Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 1295

2. From subsections (d), (e)(4)(G), (H), and

(I), and (f), because granting an individual

access to investigative records, and granting

him/her access to investigative records with

that information, could interfere with the

overall law enforcement process by revealing

a pending sensitive investigation, possibly

identify a confidential source, disclose

information that would constitute an

unwarranted invasion of another individual’s

personal privacy, reveal a sensitive

investigative technique, or constitute a

potential danger to the health or safety of law

enforcement personnel. * * *

Dated: December 28, 2000.

Eugene K. Taylor, Jr.,

Deputy Chief Information Officer, U.S.

Department of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 01–191 Filed 1–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings

on Recycled Petitions

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review.

SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we

announce our recycled petition

findings, as required in section

4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered Species

Act of 1972, as amended. When, in

response to a petition, we complete a

12-month finding that listing a species

is warranted but precluded, we must

make a new 12-month finding each year

until we publish a proposed rule or

make a determination that listing is not

warranted. These subsequent 12-month

findings are referred to as recycled

petition findings.

Information contained in this notice

of review is based on our review of the

current status and threats to taxa that

were the subjects of 27 outstanding

warranted but precluded findings.

Based on our review, we find that 26

species continue to warrant listing or

changes in classification, but these

activities are precluded by listing

activities of higher priority as

determined by our listing priority

guidance. One species no longer

warrants listing under the Endangered

Species Act and, therefore, has been

removed from the candidate list.

We announce the availability of

listing priority assignment forms for

candidate taxa and listing priority

determinations for proposed taxa. These

documents describe the status and

threats that we evaluated in order to

assign a listing priority number to each

taxon.

We request additional status

information that may be available for

these candidates as well as information

on taxa that we should include as

candidates in future updates of this list.

We will consider this information in

preparing listing documents and future

recycled petition findings. This

information will help us in monitoring

changes in the status of candidate taxa

and in conserving these taxa.

DATES: We will accept comments on

these recycled petition findings at any

time.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments

regarding a particular taxon to the

Regional Director of the Region

identified as having the lead

responsibility for that taxon. You may

submit comments of a more general

nature to the Chief, Office of

Conservation and Classification,

Division of Endangered Species, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N.

Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington,

Virginia 22203 (703/358–2171). Written

comments and materials received in

response to this notice will be available

for public inspection by appointment at

the appropriate Regional Office listed

below.

Information regarding the range,

status, and habitat needs of and listing

priority assignment for a particular

taxon is available for review at the

appropriate Regional Office listed below

or at the Division of Endangered

Species, address listed above.

Region 1. California, Hawaii, Idaho,

Nevada, Oregon, Washington,

American Samoa, Guam, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands.

Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal

Complex, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue,

Portland, Oregon 97232–4181 (503/

231–6158).

Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico,

Oklahoma, and Texas.

Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue

S.W., Room 4012, P.O. Box 1306,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

(505/248–6920).

Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana,

Nebraska, North Dakota, South

Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486,

Denver Federal Center, Denver,

Colorado 80225–0486 (303/236–

7400).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Endangered Species Coordinator(s) in

the appropriate Regional Office(s) or

Nancy Gloman, Chief, Office of

Conservation and Classification (703/

358–2171).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Recycled Petition Findings

Background

The Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.), provides two mechanisms for

considering species for listing. First, the

Act places on the Service the duty to

identify and propose for listing those

species which the Service finds require

listing under the standards of section

4(a)(1). We implement this duty through

the candidate assessment program.

Candidate taxa are those taxa for which

we have on file sufficient information

on biological vulnerability and threats

to support issuance of a proposed rule

to list, but issuance of the proposed rule

is precluded by other higher priority

listing actions. Second, the Act allows

the public to petition us to add a species

to the Threatened and Endangered

Species List. Under section 4(b)(3)(A),

when we receive such a petition, we

must determine within 90 days, to the

maximum extent practicable, whether

the petition presents substantial

information that listing is warranted (a

‘‘90-day finding’’). If we make a positive

90-day finding, under section 4(b)(3)(B)

we must make one of three possible

findings within 12 months of the receipt

of the petition (a ‘‘12-month finding’’).

The first possible 12-month finding is

that listing is not warranted, in which

case we need take no further action on

the petition. Second, we may find that

listing is warranted, in which case we

must promptly publish a proposed rule

to list the species. Once we publish a

proposed rule for a species, section

4(b)(5) and (6) govern further

procedures, regardless of whether or not

we issued the proposal in response to a

petition. Third, we may find that listing

is ‘‘warranted but precluded.’’ Such a

finding means that immediate

publication of a proposed rule to list the

species is precluded by higher priority

listing proposals, and that we are

making expeditious progress to add and

remove species from the Lists, as

appropriate.

The standard for making a 12-month

warranted but precluded finding on a

petition to list a species is identical to

our standard for making a species a

candidate for listing. Therefore, we add

all petitioned species subject to such a

finding to the candidate list. Pursuant to

our Petition Management Guidance,

made available on July 9, 1996 (61 FR

36075), we consider a petition to list a

1296 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

species already on the candidate list to

be a second petition and, therefore,

redundant. We do not interpret the

petition provisions of the Act to require

us to make a duplicative finding;

therefore, we will not make additional

90-day findings or initial 12-month

findings on petitions to list candidate

species. Any petition regarding which

we have made a warranted but

precluded finding is subject to section

4(b)(3)(C)(i), which requires us to make

a new 12-month finding on the petition

within 12-months of our determination

that the petition action was warranted

but precluded. These required annual

findings on warranted but precluded

listing actions are referred to as recycled

petition findings. This notice constitutes

publication of our recycled petition

findings for all species on the candidate

list that are currently the subject of an

outstanding petition. This notice also

constitutes publication of recycled

petition findings for species subject to a

petition to reclassify an already-listed

species from threatened or endangered.

Previous Notices of Review

The Act directed the Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution to prepare a

report on endangered and threatened

plant taxa, which was published as

House Document No. 94–51. We

published a notice in the Federal

Register on July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823),

in which we announced that we would

review more than 3,000 native plant

taxa named in the Smithsonian’s report

and other taxa added by the 1975 notice

for possible addition to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Plants. A

new comprehensive notice of review for

native plants, that took into account the

earlier Smithsonian report and other

accumulated information, superseded

the 1975 notice on December 15, 1980

(45 FR 82479). On November 28, 1983

(48 FR 53640), a supplemental plant

notice of review noted changes in the

status of various taxa. We published

complete updates of the plant notice on

September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526),

February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184),

September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144), and,

as part of combined animal and plant

notices, on February 28, 1996 (61 FR

7596), September 19, 1997 (62 FR

49398), and October 25, 1999 (64 FR

57534).

We published earlier comprehensive

reviews for vertebrate animals in the

Federal Register on December 30, 1982

(47 FR 58454), and on September 18,

1985 (50 FR 37958). We published an

initial comprehensive review for

invertebrate animals on May 22, 1984

(49 FR 21664). We published a

combined animal notice of review on

January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and with

minor corrections on August 10, 1989

(54 FR 32833). We again published

comprehensive animal notices on

November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804),

November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982), and,

as part of combined animal and plant

notices, on February 28, 1996 (61 FR

7596), and September 19, 1997 (62 FR

49398). On October 25, 1999 (64 FR

57534), we published our most recent

combined candidate notice of review.

This notice is our recycled finding for

the taxa that were the subjects of 27

outstanding warranted but precluded

findings (21 findings for listing, 1 for

withdrawal, and 5 species for

reclassification). We also provide notice

of revised listing priority numbers and

of removal of one species from

candidate status. We emphasize that we

are not proposing these candidates for

listing by this notice, but we anticipate

developing and publishing proposed

listing rules for these taxa in the future.

We encourage State agencies, other

Federal agencies, and other parties to

give consideration to these taxa in

environmental planning. We intend to

publish a new combined candidate

notice of review that contains all

candidate species in March 2001.

Findings on Recycled Petitions

Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i),

when, in response to a petition, we find

that listing a species is warranted but

precluded, we must make a new 12-

month finding each year until we

publish a proposed rule or make a

determination that listing is not

warranted. These subsequent 12-month

findings are referred to as recycled

petition findings.

We reviewed the current status and

threats to the taxa that were the subjects

of the 27 outstanding warranted but

precluded findings (22 finding for

listing and 5 species for

reclassification). As a result of this

review, we have made continued

warranted but precluded findings for 26

species (21 petitioned for listing and 5

for reclassification) and a not warranted

finding for 1 candidate. Below we

provide additional information on status

changes we have made as a result of our

review conducted from October 25,

1999, to date. See Table 1 for a summary

of the candidate information. Listing

priority assignment form and listing

priority determinations for proposed

taxon are available by request (see

Addresses). These documents describe

the status and threats that we evaluated

in order to assign priority number to

each taxon.

Taxa in Table 1 of this notice are

assigned to two status categories, noted

in the ‘‘Category’’ column at the left side

of the table. We identify the taxa for

which we have made a continued

‘‘warranted but precluded’’ finding on a

recycled petition by the code ‘‘C’’ in the

category column. The ‘‘C’’ in this

column indicates taxa that are

candidates for listing. We identify the

one species removed from candidate

status with the word ‘‘removed’’ in the

category column. Candidates are taxa for

which we have on file sufficient

information on biological vulnerability

and threats to support proposals to list

them as endangered or threatened.

Issuance of proposed rules for these taxa

is precluded at present by other higher

priority listing actions. We anticipate

developing and publishing proposed

rules for candidate taxa in the future.

The column labeled ‘‘Priority’’

indicates the listing priority number for

candidate taxa. We assign this number

based on the immediacy and magnitude

of threats as well as on taxonomic

status. We published a complete

description of our listing priority system

in a September 21, 1983, Federal

Register notice (48 FR 43098). We have

revised the listing priority numbers for

three species, identified by asterisks in

this column, as discussed below.

The third column identifies the

Regional Office to which you should

direct comments or questions (see

ADDRESSES section). We will consider

all information provided in response to

this notice of review in deciding

whether to propose taxa for listing and

when to undertake necessary listing

actions. Comments received will

become part of the administrative record

for the taxa.

Following the scientific name of each

taxon (fourth column) is the family

designation (fifth column) and the

common name, if one exists (sixth

column). The seventh column provides

the known historical range for the taxon,

indicated by postal code abbreviations

for States and U.S. territories (many taxa

no longer occur in all of the areas

listed).

Changes in Listing Priority

Washington ground squirrel

(Spermophilus washingtoni)

Since the October 25, 1999,

publication of the Candidate Notice of

Review we have received additional

information on the overall decline of the

Washington ground squirrel throughout

its range and the increased magnitude

and permanence of threat that

agricultural conversion poses to its

continued existence. Based on this

information we have changed the listing

priority number from 5 (a species with

high magnitude, non-imminent threats)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 1297

to 2 (a species with high magnitude,

imminent threats).

Betts (1990, 1999) documented the

curtailment in the range of the

Washington ground squirrel to three

disjunct areas. His surveys on historic

and documented occurrences focused

on the perimeters of the range with the

intent of evaluating reductions in

numbers of colonies and the size of the

current range. Although Betts’ surveys

do not provide an exhaustive survey of

all potential squirrel locations or

numbers of individuals, they do provide

a good estimate of the distribution and

decline of Washington ground squirrels

in Oregon and Washington. Betts found

that the species had disappeared from

73.8 percent of the sites in Washington

and 76.9 percent of the sites in Oregon.

In addition, Betts (1990) subjectively

evaluated the vulnerability to extinction

of each of the remaining known colonies

based on colony size, isolation, land

ownership, and threat from human

activity.

In 1990, Betts predicted that

approximately 29 percent of all colonies

were highly vulnerable to extinction (19

percent in Oregon, 35 percent in

Washington); 31 percent were

moderately vulnerable (39 percent in

Oregon, 25 percent in Washington); and

40 percent had low vulnerability (42

percent in Oregon, 39 percent in

Washington). Since this prediction

follow up monitoring has shown that

Betts’ predictions proved correct, and

many colonies classified as highly

vulnerable were no longer present by

1999 (Betts 1999).

In addition to new information

regarding population declines, recent

reports indicate that agricultural

conversion permanently eliminates

Washington ground squirrel habitat and

use. Prior to this new information it was

thought that areas could again be

recolonized. However, because the

squirrel is so closely tied to deep, silty

soils, specifically Warden soils on the

Boeing Tract (Greene 1999), the tilling

and other mechanisms involved in

conversion of shrub-steppe habitats to

agricultural crop production not only

destroys the species’ food source, but it

also renders the soils necessary for

burrowing unuseable and irretrievably

modified. Washington ground squirrels

are not found in tilled croplands

(Carlson et al. 1980; Betts 1990, 1999;

Quade 1994), nor have they been

located in undeveloped areas between

irrigated crops (CH2M Hill 2000). As a

result of these studies it is clear that

once areas have been modified they are

no longer able to support Washington

ground squirrels not only in the present

but in the future as well, thus increasing

the magnitude of these threats. In

additional there is currently proposed

development for areas which currently

support the highest known

concentration of Washington ground

squirrels (Greene 1999), this proposed

development increases the immediacy

of the threats. Great Basin population of

the Columbia spotted frog (Rana

luteiventris),

We have changed the listing priority

number from 9 (a population with

moderate magnitude, imminent threats)

to 3 (a population with high magnitude,

imminent, threats). This is based on a

decrease in survival of newly hatched

and adult frogs and an increase in the

magnitude of the threats to the Great

Basin population of the Columbia

spotted frogs from introduction of nonnative fishes, grazing, and lack of

regulatory mechanisms.

Columbia spotted frogs in Idaho have

shown significant declines in the last

years through reductions in both newly

hatched and adult survival. At the

largest known site in Idaho, frog

numbers have shown a significant

decline, although eggs masses were

identified there was little or no survival

of these eggs to tadpoles or adult. One

other known population appears to be

extirpated due to the loss of beaver

activity, with only one male frog

observed in 1999. Monitoring at another

site that has been protected from grazing

(although the spring and source of water

has been developed for off-site water

access by livestock), has had no

documented recruitment in the last

three years (all frogs have been pittagged at this site) and may disappear as

the existing breeding females age.

The introduction of non-native

salmonid and bass species for

recreational fishing may have negatively

affected frog species throughout the

United States. The negative effects of

predation of this kind are difficult to

document, particularly in open stream

systems. However, significant negative

effects of predation on frog populations

in lake systems have been documented

through research (Hayes and Jennings

1986, Pilliod et al. 1996). The stocking

of non-native fishes is common

throughout the waters of the Great

Basin. Given the recent declines of frog

populations and continued stocking of

non-native fishes, we believe the

magnitude of this threat has increased.

Grazing has also been identified as a

threat because it removes vegetative

cover and shrubs eliminating shelter

necessary for frogs to avoid predators

and UV-B radiation; in addition, cattle

tramping on the banks and within the

water can cause changes in water

temperature and water chemistry,

causing a reduction in prey availability.

Development of springs to provide

water for grazing has resulted in loss of

surface water, reduced areas occupied

during the winter by dormant spotted

frogs, and result in loss of continuous

surface flows between foraging and

wintering sites.

There are large areas in the

northeastern part of Nevada and

southeastern Oregon where there has

been little to no monitoring or surveying

of occupied sites, and no actions have

been taken yet to protect populations or

restore habitats in that region. Even in

Idaho, where the status of populations

are better known, neither the Bureau of

Land Management, on which some of

the known populations are found, nor

the State of Idaho have implemented

conservation measures to control

grazing within wetlands/riparian

habitats, stocking of non-native fish, or

the development of springs in a manner

consistent with Columbia spotted frog

conservation. The lack of effective

conservation actions, coupled with the

recent declines, has resulted in an

increase in the magnitude and

immediacy of the threat since our last

evaluation.

We also are correcting the historical

range for the Great basin population of

the Columbia spotted frog. In the

October 25, 1999, Federal Register it

was erroneously published as U.S.A.

(AK, CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA,

WY), Canada. The correct historical

range should read U.S.A. (NV, ID, OR);

this has been changed in Table 1 of this

notice.

Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa)

The listing priority number was

erroneously published as 6 in the 1999

CNOR. The listing priority number was

changed from 6 (a subspecies with

moderate magnitude, imminent threats)

to 2 (a full species, with high

magnitude, imminent threats) in the

1997 CNOR when the Oregon spotted

frog received full species recognition,

and should have been continued as 2 in

the 1999 CNOR.

Threats are considered imminent

because the remaining populations have

experienced high mortality rates in

recent years and the remaining

populations are isolated from each other

and face multiple threats. It has unique

egg-laying habits that make egg masses

susceptible to freezing and drought; two

to three years of drought could

eliminate a population. Communal egg

laying at traditional sites makes the

Oregon spotted frog especially

vulnerable to habitat loss. The best

documented population, at Conboy Lake

National Wildlife Refuge, experienced a

1298 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

22.6 percent decline in egg mass counts

from 1998 to 1999.

At the time of the original petition in

1989 to list the spotted frog we used

Thompson’s (1913) description of two

subspecies, Rana pretiosa pretiosa and

Rana pretiosa luteiventris, as our

classification. However, this subspecific

classification was no longer recognized

at the time of the initial warranted but

precluded 12-month finding in 1993,

when we identified 5 distinct vertebrate

populations of the spotted frog. This

differentiation was based on geographic

and climatic separation, and supported

by genetic information. The confusing

taxonomy resulting from reliance on

morphological differences is being

clarified using recently developed

biochemical techniques for genetic

analyses. Green (1986) used an analysis

of proteins to determine that Rana

pretiosa was a complex of at least 2

species (Green 1986, Green et al. 1996).

Further protein and statistical analyses

of 20 morphological measurements

provided additional information to help

define the ranges of these 2 species

(Green et al. 1997), now known as the

Oregon spotted frog and the Columbia

spotted frog.

Finding on Candidate Removals

Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)

In 1994, the Swift Fox Conservation

Team (SFCT) was formed by the 10

States within the historic range of the

swift fox, Canada, and several Federal

agencies, including the Service. This

team has drafted the Swift Fox

Conservation Assessment and

Conservation Strategy (CACS)(Kahn et

al. 1997), and produced five annual

reports (Allen et al. 1995, Giddings

1997, Luce and Lindzey 1996, Roy 1998,

Schmitt 2000) which have provided

additional information regarding the

distribution and abundance of the

species. Swift fox distribution is more

widespread than we originally

concluded in our initial warranted but

precluded 12-month finding in 1995.

The species occurs in 9 of the 10 States

within the historic range, and in

approximately 40 percent of its historic

range. Evaluations conducted by the

SFCT have demonstrated nearly

continuous distribution of swift fox

populations from Wyoming south

throughout eastern Colorado, western

Kansas, the Oklahoma Panhandle,

eastern New Mexico, and in two or three

counties in the extreme northern

panhandle of Texas. Scattered

populations can also be found in

Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska.

The swift fox also appears to be more

general in its habitat requirements than

we concluded in the initial 12-month

finding published June 16, 1995 (60 FR

31663). Information gathered by the

SFCT in Kansas and Colorado

demonstrates that the swift fox has been

able to adapt to a mixed prairieagricultural landscape.

Adaptability to various habitat types

was further demonstrated in Wyoming

where the swift fox was found to occupy

sagebrush-grassland and sagebrushgreasewood habitat types with

topography ranging from flat to badlandlike terrain. Other habitat types used by

swift fox included the sandhills of

Nebraska and pinon-juniper habitat in

Colorado and Oklahoma (Hoagland,

Swift Fox Conservation Team Chair, in

litt. 2000). Historic and recent data

indicate that the swift fox can be

regionally adaptable in its food

preferences and is not dependent upon

prairie dog communities to provide

forage across most of its current range

(Allen et al. 1995, Giddings 1997, Luce

and Lindzey 1996, Roy 1998, Schmitt

2000).

As a result of new information,

originally identified threats are no

longer applicable for the following

reasons: (1) The swift fox is more

abundant and widely distributed than

previously thought, and (2) the species

is more flexible in its habitat

requirements than originally believed.

The Service’s 1995 12-month Finding

concluded that most remaining swift fox

populations occurred in marginally

viable populations in scattered, isolated

pockets of remnant short and mid-grass

prairie habitat. Moreover, we concluded

that most remaining grassland in the

western Great Plains consisted of a

mixed cropland/grassland mosaic which

did not favor swift fox use. However,

extensive rangelands still exist as

predominately grassland environments

in the swift fox’s historic range and

although some conversion to agriculture

use is still occurring, it is at a much

lower rate than in previous years.

Additionally, recent studies indicate

that the swift fox is more flexible than

we previously determined in its habitat

requirements and can utilize areas with

mixed land uses (Allen et al. 1995,

Giddings 1997, Luce and Lindzey 1996,

Roy 1998, Schmitt 2000).

In the original finding we believe that

commercial trapping of furbearers

within the range of the swift fox may

have been a threat. However, available

information suggests that this harvest

has not limited swift fox populations.

We have also found no indication that

parasites or diseases are significant

factors in the population dynamics of

wild foxes. In the 12-month finding, we

cited a lack of regulatory mechanisms to

protect the swift fox. Since then, 10

State wildlife agencies within the

historic range of the swift fox have

committed significant resources towards

the conservation of the species with the

development of the CACS (Kahn et al.

1997). The primary objectives of the

CACS have largely been completed with

the organization of the SFCT, the

acquisition of State and Federal

funding, the generation of annual

reports, and the determination of

current distribution of the swift fox.

Based on our reexamination of these

threats, and pursuant to our analysis of

the five factors under section 4(a)(1), we

find that the swift fox is not likely to

become in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of

its range in the foreseeable future.

Therefore, we find that the petitioned

action is not warranted and are

removing the swift fox from the

candidate list.

Findings on Reclassification From

Threatened to Endangered

We have also previously made

warranted but precluded findings for

petitions that sought to reclassify

species status listed as threatened to

endangered. Because these species are

already listed, they are not candidates

for listing, and so are not included in

Table 1. However, this notice also

constitutes the recycled petition

findings for these species. We find that

reclassification from threatened to

endangered status is currently

warranted but precluded for:

(1) North Cascades Ecosystem grizzly

bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population

(Region 6);

(2) Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear

populations (Region 6);

(3) Selkirk grizzly bear populations

(Region 6);

(4) spikedace (Meda fulgida) (Region

2); and

(5) loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis)

(Region 2).

Progress in Revising the Lists

As described in section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii)

of the Act, in order for us to make a

‘‘warranted but precluded’’ finding on a

petitioned action, we must be making

expeditious progress to add qualified

taxa to the Lists of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife and Plants and to

remove from the list taxa for which the

protections of the Act are no longer

necessary.

We are making expeditions progress

in listing and delisting taxa during fiscal

year 2000 (October 1, 1999, to October

1, 2000) as represented by our

publication in the Federal Register of

emergency rules for 1 taxa, final listing

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules 1299

actions for 38 species, proposed listing

actions for 18 species, final delisting

actions for 1 species, proposed delisting

actions for 1 species, withdrawals of

proposed rules for 1 species, final

designation of critical habitat for 5

species, proposed designation of critical

habitat for 17 species, 12-month petition

finding for 7 species, and 90-day

petition findings for 15 species.

Request for Information

We request you submit any further

information on the taxa named in this

notice as soon as possible or whenever

it becomes available. Additionally, we

invite any further comment or

information on any candidate taxa

mentioned in the October 25, 1999,

Candidate Notice or Review or found on

the Fish and Wildlife Service website.

We especially seek information:

(1) indicating that we should remove

a taxon from candidate or proposed

status;

(2) indicating that we should add a

taxon to the list of candidate taxa;

(3) recommending areas that we

should designate as critical habitat for a

taxon, or indicating that designation of

critical habitat would not be prudent for

a taxon;

(4) documenting threats to any of the

included taxa;

(5) describing the immediacy or

magnitude of threats facing candidate

taxa;

(6) pointing out taxonomic or

nomenclatural changes for any of the

taxa;

(7) suggesting appropriate common

names; or

(8) noting any mistakes, such as errors

in the indicated historical ranges.

References Cited

Allen, S.H., J.W. Hoagland, and E.D. Stukel.

1995. Report of the Swift Fox Conservation

Team.

Betts, B.J. 1990. Geographic distribution and

habitat preferences of Washington ground

squirrels (Spermophilus washingtoni).

Northwestern Naturalist 71:27–37.

Betts, B.J. 1999. Current status of Washington

ground squirrels in Oregon and

Washington. Northwestern Naturalist

80:35–38.

Carlson L., G. Geupel, J. Kjelmyr, J. Maciver,

M. Morton, and N. Shishido. 1980.

Geographical range, habitat requirements,

and a preliminary population study of

Spermophilus washingtoni. Final

Technical Report, National Science

Foundation Student-originated Studies

Program. 24 pp.

CH2M Hill. 2000. Washington ground

squirrel survey, April 12 and 13, 2000: Beef

Northwest, Boeing Boardman Tract,

Morrow County, Oregon. Field Report to

Beef Northwest. 8 pp.

Giddings, B. 1997. Swift Fox Conservation

Team Annual Report.

Green, D. M. 1986. Systematics and evolution

of western North American frogs allied to

Rana aurora and Rana boylii:

electrophoretic evidence. Systematic

Zoology 35:283–296.

Green, D. M., T.F. Sharbel, J. Kearsley, and

H. Kaiser. 1996. Postglacial range

fluctuation, genetic subdivision, and

speciation in the western North American

spotted frog complex, Rana pretiosa.

Evolution 50:374–390.

Green, D. M., H. Kaiser, T.F. Sharbel, J.

Kearsley, and K.R. McAllister. 1997.

Cryptic species of spotted frogs, Rana

pretiosa complex, in western North

America. Copeia 1997:1–8.

Greene, E. 1999. Abundance and habitat

associations of Washington ground

squirrels in North-Central Oregon. M.S.

Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis,

OR. 59 pp.

Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline

of ranid frog species in western North

America: are bullfrogs responsible? J.

Herpetology 20:490–509.

Kahn, R., L. Fox, P Horner, B. Giddings, and

C. Roy. 1997. Conservation assessment and

conservation strategy for swift fox in the

United States. 54 pp.

Luce, B., and F. Lindzey. 1996. Annual

Report of the Swift Fox Conservation

Team.

Pilliod, D., C.R, Peterson, P. Ritson. 1996.

Impacts of introduced fish on spotted frog

populations in high mountain lakes of

central Idaho. A summary of the

conference on declining and sensitive

amphibians in the Rocky Mountains and

Pacific Northwest Idaho, Herpetological

Society and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Snake River Basin Office Report, Boise,

Idaho.

Quade, C. 1994. Status of Washington ground

squirrels on the Boardman Naval Weapons

Systems Training Facility: evaluation of

monitoring methods, distribution,

abundance, and seasonal activity patterns.

Unpublished.

Roy, C. 1998. Swift Fox Conservation Team

Annual Report.

Schmitt, G. 2000. Swift Fox Conservation

Team Annual Report.

Thompson, H.B. 1913. Description of a new

subspecies of Rana pretiosa from Nevada.

Proceedings of the Biological Society of

Washington 26:53–56.

Authority

This notice of review is published

under the authority of the Endangered

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

Dated: December 8, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

TABLE 1.—PETITIONED CANDIDATES (ANIMAL AND PLANT)

[*denotes change in Listing Priority Number since October 25, 1999 review]

Status Lead

region Scientific name Family Common name Historic range

Category Priority

Mammals

C ............ 3 1 Emballonura

semicaudata.

Emballonuridae ............. Bat, sheath-tailed

(Aguijan, American

Samoa population).

U.S.A. (AS, GU, MP

(Aguijan)).

C ............ *2 1 Spermophilus

washingtoni.

Sciuridae ....................... Washington ground

squirrel.

U.S.A. (OR, WA).

Removed N/A 6 Vulpes velox ................. Canidae ......................... Fox, swift (U.S. population).U.S.A. (CO, IA, KS, MN,

MT, ND, NE, NM, OK,

SD, TX, WY), Canada.

Birds

C ............ 3 1 Oceanodroma castro .... Hydrobatidae ................. Storm-petrel, bandrumped (=Harcourt’s)

(Hawaii population).

U.S.A. (HI).

C ............ 8 2 Tympanuchus

pallidicinctus.

Phasianidae .................. Lesser prairie chicken ... U.S.A (CO, KS, NM,

OK, TX).

1300 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 5 / Monday, January 8, 2001 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—PETITIONED CANDIDATES (ANIMAL AND PLANT)—Continued

[*denotes change in Listing Priority Number since October 25, 1999 review]

Status Lead

region Scientific name Family Common name Historic range

Category Priority

Reptiles

C ............ 5 2 Graptemys caglei .......... Emydidae ...................... Turtle, Cagle’s map ....... U.S.A. (TX.)

Amphibians

C ............ 5 1 Ambystoma

californiense.

Ambystomatidae ........... Salamander, California

tiger.

U.S.A. (CA).

C ............ *3 1 Rana luteiventris (formerly incl. In R.

pretiosa).

Ranidae ......................... Columbia spotted frog

(Great Basis population).

U.S.A. (ID, NV, OR).

C ............ *2 1 Rana pretoisa ............... Ranidae ......................... Frog, Oregon spotted

(formerly spotted frog

(W. Coast population)).

U.S.A. (CA, OR WA),

Canada.

C ............ 3 6 Bufo boreas boreas ...... Bufonidae ...................... Toad, boreal (Southern

Rocky Mtns. population).

U.S.A. (CO, MN, WY).

Fish

C ............ 9 6 Thymallus arcticus ........ Salmonidae ................... Grayling, Arctic (Upper

Missouri R. fluvial

population).

U.S.A. (MT, WY).

C ............ 2 2 Gila intermedia .............. Cyprinidae ..................... Chub, Gila ..................... U.S.A. (AZ, MN), Mexico.

C ............ 2 6 Macryhbopsis meeki ..... Cyprinidae ..................... Chub, sicklefin .............. U.S.A. (AR, IA, IL, KS,

KY, LA, MO, MS, MT,

NE, ND, SD, TN).

C ............ 2 6 Macryhbopsis gelida ..... Cyrpinidae ..................... Chub, sturgeon ............. U.S.A. (AR, IA, IL, KS,

KY, LA, MO, MS, MT,

NE, ND, SD, TN,

WY).

Snails

C ............ 8 2 Pyrgulopsis

(=Fontelicella)

chupaderae.

Hydrobiidae ................... Springsnail, Chupadera U.S.A. (NM).

C ............ 8 2 Pyrgulopsis

(=Fontelicella) gilae.

Hydrobiidae ................... Springsnail, Gila ............ U.S.A. (NM).

C ............ 2 2 Tryonia kosteri .............. Hydrobiidae ................... Snail, Koster’s tyronia ... U.S.A. (NM).

C ............ 11 2 Pyrgulopsis

(=Fontelicella)

thermalis.

Hydrobiidae ................... Springsnail, New Mexico U.S.A. (NM).

C ............ 2 2 Assiminea pecos ........... Assununeidae ............... Pecos assiminea snail .. U.S.A. (NM, TX, and

Mexico).

C ............ 2 2 Pyrgulopsis

(=Fontelicella)

roswellensis.

Hydrobiidae ................... Roswell springsnail ....... U.S.A. (NM).

Insects

C ............ 9 6 Cicindela limbata

albissima.

Cicindelidae .................. Coral Pink Sand Dunes

tiger beetle.

U.S.A. (UT).

Plants

C ............ 3 1 Chorizanthe parryi var.

fernandina.

Polygonaceae ............... San Fernando Valley

Spineflower.

[FR Doc. 01–440 Filed 1–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U