70 FR 64 pgs. 17223-17227 - Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating CriticalHabitat: Petition to List Puget Sound Steelhead as an Endangered orThreatened Species under the Endangered Species Act
Type: PRORULEVolume: 70Number: 64Pages: 17223 - 17227
Docket number: [Docket No. 050310069-5069-01; I.D. 030205C]
FR document: [FR Doc. 05-6714 Filed 4-4-05; 8:45 am]
Agency: Commerce Department
Sub Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Official PDF Version: PDF Version
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
[Docket No. 050310069-5069-01; I.D. 030205C]
RIN 0648-XB30
Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating CriticalHabitat: Petition to List Puget Sound Steelhead as an Endangered orThreatened Species under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION:
Notice of finding; request for information; andinitiation of status review.
SUMMARY:
NMFS received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright onSeptember 13, 2004, to list Puget Sound (Washington) steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS finds that the petition presentssubstantial scientific and commercial information indicating that thepetitioned action may be warranted. Accordingly, NMFS is initiating astatus review of the species. To ensure that the status review is completeand based upon the best available scientific and commercial information,NMFS is soliciting information regarding the viability of, and threats to,Puget Sound O. mykiss populations, efforts being made toprotect the species, and the names of potential peer reviewers.
DATES:
Information and comments on the subject actionmust be received by June 6, 2005
ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments and information byany of the following methods. Please identify submittals as pertaining tothe "Puget Sound O. mykiss status reviewupdate."
• E-mail: PS.Omykiss.nwr@noaa.gov .Include "Puget Sound O. mykiss status review update" in thesubject line of the message.
• Federal e-rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov
• Mail: Submit written comments and information to Chief, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. You may hand-deliver written comments to our office during normal business hours at the street address given above.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: NMFS, Protected Resources 1201 NELloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.
• Fax: 503-230-5441
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information regarding this action contact Garth Griffin, NMFS, NorthwestRegion, (503) 231-2005, or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of ProtectedResources, (301) 713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 13, 2004, NMFS received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright ofOlympia, WA, to list Puget Sound steelhead as an endangered or threatenedspecies under the ESA, and to designate critical habitat. Copies of thepetition are available from NMFS by request, or on the Internet (See ADDRESSES section, above, and "References" section,below).
ESA Statutory and Policy Provisions
Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains provisions concerning petitions frominterested persons requesting the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to listspecies under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). Section 4(b)(3)(A)requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days afterreceiving such a petition, the Secretary make a finding whether thepetition presents substantial scientific and commercial informationindicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. NMFS' ESAimplementing regulations define Asubstantial information@ as theamount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe thatthe measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating apetitioned action, the Secretary considers several factors, includingwhether the petition contains detailed narrative justification for therecommended measure, describing, based on available information, past andpresent numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threatsfaced by the species (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)). In addition, the Secretaryconsiders whether the petition provides information regarding the status ofthe species over all or a significant portion of its range (50 CFR424.14(b)(2)(iii)).
To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of organisms mustconstitute a "species," which is defined in section 3 of theESA to include "any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fishor wildlife which interbreeds when mature" (emphasis added). NMFShas determined that, to qualify as a distinct population segment (DPS), aPacific salmon or O. mykiss population must be substantiallyreproductively isolated and represent an important component in theevolutionary legacy of the biological species. A population meeting thesecriteria is considered to be an "evolutionarily significantunit" (ESU) (56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). In its listingdeterminations for Pacific salmonids under the ESA, NMFS has treated an ESUas constituting a DPS, and hence a "species," under the ESA.
Life History of West Coast O. mykiss
Steelhead is the name commonly applied to the anadromous form of thebiological species O. mykiss . The present distribution ofsteelhead extends from Kamchatka in Asia, east to Alaska, and down to theU.S. Mexico border (Busby et al. , 1996; 67 FR 21586, May 1,2002). O. mykiss exhibit perhaps the most complex suite oflife history traits of any species of Pacific salmonid. They can beanadromous ("steelhead"), or freshwater residents("rainbow or redband trout"), and under some circumstancesyield offspring of the opposite life-history form. Those that areanadromous can spend up to 7 years in freshwater prior to smoltification(the physiological and behavioral changes required for the transition tosalt water), and then spend up to 3 years in salt water prior to firstspawning. O. mykiss is also iteroparous (meaning individuals may spawnmore than once), whereas the Pacific salmon species are principallysemelparous (meaning individuals generally spawn once and die). Within therange of West Coast steelhead, spawning migrations occur throughout theyear, with seasonal peaks of activity. In a given river basin there may beone or more peaks in migration activity; since these "runs" areusually named for the season in which the peak occurs, some rivers may haveruns known as winter, spring, summer, or fall steelhead.
Steelhead can be divided into two basic reproductive ecotypes, based onthe state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry and duration ofspawning migration (Burgner et al., 1992). The summer or"stream-maturing" type enters fresh water in a sexuallyimmature condition between May and October, and requires several months tomature and spawn. The winter or "ocean-maturing" type entersfresh water between November and April with well-developed gonads andspawns shortly thereafter. In basins with both summer and winter steelheadruns, the summer run generally occurs where habitat is not fully utilizedby the winter run, or where an ephemeral hydrologic barrier separates them,such as a seasonal waterfall,. Summer steelhead usually spawn fartherupstream than winter steelhead (Withler, 1966; Roelofs, 1983; Behnke,1992).
Previous ESA Status Review
In 1996, NMFS conducted a comprehensive status review of coastal andinland steelhead stocks in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (Busby et al. , 1996). NMFS convened a Biological Review Team (BRT)of Federal scientists to: (1) identify ESUs of West Coast steelhead, eachof which constitutes a "species" for consideration under theESA; and (2) evaluate the risk of extinction for the identified ESUs. Aspart of this review, NMFS identified a Puget Sound ESU of coastal steelheadoccupying river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and HoodCanal (Washington), as far west as the Elwha River, and as far north as theNooksack River and the United States/Canada border. The Puget Sound ESU isprimarily composed of winter steelhead stocks, but also includes severalsmall stocks of summer steelhead occupying limited habitat. The BRT alsoincluded the resident life-history form in the Puget Sound ESU. Geneticstudies generally show that, in the same geographic area, the resident andanadromous life forms of O. mykiss are more similar to eachother than either is to the same form from a different geographic area. Inparticular, the BRT cited a scientific study indicating that rainbow troutand steelhead are not reproductively isolated in two river basins withinthe Puget Sound ESU (Leider et al. , 1995).
The BRT concluded that the Puget Sound steelhead ESU was not in dangerof extinction or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.However, the BRT was concerned that 17 of 21 stocks in the ESU for whichthere were adequate data exhibited overall declining trends. Positivetrends in abundance for the two largest steelhead runs in the ESU (theSkagit and Snohomish Rivers) mitigated the immediacy of extinction risk,although there was significant concern regarding the sustainability ofother steelhead runs in the ESU (most notably the Deer Creek summer andLake Washington winter steelhead stocks, and stocks in the Hood Canalarea). Given the lack of strong trends in abundance for the major stocksand the apparent limited contribution of hatchery fish to naturalproduction, the BRT concluded that most winter steelhead stocks in thePuget Sound ESU appeared to be naturally self-sustaining.
The BRT noted concern about the potential threat to the geneticintegrity of Puget Sound steelhead posed by past and present hatcherypractices in the Puget Sound area. Hatchery production in this ESU iswidespread and managed to support harvest. Most of the hatchery fishpropagated in the Puget Sound region are winter steelhead derived from asingle stock (the Chambers Creek hatchery stock) that is indigenous to theESU but generally is not native to the local river basins where it ispropagated. The summer steelhead hatchery programs in the Puget Sound areaare derived from an out-of-ESU stock (the Skamania summer steelhead stockfrom the Columbia River). The Skamania hatchery stock has generally beenintroduced in river systems where summer steelhead did not naturally exist,although it has been introduced in some Puget Sound river basins havingnative summer steelhead populations (e.g., the Skagit, Stillaguamish, andSnohomish Rivers). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)employs a hatchery management strategy of promoting isolation betweenhatchery and natural stocks by releasing smolts early and selecting foradvanced spawn timing in winter steelhead hatchery programs. Thisseparation in run timing is intended to allow for high rates of selectiveharvest on returning hatchery fish, while limiting harvest mortality onwild stocks; and to minimize competition (as smolts and adults) and opportunities for interbreeding between naturally spawning hatchery fishand wild fish. However, the BRT noted that separation of run timing isseldom complete. Naturally spawning hatchery fish comprise a substantialproportion of the spawning escapement in many of the rivers in the ESU,possibly competing with, and posing genetic risks to, the local steelheadpopulations. Additionally, the BRT discussed evidence for hatcheryintrogression in some natural Puget Sound winter steelhead populations(Phelps et al. , 1994).
Informed by the BRT's findings (Busby et al. , 1996), NMFSconcluded that the Puget Sound steelhead ESU did not warrant listing underthe ESA (61 FR 41541; August 9, 1996), but expressed concern regarding thesustainability of summer steelhead populations and potentially adverseimpacts from hatchery practices in Puget Sound.
Analysis of Petition
NMFS evaluated whether the information presented in the petitionconcerning Puget Sound steelhead met the ESA's standard for"substantial information" The agency also reviewed otherinformation readily available to NMFS scientists (i.e., currently withinagency files) to determine whether there is general agreement with theinformation presented in the petition.
The petition restates several of the findings of the 1996 status reviewfor the Puget Sound steelhead ESU, including the BRT's ESU delineation,evaluation of extinction risk, and consideration of artificial propagation.Most significantly, the petition provides 10 years of new harvest, spawningescapement, and total-run-size data for nine Puget Sound steelhead stocks(provided to the petitioner by WDFW). The petition concludes that newstatus information describes significant short- and long-term downwardtrends in nearly all river systems where the WDFW data are available,despite significant reductions in recreational and tribal harvest rates onwild steelhead. The petition asserts that there is only one river system,the Skagit River, with a steelhead population large enough to appearresilient to adverse environmental conditions and depensatory (smallpopulation size) risks. The petition argues that the spatial structure ofthe Puget Sound ESU has been severely degraded in the period since the 1996status review, with four geographic regions at risk of extirpation: theJuan de Fuca Strait, Bellingham Bay, Hood Canal, and South Puget Sound.The petition argues that populations are at such low levels of abundancethat catastrophic events, environmental variability, and depensation confera high level of extinction risk into the foreseeable future.
The petition also describes risks to the diversity of the Puget Soundsteelhead ESU. Hybridization between O. mykiss and coastalcutthroat trout ( O. clarki ) is described as a threat todiversity, as well as potentially confounding factor in evaluatingabundance information that may include visually indistinguishable O. mykiss , hybrids, and cutthroat trout. The petitionunderscores concerns described in the 1996 status review regarding adverseimpacts from hatchery fish. Additionally, the petition describes newinformation suggesting that early winter-run hatchery steelhead males holdover in freshwater for an extended period of time and spawn with latewinter-run wild steelhead females (McMillan, 2004), and hatchery juvenilesresidualizing and competing with native rainbow trout and steelhead(McMichael et al. , 1997; Viola and Schuck, 1995). Thepetition notes that hatchery smolt production has increased since the 1996status review, and that the proportion of hatchery-origin smolts andnaturally spawning adults has increased. The petition asserts that thelarge-scale hatchery steelhead programs in the Puget Sound area provide nobenefit to the viability of the Puget Sound ESU, but rather have negativeimpacts including: widespread genetic introgression compromising localadaptations; competition with wild fish as juveniles and adults; andpredation on wild steelhead fry by residualized hatchery steelhead smolts.
In addition to the petition narrative and the new harvest and run sizedata provided, the information presented in the petition includes: (1) aWDFW report on the genetic relationship among anadromous and resident O. mykiss in the Cedar River and Lake Washington in Puget Sound;(2) a paper by the petitioner (Sam Wright) advocating for the management ofsalmonid populations in terms of smolt production rather than traditionalmetrics of numbers of recruits or adult spawners; and (3) a copy ofcomments submitted by the petitioner (Wright, 2004) regarding NMFS'proposed policy for the consideration of hatchery-origin fish in ESAlisting determinations for Pacific salmon and steelhead (69 FR 31354; June3, 2004). The petition concludes, based on the information presented inthe petition, that the Puget Sound steelhead ESU is in danger of extinctionthroughout all or a significant portion of its range or is likely to becomeso in the foreseeable future.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information contained in the petition and reviewinginformation readily available to NMFS scientists (i.e., currently withinagency files), NMFS determines that the petition to list the Puget Soundsteelhead presents substantial scientific and commercial informationindicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. In accordance withsection 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR424.14(b)(2)), NMFS will commence a review of the status of the Puget Sound O. mykiss ESU and make a determination of whether thepetitioned action is warranted.
Listing Factors and Basis for Determination
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, NMFS is to determine whether a speciesis a threatened or endangered species because of any of the followingfactors: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, orcurtailment of a species' habitat or range; (2) overutilization forcommercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) diseaseor predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5)other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continuedexistence. Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, listing determinations areto be made based solely on the best available scientific and commercialdata after conducting a review of the status of the species and aftertaking into account any efforts being made by any state or foreign nationto protect the species.
Information Solicited
To ensure that the updated status review is complete and based on thebest available and most recent scientific and commercial data, NMFS issoliciting information and comments (see DATES and ADDRESSES ) concerning the Puget Sound ESU of O.mykiss , inclusive of the anadromous and resident life history forms.NMFS is particularly interested in information that has become availablesince, or was otherwise not considered in, the 1996 steelhead statusreview.
Biological Information
NMFS is soliciting pertinent information on the viability of naturallyspawned and hatchery populations within these ESUs such as: data onpopulation abundance, recruitment, productivity, escapement, and reproductive success (e.g., spawner-recruit or spawner-spawnersurvivorship, fecundity, smolt production estimates, and smolt-to-adultocean survival rates); historical and present data on hatchery fishreleases, outmigration, survivorship, returns, straying rates, replacementrates, and reproductive success in the wild; data on age structure andmigration patterns of juveniles and adults; meristic, morphometric, andgenetic studies; information on harvest rates on hatchery and wild fish;and spatial or temporal trends in the accessibility, quality and quantityof freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats.
NMFS also requests information regarding the ecological and geneticrelationship of hatchery and natural populations in the Puget Sound area,including: the stock origin and broodstock practices of individualhatchery programs; the degree of known or inferred genetic divergencebetween hatchery and natural stocks; behavioral, morphological, andlife-history traits of hatchery stocks, and the degree of ecologicaldivergence between hatchery and natural stocks; the potential risks andbenefits posed by specific artificial propagation programs to naturallyspawned populations; and planned changes in hatchery management that maycontribute to, or hinder, the viability of the Puget Sound O.mykiss ESU.
NMFS is also soliciting pertinent information about resident rainbowtrout populations (above and below natural and man-made barriers to fishpassage) and their relationship with the anadromous life-history formwithin the geographic range occupied by the ESU. Specifically, NMFS isseeking information regarding: the range, distribution, and habitat-usepatterns of resident rainbow trout populations; the abundance, density, andpresence/absence of resident rainbow trout; genetic or other relevant dataindicating the amount of reproductive exchange between the two life-historyforms; the frequency with which a given life-history produces offspring ofthe opposite life-history form; the historic and current degree ofrelatedness between steelhead and resident rainbow trout life historyforms; the existence of natural and man-made barriers to passage foranadromous and resident populations; the relationship of resident fishlocated above impassible natural and man-made barriers to anadromous andresident populations below such barriers to fish passage; and the spatialand temporal trends in the quality and quantity of freshwater habitat.
Information Regarding Protective Efforts
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make listingdeterminations solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercialdata available after conducting a review of the status of a species andafter taking into account efforts being made to protect the species.Therefore, in making its listing determinations, NMFS first assesses thestatus of the species and identifies factors that have led to its currentstatus. NMFS then assesses conservation measures to determine whether theyameliorate a species' extinction risk (50 CFR 424.11(f)). In judging theefficacy of conservation efforts, NMFS considers the following: thesubstantive, protective, and conservation elements of such efforts; thedegree of certainty that such efforts will reliably be implemented; thedegree of certainty that such efforts will be effective in furthering theconservation of the species; and the presence of monitoring provisions todetermine effectiveness of recovery efforts and that permit adaptivemanagement (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). In some cases, conservationefforts may be relatively new or may not have had sufficient time todemonstrate their biological benefit. In such cases, provisions ofadequate monitoring and funding for conservation efforts are essential toensure that the intended conservation benefits will be realized. NMFSencourages all parties to submit information on ongoing efforts to protectand conserve steelhead and rainbow trout populations in Puget Sound, aswell as information on recently implemented or planned activities (i.e.,since the 1996 status review) and their likely impact(s).
Information Regarding Potential Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA as: (1) thespecific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at thetime it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found thosephysical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of thespecies and (b) which may require special management considerations orprotection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupiedby the species at the time it is listed upon a determination that suchareas are essential for the conservation of the species. Once criticalhabitat is designated, section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies toensure that they do not fund, authorize or carry out any actions that arelikely to destroy or adversely modify that habitat. This requirement is inaddition to the section 7 requirement that Federal agencies ensure thattheir actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listedspecies.
Section 4(a)(3)(a) of the ESA requires that, to the extent prudent anddeterminable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listingof a species. Designations of critical habitat must be based on the bestscientific data available and must take into consideration the economic,national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any particulararea as critical habitat. In advance of any determination to proposelisting the Puget Sound O. mykiss ESU under the ESA, NMFS is solicitinginformation that would assist the agency in developing a critical habitatproposal.
Joint NMFS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations for listingendangered and threatened species and designating critical habitat (50 CFR424.12(b)) state that the agency "shall consider those physical andbiological features that are essential to the conservation of a givenspecies and that may require special management considerations orprotection (referred to above as "essential physical and biologicalfeatures"). Pursuant to the regulations, such requirements include,but are not limited to the following: (1) space for individual andpopulation growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light,minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover orshelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring,germination, or seed dispersal; and generally, (5) habitats that areprotected from disturbance or are representative of the historicgeographical and ecological distributions of a species. These regulationsemphasize that the agency shall focus on essential features within thespecific areas considered for designation. These features "mayinclude, but are not limited to, the following: spawning sites, feedingsites, seasonal wetland or dryland, water quality or quantity, geologicalformation, vegetation type, tide, and specific soil types." Forother ESUs of West Coast O. mykiss, NMFS has identified the followingphysical or biological features as essential to their conservation: (1)Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions andsubstrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval development. (2)Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity toform and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growthand mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; andnatural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jamsand beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, sidechannels, and undercut banks. (3) Freshwater migration corridors free ofobstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural coversuch as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, largerocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenileand adult mobility and survival. (4) Estuarine areas free of obstructionwith water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supportingjuvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh- and saltwater;natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquaticvegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels; and juvenile andadult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growthand maturation. (5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with waterquality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebratesand fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such assubmerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks andboulders, and side channels. (6) Offshore marine areas with water qualityconditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,supporting growth and maturation. NMFS is soliciting comment on theapplicability of these features to Puget Sound O. mykiss andis also soliciting information regarding the specific areas within thegeographical area occupied by Puget Sound O. mykiss wheresuch essential physical and biological features may be found.
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to consider the"economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevantimpact," of designating a particular area as critical habitat.Section 4(b)(2) further authorizes the Secretary to exclude any area from acritical habitat designation if the Secretary finds that the benefits ofexclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless excluding that areawill result in extinction of the species. We seek information regardingthe benefits of designating specific areas geographically within the PugetSound O. mykiss ESU as critical habitat (i.e., specific areaswithin the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, andHood Canal, Washington, as far west as the Elwha River, and as far north asthe Nooksack River and the United States/Canada border). We also seekinformation on the economic impact of designating particular areas as partof the critical habitat designation. In keeping with the guidance providedby the Office of Management and Budget (2000, 2003), we seek informationthat would allow the monetization of these effects to the extent possible,as well as information on qualitative impacts to economic values. We arealso seeking information on impacts to national security and any otherrelevant impacts of designating critical habitat in these areas.
In accordance with the Secretarial Order on American Indian TribalRights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered SpeciesAct (June 5, 1997), if it is determined that the Puget Sound O.mykiss ESU warrants listing we will coordinate with Federallyrecognized American Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis todetermine how to make critical habitat assessments in areas that may impacttribal trust resources. In accordance with our regulations (50 CFR 424.13)we will consult as appropriate with affected states, interested persons andorganizations, other affected Federal agencies, and, in cooperation withthe Secretary of State, with the country or countries in which the speciesconcerned are normally found or whose citizens harvest such species fromthe high seas. Data reviewed may include, but are not limited to,scientific or commercial publications, administrative reports, maps orother graphic materials, information received from experts, and commentsfrom interested parties.
Identification of Peer Reviewers
On July 1, 1994, NMFS, jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,published a series of policies regarding listings under the ESA, includinga policy for peer review of scientific data (59 FR 34270). The intent ofthe peer review policy is to ensure that listings are based on the bestscientific and commercial data available. On December 15, 2004, the Officeof Management and Budget issued a "Final Information Quality ActBulletin for Peer Review," which establishes peer reviewrequirements for Federal agencies before disseminating important scientificinformation. If NMFS determines that listing is warranted, the agency willsolicit the expert opinions of qualified specialists, concurrent with thepublic comment period following the publication of a proposed rule. Inadvance of any such determination, NMFS is soliciting the names andaffiliations of experts from the academic and scientific community, NativeAmerican tribal groups, federal and state agencies, and the private sector,as potential reviewers.
References
Copies of the petition and related materials are available on theInternet at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov , or upon request (see ADDRESSES section above).
Authority:
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: March 30, 2005.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine FisheriesService.
[FR Doc. 05-6714 Filed 4-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S