54028 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

* * * * * * *

Dated: September 12, 1997.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97–27548 Filed 10–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE41

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposal to List the St.

Andrew Beach Mouse as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) proposes endangered status for

the St. Andrew Beach Mouse

(Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis)

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, as amended (Act). This

subspecies is restricted to coastal sand

dunes and had a historic distribution

that included the northeast Florida

panhandle from Gulf County into

portions of Bay County. Its current range

is limited to a portion of the St. Joseph

Peninsula in Gulf County. Habitat

impacts causing loss of mice and the

species’ local capability to recover from

such impacts are primarily responsible

for the range curtailment. Threats to

beach mouse habitat include severe

storms, coastal land development and

its associated activities, and non-storm

related, natural shoreline erosion.

Additional threats include predation by

free-ranging domestic cats and

displacement by house mice. This

proposal, if made final, would

implement the protection provisions

provided by the Act for this beach

mouse.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by December

16, 1997. Public hearing requests must

be received by December 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to Michael M. Bentzien, Assistant Field

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive South,

Suite 310, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Michael M. Bentzien, at the above

address (telephone 904/232–2580, ext.

106; facsimile 904/232–2404).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The oldfield mouse (Peromyscus

polionotus) occurs in northeastern

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South

Carolina, and Florida. Beach mice are

coastal subspecies of the oldfield mouse

restricted to beach and sand dune

habitat. Hall (1981) recognized eight

coastal subspecies whose common

distinguishing characteristics include

white feet, large ears, and large black

eyes. Their fur is variously patterned in

shades of white, yellow, brown, and

grey. The head, back, and rump are

darkly patterned, though to a lighter and

less extensive degree than inland

oldfield mice. The all-white underparts

extend higher up to the sides than on

the inland subspecies (Sumner 1926,

Bowen 1968). Howell (1939) described

the type (original) specimen of the St.

Andrew beach mouse as having a very

pale, buff-colored head and back with

extensive white coloration underneath

and along the sides. Bowen (1968) noted

two distinct rump color pigmentations,

one a tapered and the other a squared

pattern, which extended to the thighs.

Head and body lengths average 75

millimeters (mm) (2.95 inches (in)), tail

mean length 52 mm (2.05 in), and hind

foot mean length 18.5 mm (0.73 in)

(James 1992).

Beach mice subspecies historically

occurred on both the Atlantic Coast of

Florida from St. Johns through Broward

counties and the eastern Gulf of Mexico

from Gulf County, Florida, to Baldwin

County, Alabama (Ivey 1949, Bowen

1968, James 1992, Stout 1992, Gore and

Schaefer 1993). The St. Andrew beach

mouse is the easternmost of the five

Gulf coast subspecies. Howell (1939)

collected the type specimen at St.

Andrew Point on Crooked Island,

Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County,

Florida (type locality). Other historic

collection records for the subspecies

include nine additional specimens from

the type locality, seven mice from St.

Joseph Point and four mice from Cape

San Blas on the St. Joseph Peninsula in

Gulf County, 48 individuals at or near

the town of Port St. Joe located on the

central Gulf County coastal mainland,

and four specimens near Money Bayou

in eastern Gulf County (Bowen 1968).

Based on these records, Bowen (1968)

and James (1992) described the former

range of the St. Andrew beach mouse as

likely extending from the St. Joseph Spit

(Peninsula) northwest along the coastal

mainland adjacent to St. Joseph Bay, to

Crooked Island at the East Pass of St.

Andrews Bay. This range also included

about 0.6 kilometer (km) (1 mile (mi)) of

mainland sand dune habitat east of the

landward end of the St. Joseph

Peninsula to Money Bayou on the Gulf

of Mexico. The absence of past

collection records and lack of beach

mouse sign and trapping success in the

area east of Money Bayou to the

southeastern corner of Gulf County

(James 1987; J. Gore, Florida Game and

Fresh Water Fish Commission, in litt.

1994) suggest that this area may not be

part of the subspecies’ historic range.

Coastal tidal marsh and upland

habitat between the mainland city of

Port St. Joe and the St. Joseph Peninsula

naturally divided the former range of

the St. Andrew beach mouse into two

segments. Initial genetic analysis of a

small sample of mice from these

segments and another subspecies, the

Choctawhatchee beach mouse (P.

polionotus allophrys), from nearby

habitat found similarities between the

Crooked Island and St. Joseph Peninsula

samples at one gene location (locus).

The Crooked Island sample was

distinctly different from the

Choctawhatchee beach mouse sample at

the same locus. Additional work is

needed to determine if these patterns

are consistent at several loci (Moyers

1997).

Typical beach mouse habitat generally

consists of several rows of sand dunes

paralleling the shoreline. Prevailing

wind, beach sand, and vegetation

combine to form and shape coastal

dunes. A common complex of animal

species, vegetation, and habitat types

characterize the coastal sand dune

ecosystem. The types and amount of

animals, vegetation, and habitat may

differ, however, among specific sites.

The common types of sand dune habitat

include frontal dunes, primary dunes,

secondary dunes, inter and intradunal

swales, and scrub dunes. Frontal dunes

and primary dunes are those closest to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 54029

the shoreline, most recently formed, and

highly dynamic. The foreslope of

primary dunes grades into the

developing frontal dunes on the open

beach. Frontal dunes on the Gulf Coast

are sparsely vegetated, usually by sea

oats (Uniola paniculata), bluestem

(Schizachyrium maritimum), beach

grass (Panicum amarum), and sea rocket

(Cakile constricta). Primary dunes also

support stands of these species and

include other broad-leaved plants such

as seaside pennywort (Hydrocotyle

bonariensis), seashore elder (Iva

imbricata), and beach morning glory

(Ipomea stolonifera) (Clewell 1985).

Secondary dunes consist of one or more

dune lines landward of the primary

dune with a similar though denser

vegetative cover. Interdunal swales are

wet or dry depressions between primary

and secondary dunes while intradunal

swales occur within primary dunes as a

result of wave action, storm surges, and

wind erosion. Wet swales are those

whose water table is at or near the

surface. Swale vegetation includes

plants found on primary and secondary

dunes as well as salt meadow cordgrass

(Spartina patens), rushes (Juncus sp.),

sedges (Cyperus sp.), and saltgrass

(Distichlis spicata). Scrub dunes are the

oldest of the dune habitat types and are

dominated by woody plants including

saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), myrtle

oak (Quercus myrtifolia), sand live oak

(Q. geminata), sand pine (Pinus clausa),

slash pine (P. elliottii), seaside rosemary

(Ceratiola ericoides), greenbrier (Smilax

sp.), and bush goldenrod (Chrysoma

pauciflosculosa). Reindeer moss

(Cladonia leporina) often covers

otherwise bare dune surfaces. Some

primary and secondary dune vegetation

is also present but at reduced densities

(Blair 1951, Gibson and Looney 1992).

Size and density of understory and

overstory vegetation may vary.

Trap surveys at Crooked Island and

on the St. Joseph Peninsula documented

the presence of St. Andrew beach mouse

on frontal dunes, as well as on primary

and secondary dunes (James 1987; Gore

in litt. 1990, 1994; Bates 1992, Moyers

et al. 1996, Mitchell et al. 1997). These

results supported other surveys which

found that the greatest concentration of

most other beach mice subspecies

occurred in these habitat types (Blair

1951, Hill 1989, Frank and Humphrey

1992, Holler 1992). This concentration

is due in part to a predominance of

plants whose seeds and fruits are

important seasonal constituents of

beach mouse diets (Moyers 1996).

Although beach mice occur on

interdunal and intradunal swales,

studies of other beach mouse subspecies

indicate that, in general, they use this

habitat type less frequently when

compared to frontal, primary, and

secondary dunes (Blair 1951, Hill 1989,

Gore and Schaefer 1993, Novak 1997).

James (1987) only rarely observed St.

Andrew beach mouse tracks in the

interdunal areas within St. Joseph

Peninsula State Park (SJPSP), located

within the northern 15 km (9 mi) of the

peninsula.

Various researchers have also

documented the occurrence of other

beach mouse subspecies within scrub

dunes (Extine and Stout 1987, Hill 1989,

Rave and Holler 1992, Gore and

Schaefer 1993, Swilling et al. 1996,

Moyers et al. 1996, Novak 1997). Blair

(1951) believed that the scrub dunes on

Santa Rosa Island offered abundant food

and cover for the Santa Rosa beach

mouse (P. p. leucocephalus). Scrub

dunes may also function as refugia

during and after storms and as a source

for recolonization of storm-damaged

dunes (Moyers et al. 1996, Swilling et

al. 1996). Their use by the St. Andrew

beach mouse is not well documented.

James (1987) noted the absence of tracks

in scrub dunes within SJPSP, although

she did collect mice in 1986 from wellvegetated back dunes on Crooked Island

(James 1992). Moyers et al. (1996)

captured beach mice within SJPSP in

secondary dunes immediately adjacent

to scrub dunes.

Based on a study of other Gulf coast

subspecies that included habitat

conditions following Hurricane

Frederick, Meyers (1983) reported that

the minimum post-storm area needed to

allow beach mice to persist was 50

hectares (ha) (124 acres (ac)). He also

determined that a habitat size from 100

to 200 ha (247 to 494 ac) supporting a

population of 127 mice was optimal for

that population to recover from habitat

impacts produced by a storm of

comparable intensity. Meyer’s figures

should be used with caution, however,

since he did not know pre-storm habitat

conditions or population numbers

within the study area.

Beach mouse populations can at times

undergo great seasonal variations in

numbers (Bowen 1968, Extine and Stout

1987). Prior to human disturbance,

hurricanes and tropical storms likely

were the dominant factors producing

rapid and possible widespread impacts

on beach mice and their habitat.

Because the St. Andrew beach mouse

evolved under adverse weather

conditions, the subspecies developed

the capability to survive and recover

from these periodic severe impacts to its

numbers and habitat. During this

century, however, more rapid land

development, dune encroachment by

pedestrians and vehicles, and military

activities began to contribute to these

impacts (James 1992). Bowen (1968) was

unable to collect beach mice from one

or more historic sites during a 1961 field

trip. Hurricane Eloise split Crooked

Island into east and west segments in

1975, and multiple attempts to collect

beach mice from the western segment

during the early and mid-1980’s were

unsuccessful (Gore in litt. 1987). During

this same period, trap surveys collected

small numbers of beach mice on the

eastern segment. Limited trap and track

surveys during the late 1980’s found no

evidence of beach mice within

undeveloped coastal mainland habitat

between Crooked Island and Money

Bayou, as well as on the St. Joseph

Peninsula from near the southern border

of SJPSP through Cape San Blas to the

northeastern end of the peninsula (Gore

in litt. 1990, James 1987). Both surveys

revealed that mice still existed on

Crooked Island East and also occurred

within SJPSP. Gore collected 3.6 mice

per 100 trap nights during his 1989

survey within the park. Based on her

survey results, James (1992) estimated

the Crooked Island East population at

150 mice and the population within

SJPSP at 500 mice. Gore speculated that

the range wide population at its lowest

contained several hundred mice.

Extensive surveying of primary,

secondary, and scrub dune habitat on

Crooked Island East during the 1990’s

revealed that the beach mouse

population there no longer existed (Gore

in litt. 1994, Holler in litt. 1994). Similar

efforts at Cape San Blas on Eglin Air

Force Base and U.S. Coast Guard

properties yielded no mice (Gore in litt.

1994). Bates (1992) did capture 338

separate individuals within SJPSP at a

rate of 26.64 mice per 100 trap nights.

In 1993 and 1994, Gore (in litt. 1994)

again sampled habitat between SJPSP

and Cape San Blas and trapped nine

beach mice for a capture rate of 7.56

mice per 100 trap nights. Based on the

survey findings to date, Gore (in litt

1994, 1995) assumed that the St.

Andrew beach mouse was then

restricted to the northern 20 to 25 km

(12.5 to 15.5 mi) of the St. Joseph

Peninsula.

In October 1995, Hurricane Opal

caused extensive coastal damage to the

Florida panhandle. Habitat impacts

within the St. Joseph Peninsula

appeared more extensive outside SJPSP

boundaries (Gore in litt. 1995). Using an

average density estimate of 2.5 mice per

hectare, Gore (in litt. 1995) calculated

that the total population of St. Andrew

beach mice remaining after the storm

was around 190 individuals. Moyers et

al. (1996) trapped a total of about 5.25

km (3 mi) of habitat throughout SJPSP
54030 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

in December 1995 and captured 62

individuals for a rate of 3.44 mice per

100 trap nights. They estimated the

population size within the sampled area

at 127, a figure which compared

favorably to Gore’s post-hurricane

estimate. Moyers (1996a) later collected

an additional 11 mice on William J. Rish

State Park and on some private parcels

within the St. Joseph Peninsula

immediately south of SJPSP. The most

recent trap survey within SJPSP

(February 1997) collected 117 mice for

a capture rate of 9.00 mice per 100 trap

nights (Mitchell et al. 1997). They

estimated that SJPSP currently may

support between 300 and 500 mice. The

estimate represents a significant

increase over the 1995 post-Hurricane

Opal survey and is comparable to the

last pre-Hurricane Opal survey within

the park (Bates 1992).

In addition to habitat impacts, other

factors believed to potentially threaten

the continued existence of the St.

Andrew beach mouse are predation,

particularly by free-ranging domestic

cats (Felis silvestris) and non-native

coyotes (Canis latrans), and

displacement by house mice (Mus

musculus).

Previous Federal Action

The Service included the St. Andrew

beach mouse as a category 2 species in

its September 18, 1985, notice of review

of vertebrate wildlife (50 FR 37958). At

that time, category 2 species were

defined as those for which information

in possession of the Service indicated

that proposing to list as endangered or

threatened was possibly appropriate,

but for which conclusive data on

biological vulnerability and threat(s)

were not currently available to support

a proposed rule. The Service published

an updated, combined animal notice of

review (ANOR) on January 6, 1989,

which retained the species’ category 2

classification (54 FR 554). In the

November 21, 1991, ANOR update, the

St. Andrew beach mouse was

designated a candidate for listing (56 FR

58804). The Service retained this

classification in the November 15, 1994,

ANOR (59 FR 59020) and in the most

recent notice of review published on

February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596).

The processing of this proposed rule

conforms with the Service’s fiscal year

1997 listing priority guidance published

in the Federal Register on December 5,

1996 (61 FR 64475). The guidance calls

for giving highest priority to handling

emergency situations (Tier 1) and

second highest priority (Tier 2) to

resolving the status of outstanding

proposed listings. Third priority (Tier 3)

is given to resolving the conservation

status of candidate species and

processing administrative findings on

petitions to add species to the lists or

reclassify threatened species to

endangered status. The processing of

this proposed rule falls under Tier 3. At

this time, the Southeast Region has no

pending Tier 1 actions and is near

completion of its pending Tier 2 actions.

Additionally, the guidance states that

‘‘effective April 1, 1997, the Service will

concurrently undertake all of the

activities included in Tiers 1, 2, and 3’’

(61 FR 64480).

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4 of the Endangered Species

Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424)

promulgated to implement the listing

provisions of the Act set forth the

procedures for adding species to the

Federal lists. A species may be

determined to be an endangered or

threatened species due to one or more

of the five factors described in section

4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the St. Andrew beach

mouse (Peromyscus polionotus

peninsularis) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Using historic topographic maps and

their habitat references, the Service

calculated that 66 km (41 mi) of the

estimated 86 km (53.5 mi) of linear area

within the historic range of the St.

Andrew beach mouse contained sand

dune habitat. From field surveys, Gore

(in litt. 1994, 1995) estimated the

amount of recently occupied habitat to

be between 20 and 23 km (14.3 to 12.5

mi), all within the northern two-thirds

of the St. Joseph Peninsula. This

represents up to a 68 percent

curtailment of historic sand dune

habitat within the subspecies’ former

range.

Natural events and manmade

activities that have impacted the St.

Andrew beach mouse and its habitat

include severe storms, land

development, military exercises on

Crooked Island, dune encroachment by

vehicles and pedestrians, and non-storm

related shoreline erosion. Between 1871

and 1995, nearly 50 hurricanes or

tropical storms occurred within 90 mi of

St. Joe Bay, which is about midway

within the historic range of the species.

In this century, storm strength,

proximity to the historic range, and

degree of habitat impact have been

especially intense during the last 30

years (Doehring et al. 1994). In 1975,

Hurricane Eloise breached Crooked

Island, dividing it into two segments

and severely eroding and fragmenting

dunes, particularly within the newlyformed western segment (R. Bates, pers.

comm. 1995). In 1985, Hurricane Kate

scoured dunes within the entire range of

the St. Andrew beach mouse. These

storms caused extensive blowouts in the

high dunes throughout the St. Joseph

Peninsula (James 1992). In 1995,

Hurricane Opal, which made landfall 85

mi west of St. Joe Bay, severely damaged

and fragmented frontal and primary

sand dunes within the historic range of

the beach mouse. The most seriously

impacted areas were the unoccupied

habitat from Crooked Island to Mexico

Beach. Gore (in litt. 1995) estimated an

average loss of 52 percent of occupied

area within the St. Joseph Peninsula,

with the greatest impacts occurring

south of SJPSP. Although the

population within the SJPSP has since

recovered, the Service believes that,

coupled with additional land

development, consecutive years of

severe weather or a single season of

intense storms over or in close

proximity to currently occupied habitat

may result in extinction of the

subspecies.

Land development has been primarily

responsible for the permanent loss of St.

Andrew beach mouse habitat. Historic

maps suggest that earlier construction of

State Road 98 and incorporated

development from the vicinity of Port

St. Joe to Mexico Beach occurred within

one or more types of coastal sand dune

habitat. Little or no suitable habitat

currently occurs at the seaward side of

some of these incorporated areas (J.

Danford, Gulf County Division of Solid

Waste, pers. comm. 1997). This density

of development also tends to fragment

remaining undeveloped habitat. Meyers

(1983) believed that intense

development could act as a barrier to

migration, isolating mice within these

habitat segments and making them more

vulnerable to local extinction from one

or more threats. Neither Gore (in litt.

1990) nor James (1987) found evidence

of beach mice within these fragmented

parcels located along the coast between

Port St. Joe and Mexico Beach. The

current status of beach mice within

these parcels is unknown.

Gore (in litt. 1994) ranked continued

habitat loss on the St. Joseph Peninsula

as one of the most serious long-term

threats to the St. Andrew beach mouse

outside of the State parks. He attributed

beach mouse presence in the area

between SJPSP and Cape San Blas in

1994 to the relatively low density of

housing compared to mainland areas,

and the apparent low threat from freeranging domestic cats, which he

believed was related to the primary use
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 54031

of the residences as vacation homes. In

addition, most structures are set back

from the frontal and primary dune lines.

Since 1994, additional construction has

occurred in this area, as well as within

unoccupied habitat on the remainder of

the peninsula (J. Danford, pers. comm.

1997). The construction has proceeded

despite the unavailability of federally

financed loans or flood insurance (see

factor D). The Service believes that

continued construction may result in

intense development of secondary and

scrub dunes, resulting in the severe

fragmentation or loss of these habitat

types. These areas are known to be

important to other beach mice

subspecies (see ‘‘Background’’ section).

Intense impacts to these habitat types,

coupled with severe storms affecting

frontal and primary dunes, may

contribute to the extinction of the St.

Andrew beach mouse. Gulf County has

constructed snow fencing and planted

dune vegetation to restore frontal and

primary dunes on the St. Joseph

Peninsula and elsewhere damaged as a

result of Hurricane Opal (J. Danford,

pers. comm. 1997).

Other human activities impact beach

mouse habitat. Gore (in litt. 1994)

described the sand dunes east of Cape

San Blas as having little vegetation and

generally in poor quality. He attributed

this situation to a combination of storm

damage exacerbated by vehicular traffic

on the beach. Although Gulf County has

updated its beach driving ordinance in

an attempt to eliminate dune impacts on

the St. Joseph Peninsula (Gulf County

Commission 1997), some areas continue

to have problems with dune

encroachment by all-terrain vehicles (D.

Wibberg, Office of the Gulf County

Board of Commissioners, pers. comm.

1997). Prior to 1985, trial exercises with

military hovercraft contributed to

habitat degradation on Crooked Island

(James 1992). The Department of

Defense has since discontinued this

practice (R. Bates, Tyndall Air Force

Base, pers. comm. 1995) and is restoring

dune habitat and funding translocation

of beach mice onto Crooked Island.

Severe natural erosion within a

section of beach north of Cape San Blas,

primarily within U.S. Coast Guard

property on the St. Joseph Peninsula,

has resulted in the loss of frontal,

primary, and secondary dunes (Gore in

litt. 1994). Sporadic natural shoreline

erosion of frontal and primary dunes is

also occurring north of this area to

SJPSP, as well as between Cape San Blas

and Money Bayou. The principal effect

in the area of severe erosion has been to

isolate occupied habitat on the northern

peninsula from unoccupied habitat

between Cape San Blas and Money

Bayou. The additional natural erosion

has resulted in some habitat

fragmentation.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

This factor is not now known to be

applicable.

C. Disease or Predation

The impact of parasites and pathogens

on beach mice populations and their

potential contribution to the decline of

the St. Andrew beach mouse are

unknown. Significant adverse impacts

from these factors might occur when

combined with or as a function of other

threats. Studies and observations by

various researchers strongly suggest that

predation, especially by free-ranging

domestic cats, is an important factor

contributing to the loss of mice from

local habitat within or adjacent to

developed areas (Blair 1951, Humphrey

and Barbour 1981, Holliman 1983,

Humphrey et al. 1987). Bowen (1968)

provided an anecdotal report on the

complete absence of beach mouse sign

on a 3.2 km (2 mi) stretch of beach

having abundant cat tracks. Frank and

Humphrey (1992) noted a reduction of

cat sign on dunes and an increase in

Anastasia Island beach mouse (P. p.

phasma) numbers and mean

survivorship following removal of 15 to

20 cats from the camping area at

Anastasia State Recreation Area. Gore

and Schaeffer (1993) found a significant

inverse relationship between the ratio of

Santa Rosa beach mice to cat tracks on

sample transects within developed and

undeveloped dune areas on Santa Rosa

Island. Their median transects in the

developed areas contained no mouse

tracks and 13 cat tracks. Bates (1992)

found that predators in SJPSP did not

appear to concentrate near dunes and

the infrequent house cat tracks observed

occurred mainly near structures.

Although Bates failed to capture beach

mice in dunes adjacent to the camping

areas, Moyers et al. (1996) did capture

mice and observe tracks in these areas.

Gore (in litt. 1994) believed that the

house cat population then on private

lands south of SJPSP was less of a

problem than other developed areas

because the residences there served

mainly as seasonal vacation homes. He

nevertheless believed further

introductions associated with additional

land development could pose a serious

threat to beach mouse populations.

Other mammalian predators occurring

on sand dunes within SJPSP include

fox, bobcat, raccoon, and coyote (Bates

1992). Coyotes are relatively recent

migrants to SJPSP and Crooked Island,

where they have become predators on

sea turtle nests (S. Shea, Tyndall Air

Force Base, pers. comm. 1994; J. Bente,

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, pers. comm. 1995).

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

The Federal Coastal Barrier Resources

Act of 1982 and the Coastal Barrier

Improvement Act of 1990 (CBRA)

prohibit most new Federal expenditures

and financial assistance within Coastal

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units.

CBRA also prohibits the sale of new

Federal flood insurance for new

construction or substantial

improvements within otherwise

protected areas. There are two CBRS

units and one otherwise protected area

within the historic range of the St.

Andrew beach mouse. The Cape San

Blas Unit (P30) covers all of the St.

Joseph Peninsula, while the otherwise

protected area (P30P) corresponds with

the boundaries of St. Joseph Peninsula

State Park. Habitat west of the city of

Mexico Beach, including Crooked Island

East and West, are part of the St.

Andrew Complex Unit (P31). CBRA

does not prohibit use of non-Federal or

private funds to finance or insure

projects within CBRS units or otherwise

protected areas. As a result, coastal

construction may still proceed within

all remaining undeveloped parcels

within the subspecies’ historic range.

Eglin Air Force Base currently allows

beach driving through its Cape San Blas

property and adjacent property it leases

from and manages for the U.S. Coast

Guard. However, the agreement with

Gulf County prohibits vehicles and

pedestrians from encroaching on or near

sand dunes. Strict enforcement of this

provision has been difficult due to the

distance of Eglin’s main base from the

Cape San Blas unit and the lack of

onsite enforcement personnel. The

distance also hampers efforts at

evaluating and taking action on

potential problems associated with freeranging domestic cats.

State laws protect sea oats, a critical

component of the dune vegetative

community, from being picked on

public land but do not prohibit this

activity on private land nor their

destruction during construction

activities. State-regulated Coastal

Construction Control Lines (CCCL)

correspond to the limits of the coastal

high hazard 100-year storm event

impact area. Construction seaward of

the CCCL requires permits whose

stringent requirements generally result

in protection of beach, frontal dune, and

primary dune habitats (G. Chelicki,

Florida Department of Environmental
54032 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Protection, pers. comm. 1997). The same

protections are not afforded to

secondary and scrub dune habitats

occurring landward of the CCCL. The

State has designated Crooked Island

East and West as critical wildlife areas,

which would protect plants and animals

from take or disturbance by pedestrians,

vehicles, and dogs, but this designation

does not address habitat protection (S.

Shea in litt. 1997).

The St. Andrew beach mouse is listed

as a State endangered species. Chapter

39–27.002 of the Florida Administrative

Code prohibits the take, possession, or

sale of endangered species except as

authorized by specific permit for the

purpose of enhancing the survival

potential of the species. The law does

not provide for the protection or

conservation of a listed species’ habitat.

Bay County, Florida, restricts beach

driving to permitted vendors. State

parks on the St. Joseph Peninsula do not

permit beach driving within their

boundaries. Gulf County regulates beach

driving on the peninsula between

Indian Pass and SJPSP by ordinance and

permits. The ordinances restrict the

number of vehicle access points and

prohibits driving in, on, or over sand

dunes or vegetated areas. They do not

address pedestrian encroachment. The

most recent revised ordinance creates a

7.6 meter (25 foot) dune buffer zone

within a portion of the St. Joseph

Peninsula, in which beach driving and

parking are prohibited (Misty Nabers,

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, pers. comm. 1997). This

revision does not apply to the section of

the peninsula between about 3.2 km (2

mi) northwest of Cape San Blas to

Money Bayou (D. Wibberg, pers. comm.

1997).

Gulf County does not have any

ordinances relating to the ownership,

control, and handling of free-ranging

domestic cats.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting its Continued Existence

In addition to severe storms, other

widespread climatic conditions that can

occur within the range of the St.

Andrew beach mouse include periods of

drought and freezing weather. The

extent of any direct or indirect impacts

of these factors on beach mouse

survival, either alone or in combination

with manmade threats, is not known.

Storms and residential and

commercial development can fragment

and isolate beach mouse habitat. This

isolation precludes movement and gene

flow among other habitat blocks. In

smaller blocks, the lack of gene flow

may result in a loss of genetic diversity,

which can reduce the population’s

fitness. Increased predation pressure

and competition for available food and

cover may further weaken populations

through direct mortality and reduced

reproductive success. The combined

threats may result in severe decline

leading to extinction of these isolated

populations (Caughley and Gunn 1996).

The ecological similarity of house

mice and oldfield mice (Gentry 1966,

Briese and Smith 1973) suggests that

competition and aggression may occur

between these species. An inverse

relationship appears to exist between

the population densities of the house

mouse and inland oldfield mice

(Caldwell 1964, Caldwell and Gentry

1965, Gentry 1966). Humphrey and

Barbour (1981) documented mutually

exclusive distribution patterns of house

mice and other Gulf coast beach mice,

a pattern similar to that observed by

Frank and Humphrey (1992) for the

Anastasia Island beach mouse, and by

Gore (in litt. 1987, 1990, 1994) and

Holler (in litt. 1994) for the St. Andrew

beach mouse. The significance of

competition to the observed patterns is

not clear. In general, the observations

suggest that where conditions favor one

of the two species, that species will

predominate or exclude the other

species. Briese and Smith (1973) noted

that house mice primarily invade

disturbed areas, such as when

development occurs, and are able to

establish themselves in these and

adjacent habitats occupied by low

densities of oldfield mice. They also

noted that house mice seem to be less

affected by predation from house cats

than oldfield mice.

The Service has carefully assessed the

best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past,

present, and future threats faced by this

species in determining to propose this

rule. Based on this evaluation, the

preferred action is to list the St. Andrew

beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus

peninsularis) as endangered. The

primary threats to the continued

existence of the species are habitat

impacts from periodic severe weather

and land development, which result in

direct loss of mice and the capability of

remaining mice to recover from such

impacts. Other potentially significant

threats include predation by freeranging domestic cats and possible

competitive displacement by the house

mouse. The Service considers the threat

of extinction of high magnitude and

imminent because of the more than twothirds estimated range curtailment, the

species’ restriction to a single land unit,

and the recent high frequency of severe

storms occurring within or in close

proximity to the species’ historic range.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as: (i) The specific areas

within the geographical area occupied

by a species, at the time it is listed in

accordance with the Act, on which are

found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require

special management considerations or

protection; and (ii) specific areas

outside the geographical area occupied

by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use

of all methods and procedures needed

to bring the species to the point at

which listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as

amended, and implementing regulations

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the

maximum extent prudent and

determinable, the Secretary designate

critical habitat at the time the species is

determined to be threatened or

endangered. The Service finds that

designation of critical habitat is not

prudent for the St. Andrew beach mouse

at this time. Service regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of

critical habitat is not prudent when one

or both of the following situations

exist—(1) The species is threatened by

taking or other human activity, and

identification of critical habitat can be

expected to increase the degree of threat

to the species, or (2) such designation of

critical habitat would not be beneficial

to the species.

Designated critical habitat is protected

by the Act only under section 7(a)(2),

which provides that activities that are

federally funded, permitted, or carried

out may not destroy or adversely modify

critical habitat. However, section 7(a)(2),

which also prohibits Federal activities

likely to jeopardize listed species,

provides substantial protection to the

habitat of listed species, even if critical

habitat is not designated. Section 7(a)(4)

requires Federal agencies to confer

informally with the Service on any

action that is likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a proposed

species or result in the destruction or

adverse modification of proposed

critical habitat. For most species,

including the St. Andrew beach mouse,

the protection afforded the species’

habitat through application of the no

jeopardy standard is so strong, the

Service believes there would be no

direct net conservation benefit from

designating critical habitat.

Regulations (50 CFR part 402.02)

define ‘‘jeopardize the continued
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 54033

existence of’’ as meaning to engage in an

action that would reasonably be

expected, directly or indirectly, to

reduce appreciably the likelihood of

both the survival and recovery of a

listed species in the wild by reducing

the reproduction, numbers, or

distribution of that species.

‘‘Destruction or adverse modification’’ is

defined as a direct or indirect alteration

that appreciably diminishes the value of

critical habitat for both the survival and

recovery of a listed species. The St.

Andrew beach mouse is restricted to

coastal sand dunes that consist of

several rows paralleling the shoreline.

The common types of sand dune habitat

include frontal dunes, primary dunes,

secondary dunes, inter and intradunal

swales, and scrub dunes. Beach mice

occur mostly in frontal, primary, and

secondary dunes due in part to the

predominance of plants whose seeds

and fruits are important seasonal

constituents of beach mouse diets.

Further, scrub dunes may function as

refugia during and after storms and as

a source for recolonization of stormdamaged dunes. Because of the highly

precarious status of the St. Andrew

beach mouse, destruction or adverse

modification of any of these habitat

features to the point of appreciably

diminishing habitat value for recovery

and survival would also jeopardize the

species’ continued existence by

reducing its reproduction, numbers, or

distribution.

For the St. Andrew beach mouse, the

Service, therefore, has determined that

designation of critical habitat would not

add any protection over that afforded by

the jeopardy standard. Any appreciable

diminishment of habitat sufficient to

appreciably reduce the value of the

habitat for survival and recovery would

also appreciably reduce the likelihood

of survival and recovery by reducing

reproduction, numbers, or distribution.

The Service has found this to be the

case for several listed species, for which

an appreciable reduction in habitat

value would trigger the jeopardy

standard, for example the Appalachian

elktoe mussel, listed as endangered on

November 23, 1994 (59 FR 60324), and

three Texas aquatic invertebrates, listed

as endangered on June 5, 1995 (60 FR

29537).

Within unoccupied lands under

Federal management, both Eglin and

Tyndall Air Force bases are actively

involved in conservation of sand dune

habitat. Eglin Air Force Base does not

allow dune encroachment by vehicles

and pedestrians within its Cape San

Blas unit boundaries and closely

reviews mission-related activities for

potential habitat impacts (R. McWhite,

Eglin Air Force Base, pers. comm. 1997).

Eglin recently completed an ecological

survey of Cape San Blas that will assist

them in deciding how best to manage

the natural resources within the unit.

On Crooked Island, Tyndall Air Force

Base restricts beach access on both east

and west segments to pedestrians and

authorized vehicles, and also prohibits

dune encroachment. Natural resource

personnel review all requests for

military operations to minimize or

eliminate potential habitat disturbances.

Because of these current conditions, the

Service believes that a designation of

Crooked Island or Cape San Blas as

critical habitat is not prudent because it

would not result in any additional

benefit to the species.

Based on the above discussion, the

Service has determined that the lack of

additional conservation benefit from

critical habitat designation for this

species makes such designation not

prudent.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Endangered

Species Act include recognition,

recovery actions, requirements for

Federal protection, and prohibition

against certain practices. Recognition

through listing results in public

awareness and conservation actions by

Federal, State, and local agencies,

private organizations, and individuals.

The Act provides for possible land

acquisition and cooperation with the

States and requires that recovery actions

be carried out for all listed species. The

protection required of Federal agencies

and the prohibitions against taking and

harm are discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,

requires Federal agencies to evaluate

their actions with respect to any species

that is proposed or listed as endangered

or threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat if any is being

designated. Regulations implementing

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part

402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal

agencies to confer with the Service on

any action that is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of a species

proposed for listing or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of

proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2)

requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry

out are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the species or

destroy or adversely modify its critical

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter

into formal consultation with the

Service.

Federal agency actions that are

expected to require conference and/or

consultation as described in the

preceding paragraph include missionrelated activities authorized or carried

out by Tyndall Air Force Base on

Crooked Island and by Eglin Air Force

Base at the Cape San Blas unit,

following any translocation of beach

mice to these locations. The Service’s

experience with other beach mice

indicates that, with planning, beach

mouse conservation and military

activities are compatible.

The Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) provides flood

insurance for completed structures

through the National Flood Insurance

Program. Section 7 of the Act normally

would require FEMA to consider

conference or consultation with the

Service where the agency provides flood

insurance to private landowners with

structures located in occupied habitat.

In this case, private property occupied

by the beach mouse within the St.

Joseph Peninsula is also located within

a CBRS unit and subject to the CBRA

prohibitions against the acquisition of

new federally-funded coastal flood

insurance for new construction or

substantial improvements (see factor D

under ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting

the Species’’). The Service, therefore,

believes the proposed listing will have

no additional impact on the application

of FEMA’s flood insurance program.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

involvement in the section 7

consultation process may result from

the issuance of permits for the filling of

wet interdunal swales subject to section

404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.

1344 et seq.). Conference or consultation

will be required should the Corps

determine that such permit issuance

may affect the St. Andrew beach mouse.

The Service may undertake internal

consultations when carrying out

recovery activities such as dune

restoration and construction of

pedestrian crossovers or when

reviewing incidental take permit

applications under section 10(a)(1)(B) of

the Act.

The National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

administers the Coastal Energy Impact

Program (CEIP). CEIP is a Federal

assistance program providing grant and

loan assistance for use in planning

studies, public works construction, land

acquisition, and environmental loss

mitigation projects, all associated with

energy-related facility siting. Such a

siting, however unlikely, within
54034 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

occupied or potentially occupied habitat

might result in some modification that

minimizes or avoids impacts to the

species. The great majority of section 7

consultations traditionally result either

in no project changes or modifications

rather than curtailment of the affected

Federal activity.

Actions taken and in progress for the

St. Andrew beach mouse include

updated status surveys within a portion

of the historic range, a population

genetics analysis, and population

viability modeling. Future actions

include a translocation of some mice

from the St. Joseph Peninsula to

Crooked Island East through the

cooperation and support of Tyndall Air

Force Base. The Service plans to

continue pursuing conservation actions

it believes will be effective in

measurably reducing the threats to the

species’ continued existence.

The Act and its implementing

regulations set forth a series of general

prohibitions and exceptions that apply

to all endangered wildlife. The

prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21,

in part, make it illegal for any person

subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States to take (includes harass, harm,

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,

capture, or collect; or to attempt any of

these), import or export, ship in

interstate commerce in the course of

commercial activity, or sell or offer for

sale in interstate or any foreign

commerce any listed species. It is also

illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,

transport, or ship any such wildlife that

has been taken illegally. Certain

exceptions apply to agents of the

Service and State conservation agencies.

Should this rule be finalized, the

prohibitions of section 9 will not apply

to St. Andrew Beach mice which were

held in captivity or a controlled

environment on the date of the final

rulemaking, provided that such holding

and any subsequent holding of such

mice was not in the course of a

commercial activity.

Permits may be issued to carry out

otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered wildlife under

certain circumstances. Regulations

governing permits are codified at 50

CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits are

available for scientific purposes, to

enhance the propagation or survival of

the species, and/or for incidental take in

the course of otherwise lawful activities.

It is the policy of the Service,

published in the Federal Register on

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify

to the maximum extent practicable at

the time a species is listed, those

activities that would or would not

constitute a violation of section 9 of the

Act. The intent of this policy is to

increase public awareness of the effect

of this listing on proposed and ongoing

activities within the species’ range. The

Service believes that, based on the best

available information, the following

actions will not result in a violation of

section 9:

(1) Beneficial activities whose

implementation does not result in take

of beach mice. Such activities include,

but are not limited to, boardwalk

construction on or over dunes, use of

snow fencing and planting of local,

native dune vegetation to accelerate

dune restoration, and dune

reconstruction using beach quality sand.

(2) Normal residential activities on

unoccupied habitat that would not

result in take of beach mice, such as,

landscape maintenance, private

development and dune access by

vehicles and pedestrians.

(3) Activities authorized, funded, or

carried out by a Federal agency when

the action is conducted in accordance

with section 7 of the Act.

Potential activities involving the St.

Andrew beach mouse that the Service

believes will likely be considered a

violation of section 9 include, but are

not limited to, the following:

(1) Take of St. Andrew beach mouse

without a permit.

(2) Possession, sale, delivery,

carrying, transportation, or shipping of

illegally taken St. Andrew beach mice.

(3) Destruction or alteration of

occupied habitat that results in the

death of or injury to the St. Andrew

beach mouse through the significant

impairment of essential behaviors

including breeding, feeding, or

sheltering.

Questions regarding whether specific

activities will constitute a violation of

section 9 or to obtain approved

guidelines for actions within beach

mouse habitat, contact the Field

Supervisor of the Service’s Panama City

Field Office, 1612 June Avenue, Panama

City, Florida 32405–3721 (telephone

850/769–0552). Requests for copies of

the regulations concerning listed

animals and inquiries regarding

prohibitions and permits may be

addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ecological Services, Permit

Coordinator, 1875 Century Boulevard,

Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345

(telephone 404/679–7110; facsimile

404/679–7081).

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final

action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and as effective as

possible. Therefore, comments or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

proposed rule are hereby solicited.

Comments particularly are sought

concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or

other relevant data concerning any

threat (or lack thereof) to this species;

(2) The location of any additional

populations of this species and the

reasons why any habitat should or

should not be determined to be critical

habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning

the range, distribution, and population

size of this species; and

(4) Current or planned activities in the

subject area and their possible impacts

on this species.

Final promulgation of the regulations

on this species will take into

consideration the comments and any

additional information received by the

Service, and such communications may

lead to a final regulation that differs

from this proposal.

The Act provides for one or more

public hearings on this proposal, if

requested. Requests must be received

within 45 days of the date of publication

of the proposal in the Federal Register.

Such requests must be made in writing

and be addressed to the Jacksonville

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has

determined that Environmental

Assessments and Environmental Impact

Statements, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, need not be

prepared in connection with regulations

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Act. A notice outlining the Service’s

reasons for this determination was

published in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

The Service has examined this

regulation under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to

contain no information collection

requirements.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein, as well as others, is available

upon request from the Jacksonville Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author: The primary author of this

document is John Milio (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 54035

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby

proposes to amend part 17, subchapter

B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by

adding the following, in alphabetical

order under MAMMALS, to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to

read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

Mammals

* * * * * * *

Mouse, St. Andrew

beach.

Peromyscus

polionotus

peninsularis.

U.S.A.(FL) ............... Entire ....................... E .................... NA NA

* * * * * * *

Dated: October 2, 1997.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97–27549 Filed 10–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 285, 630, 644, and 678

[I.D. 100897B]

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;

Scoping Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Scoping meetings; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS will hold 21 scoping

meetings to receive comments from

fishery participants and other members

of the public on Atlantic tunas, Atlantic

swordfish, Atlantic shark, and Atlantic

billfish fisheries. A scoping document of

issues and options for Highly Migratory

Species (HMS) fishery management is

available for public comment (see

ADDRESSES). The purpose of this

announcement is to notify the public of

meetings and provide for public

participation in the management

process.

DATES: Meetings will be held October 27

through November 17, 1997. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific

dates and times. Written comments on

the issues must be received on or before

December 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for meeting locations.

Written comments should be sent to

Rebecca J. Lent, Chief, Highly Migratory

Species Division, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

Clearly mark the outside of the envelope

‘‘Scoping Comments.’’ Copies of the

scoping document can be requested by

telephone: 301–713–2347 or fax: 301–

713–1917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz

Lauck or Jill Stevenson, telephone: 301-

713-2347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is

considering future management

measures for Atlantic tunas, Atlantic

swordfish, Atlantic shark, and Atlantic

billfish fisheries to be included in a

comprehensive Fishery Management

Plan (FMP) for Atlantic tunas, swordfish

and sharks, and an amendment to the

Billfish FMP. Options for management

may include long-term rebuilding

programs, reallocation of quotas,

recreational bag limits, commercial trip

limits, minimum size restrictions, time/

area closures, regional quotas,

consistency between state and Federal

regulations, gear restrictions, limited

access, essential fish habitat, and

permitting and reporting requirements.

Consistent with the new requirements

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS

established an HMS Advisory Panel

(AP) and a billfish AP to assist in

developing and amending FMPs for

HMS species. In the case of any species

identified as overfished, the APs would

also assist in developing rebuilding

programs.

The scoping meetings are intended to

gather public input on a broad range of

options to be considered in addressing

HMS issues. The scoping document was

developed with input from the APs and

outlines major issues and options under

consideration. NMFS is seeking public

input on these and other issues and

options for HMS fisheries.

As part of the FMP development

process, NMFS intends to prepare

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

documents due to the potentially

significant impact of upcoming

regulations on the human environment,

and because changes have occurred in

the fisheries since the last EISs were

prepared (62 FR 45614, August 28,

1997). Participants in the fishery,

including processors, may be required

to operate under alternative

management measures that may

redistribute fishing effort and/or

mortality in order to facilitate recovery

of HMS. The EIS documents will

address the impacts of potential future

management options on the natural and

human environment for the Atlantic

tuna, Atlantic swordfish, Atlantic shark,

and Atlantic billfish fisheries.

Special Accommodations

These meetings are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to Liz Lauck at least

5 days before the meeting date (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Written

comments on the issues and options for

future management of HMS fisheries are

also welcome.

Meeting Locations

The meeting schedule is as follows:

Monday, Oct 27, 1997, 7–10 p.m.