27256 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules

lower reaches of the Feather (Jones and

Stokes 1993) and American rivers

(Charles Hanson, State Water

Contractors, in litt., 1993) on occasion;

however, the species now is largely

confined to the delta, Suisun Bay,

Suisun Marsh, and Napa Marsh. The

‘‘Delta’’ refers to all tidal waters

contained within the legal definition of

the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento-San

Joaquin River Delta, as delineated by

section 12220 of the State of California’s

Water Code of 1969. Generally, the Delta

is contained within a triangular area

that extends south from the City of

Sacramento to the confluence of the

Stanilaus and San Joaquin Rivers at the

southeast corner and Chipps Island in

Suisun Bay.

In recent years, splittail have been

found most often in slow moving

sections of rivers and sloughs and deadend sloughs (Moyle et al. 1982, Daniels

and Moyle 1983). Reports from the

1950’s, however, mention Sacramento

River spawning migrations and catches

of splittail during fast tides in Suisun

Bay (Caywood 1974). California

Department of Fish and Game survey

data from the last 15 years indicate that

the highest catches occurred in shallow

areas subject to flooding. Historically,

major flood basins, distributed

throughout the Sacramento and San

Joaquin Valleys, provided spawning and

rearing habitat. These flood basins have

all been reclaimed or modified into

flood control structures (bypasses).

Although primarily a freshwater

species, splittail can tolerate salinities

as high as 10 to 18 parts per thousand

(Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992).

On January 10, 1995, a second

comment period was opened for 45

days, and a 6-month extension added to

the final rulemaking time frame, in

accordance with section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of

the Act. A moratorium on listing

actions, imposed on April 10, 1995

(Pub. L. 104–6), was lifted on April 26,

1996. Severe funding constraints

imposed by a number of continuing

resolutions between November 1995

and April 1996 were followed by

passage of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act on April 26, 1996,

allowing work to continue on various

listing actions in accordance with fiscal

year guidance that assigned priorities in

a multi-tiered approach in accordance

with section 4 of the Act (61 FR 64479).

The guidance stated that handling

emergency situations was highest

priority (Tier 1), and resolving the

listing status of outstanding proposed

rules was second highest priority (Tier

2). Processing of this proposed rule fell

under Tier 2.

On March 19 and March 20, 1998, the

California Department of Water

Resources and the State Water

Contractors, respectively, requested a

reopening of the comment period. The

basis of this request is that substantial

data have been collected since 1995

regarding the abundance and

distribution of the splittail. The Service

believes that consideration of this and

any new information is significant to

make the final determination for the

Sacramento splittail. For this reason, the

Service particularly seeks information

concerning abundance and distribution

data for this species from 1995–1997.

Specifically, the Service seeks

comments regarding the paper

‘‘Resilience of Splittail in the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary’’

(Sommer et al. 1997), and how the

information contained in this paper

effects the Service’s recommendation for

listing the Sacramento splittail as a

threatened species.

Written comments may be submitted

until July 17, 1998 to the Service office

in the ADDRESSES section.

Author.

The primary author of this notice is

Diane Windham, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (see ADDRESSES section).

References

Caywood, M.L. 1974. Contributions to the life

history of the splittail Pogonichthys

macrolepidotus (Ayres). M.S. Thesis,

California State University, Sacramento.

Daniels, R.A., and P.B. Moyle. 1983. Life

history of the splittail (Cyprinidae:

Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) in the

Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. Fish.

Bull. 84:105–117.

Jones and Stokes Assoc., Inc. 1993. Sutter

Bypass fisheries technical memorandum

II: Potential entrapment of juvenile

chinook salmon in the proposed gravel

mining pond. May 27, 1993. (JSA 91–

272). Sacramento, California. Prepared

for Teichert Aggregates, Sacramento,

California. 31 pp. + Appendix.

Moyle, P.B., J.J. Smith, R.A. Daniels, and

D.M. Balz. 1982. Distribution and

ecology of stream fishes of the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage

System, California: A review. Univ. Calif.

Publ. Zool. 115:225–256.

Moyle. P.B., and R.M. Yoshiyama. 1992.

Fishes, aquatic diversity management

areas, and endangered species: A plan to

protect California’s native aquatic biota.

Draft report prepared for California

Policy Seminar, Univ. of Calif. Berkeley,

California. July 1992. 196 pp.

Rutter, C. 1908. The fishes of the SacramentoSan Joaquin basin, with a study of their

distribution and variation. U.S. Bull.

27:103–152.

Sommer, T., R. Baxter, and B. Herbold. 1997.

Resilience of the Splittail in the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.

Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 126:961–976.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: May 12, 1998.

Thomas Dwyer,

Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Region 1.

[FR Doc. 98–13083 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 980508122–8122–01; I.D.

042498A]

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery; Control

Date for Spiny Dogfish

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking; notice of control date for

spiny dogfish fishery.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that anyone

entering the spiny dogfish (Squalus

acanthias) (dogfish) fishery after May

18, 1998 (control date) will not be

assured of future access to the dogfish

resource in Federal waters if a

management regime is developed and

implemented under the MagnusonStevens Act that limits the number of

participants in the fishery. This

announcement is intended to promote

awareness of potential eligibility criteria

for future access to that portion of the

dogfish fishery and to discourage new

entries into this fishery based on

economic speculation while the MidAtlantic and New England Fishery

Management Councils (Councils)

contemplate whether and how access to

that portion of the dogfish fishery in

Federal waters should be controlled.

The potential eligibility criteria may be

based on historical participation. This

announcement, therefore, gives the

public notice that interested

participants should locate and preserve

records that substantiate and verify their

participation in the dogfish fishery in

Federal waters.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 17, 1998.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27257

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Dr. Christopher M. Moore,

Acting Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Council, 300

South New Street, Dover DE 19904.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick

Pearson, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-

281-9324.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

For most of the first two decades of

extended jurisdiction under the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, dogfish was

considered to be underutilized and of

minor economic importance. With the

decline of more traditional groundfish

resources in recent years, an increase in

directed fishing for dogfish has resulted

in a nearly sixfold increase in landings

in the last 7 years. The lack of any

regulations pertaining to the harvest of

dogfish in the exclusive economic zone,

combined with the recent expansion of

the fishery led the Councils to initiate

development of a management plan for

the species.

The most recent stock assessment

conducted by NMFS for dogfish (SAW–

26, 1998) indicates that the stock in the

Northwest Atlantic has begun to decline

and the spawning stock has declined

significantly since 1989 as a result of an

increase in exploitation. Expansion of

the fishery has resulted in a dramatic

increase in fishing mortality (F). This

increased F has been focused primarily

on mature females due to their larger

size. The increased F, in combination

with the removal of a large portion of

the adult female stock, has resulted in

the species’ being designated

overfished. The Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries, NMFS, on April 3, 1998,

notified the Councils of this

designation, thus initiating the 1-year

time frame for development of a fishery

management plan as required by the

Magnuson-Stevens Act.

SAW–26 recommended that a

management program be developed

promptly for this species and that

targets for stock biomass and F be

established. In addition, the recent

prominence of this species in the

Northwest Atlantic ecosystem and

evidence of the effects of F on stock

abundance, including decreased indices

of large fish, resulted in the Councils’

decision to implement a fishery

management plan for dogfish.

The Councils held scoping hearings in

the New England and Mid-Atlantic

regions during the fall of 1997 to begin

the process of developing a fishery

management plan for the dogfish fishery

(FMP). The purpose of the scoping

hearings was to determine the scope of

issues to be addressed and to identify

the significant issues and problems

relating to the management of dogfish.

Foremost among the problems and

issues that were identified during the

dogfish scoping hearings was the status

of the resource. The assessment

conducted in 1994 indicated that the

stock was stable, but possibly beginning

to decline. Landings have increased

since that assessment, prompting

concerns that the stock may be

overfished. Since current levels of

fishing effort may exceed the level

required to achieve optimum yield for

dogfish, the Councils will be

considering limiting access to the

dogfish fishery during FMP

development.

The Councils intend to address

whether and how to limit entry of

commercial vessels into this fishery in

the dogfish FMP. The Councils’

publication of this control date is to

discourage speculative entry into the

dogfish fishery while potential

management regimes to control access

into the fishery are discussed and

possibly developed by the Councils. The

control date will help to distinguish

established participants from

speculative entrants to the fishery.

Although participants are notified that

entering the fishery after the control

date will not assure them of future

access to the dogfish resource on the

grounds of previous participation,

additional and/or other qualifying

criteria may be applied. The Councils

may choose different and variably

weighted methods to qualify

participants based on the type and

length of participation in the fishery or

on the quantity of landings.

This notification hereby establishes

May 18, 1998 for potential use in

determining historical or traditional

participation in the Federal waters

dogfish fishery. This action does not

commit the Councils to develop any

particular management regime or to use

any specific criteria for determining

entry to the fishery. The Councils may

choose a different control date or a

management program that does not

make use of such a date. The Councils

may also choose to take no further

action to control entry or access to the

fishery. Any action by the Councils will

be taken pursuant to the requirement for

FMP development established under the

Magnuson-Stevens Act.

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

Dated: May 11, 1998.

David L. Evans,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–13051 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F