Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15281

endangered. The Service also proposed

classifying bald eagles in Mexico as

endangered; they are not currently listed

as endangered or threatened. Specific

public comment was solicited on the

status of bald eagles in the Southwest

and Mexico and the distinctness of

those eagles as a separate population.

New information indicates that the

Southwestern and Mexican bald eagles

may not warrant a classification as

endangered. The Service is making

available for public review and

comment information recently received

about bald eagles of the Southwestern

Recovery Region.

DATES: The comment period on the

proposal is reopened, effective

immediately, and will close on April 24,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may

obtain copies of the comments and other

information listed below from the Chief,

Division of Endangered Species, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Bishop Henry

Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal

Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111–

4056 (612/725–3536; fax 612/725–3526).

Copies may also be obtained from the

State Supervisor, Arizona Ecological

Services State Office, 2321 W. Royal

Palm Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85021

(602/640–2720; fax 602/640–2730).

Send written comments and other

materials to the above Ft. Snelling,

Minnesota, Regional Office address.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment,

at that address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody

Gustitus Millar, Bald Eagle Recovery

Coordinator, Fish and Wildlife Service,

4469–48th Avenue Court, Rock Island,

Illinois 61201 (309/793–5800; fax 309/

793–5804).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus) is listed as endangered

under the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended (Act), in the lower 48

States except Washington, Oregon,

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan,

where it is listed as threatened. The bald

eagle also occurs in Alaska and Canada,

where it is not at risk and is not

protected under the Act; and in small

numbers in northern Mexico. The

Service proposed in the July 12, 1994,

Federal Register notice (59 FR 35584) to

reclassify the bald eagle from

endangered to threatened in the lower

48 States except in certain portions of

the American Southwest and to classify

bald eagles in Mexico as endangered.

That notice also stated that comments

and other information received by the

Service may lead to a final regulation

that differs from the original proposal,

including the possible complete

reclassification to threatened status for

all bald eagles south of Canada.

The Service has received significant

new information regarding

Southwestern bald eagles and has reexamined other information. Existing

information at the time of the proposed

rule fails to identify any unique genetic

characteristics possessed by the

Southwestern bald eagles. New

information indicates that the bald

eagles of the Southwestern Recovery

Region and Mexico are not likely to be

reproductively isolated. Evidence of

recruitment has recently been found

from the Southeastern Recovery Region

into the Southwestern Recovery Region

and Mexico. Unique threats to

Southwestern bald eagles remain, but

their significance is diminished in light

of immigration into the population

segment.

The Service is now considering

reclassifying the eagles of the

Southwestern Recovery Region as

threatened, and classifying the bald

eagles of Mexico as threatened. The bald

eagle would remain threatened in the

five States where it is currently listed as

threatened. This modified action, if

finalized, would not alter those

conservation measures already in force

to protect the species and its habitats.

The Federal Register notice

announcing the proposed rule opened a

public comment period that ended on

October 11, 1994; the deadline for

receipt of public hearing requests was

August 26, 1994. Public hearings were

subsequently held, and the comment

period was extended in a September 30,

1994 notice (59 FR 49908) to

accommodate them. The extended

comment period closed November 9,

1994. This notice reopens the comment

period for 30 days to allow interested

parties to obtain copies of the following

documents and to submit additional

comments on the proposed rule.

References

Driscoll, D.E., R.I. Mesta and J.T. Driscoll.

1993. Population ecology and

demography of bald eagles in Arizona:

1991–1993. American Eagle Research

Institute, Mesa, Arizona 74pp.

Driscoll, Dan (American Eagle Research

Institute) 1995. Letter to U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona.

Driscoll, Dan (American Eagle Research

Institute) 1995. Letter to U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Rock Island, Illinois.

Mabie, D.W., M.T. Merendino and D.H Reid.

1994. Dispersal of bald eagles fledged in

Texas. Journal of Raptor Research

28(4):213–219.

Montoya, Bill (Director, New Mexico

Department of Game & Fish). 1994. Letter

to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Shroufe, Duane. (Director, Arizona Game &

Fish Department). 1994. Letter to U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Spiller, Sam. (State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona).

1994. Memo to U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota.

Author

The primary author of this notice is Jody

Gustitus Millar, Bald Eagle Recovery

Coordinator, Fish and Wildlife Service,

4469–48th Avenue Court, Rock Island,

Illinois 61201.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.

1531 et seq.).

Dated: March 15, 1995.

Mollie H. Beattie,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 95–7205 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a

Petition to List the Southern Rocky

Mountain Population of the Boreal

Toad as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition

finding.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) announces a 12-month

finding for a petition to list the southern

Rocky Mountain population of the

boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) under

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. After review of all available

scientific and commercial information,

the Service finds that listing this species

is warranted but precluded by other

higher priority actions to amend the

Lists of Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife and Plants.

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was made on March 15, 1995.

Comments, questions, or information

regarding status and threats to the boreal

toad may be submitted until further

notice.

ADDRESSES: Comments, questions, or

information concerning this finding may

be submitted to the Assistant Field

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 764 Horizon Drive, South

Annex A, Grand Junction, Colorado

81506–3946. The petition, finding, and

supporting documents are available for

public inspection, by appointment,
15282 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Ireland (see ADDRESSES above) at

telephone (303) 243–2778.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that,

for any petition to revise the Lists of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants that contains substantial

scientific and commercial information,

the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

make a finding within 12 months of the

date of the receipt of the petition on

whether the petitioned action is (a) not

warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)

warranted but precluded from

immediate proposal by other pending

proposals of higher priority. Notice of

such 12-month findings are to be

published promptly in the Federal

Register. This notice meets the latter

requirement for the Service’s 12-month

administrative finding regarding the

petition discussed below. Information

contained in this notice is a summary of

the information in the 12-month

finding, which is the Service’s decision

document.

On September 30, 1993, the Service

received a petition dated September 27,

1993, from the Biodiversity Legal

Foundation located in Boulder,

Colorado, and Dr. Peter Hovingh, a

professor at the University of Utah. The

petition requested that the southern

Rocky Mountain population of the

‘‘western boreal toad’’ (Bufo boreas

boreas) be listed as endangered and that

critical habitat be designated. A 90-day

finding announced in the Federal

Register on July 22, 1994 (59 FR 37439),

indicated that the petition presented

substantial information indicating that

the requested action may be warranted.

The finding also announced a public

comment period extending to

September 20, 1994. Forty-three

comment letters were received. Two

commenters provided scientific

information on status, threats, and

genetics of the boreal toad and

concluded that listing was warranted. A

third commenter provided a hypothesis

for boreal toad declines. The other 40

letters opposed Federal listing and 9

provided information on status or

regulatory protection afforded to the

southern Rocky Mountain population of

the boreal toad. Several residents of the

Laramie, Wyoming, area were

concerned about restriction of mosquito

spraying. The Service does not believe

that mosquito spraying in Laramie

contributed to declines of the boreal

toad because Laramie lies below 2,300

meters (7,500 feet) which is the lower

elevational range inhabited by the

boreal toad.

Boreal toads were once common

throughout much of the high elevations

in Colorado (Burger and Bragg 1946,

Smith et al. 1965, Hammerson 1989)

and in the Sierra Madre, Medicine Bow,

and southern Laramie Mountains of

southeast Wyoming (Baxter and Stone

1985). Boreal toads were found at only

three localities at the southern

periphery of their range in the San Juan

Mountains of New Mexico: Lagunitas,

Canjilon and Trout Lakes (Campbell and

Degenhardt 1971, Jones 1978, New

Mexico Department of Game and Fish

1988). Altitudinal distribution ranges

from 2,300 meters (7,500 feet) Baxter

1952) to approximately 3,700 meters

(12,000 feet) (C. Pague, Colorado Natural

Heritage Program, in litt. 1994).

Declines in boreal toad demes (a small

group or population of organisms that

interbreed) were first documented in

New Mexico in 1984 (Woodward and

Mitchell 1985), in Colorado in 1974

(Carey 1993), and in southern Wyoming

in 1986 (Corn et al. 1989). Boreal toads

are now extirpated from the three

known historic sites in New Mexico

(Stuart and Painter 1994). Corn et al.

(1989) found that boreal toads were

absent from 83 percent of locations in

Colorado and Wyoming previously

known to contain toads. Recent surveys

revealed several previously unknown

locations and extant historical locations

of nonbreeding individuals and several

breeding sites; but survey data indicated

that boreal toads are absent from

approximately 96 percent of localities

that contained known historical records

of suitable habitat.

Physical and climatic conditions

separate the southern Rocky Mountain

population of the boreal toad from

populations in western Wyoming and

northeastern Utah. Because of this

geographic isolation, the Service

believes that the southern Rocky

Mountain population of the boreal toad

can be listed as a distinct vertebrate

population segment under the Act.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

The following information is a

summary and discussion of the five

factors or listing criteria as set forth in

section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered

Species Act (Act), as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and regulations (50

CFR part 424) promulgated to

implement the listing provisions of the

Act and their applicability to the current

status of the southern Rocky Mountain

population of the boreal toad.

A. The present or threatened

destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. The

southern Rocky Mountain population of

the boreal toad is found primarily on

public land within State forests,

national forests, and lands administered

by the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of

Land Management, and National Park

Service. The use of these lands ranges

from recreational to intensive timber

and grazing management and watershed

alteration activities. Activities that

destroy, modify, or curtail habitat are

likely to contribute to the continued

decline in toad numbers; however, the

Service does not believe that

recreational or habitat management

activities brought about rangewide

decline of the southern Rocky Mountain

population of the boreal toad.

B. Overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes. The boreal toad has no

commercial value and any recreational

values are low and nonconsumptive.

Scientific and educational collecting is

not thought to have been widespread

over the past decade. Overutilization is

not currently thought to contribute to

declines in the southern Rocky

Mountain population of the boreal toad.

C. Diseases or predation. Carey (1987,

1993) indicated that the proximate

cause of the widespread decline of

boreal toads in northern New Mexico

and west-central Colorado was a result

of infection by Aeromonas hydrophila

bacteria (red-leg disease). However, A.

hydrophila is common in the

microfauna carried by amphibians, and

it does not cause infection or death in

healthy individuals. As a result, toads

likely were stressed by adverse

environmental factors, such as acid rain,

pollution, or increased ultraviolet

radiation, and later succumbed to A.

hydrophila infection (Carey 1987).

Competition and predation by native

and nonnative species occurs but is

probably a minor impact.

D. The inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms. The boreal toad

is listed as endangered by Colorado and

New Mexico and is a nongame animal

in Wyoming. The Colorado Division of

Wildlife has formed a recovery team and

is in the final stages of preparing a State

recovery plan (Tom Nesler, Colorado

Division of Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994).

In 1993 the Colorado Division of

Wildlife entered into a cooperative

agreement with the Service for research

on the boreal toad and has also initiated

a conservation agreement with a private

mining company whose land contains

boreal toad breeding sites.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15283

A conservation agreement will be

developed for the southern Rocky

Mountain population of the boreal toad

between the Service, Forest Service,

National Park Service, Bureau of Land

Management, National Biological

Survey, Colorado Division of Wildlife,

and perhaps other agencies. The

agreement will serve as a commitment

by the various agencies to work toward

recovery of the southern Rocky

Mountain population of the boreal toad.

A cooperatively formulated

conservation strategy that complements

the Colorado Division of Wildlife’s

recovery plan and that implements the

conservation agreement has been

recommended by the Forest Service

(Elizabeth Estill, U.S. Forest Service, in

litt. 1994).

A sensitive species policy has been

developed under the National Forest

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.)

which directs the U.S. Forest Service to

manage for sensitive or candidate

species such as the boreal toad. In 1988,

policies were developed by both the

National Park Service and the Bureau of

Land Management to conserve federally

listed or rare species, thus ensuring that

their actions do not impact boreal toads.

Other Federal resource laws that may

provide protection for the boreal toad

are the Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), Clean Water

Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) and Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.).

E. Other natural or manmade factors

affecting its continued existence.

Factors, such as acid rain, pollution,

and increased ultraviolet radiation, may

be causing declines of the southern

Rocky Mountain population of the

boreal toad. The extent of natural

population fluctuation remains

unknown and may be working

synergistically with other

environmental or anthropogenic factors

to cause declines in toad populations.

Fishery management activities also may

cause decline or extirpation in localized

areas.

Finding

The service has reviewed the petition,

the literature cited in the petition, other

available literature and information,

comments received following the 90-day

finding, and consulted with biologists

and researchers familiar with the boreal

toad. On the basis of the best scientific

and commercial information available,

which is discussed above under the five

listing factors, the Service finds the

petitioned action is warranted but

precluded by work on other species

having higher priority for listing.

Section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act states

that the Service may make a warranted

but precluded finding if it can

demonstrate that (1) an immediate

proposed rule is precluded by other

pending proposals, and that (2)

expeditious progress is being made on

other listing actions. Expeditious

progress in listing endangered and

threatened species is being made and is

reported annually in the Federal

Register. Furthermore, on September 21,

1983 (48 FR 43098), the Service

published in the Federal Register its

system for prioritizing species for

listing. The system considers magnitude

of threat, immediacy of threat, and

taxonomic distinctiveness in assigning

species numerical listing priorities on a

scale of 1 to 12. The southern Rocky

Mountain population of the boreal toad

is assigned a listing priority of 3 because

noted declines exist throughout its

range (magnitude is high), as far as can

be determined the threat(s) still exists (it

is imminent), and for taxonomic

purposes populations are treated as

subspecies.

Although a priority 3 is a relatively

high listing priority, there are three

candidate species in Colorado that

appear to be more in need of listing,

thus precluding the listing of the

southern Rocky Mountain population of

the boreal toad at this time. One

candidate is the mountain plover

(Charadrius montanus) for which the

Service is preparing a proposed rule.

The Service regards the magnitude and

immediacy of threat to the mountain

plover to be at the same level as they are

for the boreal toad; however, the

mountain plover is a full species and is

being considered for listing throughout

its range, resulting in a higher listing

priority of 2. The Service has been

petitioned to list the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius

preblei). If a warranted finding is made,

the listing priority for the mouse will

likely be 3, the same as the boreal toad;

however, the mouse’s entire range is

being considered for listing, not just a

portion, and there are fewer individual

mice than boreal toads. A plant,

Phacelia submutica (DeBeque phacelia),

also has a higher listing priority (2) than

the boreal toad. Consequently, listing of

the boreal toad will follow listing of the

other three species unless it is

determined that listing one or more of

those species is not warranted or that

listing the boreal toad is not warranted.

The petitioners requested that critical

habitat be designated for the southern

Rocky Mountain population of the

boreal toad. Designation of critical

habitat is not petitionable under the Act;

however, critical habitat will be

proposed at the time the population is

proposed for listing unless it is not

determinable or not prudent.

As required by section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of

the Act, the Service will reassess the

warranted but precluded finding after 1

year.

The Service’s 12-month finding

contains more detailed information

regarding the above decisions. A copy

may be obtained from the Western

Colorado Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Reference Cited

A complete list of all references cited is

available upon request from the Western

Colorado Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author: The primary author of this

document is Terry Ireland, Western Colorado

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544).

Dated: March 15, 1995.

Mollie H. Beattie,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 95–7203 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M