Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15873

priority guidance, however, the Service

was compelled by court order to issue

the 90-day finding.

On July 9, 1996, the Service published

a 90-day petition finding (61 FR 36021)

that substantial information had been

presented indicating the requested

action may be warranted for the Santa

Ana sucker. This same 90-day petition

finding stated that the petition did not

present substantial scientific or

commercial information indicating the

petitioned action may be warranted for

the Santa Ana speckled dace and Shay

Creek threespine stickleback because it

did not substantiate that the two taxa

are described species, subspecies, or

distinct vertebrate population segments

as required under current Service policy

(61 FR 4722) to be considered for listing.

Furthermore, the Service presently

regards the Shay Creek threespine

stickleback as a population of the

unarmored threespine stickleback

(Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni), a

species that is already listed as

endangered. While work on the 12-

month finding, also a tier 3 activity,

would not have been initiated under the

listing priority guidance, the Service

subsequently initiated a status review

for the Santa Ana sucker pursuant to an

October 10, 1996, court order.

The Service has carefully assessed the

best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the

present and future threats facing the

Santa Ana sucker. This analysis is

documented in the Service’s

Administrative 12-Month Finding on a

Petition to List the Santa Ana Sucker as

Endangered (Finding). Although the

Santa Ana sucker was described as

common in the 1970s (Moyle 1976), the

species has experienced declines

throughout most of its range (Moyle and

Yoshiyama 1992). This apparent overall

decline in population numbers is

particularly surprising given the high

reproductive capability and broad

habitat tolerances of this species. Much

of the remaining range of the Santa Ana

sucker is threatened by urban

encroachment, extreme alteration of

river channels, degraded water quality,

dam operations, water diversions,

introduction of exotic predators and

competitors, other human-caused

factors (e.g., adverse impacts associated

with human recreational activities), as

well as small populations and

associated genetic concerns. Of the four

known populations of the Santa Ana

sucker, two populations are mostly

within the Angeles National Forest.

Urban encroachment and alteration of

river channels are not a threat to these

two populations, one of which is extant

upstream of the confluence of the East,

West, and North forks of the San Gabriel

River and may contain the most

individuals of any remaining

population. Therefore, the Service

concludes that the magnitude of threats

facing the Santa Ana sucker are

moderate.

The Service determines, as a result of

its status review, that sufficient

information is currently available to

support a proposed rule to list the

species as endangered or threatened.

According to Service policy published

in the Federal Register on May 12, 1993

(58 FR 28034), such species are assigned

candidate status and given a listing

priority number. Guidelines for

assigning listing priorities were

published in the Federal Register on

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098).

Consequently, given the moderate

threats facing the Santa Ana sucker

throughout its range, the Service hereby

assigns the Santa Ana sucker a listing

priority number of 8.

Under the Service’s current system of

proposing species for listing based on

the magnitude and imminence of threats

facing a species, the Service considers

listing species with higher listing

priority numbers first. Since the

moratorium was lifted on April 26,

1996, the Service has completed 131

final determinations (publication of

final rules for endangered and

threatened species and withdrawals of

proposed rules). The Service believes

that this demonstrates that expeditious

progress is being made to list and delist

species under the Act. Despite this

progress, listing actions are currently

pending for many species that have

higher listing priority numbers than the

Santa Ana sucker. Those species

include a large number of species facing

high magnitude and imminent threats

(listing priority numbers of 1, 2, or 3).

Given that the Santa Ana sucker has a

listing priority number of 8 in light of

the threats of moderate magnitude, the

Service finds that listing the Santa Ana

sucker is warranted but precluded by

listing actions of higher priority.

References Cited

A complete list of references used in

the preparation of this finding is

available upon request from the

Carlsbad Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author

The primary author of this document

is Paul J. Barrett, Carlsbad Field Office

(see ADDRESSES section), telephone 619/

431–9440.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

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

Dated: March 27, 1997.

John G. Rogers,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97–8450 Filed 4–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants: Public Hearing on

Proposed Rule to List the Northern

Population of the Bog Turtle as

Threatened and the Southern

Population as Threatened Due to

Similarity of Appearance

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public

hearing.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service gives notice that a public

hearing will be held on the Service’s

proposal to list the northern population

of the bog turtle (Clemmys

muhlenbergii) as threatened from New

York and Massachusetts south to

Maryland; and the southern population

of the bog turtle, which occurs in the

Appalachian Mountains from southern

Virginia to northern Georgia, as

threatened due to similarity of

appearance to the northern population,

with a special rule, pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. The bog turtle is threatened

by a variety of factors which include:

habitat degradation and fragmentation

from agriculture and urban

development; habitat succession due to

invasive exotic and native plants; and

illegal trade and collection.

DATES: The public hearing will be held

April 21, 1997, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

(Eastern Standard Time). The formal

comment period closes on April 29,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Supervisor, Pennsylvania Field Office,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 315

South Allen Street, Suite 322, State

College, Pennsylvania 16801. The

public hearing will be held in the

auditorium of the Oley High School, 17

Jefferson Street, Oley, Pennsylvania.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Michael McCarthy at the above field

office address (814/234–4090; facsimile

814/234–0748).
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;