Listing Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Designating Critical Habitat; 90-day Finding for a Petition to Revise the Critical Habitat Designation for the Leatherback Turtle, 73745-73747 [E7-25268]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2007 / Proposed Rules
programming. To facilitate the
development of a thorough record, the
deadline for filing comments in
response to the NPRM is extended to
January 4, 2008, and the deadline for
filing reply comments is extended to
January 22, 2008.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
January 4, 2008; reply comments are
due on or before January 22, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 07–198, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Konczal, David.Konczal@fcc.gov,
of the Media Bureau, Policy Division,
(202) 418–2120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Order in MB Docket No.
07–198, DA 07–4688, released on
November 20, 2007. The full text of this
document is available for public
inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. This
document will also be available via
ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/).
(Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/
or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text
may be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554. To request this
document in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail
to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
Summary of the Order
1. On October 1, 2007, the
Commission released an NPRM in MB
Docket No. 07–198 on revisions to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Dec 27, 2007
Jkt 214001
Commission’s program access and
retransmission consent rules and
whether it may be appropriate to
preclude the practice of programmers to
tie desired programming with undesired
programming. The NPRM set deadlines
for filing comments and reply comments
at 30 and 45 days, respectively, after
publication of the NPRM in the Federal
Register. A summary of the NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on
October 31, 2007 (72 FR 61590, October
31, 2007). Accordingly, the comment
filing dates were established as
November 30, 2007 for comments and
December 17, 2007 for reply comments.
2. On November 2, 2007, Fox
Entertainment Group, Inc. and Fox
Television Holdings, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Fox’’) and Viacom Inc. (‘‘Viacom’’)
filed requests for a 45-day extension of
the comment deadline. Similar requests
were subsequently filed by NBC
Universal, Inc. (‘‘NBCU’’) and The Walt
Disney Company (‘‘Disney’’). The
parties argue that the issues raised in
the NPRM are highly complex and that
a 30-day comment period does not
enable them to gather the necessary data
to respond effectively. The parties argue
that additional time will enable them to
survey executives in their broadcast and
cable divisions and to retain experts to
perform economic analyses. The parties
state that additional time to respond to
the NPRM will serve the public interest
by facilitating a more complete record.
Fox also contends that the holiday
season compounds the difficulties of
responding to the NPRM by the
comment deadline. Viacom argues that
the issues raised in a recent class action
lawsuit filed against Viacom and others
regarding the offering of bundled and
tiered programming packages are closely
related to the issues raised in the NPRM.
Viacom requests an extension of the
comment deadline to ensure a
coordinated and comprehensive
response to this lawsuit and to the
NPRM. The parties further assert that a
45-day extension of the comment
deadline will cause no hardship or
prejudice to other interested parties or
to the Commission.
3. As set forth in Section 1.46 of the
Commission’s Rules, the Commission’s
policy is that extensions of time for
filing comments in rulemaking
proceedings shall not be routinely
granted. 47 CFR 1.46. In this case,
however, an extension of the comment
and reply comment period is warranted
to enable commenters to gather
sufficient data, including economic
analyses, to facilitate the development
of a thorough record in response to the
issues raised in the NPRM. We decline,
however, to grant the full 45-day
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73745
extension requested by the parties. With
the additional extension granted herein,
interested parties will now have a total
of 65 days to prepare comments. We
believe that this provides parties with
ample time to respond to the issues
raised in the NPRM.
4. Accordingly, we hereby grant the
Motions for Extension of Time filed in
MB Docket No. 07–198 by Disney, Fox,
NBCU, and Viacom to the extent
detailed above. The time for filing
comments is extended to January 4,
2008, and the time for filing reply
comments is extended to January 22,
2008.
5. This action is taken pursuant to
authority found in Sections 4(i), 4(j),
and 303(r) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
154(j), and 303(r), and Sections 0.61,
0.283, and 1.46 of the Commission’s
rules, 47 CFR 0.61, 0.283, and 1.46.
6. Specific instructions for filing
comments are located at paragraphs 26–
27 of the item as published in the
Federal Register and at paragraphs 139–
142 of the item as released by the
Commission and that appears on the
Commission’s Web site: https://
hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/FCC–07–169A1.doc.
Federal Communications Commission.
Steven A. Broeckaert,
Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. E7–25130 Filed 12–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 071214845–7848–01]
RIN 0648–XE13
Listing Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Designating Critical
Habitat; 90–day Finding for a Petition
to Revise the Critical Habitat
Designation for the Leatherback Turtle
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), NationalOceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding;
request for information and comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), announce a
90–day finding for a petition to revise
leatherback turtle (Dermochelys
coriacea) critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
73746
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2007 / Proposed Rules
amended (ESA). The leatherback turtle
is currently listed as endangered
throughout its range, and critical habitat
consists of Sandy Point Beach and
adjacent waters, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin
Islands. The petition seeks to include
waters along the U.S. West Coast as
critical habitat. We find that the petition
presents substantial scientific
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
We are initiating a review of the
critical habitat of the species to
determine whether the petitioned action
is warranted. To ensure a
comprehensive review, we solicit
information and comments pertaining to
this species’ essential habitat needs
from any interested party.
DATES: Written comments and
information related to this petition
finding must be received [see
ADDRESSES] by February 26, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by [0648–XE13], by any one
of the following methods: (1) Electronic
Submissions: Submit all electronic
public comments via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov; (2) Fax: 301–427–
2522, attention: Therese Conant; and (3)
mail: addressed to the Chief, Marine
Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910.
All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be
posted to https://www.regulations.gov
without change. All Personal Identifying
Information (for example, name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit Confidential
Business Information or otherwise
sensitive or protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Therese Conant by phone 301–713–
2322, fax 301–427–2522, or e-mail
therese.conant@noaa.gov; Christina
Fahy by phone 562–980–4023, fax 562–
980–4027, or e-mail
christina.fahy@noaa.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Background
Critical habitat is defined in the ESA
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as:
‘‘(i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed... on which are found
those physical or biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Dec 27, 2007
Jkt 214001
and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protection;
and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed... upon a determination
by the Secretary that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.’’
Our implementing regulations (50
CFR 424.12) describe those essential
physical and biological features to
include, but not be limited to: (1) space
for individual and population growth,
and normal behavior; (2) food, water,
air, light, minerals, or other nutritional
or physiological requirements; (3) cover
or shelter; (4) sites for breeding,
reproduction, rearing of offspring; and
(5) habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historic geographical and ecological
distribution of a species. We are
required to focus on the primary
constituent elements (PCEs), which best
represent the principal biological or
physical features. PCEs may include,
but are not limited to: nesting grounds,
feeding sites, water quality, tide, and
geological formation. Our implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.02) define
‘‘special management considerations or
protection’’ as any method or procedure
useful in protecting physical and
biological features of the environment
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us
to designate and make revisions to
critical habitat for listed species based
on the best scientific data available and
after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on
national security, and any other relevant
impact, of specifying any particular area
as critical habitat. The Secretary may
exclude any particular area from critical
habitat if he determines that the benefits
of such exclusion outweigh the benefits
of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines
that the failure to designate such area as
critical habitat will result in the
extinction of the species concerned. We
are required to consider whether the
petition contains information indicating
that areas petitioned contain physical
and biological features essential to, and
that may require special management to
provide for, the conservation of the
species. Section 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the ESA
requires us to make a finding as to
whether a petition to revise critical
habitat presents substantial scientific
information indicating that the revision
may be warranted. Our implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.14) define
‘‘substantial information’’ as the amount
of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted. In determining whether
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
substantial information exists, we take
into account several factors, including
information submitted with, and
referenced in, the petition and all other
information readily available in our
files. To the maximum extent
practicable, this finding is to be made
within 90 days of the receipt of the
petition, and the finding is to be
published promptly in the Federal
Register. If we find that a petition
presents substantial information
indicating that the revision may be
warranted, within 12 months after
receiving the petition, we are required
to determine how we intend to proceed
with the requested revision and
promptly publish notice of such
intention in the Federal Register. See
ESA Section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii).
Analysis of Petition
On October 2, 2007, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity, Oceana, and Turtle Island
Restoration Network (Petitioners) to
revise the leatherback sea turtle critical
habitat designation. Current critical
habitat consists of terrestrial shoreline at
Sandy Point Beach, St. Croix, U.S.
Virgin Islands (50 CFR 17.95), and
adjacent waters up to and inclusive of
the waters from the hundred fathom
curve shoreward to the level of mean
high tide with boundaries at 17° 42′12″
N. and 64° 50′00″ W (50 CFR 226.207).
The Petitioners seek to revise the critical
habitat designation to include the area
we currently manage under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act to reduce leatherback interactions in
the California/Oregon drift gillnet
fishery targeting swordfish and thresher
shark. This area encompasses roughly
200,000 square miles (321,870 km2) of
the Exclusive Economic Zone from
45°deg; N latitude about 100 miles (160
km) south of the Washington/Oregon
border southward to Pt. Sur and along
a diagonal line due west of Pt.
Conception, California, and west to 129°
W longitude. Under the current
regulations implementing the Highly
Migratory Species Fishery Management
Plan, drift gillnet gear is prohibited in
this area from August 15th through
November 15th (50 CFR 660.713).
The petition contains a detailed
description of the species’ natural
history and status, including
information on distribution and
movements, feeding and prey selection,
reproduction, population status and
trends, and factors contributing to the
current status of the species in the
Pacific Ocean. The petition describes
the marine area off Oregon and
California as unique, characterized by
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2007 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
distinctive oceanographic and
geomorphic features that create a
dynamic and highly productive
ecosystem. The petition describes
oceanographic conditions such as
upwellings (i.e., the movement of
nutrient-rich subsurface waters to the
surface) that favor increased
zooplankton production. The petitioners
cite studies indicating a positive
relationship with leatherback presence
and these conditions (Benson et al.,
2007a) and that leatherbacks migrate to
and forage in the area (Benson et al.,
2007b).
The Petitioners claim the petitioned
area provides space for population
growth and normal behavior and is a
known crucial feeding site for
leatherbacks. The Petitioners believe the
area contains physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
leatherback sea turtles. They offer that
the PCEs should be those habitat
components that are essential for
feeding, resting, migrating, and include
all marine waters, along with associated
marine aquatic flora and fauna in the
water column, and the underlying
marine benthic community. The
petitioners argue that the area requires
special management considerations as
evidenced by the existing measures to
reduce leatherback interactions with
fisheries. They claim the area should be
managed for other fisheries, marine
debris, vessel strikes, oil spills, coastal
development, and changing ocean
conditions brought on by global
warming.
Finally, the Petitioners request that, if
we determine some portion of the
petitioned area does not meet the
criteria for critical habitat, we analyze
whether some subset of this area should
be designated as critical habitat.
Petition Finding
Based on the above information and
information readily available in our
files, and pursuant to criteria specified
in 50 CFR 424.14(c), we find the
petitioners present substantial scientific
information indicating that a revision to
the critical habitat designation for
leatherbacks may be warranted. Our
Southwest Fisheries Science Center has
conducted research on leatherbacks
foraging within and migrating through
the petition area. Several female
leatherbacks nesting in Indonesia made
trans-Pacific post-nesting migrations to
foraging areas off the coasts of Oregon
and Washington (Benson et al., 2007a;
Benson unpublished data, 2007).
Benson et al., (2007b) found that
leatherbacks associate with areas along
the U.S. West Coast where nutrient-rich,
upwelling water is entrained nearshore.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Dec 27, 2007
Jkt 214001
These areas provide increased retention
of zooplankton, larval fish, crabs, and
gelatinous organisms and represent
important foraging grounds for
leatherbacks.
To ensure that the review to revise
critical habitat for leatherbacks is
complete and based on the best
available data, we solicit information
and comments on whether the
petitioned area, or some subset, or some
adjacent areas along the U.S. West
Coast, qualify as critical habitat. Areas
that include the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species and that may require special
management considerations or
protection should be identified. As
stated earlier, essential features include,
but are not limited to, space for
individual growth and for normal
behavior, food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements, cover or
shelter, sites for reproduction and
development of offspring, and habitats
that are protected from disturbance or
are representative of the historical,
geographical and ecological
distributions of the species (50 CFR
424.12).
We request that all data, information,
and comments be accompanied by
supporting documentation such as
maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications.
Comments and materials received will
be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address (see
ADDRESSES).
Peer Review
OMB issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review on
December 16, 2004. The Bulletin went
into effect June 16, 2005, and generally
requires that all ‘‘influential scientific
information’’ and ‘‘highly influential
scientific information’’ disseminated on
or after that date be peer reviewed.
Because the information used to
evaluate this petition may be considered
‘‘influential scientific information,’’ we
solicit the names of recognized experts
in the field that could serve as peer
reviewers of such information we may
disseminate as we evaluate this petition.
Independent peer reviewers will be
selected from the academic and
scientific community, applicable tribal
and other Native American groups,
Federal and state agencies, the private
sector, and public interest groups.
References Cited
Benson, S.R., K.A. Forney, J.T.
Harvey, J.V. Carretta, and P.H. Dutton.
2007a. Abundance, distribution, and
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73747
habitat of leatherback turtles
(Dermochelys coriacea) off California,
1990–2003). Fisheries Bulletin.
105:337–347.
Benson, S.R., P.H. Dutton, C.
Hittipeuw, B. Samber, J. Bakarbessy,
and D. Parker. 2007b. Post-Nesting
Migrations of Leatherback Turtles
(Dermochelys coriacea) from JamursbaMedi, Bird’s Head Peninsula, Indonesia.
Chelonian Conservation and Biology.
6(1):150–154.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: December 20, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7–25268 Filed 12–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
RIN 0648–AU29
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery off the Southern
Atlantic States; Amendment 15A
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of
Amendment 15A to the South Atlantic
Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management
Plan; request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Council) has
submitted Amendment 15A to the
Fishery Management Plan for the
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region (FMP) for review,
approval, and implementation by
NMFS. Amendment 15A proposes
actions to update management reference
points for snowy grouper, black sea
bass, and red porgy based on the most
recent stock assessments; modify
rebuilding schedules for snowy grouper
and black sea bass; define rebuilding
strategies for snowy grouper, black sea
bass, and red porgy; and redefine the
minimum stock size threshold for the
snowy grouper stock. The measures
contained in the subject amendment are
intended to satisfy a U.S. District Court
Order to establish rebuilding plans for
South Atlantic snowy grouper and black
sea bass and for the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) to approve,
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73745-73747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25268]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 071214845-7848-01]
RIN 0648-XE13
Listing Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Designating
Critical Habitat; 90-day Finding for a Petition to Revise the Critical
Habitat Designation for the Leatherback Turtle
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NationalOceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding; request for information and
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), announce a
90-day finding for a petition to revise leatherback turtle (Dermochelys
coriacea) critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
[[Page 73746]]
amended (ESA). The leatherback turtle is currently listed as endangered
throughout its range, and critical habitat consists of Sandy Point
Beach and adjacent waters, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The petition
seeks to include waters along the U.S. West Coast as critical habitat.
We find that the petition presents substantial scientific information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are initiating a review of the critical habitat of the species
to determine whether the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure a
comprehensive review, we solicit information and comments pertaining to
this species' essential habitat needs from any interested party.
DATES: Written comments and information related to this petition
finding must be received [see ADDRESSES] by February 26, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [0648-XE13], by any
one of the following methods: (1) Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:/
/www.regulations.gov; (2) Fax: 301-427-2522, attention: Therese Conant;
and (3) mail: addressed to the Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
All comments received are a part of the public record and will
generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without change. All
Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do
not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Therese Conant by phone 301-713-2322,
fax 301-427-2522, or e-mail therese.conant@noaa.gov; Christina Fahy by
phone 562-980-4023, fax 562-980-4027, or e-mail
christina.fahy@noaa.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Critical habitat is defined in the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as:
``(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied
by the species, at the time it is listed... on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) which may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed... upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species.''
Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) describe those
essential physical and biological features to include, but not be
limited to: (1) space for individual and population growth, and normal
behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional
or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for
breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring; and (5) habitats that are
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic
geographical and ecological distribution of a species. We are required
to focus on the primary constituent elements (PCEs), which best
represent the principal biological or physical features. PCEs may
include, but are not limited to: nesting grounds, feeding sites, water
quality, tide, and geological formation. Our implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.02) define ``special management considerations or
protection'' as any method or procedure useful in protecting physical
and biological features of the environment for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us to designate and make
revisions to critical habitat for listed species based on the best
scientific data available and after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude any particular area from critical habitat if
he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits
of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he
determines that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the species concerned. We are required
to consider whether the petition contains information indicating that
areas petitioned contain physical and biological features essential to,
and that may require special management to provide for, the
conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the ESA requires
us to make a finding as to whether a petition to revise critical
habitat presents substantial scientific information indicating that the
revision may be warranted. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14)
define ``substantial information'' as the amount of information that
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in
the petition may be warranted. In determining whether substantial
information exists, we take into account several factors, including
information submitted with, and referenced in, the petition and all
other information readily available in our files. To the maximum extent
practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the receipt
of the petition, and the finding is to be published promptly in the
Federal Register. If we find that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that the revision may be warranted, within 12
months after receiving the petition, we are required to determine how
we intend to proceed with the requested revision and promptly publish
notice of such intention in the Federal Register. See ESA Section
4(b)(3)(D)(ii).
Analysis of Petition
On October 2, 2007, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity, Oceana, and Turtle Island Restoration Network
(Petitioners) to revise the leatherback sea turtle critical habitat
designation. Current critical habitat consists of terrestrial shoreline
at Sandy Point Beach, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (50 CFR 17.95),
and adjacent waters up to and inclusive of the waters from the hundred
fathom curve shoreward to the level of mean high tide with boundaries
at 17[deg] 42'12'' N. and 64[deg] 50'00'' W (50 CFR 226.207). The
Petitioners seek to revise the critical habitat designation to include
the area we currently manage under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to reduce leatherback
interactions in the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery targeting
swordfish and thresher shark. This area encompasses roughly 200,000
square miles (321,870 km\2\) of the Exclusive Economic Zone from
45[deg]deg; N latitude about 100 miles (160 km) south of the
Washington/Oregon border southward to Pt. Sur and along a diagonal line
due west of Pt. Conception, California, and west to 129[deg] W
longitude. Under the current regulations implementing the Highly
Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, drift gillnet gear is
prohibited in this area from August 15\th\ through November 15\th\ (50
CFR 660.713).
The petition contains a detailed description of the species'
natural history and status, including information on distribution and
movements, feeding and prey selection, reproduction, population status
and trends, and factors contributing to the current status of the
species in the Pacific Ocean. The petition describes the marine area
off Oregon and California as unique, characterized by
[[Page 73747]]
distinctive oceanographic and geomorphic features that create a dynamic
and highly productive ecosystem. The petition describes oceanographic
conditions such as upwellings (i.e., the movement of nutrient-rich
subsurface waters to the surface) that favor increased zooplankton
production. The petitioners cite studies indicating a positive
relationship with leatherback presence and these conditions (Benson et
al., 2007a) and that leatherbacks migrate to and forage in the area
(Benson et al., 2007b).
The Petitioners claim the petitioned area provides space for
population growth and normal behavior and is a known crucial feeding
site for leatherbacks. The Petitioners believe the area contains
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
leatherback sea turtles. They offer that the PCEs should be those
habitat components that are essential for feeding, resting, migrating,
and include all marine waters, along with associated marine aquatic
flora and fauna in the water column, and the underlying marine benthic
community. The petitioners argue that the area requires special
management considerations as evidenced by the existing measures to
reduce leatherback interactions with fisheries. They claim the area
should be managed for other fisheries, marine debris, vessel strikes,
oil spills, coastal development, and changing ocean conditions brought
on by global warming.
Finally, the Petitioners request that, if we determine some portion
of the petitioned area does not meet the criteria for critical habitat,
we analyze whether some subset of this area should be designated as
critical habitat.
Petition Finding
Based on the above information and information readily available in
our files, and pursuant to criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14(c), we
find the petitioners present substantial scientific information
indicating that a revision to the critical habitat designation for
leatherbacks may be warranted. Our Southwest Fisheries Science Center
has conducted research on leatherbacks foraging within and migrating
through the petition area. Several female leatherbacks nesting in
Indonesia made trans-Pacific post-nesting migrations to foraging areas
off the coasts of Oregon and Washington (Benson et al., 2007a; Benson
unpublished data, 2007). Benson et al., (2007b) found that leatherbacks
associate with areas along the U.S. West Coast where nutrient-rich,
upwelling water is entrained nearshore. These areas provide increased
retention of zooplankton, larval fish, crabs, and gelatinous organisms
and represent important foraging grounds for leatherbacks.
To ensure that the review to revise critical habitat for
leatherbacks is complete and based on the best available data, we
solicit information and comments on whether the petitioned area, or
some subset, or some adjacent areas along the U.S. West Coast, qualify
as critical habitat. Areas that include the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and that may
require special management considerations or protection should be
identified. As stated earlier, essential features include, but are not
limited to, space for individual growth and for normal behavior, food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements, cover or shelter, sites for reproduction and development
of offspring, and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical and ecological
distributions of the species (50 CFR 424.12).
We request that all data, information, and comments be accompanied
by supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications. Comments and materials received
will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal
business hours at the above address (see ADDRESSES).
Peer Review
OMB issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
on December 16, 2004. The Bulletin went into effect June 16, 2005, and
generally requires that all ``influential scientific information'' and
``highly influential scientific information'' disseminated on or after
that date be peer reviewed. Because the information used to evaluate
this petition may be considered ``influential scientific information,''
we solicit the names of recognized experts in the field that could
serve as peer reviewers of such information we may disseminate as we
evaluate this petition. Independent peer reviewers will be selected
from the academic and scientific community, applicable tribal and other
Native American groups, Federal and state agencies, the private sector,
and public interest groups.
References Cited
Benson, S.R., K.A. Forney, J.T. Harvey, J.V. Carretta, and P.H.
Dutton. 2007a. Abundance, distribution, and habitat of leatherback
turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) off California, 1990-2003). Fisheries
Bulletin. 105:337-347.
Benson, S.R., P.H. Dutton, C. Hittipeuw, B. Samber, J. Bakarbessy,
and D. Parker. 2007b. Post-Nesting Migrations of Leatherback Turtles
(Dermochelys coriacea) from Jamursba-Medi, Bird's Head Peninsula,
Indonesia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology. 6(1):150-154.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: December 20, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7-25268 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
