Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58115

the use of standardized or at least compatible 

software in neighboring RTO/ISO markets 

reduce the cost of doing business across 

RTO/ISO boundaries? How would any such 

standardization be accomplished? 

4. To what degree should an RTO/ISO’s 

stakeholder/advisory committee be involved 

in reviewing or shaping the RTO/ISO’s 

budget and spending decisions? Are there 

independence considerations that should 

prevent or limit such review by market 

participants? 

5. Should the Commission allow 

differences between RTOs/ISOs with regard 

to cost allocation and rate design to recover 

the operation and capital costs for each of 

their functions (e.g., tariff administration and 

markets for energy, ancillary service, and 

FTRs)? If so, how should the various rates be 

designed, i.e., what are the correct billing 

determinants for each service? 

6. Should the compensation of senior RTO/

ISO management be linked to specific 

performance measures, including cost 

reductions?

Procedure for Comments 

19. The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit comments, and other 

information on the matters, issues and 

specific questions identified in this 

notice. Comments are due November 4, 

2004. Comments must refer to Docket 

No. RM04–12–000, and must include 

the commentor’s name, the organization 

they represent, if applicable, and their 

address. 

20. To facilitate the Commission’s 

review of the comments, commentors 

are requested to provide an executive 

summary of their position. Commentors 

are requested to identify each specific 

question posed by the NOI that their 

discussion addresses and to use 

appropriate headings. Additional issues 

the commentors wish to raise should be 

identified separately. The commentors 

should double space their comments. 

21. Comments may be filed on paper 

or electronically via the eFiling link on 

the Commission’s Web site at http://

www.ferc.gov . The Commission accepts 

most standard word processing formats 

and commentors may attach additional 

files with supporting information in 

certain other file formats. Commentors 

filing electronically do not need to make 

a paper filing. Commentors that are not 

able to file comments electronically 

must send an original and 14 copies of 

their comments to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

22. All comments will be placed in 

the Commission’s public files and may 

be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commentors 

are not required to serve copies of their 

comments on other commentors. 

Document Availability 

23. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov ) and in the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., 

Room 2A, Washington DC 20426. 

24. From the Commission’s Home 

Page on the Internet, this information is 

available in the Commission’s document 

management system, eLibrary. The full 

text of this document is available on 

eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word 

format for viewing, printing, and/or 

downloading. To access this document 

in eLibrary, type the docket number 

(excluding the last three digits) in the 

docket number field. 

25. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site 

during normal business hours. For 

assistance, please contact the 

Commission’s Online Support at 1–866–

208–3676 (toll free) or 202–502–6652 (email at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or 

the Public Reference Room at 202–502–

8371, TTY 202–502–8659 (e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov)

By direction of the Commission. 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–21760 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding for a 

Petition To List the Western Gray 

Squirrel as Endangered Rangewide

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding for a petition to list the 

western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus) 

as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. We 

find the petition does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing this 

species may be warranted.

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on September 29, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: Data, information, 

comments or questions concerning this 

petition should be sent to the Manager, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 

510 Desmond Drive SE., Suite 102, 

Lacey, WA 98503. The petition finding, 

supporting data, and comments are 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

L. Karolee Owens (see ADDRESSES

section), telephone 360/753–4369, 

facsimile 360/753–4369.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. et seq.), requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

This finding is to be based on all 

information contained in the petition 

and available in our files at the time the 

finding is made. 

Our standard for substantial 

information with regard to a 90-day 

petition finding is ‘‘that amount of 

information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If the 

finding is that substantial information 

was presented, we are required to 

promptly commence a review of the 

status of the species, unless a status 

review has previously been initiated. 

Petition 

On December 24, 2002, we received a 

petition dated December 19, 2002, from 

the Institute for Wildlife Protection 

(IWP). The petition was submitted as a 

comment to our request for public 

comments in a 90-day finding for a 

petition to list the Washington 

population of one of the subspecies of 

the western gray squirrel (Sciurus 

griseus griseus) as threatened or 

endangered. The petitioner provided a 

comment letter-petition to list the 

western gray squirrel rangewide and 

two attachments. The petitioner 

requested that we consider listing the 

western gray squirrel as endangered 

throughout its range and evaluate ‘‘any 

DPS’s (distinct population segments) 

and subspecies’’ of the western gray 

squirrel throughout its range. The 

petitioner did not provide any 

58116 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

information supporting any western 

gray squirrel DPS. The petitioner also 

requested that we consider emergency 

listing ‘‘the squirrel in Washington and 

the population isolate on the CaliforniaNevada border.’’ The letter contained 

the name, address, and signature of the 

petitioning organization’s 

representative. However, it was not 

initially clear that the comment letter 

was intended to be a new petition to list 

the entire species Sciurus griseus. We 

contacted the IWP on January 16, 2003, 

to determine whether the letter was 

intended to be a new petition. On 

January 17, 2003, IWP responded that 

their letter was, in fact, a petition to list. 

On February 21, 2003, we responded 

with a letter acknowledging receipt of 

the petition and advising IWP that 

budget limitations would not allow us 

to complete a 90-day petition finding 

until fiscal year 2004. We also stated 

that our initial review of the petition did 

not indicate that an emergency situation 

existed, but that if conditions changed 

such that an emergency listing became 

warranted an emergency rule could be 

developed. 

On March 19, 2004, IWP filed a 

complaint in federal district court 

alleging, among other things, that we 

failed to make the 90-day petition 

finding on their petition to list the 

western gray squirrel as an endangered 

species under the Act and that we failed 

to make a finding on their petition for 

emergency listing. We are making this 

90-day petition finding in response to a 

court order to complete this finding 

within 60 days of the Court’s order of 

July 26, 2004 (Institute for Wildlife 

Protection v. Norton, Case No. C04–

0594RSM (W.D. Wash.)).

In the comment-petition letter, the 

petitioner discusses the reduction and 

fragmentation of oak savannahs and 

woodlands and provides information on 

how much of this habitat has been lost. 

The petitioner also discusses threats to 

this habitat including sudden oak death 

disease, fire suppression, livestock 

grazing, habitat fragmentation, and 

threats to the western gray squirrel 

including competition with other tree 

and ground squirrels; the unpredictable 

nature of its food supplies; automobiles; 

house cats; and susceptibility to risk of 

extinction from genetic demographic 

and stochastic fluctuations in effective 

population sizes. However, no citations 

specific to the western gray squirrel 

literature are included to document how 

these potential threats have affected the 

species. 

The attachment ‘‘Biological Effects To 

Be Considered in a Status Review of the 

Western Gray Squirrel (Sciurus griseus)’’

is an extensive discussion of biological 

and ecological factors that should be 

considered when determining whether 

any species may be threatened or 

endangered. However, this document 

does not provide specific western gray 

squirrel data or information to indicate 

that any or all of these threats have 

resulted in the western gray squirrel 

being in danger of becoming threatened 

or endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. This 

document does not use the phrase 

‘‘western gray squirrels,’’ but refers to 

‘‘these squirrels,’’ ‘‘this species,’’ and 

‘‘the species’’ in a very general context 

that suggests this attachment is intended 

to be a generic document that can be 

used in petitions to list a variety of 

species. The discussion of the threats 

does not include specific citations from 

western gray squirrel literature. 

A review of the ‘‘Supplemental 

Bibliography’’ attachment found no 

literature citations specifically 

addressing western gray squirrels. None 

of the literature cited in our previous 

petition findings for the Washington 

western gray squirrel populations are 

included in the ‘‘Supplemental 

Bibliography.’’ Only two references 

directly pertaining to any squirrel 

species are included. Those literature 

citations relate to Mt. Graham red 

squirrel (Tamiascurus hudsonicus 

grahamensis) and red squirrels 

(Tamiascurus hudsonicus). A number of 

citations are highlighted in bold font, 

but many of these are bird-related 

literature citations. 

We reviewed the information 

provided in the comment-petition letter 

and the attachments with reference to 

the guidelines for evaluating petitions 

provided in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2). 

Although the petitioner discusses 

potential threats to western gray 

squirrels, there is no detailed narrative 

justification for listing the western gray 

squirrel as threatened or endangered 

rangewide. No information is provided 

on past and present numbers and 

distribution of the three subspecies, or 

possible DPSs, involved. There are no 

data regarding the status of western gray 

squirrels over all or a significant portion 

of the species’ range, or the status of 

each of the three subspecies or potential 

DPSs. There is little documentation in 

the form of bibliographic references 

specific to western gray squirrels, and 

no reprints of pertinent publications, 

copies of reports, letters from 

authorities, or maps supporting the 

possibility that the western gray squirrel 

is threatened or endangered throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

In addition to using information 

provided by the petitioner, we also 

assess information available in our files 

at the time of the petition finding. We 

recently reviewed the status of one 

subspecies of western gray squirrel, 

Sciurus griseus griseus, in response to a 

petition to list the Washington 

populations of this subspecies. Most of 

the information in our files was 

gathered while completing the recent 

90-day and 12-month petition findings 

for the Washington populations. In 

addition, in preparing this 90-day 

finding for the petition to list the 

western gray squirrel rangewide, we 

again contacted all of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service field offices within the 

species’ range to ask for any additional 

information received since completing 

the petition findings for the Washington 

populations. 

Status of the Western Gray Squirrel 

The western gray squirrel ranges 

through parts of Washington, Oregon, 

California, and Nevada. There are three 

subspecies: (1) Sciurus griseus nigripes, 

which ranges from south of San 

Francisco Bay in the central California 

Coast Range to San Luis Obispo County; 

(2) Sciurus griseus anthonyi, which 

ranges from the southern tip of the Coast 

Range, near San Luis Obispo, into 

south-central California; and (3) Sciurus 

griseus griseus, which ranges from 

central Washington to the western 

Sierra Nevada Range in central 

California (Hall 1981). There is also a 

small, disjunct population of Sciurus 

griseus griseus in west-central Nevada. 

Western gray squirrels are uncommon 

in Nevada and found only in the Carson 

Range in west-central Nevada 

(Biological Resources Division, 

University of Nevada-Reno 2003). The 

Nevada western gray squirrel 

population likely represents a migrant 

population from the Sierra Nevada in 

California on the fringe of the 

subspecies’ range (Biological Resources 

Division, University of Nevada-Reno 

2003). The subspecies has never been 

wide-ranging in Nevada, and its limited 

range in Nevada may be related to the 

absence of oak trees (Johnson 1954). The 

western gray squirrel is a protected 

species under the Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC) (NAC 

503.030), and there is no open hunting 

season on species classified as 

protected. The National Heritage Status 

Rank for the western gray squirrel in 

Nevada is S4 (Apparently Secure) 

(NatureServe Explorer 2002). Current 

distribution and population sizes in 

Nevada have not been documented. 

However, western gray squirrels in the 

California-Nevada border population 

isolate are apparently common and 

well-adapted to urban environments in 

the Lake Tahoe area (Peter Maholland, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58117

California Tahoe Conservancy, pers. 

comm. 2002; J. Shane Romsos, Tahoe 

Regional Planning Agency (NV), pers. 

comm. 2002; Kevin Kritz, Service, pers. 

comm. 2004).

The western gray squirrel is fairly 

common and is a game species in 

California. California Department of 

Fish and Game (CDFG) estimates 

approximately 30 million acres (ac) (12 

million hectares (ha)) of western gray 

squirrel habitat, not including orchards, 

are occupied by approximately 18 

million squirrels just before the 

breeding season (CDFG 2002). Their 

estimates include a net increase of about 

1.2 million squirrels annually after 

consideration of a 50 percent juvenile 

mortality, a 50 percent adult mortality, 

and a harvest rate due to hunting of less 

than 1 percent each year, although 

environmental and density-dependent 

mechanisms help keep the populations 

in check with their habitats. CDFG 

concludes that hunting mortality does 

not adversely affect western gray 

squirrel populations (CDFG 2002). 

Hunting for tree squirrels is permitted 

within the range of Sciurus griseus 

griseus and S. g. nigripes, but is not 

permitted in southern California within 

most of the range of S. g. anthonyi.

There are no data showing populations 

of the western gray squirrel having 

declined such that the subspecies may 

be threatened or endangered in 

California. The National Heritage Status 

Rank for the western gray squirrel in 

California is S4 (Apparently Secure) and 

S5 (Secure) (NatureServe Explorer 

2002). Separate rankings are not 

provided for each subspecies in 

California. 

Additionally, several conservation 

programs, policies, and regulations help 

maintain western gray squirrel habitat 

in California, including the Integrated 

Hardwood Range Management Program, 

the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund 

created by the Oak Woodlands 

Conservation Act, the California Forest 

Practice Rules, and California Partners 

in Flight. The 1985 hardwood 

conservation policy and 1989 hardwood 

guidelines developed by the California 

Fish and Game Commission are used as 

references to ensure hardwood 

conservation measures are considered in 

all project proposals reviewed under the 

California Environmental Quality Act 

(Patrick Lauridson, CDFG, in litt. 2002). 

There are no population data for 

western gray squirrels in Oregon, but 

their numbers and distribution in 

Oregon are considered to be much 

reduced based on Bailey (1936) and 

anecdotal information (Marshall et al.

1996). The Natural Heritage Rank for the 

western gray squirrel in Oregon is S4? 

(not rare and apparently secure, but 

with cause for long-term concern; a ‘‘?’’

indicates assigned rank is uncertain) 

(Oregon Natural Heritage Program 

2001). The western gray squirrel is 

classified as a ‘‘sensitive species’’ of 

‘‘undetermined status,’’ which indicates 

the species may be susceptible to 

population decline of sufficient 

magnitude that it could qualify for 

endangered, threatened, critical, or 

vulnerable status, but additional 

research is needed (Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife 1997). Despite their 

classification as a sensitive species, 

western gray squirrels are legally hunted 

in Oregon; however, hunting restrictions 

delay and shorten the hunting season in 

north-central Oregon (Marshall et al.

1996). 

The comment letter-petition describes 

the degradation, fragmentation, and loss 

of oak habitats in Oregon, but does not 

provide data specific to western gray 

squirrels documenting that the species 

is threatened or endangered due to these 

habitat losses. The historical 

distribution of the western gray squirrel 

apparently corresponded with the 

distribution of Oregon white oak 

(Quercus garryana) (Hall 1981; Stein 

1990). However, the species uses a 

variety of food sources, although oak 

mast is believed to be an important part 

of the western gray squirrel’s diet 

(Carraway and Verts 1994; Marshall et 

al. 1996). Western gray squirrels also 

forage in nut orchards (Carraway and 

Verts 1994; Susan Weston, in litt. 2002). 

At least two populations, the northern 

Cascades population in Washington and 

the California-Nevada population 

isolate, occur outside the range of oak 

communities. In addition, western gray 

squirrels have adapted to urban 

environments, particularly in Oregon, as 

well as in the Lake Tahoe area in 

Nevada (S. Weston, in litt. 2002; P. 

Maholland, pers. comm. 2002; S. 

Romsos, pers. comm. 2002; K. Kritz, 

pers. comm. 2004). We previously 

contacted the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife concerning the status 

of the species in Oregon. Although that 

agency recognizes the changes in oak 

habitat, the level of concern for the 

western gray squirrel is not such that 

they are tracking actively the status of 

the species with surveys (Charlie Bruce, 

Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, pers. comm. 2002). In 

summary, we conclude at this time, 

based on the information in the petition 

and information in our files, that there 

is not substantial information indicating 

that the western gray squirrel may be 

threatened or endangered in Oregon. 

In Washington, our recent review of 

the status of western gray squirrels was 

extensive. The western gray squirrel in 

Washington was more widely 

distributed in prehistoric times, 

probably ranging throughout western 

Washington and the Cascade Mountains 

in association with oak communities. 

However, the species’ distribution has 

diminished in recent times along with 

the decrease in distribution of oak 

woodlands (Rodrick 1987, WDW 1993). 

Currently the western gray squirrel is 

distributed in Washington in three 

geographically isolated populations: one 

in the Puget Trough, one in the southern 

Cascades, and one in the northern 

Cascades (Bayrakci et al. 2001, WDW 

1993). The western gray squirrel was 

classified as a threatened species by the 

Washington Fish and Wildlife 

Commission in 1993 (Washington 

Administrative Code (WAC) 23212011). 

The Natural Heritage Status Rank for the 

western gray squirrel in Washington is 

S2 (imperiled) (NatureServe Explorer 

2002). 

The western gray squirrel was once 

common on the partially wooded 

prairies adjacent to Puget Sound 

(Bowles 1920, 1921). However, the 

surviving Puget Trough population, 

which is at a high risk of extirpation 

(Bayrakci et al. 2001), is now centered 

on Fort Lewis in southern Pierce and 

northern Thurston Counties where the 

largest area of oak woodland remains 

(Bayrakci et al. 2001; Ryan and Carey 

1995). The southern Cascade Mountains 

population, currently the largest 

remaining population of western gray 

squirrels in Washington, is widely 

distributed across Klickitat County. The 

northern Cascade Mountains population 

is the least documented population, and 

no population or trend data are 

available. This population occurs in an 

ecological setting that differs from the 

Puget Trough and southern Cascades 

populations. The north Cascades 

population probably resulted from a 

range expansion northward from 

Yakima County and beyond the native 

range of oaks (Stein 1990), which 

required adaptation to habitats lacking 

oaks. 

Hunting for western gray squirrels in 

Washington has not been allowed since 

1943, with the exception of special 

seasons in 1949 and 1950 in Pierce and 

Thurston Counties (WDW 1993). The 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife is developing a recovery plan 

for the western gray squirrel. Fort Lewis 

has developed a 10-year oak woodland 

management strategy that includes 

management strategies for western gray 

squirrels (GBA Forestry 2002). 

The 12-month petition finding (68 FR 

34628), in which we specifically 

addressed whether the Washington 

58118 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

populations of western gray squirrels 

should be listed as a threatened or 

endangered DPS, details our current 

knowledge of the status of the 

Washington population. In that finding, 

we determined that the Washington 

population does not warrant listing as a 

DPS and that the Washington 

population does not represent a 

significant portion of the subspecies’

range. This decision was challenged in 

federal district court, which upheld the 

Service’s petition finding on August 2, 

2004 (Northwestern Ecosystem Alliance

v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Case 

No. CV 03–1505–PA (D. Or.)).

Under the requirements of our DPS 

policy (61 FR 4722), we use three 

elements to assess whether a population 

segment under consideration for listing 

may be recognized as a DPS: (1) 

Discreteness of the population segment 

in relation to the remainder of the 

species to which it belongs; (2) the 

significance of the population segment 

to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3) 

the population segment’s conservation 

status in relation to the Act’s standards 

for listing. The discreteness standard 

must be met before considering the 

significance standard. Both the 

discreteness and significance standards 

must be met before considering the 

conservation status of the population 

segment. 

Although the Washington population 

met the discreteness standard, we 

concluded this population did not meet 

the significance standard, and therefore 

was not a listable entity. This petition 

presents no new information that would 

change this conclusion. Based on the 

information in our files, we are unable 

to determine that the Oregon 

populations are discrete from California 

populations. The comment-petition 

letter provided no information to 

address DPSs. Also, we lack sufficient 

information to determine the population 

on the California-Nevada border is 

sufficiently isolated from other 

California western gray squirrel 

populations to meet the discreteness 

standard. Genetic analyses also may be 

used as a measure of discreteness. 

Preliminary genetic analyses indicated 

there is considerably more genetic 

differentiation between the Washington 

populations and either Oregon or 

California populations than there is 

between Oregon and California 

populations. We have no genetic 

analyses that include the CaliforniaNevada population isolate. In any case, 

western gray squirrels in the CaliforniaNevada population isolate in the Lake 

Tahoe area are apparently common and 

well-adapted to urban environments. 

Consequently, we do not have sufficient 

information to determine that any of the 

California, Oregon, or Nevada 

populations are discrete. Thus it is not 

necessary to determine whether any of 

these populations could meet the 

significance standard. 

Further, we do not have substantial 

information either from the petition or 

in our files indicating that any 

subspecies may be endangered or 

threatened over all or a significant 

portion of their ranges. Sciurus griseus 

griseus is abundant in California where 

extensive habitat remains, and hunting 

for tree squirrels is permitted in much 

of the state. In Nevada, the subspecies 

is abundant and well-adapted to urban 

environments in the Lake Tahoe area. 

Information on the status of S. griseus 

griseus in Oregon is limited. Although 

there have been extensive reductions in 

oak habitat, the level of concern for the 

status of the subspecies has not led the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

to complete surveys for the species. 

Also, hunting for tree squirrels is 

permitted, or is restricted, in parts of the 

State. In Washington, a large population 

of the subspecies is found in the 

southern Cascades. The State does not 

permit hunting, and the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife is 

developing a recovery plan for S. griseus 

griseus. Therefore, we have determined 

that, based on information presented in 

the petition and in our files, listing S. 

griseus griseus, throughout all or in any 

a significant portion of the subspecies’

range as a DPS, is not warranted. 

We have no information in our files 

on the historical or current population 

status and distribution of the other two 

subspecies, Sciurus grisues nigripes

and, S. g anthonyi. The petitioner did 

not provide any information or data 

specific to these subspecies. 

Finally, we do not have substantial 

information, either presented by the 

petition or in our files, indicating that 

the species as a whole may be 

endangered or threatened over all or a 

significant portion of the species’ range. 

For the same reason, we do not have 

sufficient information to indicate any of 

the three subspecies or any DPSs of 

western gray squirrels warrant listing as 

threatened or endangered, we do not 

have sufficient information to indicate 

the species as a whole may be 

endangered or threatened over all or a 

significant portion of the species’ range.

Emergency Listing and Critical Habitat 

Designation 

Petitions for emergency listing are not 

expressly provided for by the Act. 

However, we may address the need for 

an emergency rule under section 4(b)(7) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7)). We 

may issue an emergency rule to list a 

species if threats to the species 

constitute an emergency posing 

significant risk to the well-being of any 

species of fish and wildlife or plants 

(4(b)(7)). 

We reviewed the best available 

information on the status of the western 

gray squirrel throughout its range, 

including information in the petition 

and from other sources. We do not find 

there is a threat that constitutes an 

emergency posing significant risk to the 

well-being of the western gray squirrel 

across all or a significant portion of the 

species’ range as discussed above. 

Western gray squirrel populations are 

apparently secure in California and 

Nevada. Based on information in the 

petition and information in our files, 

there is not substantial information 

indicating that the western gray squirrel 

may be threatened or endangered in 

Oregon. In our recent 12-month petition 

finding (68 FR 34628), we established 

that the Washington population does 

not meet the requirements of the DPS 

policy. Therefore, the Washington 

population alone cannot be considered 

for an emergency listing. Also, we do 

not have sufficient information 

indicating that the Oregon population, 

the California-Nevada isolate, or any 

other population of western gray 

squirrels meets the requirements of our 

DPS policy. Thus, these populations are 

not listable entities such that a separate 

emergency listing for one or more DPSs 

would be possible. Again, western gray 

squirrels in the California-Nevada 

population isolate in the Lake Tahoe 

area are apparently common and welladapted to urban environments. We 

have determined that we have 

insufficient information to indicate an 

emergency listing is appropriate for 

Sciurus griseus rangewide or for any of 

the three subspecies. We also have 

insufficient information to identify any 

DPSs of the western gray squirrel 

species, or any of the subspecies, such 

that an emergency listing for any 

population segment is possible. 

Petition Finding 

We have reviewed the petition, 

including the attached ‘‘Biological 

Effects To Be Considered in a Status 

Review of the Western Gray Squirrel 

(Sciurus griseus)’’ and the 

‘‘Supplemental Bibliography,’’ as well 

as other literature and information in 

our files. We find that neither the 

petition nor information in our files 

present substantial information that the 

western gray squirrel or any of its 

subspecies may be endangered or 

threatened over all or a significant 

portion of its range. This finding is 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Proposed Rules 58119

based on insufficient information to: (1) 

Determine if the species or any 

subspecies is declining throughout all of 

a significant portion of its range; (2) 

identify threats to the species, or the 

individual subspecies, that suggest a 

threatened or endangered status is 

appropriate; or (3) determine whether 

there are any DPSs of the western gray 

squirrel. Also, we do not have 

substantial information either from the 

petition or in our files to list either the 

Washington population, as reflected by 

our recent 12-month petition finding (68 

FR 34628), or any other populations, 

particularly the California-Nevada 

population isolate, as a DPS. Also, we 

do not have substantial information 

either from the petition or in our files 

to emergency list the Sciurus griseus

rangewide or any of the three 

subspecies. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

is available on request from the Western 

Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES above). 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is Dr. L. Karolee Owens (see ADDRESSES

above).

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: September 21, 2004. 

Marshall Jones, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 04–21800 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AJ03 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants: Removing the Eastern 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of 

the Gray Wolf From the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) announces that we 

will hold one additional public hearing 

on the proposed rule to remove the 

Eastern Distinct Population Segment of 

the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

established under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. In a 

notice made in the Federal Register on 

August 13, 2004 (69 FR 50147), we 

announced the locations for nine other 

public hearing previously scheduled.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for hearing date.

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for hearing addresses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct all questions or requests for 

additional information to the Service 

using the Gray Wolf Phone Line: 612–

713–7337, facsimile: 612–713–5292, the 

general gray wolf electronic mail 

address: GRAYWOLFMAIL@FWS.GOV,

or write to: Gray Wolf Questions, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal 

Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, 

Minnesota 55111–4056. Additional 

information is also available on our 

World Wide Web site at http://

midwest.fws.gov/wolf. In the event that 

our internet connection is not 

functional, please contact the Service by 

the alternative methods mentioned 

above. Individuals who are hearingimpaired or speech-impaired may call 

the Federal Relay Service at 1–800–877–

8337 for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background—On July 21, 2004, we 

published a proposed rule (69 FR 

43664) to remove the Eastern Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) of the gray 

wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

established under the Endangered 

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended 

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

this action because available data 

indicate that this DPS no longer meets 

the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. The gray 

wolf population is stable or increasing 

in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, 

and exceeds its numerical recovery 

criteria. Completed State wolf 

management plans will provide 

adequate protection and management to 

the species in these three States if the 

gray wolf is delisted in the Eastern DPS. 

The proposed rule would remove this 

DPS from the protections of the Act by 

ending its threatened classification. This 

proposed rule would also remove the 

currently designated critical habitat for 

the gray wolf in Minnesota and 

Michigan, and remove the current 

special regulations for gray wolves in 

Minnesota and other Midwestern States. 

This proposal would not change the 

status or special regulations currently in 

place for the Western or Southwestern 

DPS of the gray wolf or for the red wolf 

(C. rufus). 

In our July 21, 2004, proposed rule, 

we stated that we would hold public 

hearings. Consistent with that 

document, we announced the dates and 

locations of nine hearings (69 FR 

50147). In response to several requests, 

we are now announcing the date and 

location for one additional public 

hearing. 

Hearing Information: We will hold 

only one public hearing on October 20, 

2004, at the Black Bear Inn and 

Conference Center, 4 Godfrey Drive, 

Orono, Maine. 

The hearing will consist of a 1-hour 

informational meeting from 6:30 to 7:30 

p.m., and the official public hearing 

from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.

Dated: August 30, 2004. 

Marvin E. Moriarty, 

Regional Director, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 04–21810 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P