Listing Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Eastern Oyster as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 28510-28513 [05-9918]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
28510
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Notices
for the export conduct specified in the
Certificate and carried out in
compliance with its terms and
conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the
Export Trading Company Act of 1982
and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the
Secretary to publish a notice in the
Federal Register identifying the
applicant and summarizing its proposed
export conduct.
Request for Public Comments
Interested parties may submit written
comments relevant to the determination
whether an amended Certificate should
be issued. If the comments include any
privileged or confidential business
information, it must be clearly marked
and a nonconfidential version of the
comments (identified as such) should be
included. Any comments not marked
privileged or confidential business
information will be deemed to be
nonconfidential. An original and five (5)
copies, plus two (2) copies of the
nonconfidential version, should be
submitted no later than 20 days after the
date of this notice to: Export Trading
Company Affairs, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 1104H, Washington,
DC 20230. Information submitted by any
person is exempt from disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act (5
U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential
versions of the comments will be made
available to the applicant if necessary
for determining whether or not to issue
the Certificate. Comments should refer
to this application as ‘‘Export Trade
Certificate of Review, application
number 88–9A016.’’
Wood Machinery Manufacturers of
America’s original Certificate was
issued on February 3, 1989 (54 FR 6312,
February 9, 1989) and previously
amended on June 22, 1990 (55 FR
27292, July 2, 1990); August 20, 1991
(56 FR 42596, August 28, 1991);
December 13, 1993 (58 FR 66344,
December 20, 1993); August 23, 1994
(59 FR 44408, August 29, 1994);
September 20, 1996 (61 FR 50471,
September 26, 1996); June 20, 1997 (62
FR 34440, June 26, 1997); and June 8,
1998 (63 FR 35567, June 30, 1998). A
summary of the application for an
amendment follows.
Proposed Amendment: Wood
Machinery Manufacturers of America
seeks to amend its Certificate to:
1. Add each of the following
companies as a new ‘‘Member’’ of the
Certificate within the meaning of
§ 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR
325.2(1)): Wood-Mizer Products, Inc.,
Indianapolis, Indiana; and The Original
Saw Co., Britt, Iowa;
2. Delete the following companies as
‘‘Members’’ of the Certificate: CEMCO,
Inc.,Whitesburg, Tennessee; Delta
International Machinery Corporation,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Industrial
Woodworking Machine Company,
Garland, Texas; Jenkins Division, Kohler
General Corporation, Sheboygan Falls,
Wisconsin; Machine Systems L.L.C.,
Bend, Oregon; Midwest Automation,
Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota; Onsrud
Machine Corporation, Wheeling,
Illinois; A.G. Raymond & Company,
Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina;
Powermatic, McMinnville, Tennessee;
Ritter Manufacturing, Inc., Antioch,
California; Terrco, Inc., Waterloo, South
Dakota; Timesavers, Inc., Minneapolis,
Minnesota; Viking Engineering and
Development, Inc., Fridley, Minnesota;
Wisconsin Knife Works, Beloit,
Wisconsin; Yates-American Machine
Co., Beloit, Wisconsin; North American
Products Corporation, Jasper, Indiana;
and Alexander Dodds Company, Grand
Rapids, Michigan; and
3. Change the listing of the following
Members: ‘‘Unique Machine & Tool Co.,
Tempe, Arizona’’ to the new listing
‘‘Unique Machine & Tool Co., Phoenix,
Arizona’’; ‘‘Carter Products, Inc., Grand
Rapids, Michigan’’ to the new listing
‘‘Carter Products Co., Inc., Grand
Rapids, Michigan’’; ‘‘Safranek Ent., Inc.,
Atascadero, California’’ to the new
listing ‘‘Safranek Enterprises, Inc.,
Atascadero, California’’; and ‘‘Tyler
Machinery Company, Inc., Warsaw,
Indiana’’ to the new listing ‘‘Warsaw
Machinery, Inc., Warsaw, Indiana.’’
Dated: May 12, 2005.
Jeffrey Anspacher,
Director, Export Trading Company Affairs.
[FR Doc. E5–2492 Filed 5–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
Summary of the Application
Applicant: Wood Machinery
Manufacturers of America, 100 North
20th Street, 4th Floor, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
Contact: Harold Zassenhaus, Export
Director, Telephone: (215) 564–3484.
Application No.: 88–9A016.
Date Deemed Submitted: May 9, 2005.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:03 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 050509124–5124–01; I.D.
050305B]
Listing Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; 90–Day Finding on
a Petition to List Eastern Oyster as
Threatened or Endangered under the
Endangered Species Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding;
request for information.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 90–day
finding for a petition to list eastern
oyster (Crassostrea virginica) as
endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS
finds that the petition presents
substantial scientific information
indicating the petitioned action may be
warranted. NMFS will conduct a status
review of eastern oysters to determine if
the petitioned action is warranted. To
ensure that the review is
comprehensive, NMFS is soliciting
information pertaining to this species
from any interested party. NMFS also
seeks suggestions from the public for
peer reviewers to take part in the peer
review process for the forthcoming
status review.
DATES: Information related to this
petition finding must be received by
July 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• E-mail:
EasternOyster.Info@noaa.gov. Include
docket number (050509124–5124–01) in
the subject line of the message.
• Fax: 978–281–9394, Attention Ms.
Kimberly Damon-Randall.
• Mail: Information on paper, disk, or
CD-ROM should be addressed to the
Assistant Regional Administrator for
Protected Resources, NMFS Northeast
Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Kimberly Damon-Randall, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, (978) 281–
9300 x6535, or Marta Nammack, NMFS,
HQ, (301) 713–1401 x180; or Jennifer
Moore, NMFS Southeast Regional
Office, (727) 824–5312.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 11, 2005, NMFS received
a petition from Mr. Wolf-Dieter N.
Busch,
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Notices
Ecosystem Initiatives Advisory
Services, requesting that NMFS list
eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) as
endangered or threatened under the
ESA. The petition contained
information on the species, including
the taxonomy; ecological and economic
importance; distribution; physical and
biological characteristics of its habitat
and ecosystem relationships; population
status and trends; and factors
contributing to the population’s decline.
The petition addressed the five factors
identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA:
(1) Current or threatened habitat
destruction or modification or
curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5)
other natural or man-made factors
affecting the species’ continued
existence.
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy
Consideration
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that
NMFS make a finding as to whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating the
petitioned action may be warranted.
ESA implementing regulations define
‘‘substantial information’’ as the amount
of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In
determining whether substantial
information exists for a petition to list
a species, NMFS takes into account
several factors, including information
submitted with, and referenced in, the
petition and all other information
readily available in NMFS files. To the
maximum extent practicable, this
finding is to be made within 90 days of
the receipt of the petition (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(3)(A)), and the finding is to be
published promptly in the Federal
Register. If NMFS finds that a petition
presents substantial information
indicating that the requested action may
be warranted, section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the
ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) to conduct a status review of
the species. Section 4 (b)(3)(B) requires
the Secretary to make a finding as to
whether the petitioned action is
warranted within 12 months of the
receipt of the petition. The Secretary has
delegated the authority for these actions
to the NOAA Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries.
Under the ESA, a listing
determination can address a species,
subspecies, or a distinct population
segment (DPS) of a vertebrate species
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:03 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
(16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). Since the eastern
oyster is an invertebrate species, the
entire species would have to be listed
under the ESA (or a subspecies, if
information indicates that there are
subspecies of the eastern oyster) if it is
endangered or threatened. A species is
endangered if it is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (ESA section 3(6)).
It is threatened if is it likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (ESA section 3(19)).
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a
species shall be listed if it is determined
to be threatened or endangered as a
result of any one of the following
factors: (1) present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Listing
determinations are made solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available, after
conducting a review of the status of the
species and taking into account efforts
made by any state or foreign nation to
protect such species.
Life History of the Eastern Oyster
The eastern oyster is an estuarine
bivalve, inhabiting subtidal and
intertidal zones. Oysters form reefs,
which are a dominant feature of many
coastal estuaries. Oysters are often
considered a ‘‘keystone species,’’
providing valuable shelter and habitat
for many other estuarine organisms,
improving water quality, and reducing
bank erosion. Oysters are typically
found in estuaries, sounds, bays, and
tidal creeks from brackish water (5 parts
per thousand [ppt] salinity) to full
strength seawater (35 ppt salinity). The
eastern oyster is distributed from the
Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of
Mexico and south through the
Caribbean to the Yucatan Peninsula.
They are very tolerant organisms, able to
withstand wide variations in
temperature, salinity, suspended
sediments, and dissolved oxygen.
Intertidal oysters typically have
elongated, irregularly shaped shells.
When submerged by the tide, oysters
feed by filtering phytoplankton
(microscopic plants) from the water
column.
Adult oysters begin reproduction
when water temperatures become
greater than 68°F (20°C). Oysters are
broadcast spawners, meaning they
release eggs and sperm into the water
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28511
column. A fertilized egg develops into a
planktonic (free-swimming) trochophore
larva in about 6 hours. A fully shelled
veliger larva is formed within 12 to 24
hours. The larva remains planktonic for
about 3 weeks. Towards the end of this
period it develops a foot (hence,
pediveliger) and settles to the bottom of
the water column where it seeks a hard
substrate. When a suitable surface
(ideally adult oyster shell) is located,
the larva cements itself and
metamorphoses to the adult form. This
newly attached oyster is known as a
‘‘spat.’’
Analysis of Petition
The petition asserts that the species
warrants listing based on all five of the
factors specified in the ESA (16 USC
1533(a)(1)). The petitioner contends that
listing the eastern oyster is necessary
because of the historic failure to protect
the species’ habitats from numerous
documented anthropogenic stresses,
resulting in a well-documented crash of
the population. The petition states that
while ‘‘the living resources management
agencies (LRMAs)’’ had information
regarding the catastrophic declines of
the species off the Atlantic Coast and in
the Chesapeake Bay, they did nothing
other than increase the harvest
restrictions. The petitioner contends
that the LRMAs should have used their
‘‘advisory authority under the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act to
force improvements and restoration of
the quality and quantity of the degraded
habitats.’’
Habitat factors cited by the petitioner
as leading to the decline of this species
include sediment load and dredging of
shipping channels and harbors, which
have changed water flow patterns. Also,
overall freshwater inflow has been
reduced by consumptive water
withdrawal and by dams. Excessive
nutrients from point and non-point
sources frequently overload the
estuaries, and toxic chemicals and
endocrine disrupters are discharged into
the watersheds.
The petitioner includes harvest data
for different regions of the Atlantic coast
during the period 1880 through 2003,
indicating that the annual Atlantic
coastal landings of eastern oyster have
decreased to less than two percent of
their recorded historic value, and
harvest from the Chesapeake Bay has
decreased to 0.2 percent of its recorded
historic value. The petitioner states that
this is near ‘‘extinction level.’’
The petition states that two protozoan
diseases have stressed the eastern
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
28512
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Notices
oyster, especially in the Chesapeake
Bay. MSX is caused by Haplosporidium
nelsoni, and Dermo is caused by
Perkinsus marinus. In high salinity
areas of both the Delaware Bay and
Chesapeake Bay, H. nelsoni was
responsible for the mortality of close to
100 percent of the adult standing stock
biomass during a 3–year period in the
late 1950s and early 1960s. Initially,
MSX was found in coastal bays from
North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, and
New York, but associated mortalities
did not occur south of Virginia or north
of New Jersey. A range extension of the
disease occurred in the 1980s, and MSX
has now been documented from Maine
to Florida. Since 1995, the range of MSX
associated mortalities has expanded to
include both Maine and New York. P.
marinus is distributed along the East
Coast of the United States from Maine
to Florida and along the Gulf of Mexico
coast. This parasite inhibits normal
growth of the gonads in oysters and as
such, reduces their reproductive
capacity. Mortalities of up to 95 percent
have occurred during the second
summer following transfer to disease
enzootic areas.
The petition states that harvest
restrictions and enhancement efforts
have not succeeded in restoring the
eastern oyster populations. In addition,
according to the petitioner, the LRMAs
have not provided detailed water
quality and physical habitat goals to the
environmental enforcement agencies,
making it difficult for them to address
the needs of the living resources
through enforcement under the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
Finally, the petition expresses
concern about the proposed
introduction of the exotic Asian oyster,
Crassostrea ariakensis, because it could
result in the extinction of the eastern
oyster through competition and
hybridization, or because of its
susceptibility to polydora (a native
worm) and the introduction of diseases
or activation of dormant diseases.
The petition alleges the threats to the
eastern oyster population continue to
occur and are accompanied by increased
siltation and in some areas, periodic low
levels of oxygen. These factors, which
have led to the decreased abundance of
the species, may lead to the extinction
of the eastern oyster. While the exotic
Asian oyster has not yet been
introduced into the Chesapeake Bay, it
presents a threat because there is a
proposal to introduce it, and an
Environmental Assessment is underway
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:03 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
to evaluate its impacts on the
environment. NMFS concludes that the
petition presents substantial
information concerning some or all of
the factors identified in ESA section
4(a)(1) with respect to the eastern oyster
along the Atlantic Coast.
Because the petitioner presents
substantial information on the status of
and threats to the Atlantic Coast
populations of eastern oyster but little
information regarding the status or
threats in other areas such as the Gulf
Coast and Caribbean, he apparently
seeks one of two alternatives: (1) a
determination that the Atlantic coast
populations constitute a separate
subspecies that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (i.e., endangered) or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future (i.e., threatened); or alternatively,
(2) a determination that the eastern
oyster is in danger of extinction
throughout a significant portion of its
range (e.g., along the Atlantic coast or in
the Chesapeake Bay) or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future. There is
some limited information in our files to
indicate that it is possible to
differentiate between eastern oysters
from the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts using
mtDNA analyses. During the status
review, we intend to analyze additional
data to determine whether the best
available information supports the
existence of subspecies of eastern
oysters. Existence of two or more
subspecies may influence a listing
determination. For example, if the
available genetic information indicates
that the Chesapeake Bay population is
part of a separate subspecies, there may
be evidence that this subspecies is
threatened or endangered. Even if a
subspecies does not coincide with the
exact areas where major threats exist, a
particular portion of such a subspecies’
range may be more likely to constitute
a significant portion of the subspecies’
range than a significant portion of the
entire species’ range. If we determine
that no subspecies exist, we will
evaluate whether the Chesapeake Bay,
entire Atlantic Coast, or other areas
constitute a significant portion of the
range of the species so that we can make
a determination on whether the species
is in danger of extinction throughout
that portion of its range or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future.
Petition Finding
Based on the above information and
the criteria specified in 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2), NMFS finds the petition
presents substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action concerning the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
eastern oyster may be warranted. NMFS
will consider whether there is a separate
subspecies that is threatened or
endangered and whether the entire
species is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. Under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, this finding
requires NMFS to commence a status
review of the species. NMFS is now
initiating this review. The eastern oyster
is now considered to be a candidate
species (69 FR 19976, April 15, 2004).
Within 12 months of the receipt of the
petition (January 11, 2006), a finding
will be made as to whether listing the
eastern oyster as endangered or
threatened is warranted, as required by
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If
warranted, NMFS will publish a
proposed rule and solicit public
comments before developing and
publishing a final rule.
Information Solicited
To ensure the status review is based
on the best available scientific and
commercial data, NMFS is soliciting
information on whether the eastern
oyster is endangered or threatened.
Specifically, NMFS is soliciting
information in the following areas: (1)
historical and current distribution and
abundance of this species throughout its
range; (2) historic and current condition;
(3) population status and trends; (4)
information on any current or planned
activities that may adversely impact the
species, especially as related to the five
factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA and listed above; (5) ongoing efforts
to protect and restore the species and its
habitat; (6) information indicating the
existence of separate subspecies of
eastern oysters based upon genetic data
or other information; and (7)
information on whether any particular
portions of the range of the eastern
oyster constitute significant portions of
the range of the species or of any
potential subspecies that may exist.
NMFS requests that all information be
accompanied by: (1) supporting
documentation such as maps,
bibliographic references, or reprints of
pertinent publications; and (2) the
submitter’s name, address, and any
association, institution, or business that
the person represents.
Peer Review
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
published a series of policies regarding
listings under the ESA, including a
policy for peer review of scientific data
(59 FR 34270). The intent of the peer
review policy is to ensure listings are
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Notices
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available. NMFS is
soliciting the names of recognized
experts in the field that could take part
in the peer review process for this status
review. Independent peer reviewers will
be selected from the academic and
scientific community, tribal and other
Native American groups, Federal and
state agencies, the private sector, and
public interest groups.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: May 13, 2005.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–9918 Filed 5–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Commerce (Secretary) on February 17,
1972, to advise the Secretary on all
living marine resource matters that are
the responsibility of the Department of
Commerce. This Committee advises and
reviews the adequacy of living marine
resource policies and programs to meet
the needs of commercial and
recreational fisheries, and
environmental, state, consumer,
academic, tribal, and other national
interests.
Matters to be Considered
June 7, 2005
General overview and full committee
discussion regarding status of the U.S.
Ocean Action Plan initiative and
offshore aquaculture legislation. The
Committee will also spend time on
strategic planning and committee
organization.
June 8, 2005
[I.D. 051005B]
Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee;
Public Meetings
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of
meetings of the Marine Fisheries
Advisory Committee (MAFAC). This
will be the second of two meetings held
in fiscal year 2005 to review and advise
on management policies for living
marine resources. Agenda topics are
provided under the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice.
DATES: The meetings will be held June
7–9, 2005, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and
June 10, 2005, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at
the Phoenix Park Hotel 520 North
Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20001.
Requests for special accommodations
may be directed to MAFAC, Office of
Constituent Services, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway #9508, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurel Bryant, MAFAC Executive
Director; telephone: (301) 713–2379
x171.
As
required by section 10(a)(2) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C. App. (1982), notice is hereby
given of meetings of MAFAC. MAFAC
was established by the Secretary of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:03 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
The Committee will receive briefings
on status of ecosystem approach to
managing fisheries, strengthening
science in management, offshore
aquaculture, and status updates on
reauthorization of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. The Committee will
then adjourn into breakout groups to
take up these issues in more depth.
June 9, 2005
The full Committee will reconvene to
receive and discuss breakout group
reports.
June 10, 2005
The full committee will meet to
continue any necessary discussions and
actions on the issue reports, and
complete any unfinished administrative
issues. Committee will adjourn sine day
on completion of business.
Time will be set aside for public
comment on agenda items.
Special Accommodations
These meetings are physically
accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language
interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to MAFAC (see
ADDRESSES).
Dated: May 12, 2005.
Gordon J. Helm
Acting Director, Office of Constituent
Services, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–9927 Filed 5–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28513
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 051305A]
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
General Provisions for Domestic
Fisheries; Application for Exempted
Fishing Permits
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional
Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries,
Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant
Regional Administrator) has made a
preliminary determination that the
subject Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP)
application contains all the required
information and warrants further
consideration. The Assistant Regional
Administrator has also made a
preliminary determination that the
activities authorized under the EFP
would be consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Northeast (NE)
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan
(FMP). However, further review and
consultation may be necessary before a
final determination is made to issue the
EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that
the Assistant Regional Administrator
proposes to recommend that an EFP be
issued that would allow one commercial
fishing vessel to conduct fishing
operations that are otherwise restricted
by the regulations governing the
fisheries of the Northeastern United
States. The EFP, which would enable
researchers to investigate the feasibility
of using low profile gillnets to catch
flounders while limiting cod bycatch,
would allow for exemptions from the
FMP as follows: Gulf of Maine (GOM)
Rolling Closure Areas III, IV, and V.
Regulations under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act) require publication of this
notification to provide interested parties
the opportunity to comment on
applications for proposed EFPs.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 2, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside
of the envelope ‘‘Comments on the GOM
Low Profile Gillnet Study.’’ Comments
may also be sent via fax to (978) 281–
9135, or submitted via e-mail to the
following address: da5–21@noaa.gov.
E:\FR\FM\18MYN1.SGM
18MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28510-28513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9918]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[Docket No. 050509124-5124-01; I.D. 050305B]
Listing Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day
Finding on a Petition to List Eastern Oyster as Threatened or
Endangered under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding; request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 90-day finding for a petition to list
eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) as endangered or threatened
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS finds that the petition
presents substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned
action may be warranted. NMFS will conduct a status review of eastern
oysters to determine if the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure
that the review is comprehensive, NMFS is soliciting information
pertaining to this species from any interested party. NMFS also seeks
suggestions from the public for peer reviewers to take part in the peer
review process for the forthcoming status review.
DATES: Information related to this petition finding must be received by
July 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
E-mail: EasternOyster.Info@noaa.gov. Include docket number
(050509124-5124-01) in the subject line of the message.
Fax: 978-281-9394, Attention Ms. Kimberly Damon-Randall.
Mail: Information on paper, disk, or CD-ROM should be
addressed to the Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected
Resources, NMFS Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kimberly Damon-Randall, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, (978) 281-9300 x6535, or Marta Nammack,
NMFS, HQ, (301) 713-1401 x180; or Jennifer Moore, NMFS Southeast
Regional Office, (727) 824-5312.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 11, 2005, NMFS received a petition from Mr. Wolf-Dieter
N. Busch,
[[Page 28511]]
Ecosystem Initiatives Advisory Services, requesting that NMFS list
eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) as endangered or threatened
under the ESA. The petition contained information on the species,
including the taxonomy; ecological and economic importance;
distribution; physical and biological characteristics of its habitat
and ecosystem relationships; population status and trends; and factors
contributing to the population's decline. The petition addressed the
five factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA: (1) Current or
threatened habitat destruction or modification or curtailment of
habitat or range; (2) over-utilization for commercial purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
and (5) other natural or man-made factors affecting the species'
continued existence.
ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Consideration
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
that NMFS make a finding as to whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. ESA
implementing regulations define ``substantial information'' as the
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR
424.14(b)(1)). In determining whether substantial information exists
for a petition to list a species, NMFS takes into account several
factors, including information submitted with, and referenced in, the
petition and all other information readily available in NMFS files. To
the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90
days of the receipt of the petition (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), and the
finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register. If NMFS
finds that a petition presents substantial information indicating that
the requested action may be warranted, section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the ESA
requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to conduct a status
review of the species. Section 4 (b)(3)(B) requires the Secretary to
make a finding as to whether the petitioned action is warranted within
12 months of the receipt of the petition. The Secretary has delegated
the authority for these actions to the NOAA Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries.
Under the ESA, a listing determination can address a species,
subspecies, or a distinct population segment (DPS) of a vertebrate
species (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). Since the eastern oyster is an
invertebrate species, the entire species would have to be listed under
the ESA (or a subspecies, if information indicates that there are
subspecies of the eastern oyster) if it is endangered or threatened. A
species is endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range (ESA section 3(6)). It is
threatened if is it likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA
section 3(19)).
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species shall be listed if it
is determined to be threatened or endangered as a result of any one of
the following factors: (1) present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) over-utilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Listing determinations are made solely on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a
review of the status of the species and taking into account efforts
made by any state or foreign nation to protect such species.
Life History of the Eastern Oyster
The eastern oyster is an estuarine bivalve, inhabiting subtidal and
intertidal zones. Oysters form reefs, which are a dominant feature of
many coastal estuaries. Oysters are often considered a ``keystone
species,'' providing valuable shelter and habitat for many other
estuarine organisms, improving water quality, and reducing bank
erosion. Oysters are typically found in estuaries, sounds, bays, and
tidal creeks from brackish water (5 parts per thousand [ppt] salinity)
to full strength seawater (35 ppt salinity). The eastern oyster is
distributed from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico and
south through the Caribbean to the Yucatan Peninsula. They are very
tolerant organisms, able to withstand wide variations in temperature,
salinity, suspended sediments, and dissolved oxygen. Intertidal oysters
typically have elongated, irregularly shaped shells. When submerged by
the tide, oysters feed by filtering phytoplankton (microscopic plants)
from the water column.
Adult oysters begin reproduction when water temperatures become
greater than 68[deg]F (20[deg]C). Oysters are broadcast spawners,
meaning they release eggs and sperm into the water column. A fertilized
egg develops into a planktonic (free-swimming) trochophore larva in
about 6 hours. A fully shelled veliger larva is formed within 12 to 24
hours. The larva remains planktonic for about 3 weeks. Towards the end
of this period it develops a foot (hence, pediveliger) and settles to
the bottom of the water column where it seeks a hard substrate. When a
suitable surface (ideally adult oyster shell) is located, the larva
cements itself and metamorphoses to the adult form. This newly attached
oyster is known as a ``spat.''
Analysis of Petition
The petition asserts that the species warrants listing based on all
five of the factors specified in the ESA (16 USC 1533(a)(1)). The
petitioner contends that listing the eastern oyster is necessary
because of the historic failure to protect the species' habitats from
numerous documented anthropogenic stresses, resulting in a well-
documented crash of the population. The petition states that while
``the living resources management agencies (LRMAs)'' had information
regarding the catastrophic declines of the species off the Atlantic
Coast and in the Chesapeake Bay, they did nothing other than increase
the harvest restrictions. The petitioner contends that the LRMAs should
have used their ``advisory authority under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to force
improvements and restoration of the quality and quantity of the
degraded habitats.''
Habitat factors cited by the petitioner as leading to the decline
of this species include sediment load and dredging of shipping channels
and harbors, which have changed water flow patterns. Also, overall
freshwater inflow has been reduced by consumptive water withdrawal and
by dams. Excessive nutrients from point and non-point sources
frequently overload the estuaries, and toxic chemicals and endocrine
disrupters are discharged into the watersheds.
The petitioner includes harvest data for different regions of the
Atlantic coast during the period 1880 through 2003, indicating that the
annual Atlantic coastal landings of eastern oyster have decreased to
less than two percent of their recorded historic value, and harvest
from the Chesapeake Bay has decreased to 0.2 percent of its recorded
historic value. The petitioner states that this is near ``extinction
level.''
The petition states that two protozoan diseases have stressed the
eastern
[[Page 28512]]
oyster, especially in the Chesapeake Bay. MSX is caused by
Haplosporidium nelsoni, and Dermo is caused by Perkinsus marinus. In
high salinity areas of both the Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay, H.
nelsoni was responsible for the mortality of close to 100 percent of
the adult standing stock biomass during a 3-year period in the late
1950s and early 1960s. Initially, MSX was found in coastal bays from
North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut,
and New York, but associated mortalities did not occur south of
Virginia or north of New Jersey. A range extension of the disease
occurred in the 1980s, and MSX has now been documented from Maine to
Florida. Since 1995, the range of MSX associated mortalities has
expanded to include both Maine and New York. P. marinus is distributed
along the East Coast of the United States from Maine to Florida and
along the Gulf of Mexico coast. This parasite inhibits normal growth of
the gonads in oysters and as such, reduces their reproductive capacity.
Mortalities of up to 95 percent have occurred during the second summer
following transfer to disease enzootic areas.
The petition states that harvest restrictions and enhancement
efforts have not succeeded in restoring the eastern oyster populations.
In addition, according to the petitioner, the LRMAs have not provided
detailed water quality and physical habitat goals to the environmental
enforcement agencies, making it difficult for them to address the needs
of the living resources through enforcement under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Finally, the petition expresses concern about the proposed
introduction of the exotic Asian oyster, Crassostrea ariakensis,
because it could result in the extinction of the eastern oyster through
competition and hybridization, or because of its susceptibility to
polydora (a native worm) and the introduction of diseases or activation
of dormant diseases.
The petition alleges the threats to the eastern oyster population
continue to occur and are accompanied by increased siltation and in
some areas, periodic low levels of oxygen. These factors, which have
led to the decreased abundance of the species, may lead to the
extinction of the eastern oyster. While the exotic Asian oyster has not
yet been introduced into the Chesapeake Bay, it presents a threat
because there is a proposal to introduce it, and an Environmental
Assessment is underway to evaluate its impacts on the environment. NMFS
concludes that the petition presents substantial information concerning
some or all of the factors identified in ESA section 4(a)(1) with
respect to the eastern oyster along the Atlantic Coast.
Because the petitioner presents substantial information on the
status of and threats to the Atlantic Coast populations of eastern
oyster but little information regarding the status or threats in other
areas such as the Gulf Coast and Caribbean, he apparently seeks one of
two alternatives: (1) a determination that the Atlantic coast
populations constitute a separate subspecies that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (i.e.,
endangered) or likely to become so in the foreseeable future (i.e.,
threatened); or alternatively, (2) a determination that the eastern
oyster is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of
its range (e.g., along the Atlantic coast or in the Chesapeake Bay) or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future. There is some limited
information in our files to indicate that it is possible to
differentiate between eastern oysters from the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts
using mtDNA analyses. During the status review, we intend to analyze
additional data to determine whether the best available information
supports the existence of subspecies of eastern oysters. Existence of
two or more subspecies may influence a listing determination. For
example, if the available genetic information indicates that the
Chesapeake Bay population is part of a separate subspecies, there may
be evidence that this subspecies is threatened or endangered. Even if a
subspecies does not coincide with the exact areas where major threats
exist, a particular portion of such a subspecies' range may be more
likely to constitute a significant portion of the subspecies' range
than a significant portion of the entire species' range. If we
determine that no subspecies exist, we will evaluate whether the
Chesapeake Bay, entire Atlantic Coast, or other areas constitute a
significant portion of the range of the species so that we can make a
determination on whether the species is in danger of extinction
throughout that portion of its range or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future.
Petition Finding
Based on the above information and the criteria specified in 50 CFR
424.14(b)(2), NMFS finds the petition presents substantial scientific
and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action
concerning the eastern oyster may be warranted. NMFS will consider
whether there is a separate subspecies that is threatened or endangered
and whether the entire species is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, this finding
requires NMFS to commence a status review of the species. NMFS is now
initiating this review. The eastern oyster is now considered to be a
candidate species (69 FR 19976, April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of
the receipt of the petition (January 11, 2006), a finding will be made
as to whether listing the eastern oyster as endangered or threatened is
warranted, as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If warranted,
NMFS will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before
developing and publishing a final rule.
Information Solicited
To ensure the status review is based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, NMFS is soliciting information on
whether the eastern oyster is endangered or threatened. Specifically,
NMFS is soliciting information in the following areas: (1) historical
and current distribution and abundance of this species throughout its
range; (2) historic and current condition; (3) population status and
trends; (4) information on any current or planned activities that may
adversely impact the species, especially as related to the five factors
specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and listed above; (5) ongoing
efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitat; (6)
information indicating the existence of separate subspecies of eastern
oysters based upon genetic data or other information; and (7)
information on whether any particular portions of the range of the
eastern oyster constitute significant portions of the range of the
species or of any potential subspecies that may exist. NMFS requests
that all information be accompanied by: (1) supporting documentation
such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent
publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any
association, institution, or business that the person represents.
Peer Review
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, published a series of policies regarding listings under the
ESA, including a policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR
34270). The intent of the peer review policy is to ensure listings are
[[Page 28513]]
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. NMFS is
soliciting the names of recognized experts in the field that could take
part in the peer review process for this status review. Independent
peer reviewers will be selected from the academic and scientific
community, tribal and other Native American groups, Federal and state
agencies, the private sector, and public interest groups.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: May 13, 2005.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 05-9918 Filed 5-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
