the Cuban or Southeastern snowy plover (C. a. tenuirostis). Since that time, however, the AOU has not conducted a review of this subspecies distinction. The AOU stopped listing subspecies as of the 6th edition (1983) of its Check-list, although it recommended the continued use of the 5th edition for taxonomy at the subspecific level. The AOU has not formally or officially reviewed the subspecific treatment of most North American birds. In the 7th edition (1998, p. xii) of the Check-list, the AOU explained that its decision to omit subspecies “carries with it our realization that an uncertain number of currently recognized subspecies, especially those formally named early in this century, probably cannot be validated by rigorous modern techniques.”
        Page et al. (1995, p. 3) state that two subspecies of snowy plover have been recognized for North America (and partially in South and Central Americas): Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris is found on the Gulf Coast east of Louisiana through Florida, the Bahama Islands, the north coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, the Greater and Lesser Antilles, and islands off the north coast of Venezuela; and C. a. nivosus is found elsewhere in the United States and Mexico (including coastal California and Baja California; locally in the Great Basin of California, Oregon, Nevada, and Utah; very locally in southern Saskatchewan, central Montana, southern Wyoming, central and eastern Colorado, and southern Arizona; sparsely but widely distributed over southeast New Mexico and east through north central Texas, central Oklahoma, and central Kansas; the southern Texas coast into northeast Mexico; and the central Mexican plateau) (AOU 1957, pp. 168-169; Cramp 1983, p. 153). Others (Oberholser 1974, p. 312; Johnsgard 1981, pp. 191-192; Jacobs 1986, p. 3; Gore 1996, p. 74) have stated that C. a. tenuirostris includes birds in coastal Texas and northeastern Mexico, as well as birds of the interior Great Plains.

        Gorman (2000, pp. 36-38) performed genetic studies that concluded the Greater Antillean snowy plovers, represented only by samples from Puerto Rico, were clearly differentiated from mainland birds in Florida. Furthermore, Florida birds were much more closely related to other continental populations of Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus than to Puerto Rican C. a. tenuirostris. Among birds east of the Rocky Mountains, Texas coastal and Great Plains birds appeared to be more closely related to other eastern birds than birds west of the Rocky Mountains.

        Gorman (2000, pp. 36-38) admits that, in the absence of further sampling, it is not clear whether all snowy plover populations in the West Indies and Bahamas would be grouped with birds from Puerto Rico or with birds from east of the Rocky Mountains. Differentiation among the eastern continental U.S. populations is apparently insufficient to warrant separate populations. Thus, these results suggest that snowy plovers east of Louisiana, including Florida, along the Gulf Coast may be grouped with Great Plains and other Gulf Coast birds. The Service accepts the characterization of the snowy plover as two subspecies in North America, Charadrius alexandrinus nirvosus and C. a. tenuirostris.

        It is not clear which demarcation the petitioners relied upon for the petition request, because neither a species nor subspecies scientific name was provided for the snowy plover in the petition. At times, the petitioners reference inclusion of the Texas coastline as part of the “Gulf Coast” snowy plover range; yet most references to population data are from Florida and, possibly, Alabama. No reference is made to the Caribbean population. The genetic studies performed by Gorman were reported earlier in the same year as the petition, and may not have been available to the petitioners prior to submission of the petition. Gorman (2000, pp. 36-38) made a recommendation that small management units based on demographic considerations might be adopted. Regardless of the petitioners' intention, they failed to provide a scientific name and to clearly identify the petitioned entity of the snowy plover.

        Previous Federal Actions
        The Pacific Coast vertebrate population segment of Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus, the Western snowy plover, was listed as threatened under the Act on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12864). The Pacific coast population is defined as those individuals that nest within 50 miles of the Pacific Ocean on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, bays, estuaries, or rivers of the United States and Baja California, Mexico. No other populations of the snowy plover are currently federally listed as threatened or endangered species.
        Evaluation of Listable Entity

        Upon receipt of a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species, we are to consider whether such petition “clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved” (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(i)). Throughout the subject petition, the term “snowy plover” is used with references to the “Gulf Coast” without providing a scientific name or distinguishing the snowy plover as a species, subspecies, or population. At the time of receipt of the petition, the Pacific Coast population of the Western snowy plover was listed as a threatened species (March 5, 1993; 58 FR 12864). The snowy plover breeding and wintering ranges provided in the petition identified ranges of both the Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus and C. a. tenuirostris. Thus, the petition did not fully identify what constituted the entity and as petitioned, did not, therefore, meet the “listable entity” requirement for a substantial finding.
        Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
        Species Information
        The piping plover is a small (6.7 to 7.1 inches (17 to 18 cm)) pale-colored migratory shorebird that breeds in three separate areas of North America: The Northern Great Plains, the Great Lakes, and the Atlantic Coast. The piping plover winters in coastal areas of the United States from North Carolina to Texas, along the coast of eastern Mexico, on Caribbean islands from Barbados to Cuba, and the Bahamas (Plissner and Haig 1997, pp. 8-9). Information from observation of color-banded piping plovers indicates that the winter ranges of the breeding populations overlap to a significant degree (Plissner and Haig 1997, pp. 9-11; Wemmer 2000, p. 47). The source breeding population of a given wintering individual bird cannot be determined in the field unless the individual bird has been banded or otherwise marked.

        Piping plovers spend about two-thirds of the year on migratory and wintering grounds. Piping plovers begin arriving on the wintering grounds in July, with some late-nesting birds arriving in September. A few individuals can be found on the wintering grounds throughout the year, but sightings are rare in late May, June, and early July. Migration is poorly understood, but preliminary data suggest that plovers use inland and coastal stopover sites when migrating from interior breeding areas to wintering grounds (McConnaughey et al. 1990, p. 19). Observations of color-marked birds in Alabama indicated wintering plovers were least mobile from late November through late January (Johnson and Baldassarre 1988, p. 221). Concentrations of spring and fall migrants also have been observed along the Atlantic Coast (Service 1996, pp. 129-138). In late February, piping plovers begin leaving the wintering grounds to migrate back to breeding sites.
        Habitat on the wintering grounds consists of exposed sandflats, beaches, washovers and algal flats. Mudflats and sandflats provide foraging areas where piping plovers feed primarily on marine and freshwater invertebrates. Foraging accounted for about 75 percent of observed piping plover behavior in an Alabama study (Johnson and Baldassarre 1988, p. 217). The number of plovers foraging in an area may be dependent on density of food sources (Zonick 2000, p. 90).
        Two subspecies of piping plover, Charadrius melodus
          melodus (Atlantic Coast of North America) and C. m. circumcinctus (Northern Great Plains of North America), were recognized by the American Ornithological Union (AOU) in 1957 (5th edition of its Check-list 1957, pp. 167-168) and in 1983 (6th edition of its Check-list 1983, pp. 170-171). However, the AOU has not conducted a review of this subspecies distinction since that time. The Service accepts the characterization of the piping plover as two subspecies in North America, C. m. melodus and C. m. circumcinctus.

        Previous Federal Actions

        On December 11, 1985 (50 FR 50726; effective January 10, 1986), the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) was listed as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed of both the United States and Canada, and as threatened in the remainder of its range in the United States (Northern Great Plains, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands), Canada, Mexico, Bahamas, and the West Indies. The threatened status included all piping plover when on their wintering grounds.
        Protection of the entire species Charadrius melodus under the Act reflects its status range wide. However, the Service has consistently recognized three separate breeding populations of piping plovers, on the Atlantic Coast, Great Lakes, and Northern Great Plains. A recovery plan established delisting criteria for the Atlantic Coast breeding population (Service 1996, pp. 57-58). A joint recovery plan specified separate delisting criteria for the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains breeding populations (Service 1988, pp. 54-55). After the September 4, 2000, petition was submitted to the Service, critical habitat was designated for the Great Lakes (66 FR 22938; May 7, 2001) and Northern Great Plains breeding populations (67 FR 57637; September 11, 2002), and for piping plovers from the three breeding populations while on the wintering grounds (66 FR 36038; July 10, 2001).
        Evaluation of Listable Entity

        The petition asserts the “Need to Designate the Wintering Gulf Population of Piping Plover as Endangered” (petition, p. 6). The petition focused solely on conditions along the Gulf coast and the status of the piping plover along the Gulf coast. The petition did not differentiate between species, subspecies, and distinct population segments, nor did the petition include a scientific name in its recommendation to change the status of the piping plover to endangered within the Gulf of Mexico. However, the petitioners were responding to a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) while on its wintering grounds (65 FR 41782; July 6, 2000) in the same document as the petition. The Service accepts the petition as a request to reclassify wintering piping plover of the listed entity (C. melodus) from a threatened to an endangered species.

        Upon receipt of a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species, we are to consider whether such petition “clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved” (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(i)). Under the Act, a species is defined as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife of plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532).

        Piping plovers on their wintering or migration grounds, such as the Gulf coast, do not constitute a valid entity. The listing (50 FR 50726; December 11, 1985) of the species classified all piping plovers on the Great Lakes watershed breeding grounds as endangered and all other piping plover as threatened including on their breeding grounds in the Northern Great Plains and Atlantic Coast and on their migration and wintering grounds. This, along with the proposed designation of critical habitat for wintering piping plover, may have given the impression that the piping plover constitutes a listable entity while on its wintering grounds. However, this is not the case. Birds from all three of the recognized breeding grounds use and share the same Gulf coast wintering habitats. Thus, the birds on the wintering grounds are all of the listed entity (C. melodus) but from three separate recognized breeding grounds. Thus, the petition's identification of a “Gulf wintering population of piping plover” is, therefore, not a listable entity.
        Finding
        In summary, on the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, the petition does not present substantial information indicating that listing the snowy plover as threatened or endangered is warranted, because the entity as petitioned is not listable. No scientific name of the petitioned entity was provided, and there are two subspecies of the snowy plover accepted for North America.
        The petition also does not present substantial information indicating that reclassifying piping plover while wintering on the Gulf coast as endangered is warranted, because the entity as petitioned is not listable. The piping plover, as currently listed, represents all of the three recognized breeding entities wherever they reside or winter in their life cycle. The petition does not specify a listable entity for the requested reclassification.

        Although we will not review the status of the snowy plover or the piping plover at this time, we encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will assist with the conservation of these species. If you wish to provide information regarding the snowy plover or piping plover, you may submit your information or materials to the Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Panama City Field Office (see ADDRESSES), at any time.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Authors

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Panama City Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
        Authority

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

          Dated: August 22, 2011.
          Daniel M. Ashe,
          Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2011-22900 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 224
        [Docket No. 060621175-6175-01; I.D. 101805A]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding for a Petition to List the Kennebec River Population of Anadromous Atlantic Salmon as Part of the Endangered Gulf Of Maine Distinct Population Segment

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding; request for information.

          SUMMARY:

          We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Kennebec River population of anadromous Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. This normally initiates a formal status review, but as described below under Summary of Previous ESA Actions, in this case, we and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had already initiated a status review of this and other populations, resulting in NMFS' announcement of the completed status review report on September 22, 2006.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mary Colligan, NMFS Northeast Region, 978-281-9116; or Marta Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-1401, ext. 180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. 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.
        In determining whether a petition contains substantial information, we take into account information submitted with and referenced in the petition and all other information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to critical review. Our ESA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(b)(1) define “substantial information” as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. If the petition is found to present such information, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) must conduct a status review of the involved species. In making a finding on a petition to list a species, the Secretary must consider whether such a petition (i) clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (ii) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (iii) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (iv) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).

        In a petition submitted on May 11, 2005, Timothy Watts, Douglas Watts, Ed Friedman, and Kathleen McGee requested that we and the USFWS declare the Kennebec River population of anadromous Atlantic salmon endangered under the ESA and presented the following three main areas of evidence to support their request: (1) historic information on the presence of Atlantic salmon; (2) information on other native migratory fish populations in the Kennebec; and (3) microsatellite DNA analysis of Atlantic salmon in the Kennebec. It is the petitioners' contention that historic observations of Kennebec River Atlantic salmon from the 18th century to the present demonstrate that there was no period in the 19th and 20th centuries during which Atlantic salmon were absent from the Kennebec River. The petition states that populations of native migratory fish species have also persisted in the Kennebec despite being subjected to the same environmental pressures as Atlantic salmon. The petition also contends that microsatellite DNA analysis of tissue samples from 180 wild Atlantic salmon captured in the Kennebec River by the USFWS from 1994 to the present show that wild Kennebec River salmon are genetically distinct from other hatchery and wild populations of Atlantic salmon in Maine.
        Under the ESA, a listing determination can address a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment (DPS) of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C. 1532(15)). The petition requests protecting the Kennebec River population of Atlantic salmon in addition to the existing Gulf of Maine (GOM) DPS that was previously delineated and listed under the ESA as endangered. A DPS is a vertebrate population that is discrete in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs and significant to the species (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). We interpret the petition to request listing the Kennebec River population as part of the existing GOM DPS.
        We evaluated whether the information provided or cited in the petition met the ESA's standard for “substantial information.” We reviewed the information presented in the petition and other readily available biological information on anadromous Atlantic salmon in the Kennebec River to determine whether the petitioned action may be warranted.
        General Biology and Status of the Species

        The Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, is in the order Salmoniformes and family Salmonidae. Atlantic salmon is one of only two members of the genus Salmo found in North America. The Atlantic salmon is an anadromous fish, spending its first 2 to 3 years in freshwater, migrating to the ocean where it spends typically 2 years, and returning to its natal river to spawn. A non-anadromous variety (recognized in the past by some taxonomists as the subspecies S. salar sebago) is found in some lakes and rivers. The other member of the genus Salmo is Salmo trutta, brown trout, which was introduced from Europe.
        Atlantic salmon have a fusiform body shape (i.e., like a spindle, rounded, broadest in the middle and tapering at each end). The shape is somewhat flattened towards the sides and typical of salmonids in general. The head is relatively small, comprising approximately one-fifth of body length. Ventral paired fins are prominent, especially on juveniles.
        Parr (juvenile salmon before they enter salt water) have eight to eleven vertical dark bars (known as “parr marks”) on silvery sides. After smoltification (the physiological process that enables juvenile salmon to transition from freshwater to salt water and enter the sea), the typical silver coloration with small, dark dorsal spots of the sea-run pre-adult predominates. Spawning adults darken to a bronze color after entering freshwater and darken further after spawning. They are often referred to as “black salmon” at this stage. The silver coloring returns after re-entering the sea.
        Outmigrating Atlantic salmon smolts in Maine average 14 to18 centimeters (cm) in length. The size of returning adults depends on the time spent at sea. Grilse, young salmon returning to freshwater after 1 winter at sea (1SW), average 50 to 60 cm and weigh 1 to 2 kilograms (kg) while 2SW salmon (adult salmon returning after 2 years at sea) range from 70 to 80 cm and 3.5 to 4.5 kg. Salmon that are 3SW (adult salmon returning after 3 years at sea) are 80 to 90 cm long and often weigh more than 7 kg (Baum, 1997).
        Historically, the geographic range of the GOM DPS within the United States extended from the Androscoggin River in the south of Maine, northward to the mouth of the St. Croix River on the United States-Canada border (NMFS and USFWS, 1999). This delineation was based on examination of life history, biogeographical, genetic, and environmental information. Zoogeographic maps helped identify boundaries between areas that likely exert different selective pressures on Atlantic salmon populations and have substantial differences in riverine-marine ecosystem structure and function. Key elements to the delineation included: (1) spatial arrangements of river systems to create isolation, and (2) watershed location within ecological provinces and subregions that affect the productivity and ecology of riverine-marine ecosystem complexes (NMFS and USFWS, 1999).
        Summary of Previous ESA Actions
        In response to a petition submitted in 1993 to list Atlantic salmon under the ESA, NMFS and the USFWS (the Services) completed a review of the species' status in 1995 (USFWS and NMFS, 1999). The Services concluded that the GOM DPS was likely to become endangered. Later in 1995, the Services published a proposed rule to list a GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon in seven Maine rivers as threatened (60 FR 50530; Sept. 29, 1995). In that proposed rule, the State of Maine was invited to prepare a plan to eliminate, minimize, and mitigate threats to Atlantic salmon and their habitat. On December 18, 1997, the Services withdrew the proposed rule to designate the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS as threatened (62 FR 66325; Dec. 18, 1997). The withdrawal was based on an evaluation of the information then known about the biological status of the species, as well as consideration of ongoing actions by international, State, Federal, and private entities, including the State's Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven Maine Rivers (Conservation Plan) (MASCP, 1997). The Services committed to review this decision on an annual basis.
        In January 1999, the Services received the State of Maine's 1998 Annual Progress Report on implementation of the Conservation Plan (ASC, 1998). After review of the Annual Report, public comments, and a 1999 Atlantic salmon status review report (NMFS and USFWS, 1999), the Services determined that the species' status was more precarious than indicated by the available information at the time of the December 1997 determination not to list the species (64 FR 62627). On November 17, 1999, the Services proposed to list the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS, this time as an endangered species. After review of public comments and consideration of the best available scientific and commercial information and data, the Services published a final rule on November 17, 2000, listing the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS as an endangered species (65 FR 69459).

        The GOM DPS includes all naturally reproducing wild populations and those river-specific hatchery populations of Atlantic salmon having historical, river-specific characteristics found north of and including tributaries of the lower Kennebec River, to, but not including, the mouth of the St. Croix River at the United States-Canada border. The Penobscot and its tributaries downstream from the site of the Bangor Dam are included in the range of the GOM DPS (65 FR 69459; November 17, 2000). At the time of the listing, there were at least eight rivers within the geographic range of the GOM DPS that still contained functioning wild salmon populations, although at substantially reduced abundance levels (65 FR 69459; November 17, 2000). These remnant populations are located in the Dennys, East Machias, Machias, Pleasant, Narraguagus, Ducktrap, and Sheepscot rivers and in Cove Brook, Maine (65 FR 69459; November 17, 2000). Salmon from the GOM DPS taken for hatchery rearing and broodstock purposes, and any captive progeny of these salmon, are included as part of the GOM DPS. In the final rule listing the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS (65 FR 69459), the Services deferred the determination of inclusion of fish that inhabit the mainstem and tributaries of the Penobscot River (above the site of the former Bangor Dam (65 FR 69459 at 69464; November 17, 2000)) and other rivers, which are outside the range of the GOM DPS. The deferred decision reflected the need for further analysis of scientific information, including a detailed genetic characterization of the Penobscot population.
        In response to the availability of new genetic data, the Services convened a Biological Review Team (BRT) to conduct a review of that new information and to determine the status of Atlantic salmon in the Penobscot River, Kennebec River, and other rivers not currently included in the GOM DPS. The BRT, consisting of biologists from the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission, the Penobscot Indian Nation, NMFS, and USFWS, prepared a written draft status review report for the Services. The information presented in the petition, along with all other relevant scientific data, was examined by the BRT in its preparation of a status review report. We announced the availability of the completed status review report on September 22, 2006 (71 FR 55431), after the draft status review report had been peer reviewed and peer review comments had been addressed.
        A status review report is an evaluation of the available information about the biological vulnerability of a species, subspecies, or DPS. Information considered during a status review includes demographic information such as abundance, reproductive success, age structure, and distribution. A status review report considers both historical and recent trends in these parameters, to the extent that this information is available. The status review report must also evaluate the current and potential threats facing the species and ongoing efforts to protect the species, subspecies, or DPS.
        The Petition

        The petition requested that the Services protect the Kennebec River population of anadromous Atlantic salmon under the ESA. Although we have already conducted a status review of this and other populations (71 FR 55431; September 22, 2006), the ESA requires that we respond to a petition by publishing a Federal Register notice with our finding on the petition.

        The Services examined the information contained in the petition as well as other genetic data readily available to the Services. This petition presents historic information to support its contention that anadromous Atlantic salmon have persisted in the Kennebec River since the 18th century. The information presented includes, but is not limited to, historical newspaper reports; summaries collected by historians on anecdotal reports pertaining to the presence of Atlantic salmon in the drainage; historic personal diaries; historic Maine statutes; historic petitions to the Maine legislature regarding Atlantic salmon fisheries; and more contemporary biological studies (Atkins, 1867; Ulrich, 1990; Havey, 1968; Foye et al., 1969; Beland, 1986; Buckley, 1998; King et al., 1999). The petition also cites observations made by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2004 that wild Atlantic salmon are recolonizing the Kennebec mainstem. The NAS cites National Research Council (NRC, 2002) data and associated reports as the basis for these conclusions.

        The second area of information presented in the petition to support the petitioners' request is the persistence of other native migratory fish species in the Kennebec River. The petition specifically discusses Atlantic sturgeon, sea lamprey, shortnose sturgeon, striped bass, white perch, American shad, rainbow smelt, tomcod, alewives, and blueback herring. The petition asserts that the Kennebec River population of anadromous Atlantic salmon must have persisted if these native anadromous fish species have been able to persist over time while being subjected to the same environmental pressures as native Atlantic salmon. With respect to dams, the petition cites studies by Yoder et al. (2004) and Squiers (1988) that demonstrate that other native migratory fish populations have persisted despite manmade obstructions to passage. The petition asserts that it is highly unlikely that Atlantic salmon populations would be completely extirpated as a result of dams when other fish species have been able to persist. The same rationale is presented as support for the persistence of Atlantic salmon in the Kennebec River with respect to other threats such as degraded water quality.
        Genetic analysis used to characterize Atlantic salmon in the Kennebec River is the third area for which the petition presents information to support the assertion that the Kennebec River population of anadromous Atlantic salmon should be listed under the ESA as endangered. The petition presents information from the NRC report on the genetic status of Maine's salmon. The NRC report presents results of genetic assignment tests that were performed on Atlantic salmon from different Maine drainages. The petition asserts that these data show that the salmon populations of the Kennebec drainage are more distinct than are those of the current GOM DPS rivers. Therefore, the petition interprets the NRC report to suggest that there is a remnant population of wild salmon in the Kennebec that should be incorporated into any restoration effort. The petition asserts that the data collected from the assignment testing contradict the hypothesis that Kennebec salmon are simply strays from the Penobscot or progeny of strays from the Penobscot. The petition also states that “The assignment test results of King et al. (1999) show that the Kennebec collection is no less distinct than any other Maine river collection studied [and that] the Kennebec collection appears at least or more “distinct” as any other Maine collection studied except for the Penobscot.” The petition also cites a memo from T. King to J. Marancik and Kings' genetics data from 1999 and 2000 as support for its assertion that there is a stable reproducing population in the Kennebec that is not simply representative of strays from the Penobscot. The petition asserts that if the Kennebec collection was comprised solely of Penobscot strays or their offspring, then it is likely that fish in the Kennebec would be genetically indistinguishable from Penobscot strays.
        Assessment of Petition
        The primary request of the petitioners appears to be that Atlantic salmon in the Kennebec River warrant protection under the ESA. We interpret the petition to request listing the Kennebec River population of anadromous Atlantic salmon as part of the existing GOM DPS, previously listed as endangered under the ESA. The petition includes scientific data, primarily genetic analysis regarding the Kennebec River population, that has become available since the 1999 status review and subsequent listing determination for the GOM DPS in 2000. Further, the petitioners provide information that the Kennebec River population may be part of the existing GOM DPS. We specifically consider the genetic analysis presented in the petition to represent substantial scientific information. After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as other scientific information readily available to us, we have determined that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.

        As stated previously, the status review report prepared by the BRT examined the information contained in the petition, along with all other relevant scientific data. We made this status review report available to the public on September 22, 2006 (71 FR 55431). The Services jointly administer the ESA as it applies to anadromous Atlantic salmon. NMFS, having received the status review from the BRT, is responsible for determining and preparing any appropriate action under the ESA. NMFS is currently considering the information presented in the status review, the comments from peer reviewers, and the response of the BRT to the peer reviewers to determine if action under the ESA is warranted.
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: November 7, 2006.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-19194 Filed 11-13-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Department of the Navy
        48 CFR Part 5234
        [No. USN-2006-0069]
        Department of the Navy Acquisition Regulations: Continuous Process Improvements (CPI)

          AGENCY:
          Department of the Navy, DoD.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Deputy for Acquisition Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit comments that can be used to assist the Department of the Navy (DON) in drafting a proposed Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Regulation Supplement contract clause or statement of work requirements that will incentivize contractors to pursue and implement CPI on DON major defense contracts. In particular, the primary focus will be to incentivize proactive business process improvement activities that identify increased efficiencies, cost avoidance, and cost savings, and provide the greatest motivation for contractors to share related savings with the DON to the maximum extent practicable.

          DATES:

            Comment Date: Interested parties should submit comments on or before March 19, 2007, to be considered in the formulation of any proposed rule.

          The DON invites interested parties from both the private and public sector to provide comments on the effective use of incentives to encourage and reward contractor CPI initiatives aimed toward exceeding key objectives or performance parameters on DON major defense contracts. Comments are especially welcomed on the specific issues discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. See, in particular, the questions posed under “Solicitation of Public Comment.”

          ADDRESSES:
          Interested parties may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.

            Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. Please cite “Continuous Process Improvements” in all correspondence related to this issue.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Department of the Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development & Acquisition), Deputy for Acquisition Management, Attn: Mr. Clarence Belton, Policy, 1000 Navy Pentagon, Room BF992, Washington, DC 20350-1000, telephone number 703-693-4006.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        Companies that have implemented CPI methods and tools have significantly reduced waste and non-value added activities, improved cycle time, produced repeatable processes, reduced variation, and improved customer satisfaction.

        This process has led to improved products and services at a reduced cost. The Navy and Marine Corps, as customers of goods and services, should receive a fair share of the reduced costs. A contract clause should benefit companies that are aggressive in implementing CPI tools and methods with quantifiable improved output. The purpose of this ANPR is to solicit comments and suggestions on contract requirements aimed at motivating and rewarding contractors for implementing CPI. After consideration of the comments submitted in writing, the DON may publish a draft proposed rule for additional public comments.
        B. Solicitation of Public Comment
        The DON seeks to better understand how to incentivize contractors to incorporate best business practices related to CPI and how such contract requirements are used commercially and when their use would be in the best interest of the Government. The DON has developed questions to obtain this information as part of this ANPR.
        Accordingly, the DON invites the public to provide comments addressing the appropriate use of specific contract provisions to incentivize contractors to aggressively pursue and initiate CPI that identify increased efficiencies, cost avoidance, and cost savings. Comments are also requested on the use of solicitation provisions, source selection criteria, and performance incentives that will provide contractors with the greatest motivation to share related savings with the Government to the maximum extent practicable. The DON especially welcomes feedback to the following questions:
        1. What contractual mechanisms can the Government use to incentivize contractors to implement CPI?
        2. What are some of the contract provisions currently being used in supplier and other subcontracts to incentivize CPI?
        3. How can the Government motivate contractors who implement CPI to share in related savings to the maximum extent practicable?
        4. Are cost reimbursement or flexibly priced contracts more suitable for providing incentives for contractors to implement CPI that identify increased efficiencies, cost avoidance, and cost savings, and for providing the highest motivation to share in those related savings to the maximum extent practicable? Why or why not? What about firm fixed-priced contracts?

          Dated: January 11, 2007.
          M.A. Harvison,
          Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

      [FR Doc. E7-612 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P