[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5976-5979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2713]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7619-4]


Adoption of the CEC Strategic Plan for North American Cooperation 
in the Conservation of Biodiversity; Response to Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On March 21, 2003, EPA published a Notice of Availability (68 
FR 13930) for review of the final draft of the Strategic Plan for North 
American Cooperation in the Conservation of Biodiversity (Strategic 
Plan). Final preparation of the Strategic Plan was based on 
negotiations with counterparts in Canada and Mexico, discussions with 
representatives of the United States Biodiversity Conservation Working 
Group (BCWG), the United States BCWG interagency working group, and 
consideration of comments received under the March 2003 Notice of 
Availability. The Strategic Plan was adopted by the Commission for 
Environmental Cooperation's (CEC) Council on June 25, 2003, as 
specified in CEC Resolution 03-07, under the North American Agreement 
on Environmental Cooperation. The Strategic Plan will be used to guide 
the CEC Council, its BCWG, and the CEC Secretariat in their work with 
stakeholders in cooperatively defining and implementing mutually 
beneficial biodiversity conservation activities in North America.
    This Federal Register document provides responses to comments that 
were received during the comment period for the March 2003 notice of 
availability. All comments received on the notice of availability were 
considered by the United States delegation in the development of the 
final Strategic Plan. However, final negotiations for the Strategic 
Plan, initiation of a ranking process for priority areas for action 
listed in the Strategic Plan, and other program commitments caused a 
delay in publishing the United States government responses.
    Responses to Comments: During the comment period on the notice of 
availability, EPA received 6 comment letters and noted oral comments 
during a meeting held in Washington, DC on April 3, 2003. The comments 
covered several categories. The following responses to the comments 
have been prepared by category:
    1. Compliments and praise for the draft Strategic Plan. The United 
States delegation appreciates the support and positive feedback 
expressed by commenters for the draft Strategic Plan. Resolution 03-07 
of the CEC Council also recognized ``* * * the guidance of the 
Biodiversity Conservation Working Group in the development of the CEC 
Biodiversity Strategic Plan and the input from governmental and 
nongovernmental organizations, indigenous and local communities, 
academia, and the private sector * * *'' in reaching final agreement on 
the Strategic Plan.
    2. The Strategic Plan should be set forth in an action plan. Now 
that the Strategic Plan has been approved by the CEC Council, 
representatives of Canada, Mexico and the United States will work 
closely with the CEC Secretariat to develop a 5-year action plan. The 
action plan will be implemented in the CEC's annual work plan.
    3. Increase the CEC budget to support the Strategic Plan. The CEC's 
budget for all programs and administrative activities is limited to the 
annual contributions agreed by the Parties. Though many commenters as 
for a budget increase, including representatives of the Trilateral 
Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management in a 
May 2003 resolution and representatives of the CEC's Biodiversity 
Conservation Working Group, the Parties will have to work with the CEC 
Secretariat to determine how project funds are allocated. In Resolution 
03-07, the CEC Council directed the Secretariat ``* * * to coordinate 
and seek partners, additional funds, and diverse input regarding the 
implementation of the CEC Biodiversity Strategic Plan, keeping

[[Page 5977]]

the BCWG informed of developments.'' The United States delegation will 
work with the other Parties to assist the Secretariat in achieving the 
CEC Council's directive.
    4. Use existing priority setting systems and greater stakeholder 
involvement. The United States delegation has been sensitive to these 
comments. Incorporation of comments from nongovernmental organizations 
on the Strategic Plan through the March 2003 notice of availability and 
coordination with state agencies as direct members of the United States 
BCWG is a positive step forward in stakeholder involvement. We have 
increased our efforts to inform tribal governments in the United States 
and to seek input from nongovernmental organizations to rank the 29 
priority areas for action that are listed in the Strategic Plan.
    5. Include a flow diagram of the BCWG's relationship to the CEC 
management structure in the Strategic Plan. The United States 
delegation made this request to the CEC Secretariat. However, the CEC 
Secretariat was not prepared to provide such a figure in the Strategic 
Plan because program management changes are planned. An organizational 
chart is proposed for the CEC's 2004 Operational Plan.
    6. Avoid duplication of management efforts with existing programs 
and committees. In May 2003, the BCWG met with the members of the 
Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and 
Management at their Albuquerque, NM meeting. This meeting was effective 
in coordinating the activities of these two organizations involved in 
North American biodiversity issues. The BCWG intends to hold its annual 
meetings to coincide with future Trilateral Committee meetings, which 
will facilitate coordination on North American biodiversity issues. The 
BCWG will also coordinate its activities with other organizations that 
are concerned with transboundary biodiversity issues. Avoiding 
duplication of environmental management efforts is essential given the 
limited resources that the parties have to address continental 
biodiversity problems.
    7. Elevate the role of States and take advantage of State agency 
expertise to promote decentralized natural resource management. One of 
the cornerstones of the United States BCWG is a representative from a 
State wildlife management agency. Through our State representative, 
contact with other State wildlife management agencies is promoted and 
comments are channeled to the other three Representatives of the BCWG 
and corresponding Federal agencies. Both State and Federal 
environmental managers and their personnel, working directly in the 
field, are a significant resource in the conservation of biodiversity 
for North America. The United States BCWG appreciates the dedication of 
State and Federal field personnel to the protection of transboundary 
and domestic biological resources.
    8. Insert a reference to the International Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) in the Strategic Plan. References to specific 
organizations, such as the IAFWA, were initially considered in the 
development of the Strategic Plan. However, the list of agencies grew 
so large, and there was concern that one or more agencies might be left 
out inadvertently, that the decision of the parties was to mention 
agencies and organizations in a generic sense. Therefore, a reference 
to the IAFWA was not included in the Strategic Plan.
    9. Emphasize the role of private lands in the conservation of 
biodiversity. In the discussion about Ecologically Significant Regions, 
the following statement was added to support the role of private lands 
in the conservation of biodiversity: ``The three countries recognize 
that public and private multiple-use and other non-preservation lands 
can play a variety of roles in conservation of biodiversity.'' This 
broad statement demonstrates agreement by the Parties that networks of 
protected areas and private lands are important components in 
protection of North American biodiversity.
    10. Provide an assessment of wildlife protection legislation and 
address international agreements and legislation to support 
biodiversity. The United States delegation did not request including an 
assessment of each party's wildlife protection legislation in the 
Strategic Plan because this CEC's Conservation of Biodiversity Program 
is an international program under the North American Agreement on 
Environmental Cooperation (NAACE). Each country is responsible for 
implementing its own domestic laws and for complying with its 
commitments under ratified international conventions or agreements for 
which they are a party. This Strategic Plan is focused on the 
agreements of the parties under NAACE. An assessment of all wildlife 
protection legislation and other treaties that address biodiversity was 
not considered appropriate for this document.
    11. Think continentally or regionally and act locally. The success 
of regional conservation efforts is measured by the degree to which the 
composite of local actions have achieved success. Ideally local and 
regional objectives support each other. The United States delegation 
acknowledges the concern that large-scale objectives might miss small-
scale detailed priorities. We agree that a suite of approaches and 
tactics will produce a comprehensive conservation plan. For the CEC 
Conservation of Biodiversity Program, there is a bias towards 
regionally shared ecosystems and transboundary species because the CEC 
program has a large-scale and regional focus. The BCWG is aware of this 
issue. As the Biodiversity Program is developed, the BCWG will consider 
environmental management alternatives that address transboundary 
species and their habitats, as well as sensitive species or ecosystems 
that may influence the richness of North America's biodiversity.
    12. Specific comments on the CEC's Priority Ecoregion Report. The 
United States delegation agrees that there are numerous priority 
setting processes designed to refine priority areas for conservation. 
We agree that the CEC Biodiversity Conservation Working Group would do 
well to consider the contributions made in identifying priority regions 
by Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund, The Nature 
Conservancy, and other conservation initiatives. Previous work 
completed by the CEC was presented in the Strategic Plan to document 
work accomplished and to provide a baseline. We acknowledge the 
commenter's concerns regarding specific areas of interest, including 
the Klamath-Siskiyou forests and watersheds of northern California and 
southern Oregon. We agree with your comments that ongoing biodiversity 
surveys and inventories being conducted by leading NGOs should be used 
by CEC Programs, and we agree that, with scant resources, it makes no 
sense to repeat any process or study, unless a comparison of the 
success of a selected management option is the intended result.
    Regarding questions about gap analyses, the wording on ER-1 is 
designed to allow flexibility and broad interpretation to preserve 
options for future work. Future refinements to priority regions of 
North America will evaluate the need to include other significant 
regions. Also, Comments regarding the potential values of connective 
corridors are acknowledged. The language in the Strategic Plan is 
general enough to accommodate such, without listing all specifics. 
Since the U.S. has not signed the Convention on Biological Diversity, 
directly mirroring the work of the CBD is not a requirement, though it 
is a

[[Page 5978]]

consideration. We feel that the thrust of the Strategic Plan is fully 
compatible within ecosystem approaches to conservation.
    13. The Strategic Plan should conserve all species, especially 
threatened resident species, not just migratory or transboundary 
species, and species with large ranges may tend to be adaptable 
generalists. The United States supports collaborative efforts to 
conserve and restore cross-boundary populations of species, especially 
species of common conservation concern. Selected marine and terrestrial 
species of common conservation concern have been identified for 
conservation activities by the parties. In the future, other species 
may be added to the lists based on criteria developed by the BCWG and 
agreed to by the parties. The following tables contain the current 
lists of the CEC's Species of Common Conservation Concern:

                               Terrestrial Species of Common Conservation Concern
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferruginous hawk............................  Buteo regalis
Peregrine falcon............................  Falco peregrinus
Loggerhead shrike...........................  Lanius ludovicianus
Piping plover...............................  Charadrius melodus
Mountain plover.............................  Charadrius montanus
Burrowing owl...............................  Athene cunicularia
Northern spotted owl........................  Strix occidentalis caurina
Mexican spotted owl.........................  Strix occidentalis lucida
Golden-cheeked warbler......................  Dendroica chrysoparia
Whooping crane..............................  Grus Americana
California condor...........................  Gymnogyps californianus
Black-tailed prairie dog....................  Cynomys ludovicianus
Sonoran pronghorn...........................  Antilocapra Americana sonoriensis
Lesser long-nosed bat.......................  Leptonycteris curasoae
Mexican long-nosed bat......................  Leptonycteris nivalis
Black bear..................................  Ursus americanus
Gray wolf...................................  Canis lupus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  Marine Species of Common Conservation Concern
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leatherback turtle..........................  Dermochelys coriacea
Hawksbill turtle............................  Eretmochelys imbricata
Kemp's ridley turtle........................  Lepidochelys kempii
East Pacific green/black turtle.............  Chelonia mydas agassizii
Loggerhead turtle...........................  Caretta caretta
Pink-footed shearwater......................  Puffinus creatopus
Short-tailed albatross......................  Phoebastria albatrus
Xantus's murrelet...........................  Synthlibiramphus hypoleucus
North Atlantic right whale..................  Eubalaena glacialis
North Pacific right whale...................  Eubalaena japonica
Gray Whale..................................  Eschrichtius robustus
Humpback whale..............................  Megaptera novaeangliae
Blue whale..................................  Balaenoptera musculus
Killer whale................................  Orcinus orca
Vaquita.....................................  Phocoena sinus
Guadalupe fur seal..........................  Arctocephalus townsendi
Sea otter...................................  Enhydra lutris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Support the North American Information Network (NABIN) and 
better describe its linkages with partners and its complementary role 
with other networks and databases. The United States BCWG acknowledges 
the value of NABIN, and particularly the need for linking it to other 
networks and clearinghouses. We agree with many commenters regarding 
the value of working with existing programs such as the Natural 
Heritage Program, Nature Serve, and ConserveOnline. By building upon 
existing networks and databases, some of which are quite ambitious, 
NABIN reduces the potential for redundancy. In response to the request 
for a description of NABIN in the Strategic Plan, the NABIN Web site 
URL has been inserted to direct the reader to additional information. 
In response to a request that all significant NABIN partners be listed, 
we refrained from such a list, for the same reasons we have avoided 
similar lists in other contexts. They are dynamic not static, they are 
rarely comprehensively inclusive, and the requests for additions/
insertions never end. While in concept such lists are valuable 
recognition to key actors and collaborators, in practice they become 
unmanageable, with only the time of printing providing any static 
picture.
    15. Trinational development and assessment of scientific data. The 
United States BCWG acknowledges encouragement for trinational 
development and interpretation of scientific data based on actions 
supported by the Strategic Plan, including joint studies to complement 
existing data. The latter seems to urge research that generates data 
complementary to existing data, but also implies cross-border 
complementarities, which begin with complementary field methods and 
reporting units. The Strategic Plan mentions this in general terms in 
the following Priority Area for Action:
    ER-4: ``Promote the complementarity of tools, which assess the 
ecological integrity of habitats and transboundary ecosystems;''
    CS-5: ``Promote the establishment of common monitoring parameters 
and assessment mechanisms for marine, freshwater, and terrestrial 
populations of regional concern;''

[[Page 5979]]

    AI-3 ``Contribute to the establishment and strengthening of 
scientific and technical networks;'' and
    RT-3 ``Facilitate the development of regional analyses, 
transboundary partnerships, actions, and monitoring.''
    16. The Strategic Plan should include evaluation of pesticide 
effects on biodiversity. The Responding to Threats (RT) section of the 
Strategic Plan, in particular RT-3, identifies threats associated with 
pesticide use as a Priority Area for Action. In addition, cross-program 
coordination with the CEC's Sound Management of Chemicals (SMOC) 
program will also aid in evaluating these effects on biodiversity. Such 
cross-program coordination within the CEC is being discussed as an 
important management tool and the United States BCWG supports this type 
of coordination.
    17. The Strategic Plan should include an evaluation of global 
warming and climate change effects on biodiversity. United States 
climate change policy is in the hands of dedicated specialized national 
negotiating teams outside the scope of our nation's BCWG. More 
significantly, the CEC budget is not adequate to address the complexity 
of this topic. Other international fora are more appropriate to address 
the climate change subject. For example, a task force to the Convention 
for Biological Diversity is examining the effects of climate change on 
biodiversity. The United States BCWG recognizes the possible effects 
that changes in climate might generate, but agreed that this topic 
should be addressed through other international conventions.
    18. The Strategic Plan should support work on invasive species and 
link to the CEC's Law and Policy Program. The United States BCWG 
acknowledges commenter's appreciation for the inclusion of invasive 
species in the Strategic Plan. Invasive species will be an important 
focus for the CEC. We also agree that it is desirable to link 
management activities to address threats from invasive species through 
coordination with CEC's other programs.
    19. The Strategic Plan should address loss and degradation of 
habitat, specifically due to oil and gas development. The threat of oil 
and gas development is partly addressed in Priority Area for Action RT-
3 (``Facilitate the development of regional analyses, transboundary 
partnerships, actions, and monitoring that will address the problems 
caused by the release of substances to land, air and water in North 
America as they impact important habitats and migratory and 
transboundary species, and facilitate the development of recovery 
actions in a collaborative fashion.''). In addition, oil and gas 
development concerns may also be address under RT-1 (``Support and 
promote trinational or regional efforts to identify threats facing 
North American ecosystems, habitats, and species; and establish 
priorities for responding to these threats.''). The United States BCWG 
appreciates the commenter's perspective on this topic.
    20. The Strategic Plan neglects agricultural policy and its effects 
of trade policy. Given the finite resources and the CEC's fixed budget, 
it may be desirable to not commit to every complex policy issue 
available. Agricultural policy, often contentious among governments, 
even without factoring in environmental aspects, is a complex arena. 
The CEC may be stretched to address this sensitive and dynamic 
landscape of issues in which its impact may be constrained. It may be 
difficult to influence each party's domestic agricultural policy. It 
may be impossible to alter trinational agricultural policies. However, 
there is room in the Strategic Plan, and through linkages with other 
CEC programs to examine agricultural policy effects on the environment. 
Considerations of agricultural policy potentially fit into the 
Biodiversity Conservation and Trade goal (BT 1-5). The CEC Environment, 
Economy, and Trade program, which has invested in analyses of the 
environmental effects of the trade liberalization, is a logical linkage 
for this subject.
    21. Analyze the importance of the effects of trade on North 
American Biodiversity. The United States BCWG appreciates interest in 
evaluations of the impacts of Trade on biodiversity. We draw the 
commenter's attention to CEC's report titled: ``The Environmental 
Effects of Free Trade,'' http://cec.org/pubs_docs/scope/index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=14, http://cec.org/files/PDF/ECONOMY/111-03-05_en.pdf. The CEC has already been working on this issue, albeit 
in general terms as far as the parameters representing the environment. 
It is difficult to extract the effects of trade liberalization from 
multiple alternative social, economic, and environmental factors that 
also influence biodiversity. Also, biodiversity has not been quantified 
in adequate detail or scale to allow rigorous regional evaluations, 
which forces investigators to rely on extremely broad indices. The 
CEC's Conservation of Biodiversity Program will coordinate closely with 
the Environment, Economy, and Trade Program to address this 
multivariate and important topic.
    Access to the Document: The Strategic Plan may be viewed on the 
CEC's Web site at: http://www.cec.org/programs_projects/conserv_biodiv. Copies of the Strategic Plan may be obtained by contacting 
Patrick Cotter via mail at: Office of International Affairs (2260R), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; via fax at (202) 565-2409; or via e-mail at 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Cotter by telephone at (202) 
564-6414 or by e-mail at [email protected].

C. Thomas McCully,
Acting Assistant Administrator for International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 04-2713 Filed 2-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P