15874 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Bog turtles inhabit shallow, spring-fed

fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps, marshy

meadows and pastures characterized by

soft, muddy bottoms; clear, cool, slowflowing water, often forming a network

of rivulets; high humidity; and an open

canopy. Unless set back by fire, beaver

activity, grazing, or periodic wet years,

open-canopy wetlands are slowly

invaded by woody vegetation and

undergo a transition into closed-canopy,

wooded swampland, thus becoming

unsuitable for habitation by bog turtles.

The northern populations extends from

southern New York and western

Massachusetts southward through

western Connecticut, New Jersey and

eastern Pennsylvania, to northern

Delaware and Maryland. Disjunct

populations previously occurred in

western Pennsylvania and in the Lake

George and Finger Lakes regions of New

York. The western Pennsylvania and

Lake George populations have been

extirpated and only a remnant

population exists at two remaining sites

in the Finger Lakes region. The southern

population occurs in southwestern

Virginia southward through western

North Carolina, eastern Tennessee,

northwestern South Carolina and

northern Georgia.

The northern population of the bog

turtle has declined by approximately 50

percent. Illegal collection and habitat

alteration/destruction constitute the

primary threats to this species. The

Service does not currently consider the

southern population of bog turtles to be

biologically threatened or endangered;

however, it would be nearly impossible

to prosecute illegal ‘take’ cases if the

southern population was not also listed.

The proposed special rule would

exempt incidental take of bog turtles in

the southern population from the

prohibitions of the Act. That is, take that

results from, but is not the purpose of,

carrying out an otherwise lawful activity

would not be prohibited for the

southern population.

On January 29, 1997, the Service

published a proposal in the Federal

Register (62 FR 4229) to list the

northern population of the bog turtle as

threatened and the southern population

as threatened due to similarity of

appearance under the Act as amended.

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires

that a public hearing be held if

requested within 45 days of the

proposal’s publication in the Federal

Register. A public hearing request was

received within the allotted time period

from Mr. Gary L. Hoffman, Chief

Engineer for the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania. The Service has

scheduled a hearing on April 21, 1997,

from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard

Time), at the auditorium of the Oley

High School, 17 Jefferson Street, Oley,

Pennsylvania. Those parties wishing to

make a statement for the record are

encouraged to provide a copy of their

statement to the Service at the start of

the hearing. Oral statements may be

limited in length if the number of

parties present at the hearing

necessitates such a limitation. There are,

however, no limits to the length of

written comments or materials

presented at the hearing or mailed to the

Service. Comments from all interested

parties must be received by April 29,

1997.

Author: The primary author of this

notice is Mr. Michael L. McCarthy,

Pennsylvania Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 315 South Allen

Street, Suite #322, State College,

Pennsylvania 16801.

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531–

1544).

Dated: March 27, 1997.

Cathy Short,

Deputy Regional Director, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 97–8510 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 970318059–7059–01; I.D.

022197B]

RIN 0648–AI82

Fisheries off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; West Coast

Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 12

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed

rule to implement portions of

Amendment 12 to the Fishery

Management Plan for Commercial and

Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the

Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and

California (Salmon FMP). Amendment

12 to the Salmon FMP would include,

as management objectives for the

Salmon FMP, the NMFS jeopardy

standards or the objectives of NMFS

recovery plans for salmon species that

are listed as threatened or endangered

under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA) and would eliminate from the

Code of Federal Regulations a table that

summarizes management goals. This

proposed rule would implement that

change. The intended effect of this rule

is to ensure that ESA listed salmon are

given proper consideration in

formulating management measures

under the Salmon FMP.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

must be received on or before May 19,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

rule for Amendment 12 should be sent

to Mr. William Stelle, Administrator,

Northwest Region, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point Way

NE., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115–

0070; or to Mr. William Hogarth, Acting

Administrator, Southwest Region,

National Marine Fisheries Service, 501

West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200,

Long Beach, CA 90802–4213.

Copies of Amendment 12 (combined

with Amendment 10 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery (Groundfish FMP)),

the Environmental Assessment (EA)/

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

are available from Larry Six, Executive

Director, Pacific Fishery Management

Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite

224, Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William L. Robinson at 206–526–6140,

Rodney McInnis at 310–980–4040, or

the Pacific Fishery Management Council

at 503–326–6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is

proposing this rule based on a

recommendation of the Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council), under

the authority of the FMP and the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The

background and rationale for the

Council’s recommendations are

summarized below. More detail appears

in the EA/RIR/IRFA that the Council

prepared for this action (see

ADDRESSES).

At its October 1996 meeting, the

Council adopted a package that consists

of Amendment 12 to the Salmon FMP

and Amendment 10 to the Groundfish

FMP. Amendment 12 would allow

adoption of rules to permit retention of,

but not sale of, salmon bycatch in

Pacific Coast groundfish trawl fisheries

under a monitoring program that meets

certain guidelines; specify ESA

standards as management objectives for

salmon species listed under the ESA;
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15875

and update the Salmon FMP, without

changing the FMP management

objectives. Amendment 10 would

authorize modification of the

regulations governing the Pacific Coast

groundfish fishery to allow retention of

salmon bycatch as authorized under

Amendment 12.

A Notice of Availability for

Amendments 12 and 10, inviting

comments from the public, was

published in the Federal Register on

February 27, 1997 (62 FR 8921). Public

comments on the proposed rule must be

received by the end of the comment

period on the amendments, April 28,

1997, to be considered in the approval/

disapproval decision on the

amendments.

Management Objectives for Listed

Salmon Species

Amendment 12 to the Salmon FMP

would specify that the Council will

manage ocean salmon fisheries

consistent with NMFS jeopardy

standards or NMFS recovery plans for

species listed under the ESA. This

portion of Amendment 12 is needed to

bring the Salmon FMP into compliance

with the March 1996 Biological Opinion

issued under section 7 of the ESA,

regarding the impacts of the Pacific

Coast salmon fishery on salmon stocks

listed under the ESA. The Biological

Opinion’s first reasonable and prudent

alternative (RPA) requires the Council to

adopt by October 1996, and NMFS to

implement by May of 1997, an

amendment that includes ESA

management objectives in the FMP. This

portion of Amendment 12 is being

implemented through this proposed

rule.

Update of the Salmon FMP

The Salmon FMP has not had a

comprehensive update since 1984. The

Council wishes to provide a

comprehensive Salmon FMP that

incorporates into a single document all

of the amendments that have been made

to the Salmon FMP since 1984. The

updated Salmon FMP has been designed

to be the operative salmon FMP, rather

than an amendment to any existing

document. It incorporates or references

all the parts required for a complete

Salmon FMP but contains only the

operative language necessary to

understand and implement the

Council’s salmon management plan. If

approved, this updated, comprehensive

Salmon FMP would be much easier for

the public to review and understand for

any future amendment considerations.

This comprehensive Salmon FMP

update also includes a summary of

specific management goals for stocks in

the salmon management unit, which

allows NMFS to make minor

modifications to the salmon regulations.

The table of management goals that

currently appears in the salmon

regulations at § 660.410 would be

deleted from the regulations because it

already exists in the Salmon FMP. In

accordance with the current Salmon

FMP framework procedure, future

updates to stock management goals may

be made without amending the Salmon

FMP.

Future Proposed Regulations

Salmon Bycatch Retention

The salmon bycatch retention

provisions of Amendments 10 and 12

are not being implemented in this rule.

These provisions would authorize

regulations to permit groundfish trawl

vessels to retain, but not sell, their

bycatch of Pacific salmon under a

monitoring program that meets certain

guidelines. The Biological Opinion

under section 7 of the ESA regarding the

groundfish fishery requires monitoring

of the groundfish fisheries for salmon

bycatch rates, but the Salmon and

Groundfish FMPs and associated

regulations limit flexibility in how this

is done, because they do not allow for

retention of trawl-caught salmon. The

monitoring program has operated under

an EFP for the past few years, and this

plan amendment allows the Council to

adopt regulations to implement

appropriate monitoring. The Council

has not yet developed and proposed

such a program, so no implementing

regulations are currently being proposed

in connection with this portion of the

amendments. NMFS expects that the

Council will submit a proposal to

implement a bycatch monitoring

program for the 1998 fishery.

Classification

At this time, NMFS has not

determined that the FMP Amendment

that this rule would implement is

consistent with the national standards

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

applicable laws. NMFS, in making that

determination, will take into account

the data, views, and comments received

during the comment period.

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for the

purposes of E.O. 12866.

The Assistant General Counsel for

Legislation and Regulation of the

Department of Commerce certified to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration (SBA)

that this proposed rule, if adopted,

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities as follows:

The proposed rule would implement

changes to the Fishery Management Plan for

Commercial and Recreational Salmon

Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington,

Oregon, and California (Salmon FMP) to

specify Endangered Species Act (ESA)

standards as management objectives for

salmon species listed under the ESA. It

would also eliminate a table from the

regulations that would be made redundant by

Amendment 12.

This proposed rule to specify ESA

standards as salmon management objectives

would bring the Salmon FMP into

compliance with the March 8, 1996,

Biological Opinion on the impacts of ocean

fisheries for Pacific salmon on stocks listed

under the ESA. It formalizes in the FMP what

was already required by the ESA. The

elimination of the table is a housekeeping

measure that has no substantive impact on

the regulated public or other government

agencies.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 27, 1997.

Charles Karnella,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 50 CFR 660 is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST

COAST STATES AND IN THE

WESTERN PACIFIC

1. The authority citation for part 660

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 660.410, the section heading

and paragraph (a) are revised, the table

‘‘Summary of Specific Management

Goals for Stocks in the Salmon

Management Unit’’ is removed, and a

new paragraph (c) is added to read as

follows:

§ 660.410 Escapement and management

goals.

(a) The escapement and management

goals are summarized in Table 6–1 of

the Fishery Management Plan for

Commercial and Recreational Salmon

Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington,

Oregon, and California.

* * * * *

(c) The annual management measures

will be consistent with NMFS jeopardy

standards or NMFS recovery plans for

species listed under the Endangered

Species Act.

[FR Doc. 97–8462 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F