60396 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

may require intensive management

efforts (Toepfer et al. 1990).

The factors discussed above are not

considered to be threats to the

subspecies because the large, stable

metapopulations that occur in Colorado,

Idaho, and Utah, representing roughly

97 percent of the subspecies within the

U.S., would likely not be affected.

In summary, the available information

indicates that the subspecies’

metapopulations are relatively secure.

These large metapopulations have

persisted for the last several decades

with no discernable downward trend,

and recent information indicates that

they may currently be increasing, as are

the habitats available to them (SRTIM

2000). However, most of the small,

isolated populations of Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse will likely be

extirpated within a few decades due to

existing threats and current

management scenarios (Bart 2000).

Conservation Measures

An inter-agency (Federal and State)

team is currently preparing a

conservation assessment for Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse in Idaho (Ulliman et

al. 1998). Upon its completion, the

conservation strategy developed in

Idaho may be used as a general model

for conservation actions in other States

and British Columbia.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife

helped form and participates on the

Northwest Colorado Columbian Sharptailed Grouse Work Group (Mumma, in

litt. 1999). The work group includes

interested parties representing resource

industries, sportsmen’s and

conservation groups, and State and

Federal resource agencies. The work

group is currently developing a formal

conservation plan, and is committed to

improving conditions for the Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse population in the

northwest region of the State.

The Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife has prepared a

management plan for Columbian sharptailed grouse occurring within the State

(WDFW 1995), and has recently listed

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as a State

threatened species (WDFW 1998a).

Washington currently has a program to

acquire lands for the protection and

active management of Columbian sharptailed grouse (WDFW 1998b).

Restoration and enhancement of native

habitats to improve conditions for

existing (and potential) populations are

planned for these areas (Schroeder, pers.

comm. 1995 and 1998).

Reintroduction efforts for Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse have taken place in

Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho,

and Nevada (SRTIM 2000). Many early

reintroduction efforts conducted for

prairie grouse (including sharp-tailed

grouse) failed to produce self-sustaining

populations or to increase the size or

distribution of augmented populations

(Toepfer et al. 1990). Several recent

efforts have shown greater potential to

be effective as the techniques for

reintroductions have improved (Toepfer

et al. 1990; Crawforth, in litt. 2000;

Schroeder, pers. comm. 1995 and 1998;

Meints, pers. comm. 1995 and 1998).

However, most of these improvements

have been concerned with keeping

translocated birds in the immediate

vicinity of the release sites during the

breeding season. While some

reintroduced birds have established leks

and reproduced in the release area over

a number of years, none of these

populations can yet be considered

secure (Bart 2000). Continuing

reintroduction efforts are planned for

Idaho, Nevada, Washington, and

Oregon; and various reintroduction

efforts are being considered for

California, Colorado, and Montana

(SRTIM 2000).

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

populations in British Columbia may be

expanding on the periphery of their

current range where logging activity has

created suitable open, grassland habitat.

While this is not an active enhancement

effort, the beneficial effects of these

activities are believed to last up to

approximately 15 years (Ritcey 1995;

Chutter, pers. comm. 1995).

Conclusion

We have reviewed the petition,

literature cited in the petition, other

pertinent literature and information

available in our files, and consulted

with biologists and researchers familiar

with Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.

After reviewing the best scientific and

commercial information available, and

considering the information’s

significance with regard to the five

listing factors established by the Act and

ongoing conservation measures, we find

that listing the Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse as a threatened species

throughout its known historic range in

the 48 contiguous United States, as

petitioned is not warranted.

In making this finding, we recognize

that there have been declines in

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

populations primarily attributed to the

loss and degradation of important shrub

steppe, grassland, and riparian habitats.

These impacts are likely due to a

combination of factors including crop

production, over-grazing by livestock,

altered fire frequencies, rural and

suburban development, dam

construction, herbicide spraying,

recreation, and other factors. The

Service’s status review of the Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse range wide has

raised concern regarding the status of

many of the small populations such that

a further status review focusing on these

populations will be initiated. However,

the available information does not

indicate that the large metapopulations

of the subspecies are at increased risk of

extirpation. We also recognize that

various State and Federal agencies

throughout the subspecies’ historic

distribution are actively managing the

populations to try and improve their

overall status and/or attempting to

restore them to currently unoccupied

habitats. If information becomes

available indicating that listing as

endangered or threatened is appropriate,

we would propose to list the Columbia

sharp-tailed grouse. Furthermore, we

retain the option of recognizing a

population segment for listing should

information become available indicating

that such an action is appropriate and

warranted.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available on request from the

Upper Columbia River Basin Field

Office, (See ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this notice is

Chris Warren, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 11103 East Montgomery Drive,

Spokane, Washington 99206.

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: September 27, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–25447 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 100400F]

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a

Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement (SEIS); request for comments.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60397

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery

Management Council (Council)

announces its intention to prepare

Framework 14 to the Atlantic Sea

Scallop Fishery Management Plan

(FMP). The intent of this action is to

adjust the limited access scallop daysat-sea (DAS) allocations for the next 2

fishing years (March 1, 2001, through

February 28, 2003); create a restricted

access program for the scallop MidAtlantic closed areas (Hudson Canyon

South and Virginia Beach), scheduled to

reopen on March 1, 2001; and to close

additional areas to scallop fishing to

protect concentrations of juvenile

scallops, reduce fishing mortality, and

increase yield per recruit. The Council,

in coordination with NMFS, also

announces its intent to prepare an SEIS

for the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP in

accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act to analyze the

impacts of management alternatives.

DATES: Written comments on the intent

to prepare the SEIS must be received on

or before 5 p.m., local time, November

13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to Paul J. Howard, Executive

Director, New England Fishery

Management Council, 50 Water Street,

Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

Comments may also be sent via fax to

(978) 465-0492. Comments will not be

accepted if submitted via e-mail or

Internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

J. Howard, Executive Director, New

England Fishery Management Council,

(978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Amendment 4 to the Atlantic Sea

Scallop FMP, implemented by a final

rule published January 19, 1994 (59 FR

2757), established a limited access

program and a schedule of annual DAS

allocations for full-time, part-time, and

occasional vessels with limited access

permits. The primary management tool

implemented under Amendment 4 to

control fishing mortality was the annual

DAS allocation.

Amendment 7 to the FMP,

implemented by a final rule published

March 29, 1999 (64 FR 14835), changed

the overfishing definition and extended

the DAS-reduction schedule through

2008 to achieve a 10-year biomass

rebuilding objective. To comply with

the new overfishing definition and

implement the rebuilding schedule,

Amendment 7 revised the DAS schedule

beginning March 1, 1999. To allow time

for industry adjustment to the new

regulations, the initial annual DAS

allocations in 1999 were 120 days for

full-time vessels, 48 days for part-time

vessels, and 10 days for occasional

vessels. According to Amendment 7, the

DAS allocations in 2000 would be

reduced to 51 days for full-time vessels,

20 days for part-time vessels, and 4 days

for occasional vessels, and would

remain below these levels until 2007,

when the biomass rebuilding targets

were expected to be met. The SEIS for

Amendment 7 indicated that the 2000

DAS allocations would have negative

impacts on the economic viability of the

vessels and the scallop fleet.

Amendment 7 also modified the

framework adjustment process to allow

the Council to consider closing and

reopening areas, and closed two areas in

the Mid-Atlantic to protect small

scallops that were prevalent there, to

promote stock rebuilding.

Shortly after the implementation of

Amendment 7, the Council began

deliberations on a longer-term process

of developing Amendment 10, which

would implement an area-based

management system for scallops. In

connection with the development of

Amendment 10, the Council and NMFS

published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to

prepare an SEIS (65 FR 6975, February

11, 2000). The NOI announced that the

Council is considering, among other

things, closing areas with high

concentrations of small scallops and

opening them later when the scallops

reach a certain size. The Council

believes that shifting fishing effort in

this manner could promote rebuilding,

improve yield, and reduce the economic

impacts of the low DAS allocations.

While Amendment 10 was being

developed, the Council, through

Framework 11 to the Scallop FMP (64

FR 31144, June 10, 1999) began a shortterm strategy to access Closed Area II

(CA II) in order to allow fishing on

dense concentrations of scallops

without compromising multispecies

rebuilding or habitat protection.

Framework 11 implemented a 1999

seasonal Georges Bank Sea Scallop

Exemption Area (Exemption Area) in

and adjacent to CA II and included the

following primary measures for vessels

fishing in the Exemption Area: A

possession limit of up to 10,000 lb

(4,536.0 kg) of scallop meats per trip; a

maximum of three trips for full and

part-time vessels and a maximum of one

trip for occasional vessels; an automatic

minimum deduction of 10 DAS for each

trip; a minimum mesh twine-top of 10

inches (25.40 cm); a total allowable

catch (TAC) of yellowtail flounder of

387 metric tons (mt); and an increase in

the regulated species possession limit

from 300 lb (136.1 kg) to 500 lb (226.8

kg) per trip. In addition, Framework 11

implemented a minimum mesh twinetop of 8 inches (20.32 cm) for vessels

fishing under a scallop DAS when

fishing outside the Exemption Area.

This strategy occurred in the 1999 and

2000 fishing years. Based on an updated

assessment from the 29th Northeast

Regional Stock Assessment Workshop

(September 1999) and the 1999 Stock

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation

(SAFE) Report, the Scallop Plan

Development Team determined that

increasing the Amendment 7 DAS

allocations for each of three permit

categories to the same amounts as in the

1999 fishing year would meet the 2000

fishing mortality rate (F) target. This

was contingent upon scallops in

multispecies CA I, CA II, and the

Nantucket Lightship Closed Area

(NLCA) remaining protected, or upon

maintaining conservation neutrality, if

scallopers were allowed access to these

closed areas. Based on this information,

Framework 12 to the FMP (65 FR 11478,

March 3, 2000) adjusted the limited

access scallop DAS allocations for the

fishing year March 1, 2000, through

February 28, 2001, to 120 days for fulltime vessels, 48 days for part-time

vessels, and 10 days for occasional

vessels.

Framework 13 to the FMP (65 FR

37903, June 19, 2000) continued the

short-term strategy by implementing the

2000 Sea Scallop Exemption Program

(Exemption Program), creating

Exemption Areas in portions of CA I,

CA II, and NLCA, and by including the

following management measures: A

possession limit of up to 10,000 lb

(4,356.0 kg) of scallop meats per trip; a

maximum number of trips for each area;

an automatic minimum deduction of 10

DAS for each trip; a minimum mesh

twine-top of 10 inches (25.40 cm); a

yellowtail flounder TAC of 725 mt for

CA I and CA II combined, and 50 mt for

the NLCA; and an increase in the

regulated species possession limit from

300 lb (136.1 kg) to 1,000 lb (435.6 kg)

per trip, among other measures. In

addition, this action modified the

scallop dredge gear stowage

requirements and corrected and

clarified the ‘‘end of the year DAS carryover’’ provision for vessels participating

in the limited access scallop fishery.

The primary intent of this action was to

provide a continuation and an

expansion of a short-term strategy to

allow scallop dredge vessels access to

multispecies closed areas without

compromising multispecies and sea

scallop rebuilding or habitat protection.

The Council is once again considering

development of management measures

through Framework 14 to provide for

60398 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

effective conservation and management

of sea scallops while Amendment 10 is

being developed. This action proposes

to adjust the limited access scallop DAS

allocations for the next 2 fishing years

(March 1, 2001, through February 28,

2003). Under this measure annual DAS

would remain at 120 days for full-time

vessels, 48 days for part-time vessels,

and 10 days for occasional vessels. This

action also proposes a restricted access

program for the Mid-Atlantic scallop

closed areas (Hudson Canyon South and

Virginia Beach), which are currently

scheduled to reopen to scallop fishing

on March 1, 2000, with no restrictions.

Proposed measures and provisions of

this action program include: (1) all

scallop limited access and open access

vessels (dredge, trawl, and General

Category vessels) would be allowed

access; (2) a scallop TAC for each of the

reopened areas; (3) an allowance of five

trips per vessel; (4) a possession limit of

15,000 lb (6,804 kg) of meats per trip

(400 lb (181.4 kg) of meats for the

General Category vessels); (5) an

automatic deduction of 10 DAS for each

trip; (6) a season of April 1 through

February 28, with the provision that the

Administrator, Northeast Region,

NMFS, may allow additional trips for

those vessels that made a trip prior to

September 1, 2001; (7) an emergency

landing provision, whereby vessels

would only be charged one DAS for

each 1,500 lb (680 kg) of meats landed,

provided the vessel has experienced an

emergency condition that forces the

vessel to come into port earlier than

anticipated; (8) a minimum mesh twinetop of 10 inches (25 cm) for scallop

dredge vessels; (9) a vessel monitoring

system requirement, with doublepolling for the duration of the access

program; (10) a TAC set-aside to allow

cooperative research; and (11) a TAC

set-aside to provide for observer

coverage. The Council also may propose

additional closed areas to protect

concentrations of small scallops.

Options for the closed areas include

areas in both the Mid-Atlantic and

Georges Bank.

Because the Mid-Atlantic closed areas

are scheduled to reopen on March 1,

2001, the Council is considering in

Framework 14 a restricted access

program to prevent a rush of effort into

the closed areas, which could

potentially diminish the benefits

achieved by the closures, and to balance

fishing effort between the closed and

open areas of the scallop fishery.

Because Framework 14 is the third in

a series of short-term measures adopted

by the Council during the development

of Amendment 10, the Council, in

cooperation with NMFS, has

determined that it may be necessary to

prepare an SEIS to examine the

cumulative effects and consequences of

the short-term measures on the human

environment. In preparing the SEIS, the

Council and NMFS will take into

account, in addition to comments

received in response to this document,

all comments that have already been

submitted and all discussions that have

occurred in Council meetings before the

publication of this document.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: October 5, 2000.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–26060 Filed 10–5–00; 3:52 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S