[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51725-51727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24961]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 223 and 224
[Docket No. 990910253-9253-01; I.D. 073099D]
RIN 0648-AM90
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding for
a Petition to List White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) as Endangered
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding; request for information and
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a petition to list white abalone (Haliotis
sorenseni) as an endangered species on an emergency basis and to
designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS
finds that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that the request for listing may be warranted.
Therefore, NMFS is conducting a status review to determine whether the
petitioned action is warranted. To assure that the review is
comprehensive, NMFS is soliciting information and data regarding this
species and potential critical habitat from any interested party. We
will use information received during the comment period, and other
information, in our review of the status of white abalone. The petition
does not present substantial evidence to warrant the listing of white
abalone on an emergency basis at this time.
DATES: Comments and information must be received by November 23, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the petition and comments regarding
white abalone should be submitted to Irma Lagomarsino, Division Manager
for Protected Resources, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd.,
Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA, 90802-4213. The petition and supporting
data are available for public inspection, by appointment, Monday
through Friday at the address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irma Lagomarsino, NMFS Southwest
Region, 562/980-4016; Marta Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected
Resources, 301/713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Based on information indicating major declines in the abundance of
white abalone, NMFS designated the white abalone, a marine
invertebrate, as a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) on July 14, 1997 (62 FR
37560). In August 1998, NMFS contracted with Scripps Institution of
Oceanography for a review of the biological status of white abalone and
current and historical impacts to the species. NMFS received this
status review on April 21, 1999. In order to obtain an independent peer
review of the contracted status review, NMFS requested three non-
federal scientists to review and report on the scientific merits of the
document. The scientists will submit their anonymous reviews by the end
of August 1999.
Section 4 of the ESA contains provisions allowing interested
persons to petition the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) to add a species to or remove a species from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and to
[[Page 51726]]
designate critical habitat. On April 29, 1999, NMFS received a petition
from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Southwest Center for
Biological Diversity to list white abalone as an endangered species on
an emergency basis and designate critical habitat under the ESA.
On May 17, 1999, NMFS received a second petition to list white
abalone as an endangered species throughout its range and to designate
critical habitat under the ESA from the Marine Conservation Biology
Institute, Abalone and Marine Resources Council, Sonoma County Abalone
Network, Asociacion Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente,
Channnel Islands Marine Resource Institute, Proteus SeaFarms
International, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense
Council. NMFS will treat this second request as supplemental
information to the first petition. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) requires that the NMFS make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted. In determining whether substantial
information exists for a petition to list a species, NMFS will take
into account 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, 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)(B) of the ESA requires NMFS to make a
finding as to whether or not the petitioned action is warranted within
1 year of the receipt of the petition.
The definition of ``species'' in section 3(16) of the ESA does not
provide for distinct population segments of invertebrate species to be
listed under the ESA. As a result, the white abalone would have to be
listed throughout its entire range, including Mexico, if the listing is
found to be warranted. In contrast, pursuant to 50 CFR 424.12(h), any
critical habitat designated for white abalone may not include Mexico.
The Secretary may, at any time, issue a regulation adding a species
to the list regarding to any emergency that poses a significant risk to
the well-being of a species under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA. Such
rules will, at the discretion of the Secretary, take effect immediately
on publication in the Federal Register and detail the reasons for an
emergency listing.
Finding
NMFS finds that the petitioners and comments on the petition
present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating
that a listing may be warranted, based on the criteria specified in 50
CFR 424.14(b)(2). Although a positive 90-day finding is not a decision
to list a species, under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, this finding
requires that a review of the status of white abalone be completed
within 12 months of receiving the petition (by April 28, 2000) to
determine whether the petitioned action is warranted.
Emergency Listing
The petitioners express concern about the decline of white abalone
from its original abundance and believe that this decline constitutes
an emergency posing a significant risk to the well-being of the
species. Consequently, the petitioners conclude that white abalone will
go extinct within 10 years unless immediate measures are taken to
restore the species. For these reasons, the petitioners request that
white abalone be listed as an endangered species on an emergency basis
under the ESA.
NMFS finds that there is not substantial evidence to warrant
listing white abalone on an emergency basis under the ESA and believes
that the normal rulemaking procedures are sufficient and appropriate
for the protection of white abalone. Based on NMFS' review of the
petition and on other available information, we believe the decline of
white abalone is primarily the result of over-harvesting in the early
1970s. Regulations limiting abalone harvest were instituted by
California as early as the 1880s and later included restrictions on
minimum size, harvest rate, and timing of harvest. The State of
California closed its commercial and recreational white abalone
fisheries in March 1996 and the best available information indicates
that white abalone habitat is not currently at risk from destruction or
modification.
Because fishery-independent assessment surveys of white abalone
abundance have been limited in number and spatial coverage, a peer
review of the NMFS-funded status review is necessary to determine
whether previous sampling adequately represents the current density of
white abalone. Since 80 percent of the historical white abalone
landings in California were taken from San Clemente Island, the
northern Channel Islands may never have supported high densities of
white abalone. Thus, the estimate of white abalone abundance throughout
its range using density estimates only from the surveys in the northern
Channel Islands may not provide representative estimates of current
abundance.
Thus, NMFS concludes that there is no emergency posing a
significant risk to the well-being of the species. For these reasons,
NMFS is not publishing a regulation to list white abalone as an
endangered species on an emergency basis at this time.
Listing Factors and Basis for Determinations
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species can be determined to be
endangered or threatened for any of the following reasons: (1) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing
determinations are made solely on the best scientific and commercial
data available, after conducting a review of the status of the species
and taking into account efforts made by the State or foreign nations to
protect such species.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the white abalone status review is complete and
based on the best available scientific and commercial data, NMFS is
soliciting information and comments on whether the white abalone is
endangered or threatened based on the above listing criteria.
Specifically, NMFS is soliciting information in the following areas:
historical and current abundance of white abalone, current spatial
distribution, trends in abundance, historic harvest levels, and
possible threats to genetic integrity or demography due to reduced
numbers of white abalone individuals. NMFS is also soliciting
information regarding factors that have contributed to the decline of
white abalone and any efforts being made to protect the species. This
information should address white abalone throughout its range, from
Point Conception, California, U.S.A., to between Punta Tortugas and
Punta Abreojos, Baja California, Mexico.
Critical Habitat
NMFS is also requesting information on areas that may qualify as
critical habitat for white abalone in California. Areas that include
the physical and
[[Page 51727]]
biological features essential to the recovery of the species should be
identified. Areas outside the present range should also be identified
if such areas are essential to the recovery of the species. Essential
features should include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for
individual growth and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover
or shelter; (4) sites for reproduction and development of offspring;
and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of the species.
For areas potentially qualifying as critical habitat, NMFS is
requesting the following information describing: (1) The activities
that affect the area or could be affected by the designation and (2)
the economic costs and benefits of additional requirements of
management measures likely to result from the designation.
The economic cost to be considered in the critical habitat
designation under the ESA is the probable economic impact of the
critical habitat designation upon proposed or ongoing activities (50
CFR 424.19). NMFS considers the incremental costs specifically
resulting from a critical habitat designation that are above the
economic effects attributable to listing the species. Economic effects
attributable to listing include actions resulting from section 7
consultations under the ESA to avoid jeopardy to the species and from
the taking prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA. Comments concerning
economic impacts should distinguish the costs of listing from the
incremental costs that can be directly attributed to the designation of
specific areas as critical habitat.
Data, information, and comments should include: (1) Supporting
documentation, such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of
pertinent publications, and (2) the person's name, address, and
association, institution, or business.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
Dated: September 21, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-24961 Filed 9-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
