35956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

threaten the existence of the species at

this time or in the foreseeable future.

Genetics

The genus Rhyacotriton has always

been perceived as genetically isolated

from other genera of salamanders (Good

and Wake 1992). Research by Good and

others in 1987 (Good et al. 1987 in Good

and Wake 1992) showed ‘‘extreme and

unexpectedly high levels of genetic

differentiation’’ for Rhyacotriton

olympicus, which at that time was

considered a single species over the

Pacific Northwest. Good et al. (1987 in

Good and Wake 1992) divided

Rhyacotriton into four genetically

different populations. Good and Wake

(1992) concluded that four separate

species should be recognized within the

genus Rhyacotriton, one of which is

Rhyacotriton variegatus, the southern

torrent salamander.

The genetic diversity within the

southern torrent salamander is evidence

of very low gene flow between

populations. Good and Wake (1992)

suggest that gene flow between

populations of southern torrent

salamanders at the extreme ends of the

species’ range is not likely to occur, but

that gene flow among adjacent

populations of southern torrent

salamanders is what holds the species

together as a cohesive unit. In reference

to southern torrent salamander

populations, Wake (in litt. 1994) stated

‘‘the genetic differentiation is strongly

structured geographically, so that there

is a pattern of isolation by distance.

What this means is that genetic distance

between populations builds directly as

a function of geographic distance.’’ In

other words, as the geographical

distance between populations increases,

populations become more genetically

different and isolated. This finding

strongly implies that animals within

each population seldom left their

respective populations or moved

between populations over a period of

thousands of years (Wake, in litt. 1994).

Therefore, southern torrent salamanders

show a great deal of genetic

differentiation between individual

animals from different populations, but

show very little differentiation between

individuals within the same population.

Dr. Susan Haig and Steve Wagner of

United States Geological Service in

Corvallis, Oregon, have been conducting

genetic studies on mitochondrial DNA

sequences of the southern torrent

salamander to investigate the extent of

population divergence and the

relationships among populations. The

results of these studies will be evaluated

after they have been peer-reviewed and

published.

Because of the naturally low gene

flow between southern torrent

salamander populations and the great

amount of genetic diversity between

individuals within the species, the loss

of subpopulations could mean a

significant loss of genetic diversity. Low

genetic diversity within a population or

subpopulation is thought to decrease

that group’s ability to withstand

catastrophic natural events or manmade

impacts. We believe that the most

vulnerable populations of southern

torrent salamanders are those found on

the southern and eastern edges of the

range. These populations are suspected

to be the most distinct genetically

(Wake, in litt. 1994) and the most

susceptible to the negative impacts of

timber harvest. Although we recognize

the implications of low genetic diversity

for the southern torrent salamander,

until adequate genetic studies are

completed, information is lacking to

make a determination that low genetic

diversity and gene flow threaten the

continued existence of the species. We

will reevaluate this issue after results of

ongoing genetic studies are available.

However, we recommend that

populations at the edge of the range be

given high priority for determining

population status and trends.

Conclusion

We recognize that the southern torrent

salamander has very specific habitat

requirements, a naturally patchy

distribution across its range, and low

gene flow between populations. The

southern torrent salamander is not

considered to be dependent solely on

old-growth forests, but the preferred

microclimate conditions are more

readily available in mature and oldgrowth forests. We acknowledge that

logging of headwater habitats in oldgrowth forests has depressed or

extirpated some populations of this

species. However, we believe that the

trend of habitat loss for the southern

torrent salamander is lessening across

much of the range with a reduction in

clearcutting and with some increased

awareness and some protections of

headwater habitats. The southern

torrent salamander is present

throughout its historical range,

including populations in altered

habitats, despite little or no stream

protection at the time they were logged.

Relevant ongoing research is being

conducted on headwater habitats and

the southern torrent salamander, but a

current lack of general baseline

information exists on population status

and trends, and genetic diversity of the

species.

On the basis of the best available

scientific and commercial information,

we find that the southern torrent

salamander is not likely to become an

endangered species within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.

Therefore, listing the species as

threatened is not warranted at the

present time. The southern torrent

salamander will remain as a species of

concern for which evidence of

vulnerability exists, but for which

substantial data are lacking to support a

proposal to list as threatened or

endangered. We will continue to seek

information on the status of the

southern torrent salamander, and, if

information becomes available

indicating that listing as endangered or

threatened is appropriate, we would

propose to list the salamander.

Furthermore, we retain the option of

recognizing a subspecies or a population

segment for listing should information

become available indicating that such

an action is appropriate and warranted.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available on request from the

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Author. The primary author of this

notice is Ann Chrisney, Sacramento

Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Authority: The authority for this section is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

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

Dated: May 31, 2000.

Jamie Rapaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–14084 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

National Register of Historic

Places;Notification of Pending

Nominations

Nominations for the following

properties being considered for listing

in the National Register were received

by the National Park Service before May

26, 2000. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR

part 60 written comments concerning

the significance of these properties

under the National Register criteria for

evaluation may be forwarded to the

National Register, National Park Service,

1849 C St. NW., NC400, Washington, DC

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35957

20240. Written comments should be

submitted by June 21, 2000.

Carol D. Shull,

Keeper of the National Register.

ALABAMA

Jefferson County

Belview Heights Historic District, Roughly

along 41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th and 45th Sts.,

and M and Martin Aves., Birmingham,

00000713

Lakewood Historic District, Roughly

bounded by Lee Ave., 82nd St., Spring St.,

and 80th St., Birmingham, 00000710

Lawrence County

Ice House, 844 Seminary St., Moulton,

00000712

Tallapoosa County

Alexander City Commercial Historic District,

Portions of Broad, Main, Green, Alabama,

Jefferson Sts. and Courthouse Sq.

Alexander City, 00000711

GEORGIA

Chatham County

Vernonburg Historic District, Dancy Ave.,

Rockwell Ave. and S. Rockwell Ave.,

Vernonburg, 00000714

INDIANA

Elkhart County

Beardsley, Dr. Havilah, House, 102 W.

Beardsley Ave., Elkhart, 00000716

St. Joseph County

Wenger, Martin, Farmhouse, 701 E.

Pennsylvania, South Bend, 00000715

LOUISIANA

Rapides Parish

Mt. Olivet Episcopal Church and Cemetery,

335 Main St., Pineville, 00000718

St. Tammany Parish

Tchefuncte Site, Address Restricted,

Mandeville, 00000717

PENNSYLVANIA

Montgomery County

Hunsberger, Isaac, House, 545 W. Ridge Pike,

Limerick Twp., 00000719

RHODE ISLAND

Newport County

Sakonnet River Bridge, RI 24, Portsmouth,

00000720

SOUTH DAKOTA

Brookings County

Volga Auditorium (Federal Relief

Construction in South Dakota MPS), 212

Kasan Ave., Volga, 00000723

Codington County

Watertown Stadium (Federal Relief

Construction in South Dakota MPS), 1600

W Kemp Ave., Watertown, 00000721

Jerauld County

Alpena Bathhouse and Swimming Pool

(Federal Relief Construction in South

Dakota MPS), Jct. of Fifth and Main,

Alpena, 00000727

Meade County

Municipal Building—City Hall (Federal

Relief Construction in South Dakota MPS),

206 Main St., Faith, 00000722

TENNESSEE

Giles County

Campbell Chapel African Methodist

Episcopal Church (Rural African-American

Churches in Tennessee MPS), Pulaski,

Pulaski, 00000725

Grainger County

Henderson Chapel African Methodist

Episcopal Zion Church (Rural AfricanAmerican Churches in Tennessee MPS),

Church St., Rutledge, 00000730

Lincoln County

Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church

(Rural African-American Churches in

Tennessee MPS), 305 W. Maple St.,

Fayetteville, 00000731

Loudon County

Hackney Chapel AME Zion Church (Rural

African-American Churches in Tennessee

MPS), Address Restricted, Lenoir City,

00000729

McMinn County

Beth Salem Presbyterian Church (Rural

African-American Churches in Tennessee

MPS), TN 30 at Watson Rd., Athens,

00000728

UTAH

Washington County

Jepson, James, Jr., House, 15 East Jepson,

Virgin, 00000732

WISCONSIN

Columbia County

Lodi Street-Prairie Street Historic District,

Roughly Prairie St. from Second St. to Mill

St., Lodi, 00000735

Kenosha County

Library Park, 711 59th Place, Kenosha,

00000733

Wood County

West Park Street Historic District, 300–417

West Park St., Marshfield, 00000734

A request for removal for procedural error

has been made for the following resource:

IOWA

Jefferson County

Commercial Block (Louden Machinery

Company, Fairfield Iowa MPS),

106,108,110 N, Main St. Fairfield,

99000120

[FR Doc. 00–14210 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

Flaming Gorge Dam, Colorado River

Storage Project, Utah

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a

draft environmental impact statement

and announcement of public scoping

meetings.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation

(Reclamation), the federal agency with

administrative and regulatory authority

over Flaming Gorge Dam, intends to

prepare a draft environmental impact

statement (EIS) pursuant to section

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended,

42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4332.

The EIS will describe the effects of

operating Flaming Gorge Dam to achieve

the flows recommended by the Recovery

Implementation Program for

Endangered Fish Species in the Upper

Colorado River Basin (Recovery

Program), and comply with section 7 of

the Endangered Species Act. The

purpose of the proposed action is to

protect and assist in the recovery of the

populations and designated critical

habitat of the four endangered fishes

[razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus),

Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus

lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha),

and bonytail (Gila elegans)] that are

found in the Green and Colorado River

Basins, so that along with other

activities in the Recovery

Implementation Program Recovery

Action Plan (Recovery Action Plan), the

fish no longer require protection under

the Endangered Species Act, while

continuing the other authorized

purposes of the Flaming Gorge Unit of

the Colorado River Storage Project.

DATES AND ADDRESSES: Public scoping

meetings will be held in mid-July in Salt

Lake City, Vernal, and Fort Duchesne,

Utah; Grand Junction, Colorado; and

Rock Springs, Wyoming, to solicit

public input regarding relevant

environmental issues that should be

addressed in the EIS. The schedule of

scoping meetings is as follows:

• July 11, 2000, 6–9 p.m., Wyndham

Hotel, 215 West South Temple, Salt

Lake City, Utah. • July 12, 2000, 6–9 p.m., Rock

Springs Holiday Inn, 1675 Sunset Drive

(I–80 Exit 102), Rock Springs, Wyoming.

• July 13, 2000, 6–9 p.m., Adam’s

Mark Hotel, 743 Horizon Drive (I–70

Exit 31), Grand Junction, Colorado.

• July 18, 2000, 6–9 p.m., Western

Park Convention Center, 300 East 200

South, Vernal, Utah.