5488 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

number of individuals utilized.

Overutilization via recreational shooting

is considered a threat of low magnitude.

Local populations may be impacted by

shooting; however, significant

rangewide population declines due to

this factor are not likely. This threat is

considered imminent because it is

ongoing.

Disease is considered a threat of

moderate magnitude. Plague has

markedly reduced some populations,

but has not affected all populations at

once. Some population recovery may

occur, largely via unaffected adjacent

populations, before plague

reoccurrence. Plague has impacted the

species and its conspecifics throughout

a significant portion of their ranges.

Black-tailed prairie dog populations

demonstrate nearly 100 percent

mortality when exposed to plague. An

epizootic may affect an entire complex

similar to a pathogen affecting an

individual animal. The spread of plague

in black-tailed prairie dog populations

underscores the likelihood that areas as

yet unaffected may experience

outbreaks in the future. This threat is

considered imminent because it is

ongoing. Predation is not considered a

threat.

Existing regulatory mechanisms are

inadequate and considered a threat of

moderate magnitude. All States within

the current range of the black-tailed

prairie dog classify the species as a pest

for agricultural purposes and either

allow or require its eradication

(Mulhern and Knowles 1995). Few

regulatory mechanisms exist to aid in

conserving the species. This threat is

considered imminent because it is

ongoing. State wildlife agencies and

other interested parties are developing a

conservation plan for the species. While

we support the States’ efforts and will

cooperate in conservation actions for the

black-tailed prairie dog, at this early

stage of development, the conservation

assessment and strategy document lacks

commitments to specific immediate

actions that would affect the status of

the species.

Control programs conducted largely

in response to concerns related to

potential forage competition with

domestic livestock are considered a

threat of moderate magnitude. Control

programs have had significant impacts

on population levels in the past. Control

efforts resulted in extirpation of the

black-tailed prairie dog from Arizona

and significant reductions in other

States. Current control efforts may

impact 10–20 percent of the species’

overall population annually (Forrest and

Proctor, in prep.). This threat is

considered imminent because it is

ongoing. Control efforts in some areas

could likely be accommodated if

adequate regulatory mechanisms were

in place that balanced agricultural and

wildlife conservation interests.

We conclude that the overall

magnitude of threats to the black-tailed

prairie dog throughout its range is

moderate and the overall immediacy of

these threats is imminent. The blacktailed prairie dog is considered a species

without subspecies classification.

Pursuant to the Service’s Listing Priority

Guidance (48 FR 43098), a species for

which threats are moderate and

imminent is assigned a Listing Priority

Number of 8. Region 6 currently has

nine Candidate species or subspecies

that have lower Listing Priority

Numbers and, therefore, are in more

immediate need of protection. Region 6

also has four species proposed as

endangered or threatened, and two

species for which proposed rules are

under review. Therefore, while we have

concluded that the listing of the blacktailed prairie dog as threatened is

warranted, an immediate proposal to list

is precluded by other, higher priority

actions to amend the Lists of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited in

this notice is available upon request

from the South Dakota Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Author: The primary author of this

document is Pete Gober (see ADDRESSES

section).

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.).

Dated: February 1, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–2593 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 012400B]

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) and notice of scoping

process; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery

Management Council (Council)

announces its intention to prepare

Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea

Scallop Fishery Management Plan

(FMP) to develop an area based

management system that would, among

other things, close areas with high

concentrations of small scallops and

open them later when the scallops are

bigger. The Council also announces its

intent to prepare an SEIS for the

Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP in accordance

with the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 to analyze the impacts of

any management alternatives. The

Council will hold public scoping

meetings in Fairhaven, MA; Virginia

Beach, VA; and Cape May, NJ; to

determine the scope of issues to be

addressed and for identifying the

significant issues related to the

management alternatives.

DATES: Written comments on the intent

to prepare the SEIS must be received on

or before 5:00 p.m., local time, March 1,

2000. The meetings will held between

Tuesday, February 15, 2000, and

Thursday, February 18, 2000. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific

dates and times.

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. The meetings will be

held in Fairhaven, MA; Virginia Beach,

VA; and Cape May, NJ. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific

locations. 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. Requests for special

accommodations should be addressed to

the New England Fishery Management

Council, 50 Water St., Mill 2,

Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone:

(978) 465–0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Amendment 4 to the Atlantic Sea

Scallop FMP established a limited

access program and a schedule of

annual day-at-sea (DAS) allocations for

full-time, part-time, and occasional

vessels with limited access permits.

Although Amendment 4 changed the

restrictions on fishing gear and limited

the number of crew aboard limited

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5489

access vessels, the primary management

measure to control fishing mortality was

the annual DAS allocation. The initial

annual allocations in 1994 were 201

days for full-time vessels, 81 days for

part-time vessels, and 17 days for

occasional vessels. Amendment 4

furthermore established a schedule to

reduce by 2000 the annual DAS

allocations and fishing mortality.

Overfishing was then defined to occur

whenever fishing mortality exceeded

0.97. Amendment 4 also established the

fishing year, when vessels receive new

DAS allocations, as March 1 through

February 28/29, and established the

annual framework adjustment

procedure.

Since 1994, NMFS has implemented

several framework adjustments which,

among other actions, reduced the crew

limit from 9 to 7 persons and adjusted

the annual DAS allocations. Closed Area

I, Closed Area II, and the Nantucket

Lightship Area were closed for scallop

fishing through an action promulgated

under the Northeast Multispecies FMP

to protect groundfish and reduce

groundfish bycatch.

Amendment 7 to the Atlantic Sea

Scallop FMP changed the overfishing

definition to comply with new

mandates of the Sustainable Fisheries

Act 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 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

FMP met the biomass rebuilding targets.

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 as well as closing two

areas in the Mid-Atlantic to protect

small scallops that were prevalent there

and promote rebuilding.

The Council is considering

development of Amendment 10 to

develop an area based management

system that would, among other things,

close areas with high concentrations of

small scallops and open them later

when the scallops are bigger. 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. Another purpose of

Amendment 10 would be to change the

fishing year to allow timelier use of the

adjustment mechanism, taking into

account when the results of the annual

resource abundance survey and other

data become available. Other

management measures, including

individual fishery quotas and

transferability, could be considered

during the development of Amendment

10 in place of or in addition to DAS

allocations and area based management.

More details of the issues and problems

to be addressed by Amendment 10 are

available in a document from the

Council office. See ADDRESSES for

details.

Public Meeting Schedule

Tuesday, February 15, 2000, at 7:30

p.m.

Location: Seaport Inn, 110 Middle

Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719; telephone

(508) 997–1281.

Wednesday, February 16, 2000, at

7:30 p.m.

Location: Holiday Inn, Executive

Center, 5655 Greenwich Road, Virginia

Beach, VA 23462; telephone (757) 499–

4400.

Thursday, February 17, 2000, at 7:30

p.m.

Location: Grand Hotel, 1045 Beach

Drive, Cape May, NJ 08204; telephone

(609) 884–5611.

Special Accommodations

These meetings are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to Paul J. Howard

(see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to

the meeting dates.

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

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–2573 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F