22994 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

western sage grouse, and there are few

other mechanisms that regulate grazing

practices or the conversion of native

habitats on privately owned lands.

The Service is currently assisting with

development of a county-wide Habitat

Conservation Plan (HCP) for private

lands in central Washington (Foster

Creek Conservation District, Douglas

County). When completed, the HCP will

include measures to protect the

northern subpopulation of the Columbia

Basin DPS. However, the Act does not

provide regulatory protections for

unlisted species during development of

HCPs (USDI 1996).

Some illegal or accidental shooting of

western sage grouse may occur in

Washington in association with hunting

seasons for other upland game species.

However, the state hunting moratorium

and hunting regulations implemented

by the Army at the YTC appear to be

sufficient to control this form of

mortality, and it is not likely to

significantly influence the viability of

the Columbia Basin DPS (Schroeder

pers. comm. 1999; Pounds pers. comm.

1999).

The Army implements a number of

regulations at the YTC to promote

environmental protection of the

installation’s natural resources.

However, various impacts to the

habitats important to western sage

grouse occur, and are primarily the

result of training-related fire and direct

damage to vegetation communities from

training maneuvers (see above).

(5) Other natural or human-caused

factors affecting the DPS’ continued

existence. The fragmented, isolated

nature of the Columbia Basin DPS is a

concern for conservation of the taxon

within the Columbia Basin ecosystem. A

preliminary viability analysis conducted

by the WSGWG (1998) indicates that

neither subpopulation is likely viable

over the long term (approximately 100

years). In addition to the relatively

large-scale impacts on native shrub

steppe habitats (above), other naturally

occurring impacts and human

influences of lesser magnitude may pose

threats to the Columbia Basin’s isolated

subpopulations. Potential risks include

direct impacts to individuals from

inclement weather conditions, altered

predator demographics or behavior,

agricultural practices (e.g., cultivation,

harvest, etc.), vehicle collisions, pest

control measures, scientific

investigations, and military training

(e.g., smoke obscurant and live-fire

exercises, etc.). Impacts may also result

from indirect disturbance of the

subpopulations caused by agricultural

and grazing activities, transportation

corridors, recreation, and military

training events (over-flights, troop

movements, etc.). Small, isolated

populations may also be at greater risk

to the effects of inbreeding (Benedict et

al. 2001, Oyler-McCance et al. in litt.

2001). Although it is unlikely that any

one of these factors have played a

significant role in the population

declines and range reductions of

western sage grouse, these combined

influences may now play an important

role in the dynamics of the relatively

small and isolated subpopulations that

make up the Columbia Basin DPS.

Finding

We reviewed the petition, information

available in our files, other published

and unpublished information submitted

to us during the public comment period

following our 90-day petition finding

and consulted with recognized prairie

grouse experts and other federal, state,

and tribal resource agencies within the

historic range of western sage grouse.

On the basis of the best scientific and

commercial information available, we

find that listing the Columbia Basin DPS

of western sage grouse as threatened is

warranted, but precluded by higher

priority listing actions.

In making this finding, we recognize

that there have been declines in the

distribution and abundance of western

sage grouse throughout the Columbia

Basin, primarily attributed to the loss

and degradation of native shrub steppe

habitats. These impacts are likely due to

a combination of factors including crop

production, fire, military training, overgrazing by livestock, rural and suburban

development, and dam construction.

The Columbia Basin DPS of western

sage grouse is also at increased risk from

inbreeding depression and random

environmental influences due to its

small size and level of fragmentation.

We also recognize that various state and

Federal agencies in Washington and

Oregon, and throughout the species’

historic distribution, are actively

managing the birds to try to improve

their overall population status and/or

attempting to restore them to currently

unoccupied habitats.

Due to a backlog of listing decisions

and funding constraints, a proposed rule

to list the Columbia Basin DPS of

western sage grouse will be developed

in accordance with our October 22,

1999, (or subsequent) LPG (64

FR57114). Under the LPG, we prioritize

our listing activities based upon the

magnitude of threats to a listable entity,

followed by the immediacy of the

threats, and, finally, by the taxonomy of

an entity (i.e., monotypic genus,

followed by species, then subspecies /

DPS). The two subpopulations of the

Columbia Basin DPS are subject to

different threats of varying magnitude.

However, we conclude that the overall

magnitude of threats to the Columbia

Basin DPS of western sage grouse is

moderate, and that the overall

immediacy of these threats is imminent.

Under our listing and recovery priority

guidance (48 FR 43098), a DPS for

which threats are moderate and

imminent is assigned a Listing Priority

Number of 9.

We intend that any proposed listing

action for the Columbia Basin DPS of

western sage grouse will be as accurate

and effective as possible. Therefore, we

will continue to accept additional

information and comments from other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

finding.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited

herein is available upon request from

the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

This document was prepared by Chris

Warren, Upper Columbia Fish and

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act, as amended

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

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11356 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 010319074–1104–02; I.D.

022201B]

RIN 0648–AP13

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

(HMS) Fisheries; Pelagic Longline

Management

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: NMFS withdraws its proposal

to extend the closure of the Charleston

Bump area to pelagic longline fishing

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22995

through May 31, 2001. Through a

previously issued final rule, the

Charleston Bump area remains closed to

pelagic longline fishing annually from

February 1 through April 30.

DATES: The proposed rule published on

March 30, 2001 (66 FR 17389), is

withdrawn as of May 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final

Environmental Assessment and

Regulatory Impact Review that

accompany this notification of

withdrawal can be obtained from

Christopher Rogers, Acting Chief,

Highly Migratory Species Management

Division, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karyl Brewster-Geisz, NMFS, at (301)

713–2347 or by email at karyl.brewstergeisz@noaa.gov, or Jill Stevenson,

NMFS-Southeast Regional Office at

(727) 570–5447 or by email at

jill.stevenson@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final

rule (65 FR 47214, August 1, 2000) to

implement a regulatory amendment to

the Fishery Management Plan for

Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks

included a provision to close the

Charleston Bump area to pelagic

longline fishing on an annual basis from

February 1 through April 30. NMFS

subsequently delayed the effective date

of the closed area for 2001 to March 1

to correct the coordinates of the closed

areas and to distribute this information

to affected fishermen and law

enforcement (66 FR 8903, February 5,

2001). On March 30, 2001, NMFS

proposed to extend the closure period of

the Charleston Bump area through May

31, 2001 (66 FR 17389).

The intent of the proposed action was

to partially recover environmental

benefits in terms of bycatch reduction

that were likely lost when the closure

was delayed from February 1, 2001,

until March 1, 2001. In a draft

Environmental Assessment prepared in

support of the proposed action, NMFS

evaluated the costs and benefits of the

extension consistent with the objectives

of the final rule previously

implementing the seasonal closure. The

proposed action would not have

affected the closure dates for the

Charleston Bump area in future years.

NMFS requested comments from the

public and held a public hearing on

April 3, 2001.

NMFS received many comments on

the proposed rule. Some of the

comments supported the proposed rule

and noticed the environmental benefits

in terms of bycatch reduction. Other

comments did not support the proposed

rule and stated that the proposed

extension would have little impact over

the long-term to these fish on a stockwide basis and that the extension has no

scientific basis. NMFS also received

comments stating that the extension

should last through the month of June

to recoup lost bycatch reduction

benefits for the delay of the East Florida

Coast closure as well as the delay of the

Charleston Bump closure. Additional

comments noted that NMFS’ estimates

of the number of vessels that fish in

February in the Charleston Bump is

high, especially for this year due to bad

weather, and that fishermen should not

be punished because NMFS made an

error.

NMFS also received comments

regarding the economic impacts that the

proposed extension could have on the

fishermen and dealers in the Charleston

Bump area. These comments included:

fishermen fishing in the Charleston

Bump in May and June target dolphin

fish, not swordfish; dolphin fish fishing

costs less (shorter leaders, no lightsticks,

less bait, etc.) and, therefore, profits are

higher in May than any other time of

year; 25 percent of a fisherman’s annual

income is received in May; the Small

Business Administration has declared

South Carolina a disaster area due to the

shrimp fishery failure and an extension

would further exacerbate the problem

for these communities; the short notice

of the extension would not give

fishermen sufficient time to adjust

fishing patterns to minimize economic

and social impacts; fishermen and

dealers around both the Charleston

Bump and East Florida Coast have been

relying on and planning for the area to

reopen on May 1 since the closure dates

were announced last August; and

recreational fishing is economically

valuable to the communities and any

reduction in longline bycatch could

benefit the communities especially

given the tournaments that open in May.

NMFS also received miscellaneous

comments that included: the comment

period was too short given the length of

a longline trip; U.S. fishermen already

take voluntary action to reduce bycatch

and additional regulations may have

negative impacts in negotiating

conservation measures internationally;

if NMFS closes the Charleston Bump for

an extended period, fishermen will be

forced to fish offshore even if it is

unsafe to do so; NMFS should evaluate

the effectiveness of existing closures

before proposing new ones; and NMFS

needs to research and implement other

methods of bycatch reduction and VMS.

NMFS is concerned about bycatch

and bycatch mortality in all Atlantic

highly migratory species fisheries and

will continue to evaluate existing

bycatch reduction measures as well as

pursue additional measures as

necessary. However, due to the large

economic impacts extending the closure

could have, the short time period in

which fishermen and dealers would

have to adjust fishing patterns to avoid

the Charleston Bump, and the fact that

NMFS does not know at this time the

actual impact on bycatch reduction of

both the delay in the Charleston Bump

and East Florida coast closures and the

actual time/area closures, NMFS has

determined that extending the closure of

the Charleston Bump area through May

31 is unwarranted.

Additional analyses described in the

final Environmental Assessment

indicate that while effort in the

Charleston Bump was low compared to

past years, the fishermen who did fish

in February caught slightly more billfish

and sea turtles than the average. Thus,

extending the closure could possibly

regain some of the bycatch reductions

that may have been lost due to the

delay. However, the degree of bycatch

reduction achieved by a May 2001

closure would not contribute

significantly to bycatch reduction in the

pelagic longline fishery beyond the

immediate short-term; on the other

hand, the economic impacts from this

one-time extension could be very

significant for fishermen, particularly in

light of the August 1, 2000, final rule.

In the August 1, 2000, final rule and its

accompanying Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement, NMFS

determined that it was not necessary to

close the Charleston Bump in May in

order to achieve the objectives of the

final rule and reduce bycatch and

bycatch reduction. Despite the delay in

the closure of the Charleston Bump,

because the objectives of the proposed

rule were the same as the August 1,

2000, final rule, NMFS agrees with its

earlier decision and feels it is necessary

to wait until more data are gathered

regarding the result of the existing

closures and any bycatch reductions

gained before adjusting the August 1,

2000, final rule any further.

NMFS acknowledges that bycatch in

the pelagic longline fishery is an

international issue that requires

international cooperation. The United

States is working to develop

international conservation measures and

will continue to negotiate at the

International Commission for the

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas in

support of U.S. fisheries, to the extent

that their prosecution is consistent with

U.S. domestic legislation. While NMFS

is aware that the comment period for the

proposed rule was shorter than 45 days,

22996 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the timing of the proposal required a

short comment period in the event that

final regulations and supporting

documents needed to be prepared.

Additionally, NMFS agrees that

recreational fishing is economically

valuable to communities; however,

NMFS must manage fisheries consistent

with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act and

its implementing guidelines, which

require consideration of traditional

fisheries. Safety is the responsibility of

each fisherman. While NMFS works to

reduce safety concerns related to

regulatory actions, fishermen should

account for the distance from shore if an

area is closed and they redistribute their

fishing effort.

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in

the preamble, the proposed rule that

was published in the Federal Register

on March 30, 2001 (66 FR 17389) is

withdrawn.

Dated: May 1, 2001.

John Oliver,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11420 Filed 5–2–01; 4:25 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S