Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4337

• After analyzing the public and FAR, how does a contractor recover DATES: The finding announced in this comments, the FAR Council withdrew amounts related to catastrophic losses, document was made on January 19, the proposed definition. In since the costs cannot be assigned based 2006. You may submit new information recommending withdrawal of the rule, on actual costs under CAS (and concerning this species for our the June 26, 2003 report of the FAR Part therefore are not allowable as actual consideration at any time. 31 Streamlining Committee noted the costs), and the costs are unallowable as ADDRESSES: The complete file for this following: self-insurance charges under FAR? finding is available for public Upon further review, the Committee 3. How does the insurance industry inspection, by appointment, during recommends that the proposed definition of use the term ‘‘catastrophic losses?’’ normal business hours at the Utah Fish catastrophic losses be deleted from the final 4. How does the insurance industry’s and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and rule. The Committee continues to believe that use of the term ‘‘catastrophic losses’’ Wildlife Service, 2369 West Orton the proposed definition is consistent with the differ from its use in CAS and FAR, if Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah intent of the promulgators of the current any? 84119. Submit new information, language, as evidenced by the March 19, 5. Have there been problems in the materials, comments, or questions 1979 Committee report underlying DAR Case implementation of CAS 416.50(b)(1) as 78–400–7. concerning this species to us at the a result of the use of the term above address. The intent of the proposed coverage was to ‘‘catastrophic?’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: distinguish catastrophic losses as used in the 6. Provide any examples of instances cost principle from the type of catastrophic Henry Maddux, Field Supervisor, Utah where the use of the term ‘‘catastrophic’’ loss anticipated by the illustration at CAS Fish and Wildlife Office (see has resulted in contract disputes. For 416.60(h). In that illustration, motor vehicle ADDRESSES) (telephone 801–975–3330, each example provided, include the liability losses in excess of a specified extension 124; facsimile 801–975–3331). amount were absorbed by the home office nature of the dispute and the resolution. and reallocated to all segments. In the 7. Provide any comments as to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: particular case described, the specified whether the language at CAS Background amount was too low based on loss experience 416.50(b)(1) should be revised. If the to be considered catastrophic under the recommendation is to revise the Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered provisions of CAS 416. However, the language, please provide suggested Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended illustration appears to anticipate losses that revisions. (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we may be catastrophic to a particular segment make a finding on whether a petition to of a company but not necessarily catastrophic 8. Provide any comments regarding use of the term ‘‘extraordinary item’’ as list, delist, or reclassify a species in a more general sense. The Committee does presents substantial scientific or not believe the drafters of the cost principle used in Generally Accepted Accounting intended to disallow self-insurance charges Principles in lieu of the term commercial information to indicate that for the type of loss anticipated by the CAS ‘‘catastrophic insurance.’’ the petitioned action may be warranted. illustration. However, since CAS does not We are to base this finding on include a definition of catastrophic loss, [FR Doc. E6–975 Filed 1–25–06; 8:45 am] information provided in the petition defining the term in FAR could cause BILLING CODE 3110–01–P and other information that is readily confusion by the users of these regulations. available to us (e.g., in our files). To the As to the commenter’s recommendation maximum extent practicable, we are to that self-insurance charges for catastrophic DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR make this finding within 90 days of our losses should be allowable, the Committee receipt of the petition, and publish our disagrees. As was noted in the report on DAR Fish and Wildlife Service Case 78–400–7, the Government should not notice of this finding promptly in the Federal Register. allow self-insurance charges for catastrophic 50 CFR Part 17 losses, such as earthquakes, which have a Our standard for substantial scientific information within the Code of Federal very small likelihood of occurring for any Endangered and Threatened Wildlife particular contractor. Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90- and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of Key Questions for Consideration Petition To List the Mussentuchit Gilia information that would lead a as Threatened or Endangered The CAS Board is soliciting reasonable person to believe that the comments on this issue from interested AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, measure proposed in the petition may parties. In particular, the Board is Interior. be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we interested in comments related to the ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition find that substantial scientific following questions: finding. information was presented, we are 1. Do contractors and contracting required to commence a review of the agencies currently interpret the term SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and status of the species. ‘‘catastrophic losses’’ differently when Wildlife Service (Service), announce a In making this finding, we relied on applying CAS 416.50(b)(1) and FAR 90-day finding on a petition to list the information provided by the petitioners, 31.205–19(e)? If so, how does the use of Mussentuchit gilia (Gilia [=Aliciella] and readily available in our files, and the term differ between the two tenuis) as threatened or endangered evaluated that information in applications? under the Endangered Species Act of accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our 2. Under CAS 416.50(b)(1), the 1973, as amended. We find the petition process of coming to a 90-day finding contractor is required to assign does not provide substantial under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and insurance costs on the basis of the information indicating that listing Gilia section 424.14(b) of our regulations is projected average loss. Actual losses [=Aliciella] tenuis may be warranted. limited to a determination of whether cannot be used unless they approximate Therefore, we will not be initiating a the information in the petition meets the the projected average loss. FAR 31.205– further status review in response to this ‘‘substantial scientific information’’ 19(c)(4) disallows self-insurance costs petition. The public may submit to us threshold. for catastrophic losses. Thus, if the term any new information that becomes We added Aliciella tenuis to our list ‘‘catastrophic losses’’ is interpreted as available concerning the status of the of candidate species on September 30, having the same meaning in both CAS species or threats to it. 1993, as a category 2 candidate species

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:54 Jan 25, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM 26JAP1 erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS 4338 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(58 FR 51144). In the February 28, 1996, remained obscure until the 1980s. The in the petition and readily available in Notice of Review (61 FR 7595), we species was described in the scientific our files, is presented below. discontinued the use of multiple literature in 1989 (Smith and Neese A. Present or Threatened Destruction, candidate categories and considered the 1989) as Gilia tenuis and subsequently Modification, or Curtailment of the former category 1 candidates as simply included in the resurrected genus Species’ Habitat or Range ‘‘candidates’’ for listing purposes. The Aliciella in 1998 (Porter 1998). We A. tenuis was removed from the accept the name Aliciella tenuis as the The petition claims that there are 17 candidate list at that time. This species valid name for Mussentuchit gilia. populations of Aliciella tenuis, and that currently has no Federal regulatory Aliciella tenuis is a rare, edaphically the species is threatened mainly by status. restricted plant in southwestern Emery, activities surrounding oil, gas, and On March 10, 2004, we received a southeastern Sevier, and northern mineral extraction; livestock trampling; formal petition, dated March 9, 2004, Wayne Counties, Utah. The species’ off-road vehicle (ORV) use; recreational from the Southern Utah Wilderness range spans about 45 miles (mi) (72 activities; and weed invasions. Alliance, Center for Native Ecosystems, kilometers (km)) from its South Desert Oil, Gas, and Mineral Extraction and Utah Native Plant Society, population in Waterpocket Fold within requesting that the Mussentuchit gilia Capitol Reef National Park to its Secret The petition cites general information (Gilia [=Aliciella] tenuis) found in Utah Mesa population in the San Rafael on oil, gas, and mineral extraction. The be listed as threatened or endangered Swell. The species has been delineated petition asserts that 3 of 17 populations pursuant to section 4 of the Act. This into 7 populations, with 1 to 8 separate are in areas under lease for oil and gas petition was identical to a petition sites in each population, for a total of 39 development. Petitioners claim that oil, submitted on May 19, 2003, to which, sites (Clark 2005). Based on Dr. Johnson gas, and mineral exploration involve due to funding limitations, we were (2005, memo to Clark), DNA studies construction of well pads, roads, unable to respond during Fiscal Year between these populations indicate four pipelines, and other associated (FY) 2003. In addition, all FY 2004 genetic groups. The species’ known facilities, which permanently reduce listing funds were allocated to activities population is estimated at 15,400 and fragment habitat. They assert that: in response to court-approved individuals (9,774 counted) on (1) Infrastructure activities may lead to settlements. approximately 353 acres (ac) (143 removing rock outcrops; (2) mineral When we first receive a petition, we hectares (ha)) (Clark 2005). development increases recreation evaluate it in order to determine if an The largest concentrations of Aliciella activities, such as ORV use; (3) ground emergency exists such that an tenuis are restricted to sandstone disturbance also may introduce noxious emergency listing may be warranted. In (including mudstone and siltstone) weeds and destroy biological soil crusts; a response letter to the petitioners, ledges and cracks with interbedded and (4) seismic exploration also has dated March 16, 2004, we stated that gypsum deposits, and on talus slopes long-lasting effects that provide similar ‘‘the petitioned plant lives primarily on derived from those sandstone ground-disturbing impacts. Federal lands, including Capitol Reef formations. The species is found on Additionally, the petitioners state that National Park, and we know of no clear several named geologic formations an increasing number of leases and imminent threat to the species. including the Curtis, Carmel, Dakota, permits for oil and gas will threaten Therefore, we see no evidence that Entrada, Navajo (contact with Carmel), known and unknown populations. would lead us to conclude that and Summerville (contact with Curtis) The petition contends that mining emergency reclassification of this formations. Most population sites are and associated facilities threaten species is appropriate.’’ difficult to access due to steep Aliciella tenuis habitats. The petition On May 19, 2005, the petitioners filed treacherous terrain. states that the potential range of the plant corresponds to areas that have a a complaint in Utah Federal District Threats Analysis Court alleging our failure to complete high potential for gypsum occurrences. 90-day or 12-month findings on their Pursuant to section (4) of the Act, a Additionally, it is stated that an active petition. On August 26, 2005, the court species may be determined to be an bentonite and zeolite mine owned by approved a stipulated settlement endangered and threatened species on Western Clay Company is immediately agreement and dismissed the case, the basis of any of the following five adjacent to areas known to contain the based on our agreement to submit to the factors: (A) Present or threatened species. Federal Register by January 19, 2006, a destruction, modification, or Evaluation of Information in the completed 90-day finding. curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, Petition Species Information recreational, scientific, or educational The petition asserts that there are 17 Aliciella tenuis is an herbaceous purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) populations of Aliciella tenuis. More perennial vascular plant in the family inadequacy of existing regulatory recent information readily available in Polemoniaceae. The plant grows from a mechanisms; or (E) other natural or our files indicates that there are 7 multi-branched woody base, 2–14 manmade factors affecting its continued Aliciella tenuis populations with 39 inches (in) (5–35 centimeters (cm)) in existence. In making this finding, we sites; these are the figures we use height. Stems have fine hairs with sticky evaluated whether the petition throughout this finding. glands, to which sand usually adheres. presented substantial scientific or The petition provides some The inflorescence is paniculately commercial information to determine information regarding oil and gas cymose (a loose arrangement of flowers that listing Aliciella tenuis as threatened production in the San Rafael Swell where the central or terminal flowers or endangered may be warranted. The generally, but it does not present generally flower first). Flowers are Act identifies the five factors to be substantial information that this usually solitary, growing from branched considered, either singly or in development has resulted in losses or ends. Blooming begins in May and often combination, to determine whether a threatens to result in actual losses of continues through July (Porter 1998). species may be threatened or Aliciella tenuis. The species is not The species was first collected as a endangered. Our evaluation of these distributed uniformly across its range. botanical specimen in 1932 but threats, based on information provided The petition asserts that 3 of 17

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:54 Jan 25, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM 26JAP1 erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4339

populations are in areas under lease for Aliciella tenuis, and cites general endangerment of the relatively slow- oil and gas development. Currently, information where impacts to vegetative reproducing A. tenuis. known sites of A. tenuis are not located communities similar to those in Evaluation of Information in the in areas targeted for oil, gas, and seismic southern Utah have resulted from these Petition exploration (Debra Clark, Interagency practices. The petition alleges that 5 of Botanist, pers. comm. 2003; Fish and 17 A. tenuis populations are on Bureau Information presented in the petition Wildlife Service 2006). The mine owned of Land Management (BLM) grazing is speculative. The petitioners provide by Western Clay Company referred to in allotments. The petition does not information about weed invasions the petition is near 3 of the 17 A. tenuis provide evidence of actual damage to A. within western arid ecosystems. The populations in the petition, but these tenuis by grazing. Cattle cannot access petitioners did not provide substantial sites are not in the vicinity of the mine the majority of occupied sites information that documents that areas and are not being disturbed by mining (approximately 85 percent) and impacted by invasive species are the activities (D. Clark, pers. comm. 2003). trampling has not been recorded at areas where Aliciella tenuis is found. Much of the information in the petition known sites (D. Clark, pers. comm. Native plants are the dominant species identifies potential impacts rather than 2003; Clark 2005; Lenhart and Clark found at A. tenuis sites, and highly actual impacts, and there is no evidence 2005). associated plant species are not exotic presented in the petition or in our files The petitioners did not provide weeds or grasses (Lenhart and Clark to indicate that known populations are substantial information that documents 2005). Furthermore, the petitioners do impacted by oil, gas, and mineral that areas impacted by grazing not provide substantial information on extraction. A. tenuis generally occurs on management practices are also those in the magnitude and the extent of habitat steep slopes, in rock cracks, or on ridges which Aliciella tenuis is found. Also, impacts by invasive weeds such that we away from trail or road use. Most sites the petition does not present substantial might conclude that they may threaten are very difficult to access, and therefore information on the magnitude and the the continued existence of A. tenuis. there is a low likelihood of disturbance extent of degradation and loss of habitat B. Overutilization for Commercial, from these activities. to livestock grazing such that we could Recreational, Scientific, or Educational The petitioners provide general conclude that grazing practices threaten Purposes characterizations of oil, gas, and mineral the continued existence of the A. tenuis. extraction impacts. They do not provide The petition claims that other gilia substantial information that documents Recreational Activities species are ornamental cultivars and that these activities occur in the areas The petition contends that recreation, sought after by rock-garden enthusiasts. where Aliciella tenuis is found. Also, especially ORV use, threatens to destroy The petition also claims that many of the petition does not present substantial Aliciella tenuis habitats. the threats identified under Factor A information on the magnitude and the also represent overutilization for Evaluation of Information in the extent of degradation and loss of habitat commercial, recreational, scientific or Petition to oil, gas, and mineral extraction such educational purposes. Since Factor B that we can conclude that these The information provided by the refers to ‘‘overutilization’’ of the species, activities threaten the continued petitioners does not provide substantial and because we have already addressed existence of the A. tenuis. information demonstrating that these threats under Factor A, we will recreational activities present a threat to not reevaluate those claims here. Livestock Grazing/Trampling Aliciella tenuis. Aliciella tenuis plants The petition identifies livestock are mostly located on steep side-slopes, Evaluation of Information in the grazing as an important factor in habitat in rock cracks, or on ridges away from Petition destruction and alteration in Aliciella trail or road use. Most sites are very The petitioners provide information tenuis habitat. The petition asserts that difficult to access, and the petition indicating that gilias are ornamental and livestock grazing affects vegetation acknowledges that the BLM’s Resource collectable. Petitioners refer to the communities by altering species Management Plan (RMP) limits ORV use collection of a different, rare gilia composition through direct loss of to designated roads and trails. Human species and conclude that Mussentuchit vegetation, and also by habitat disturbance, such as human footprints gilia (Aliciella tenuis) will likely be degradation due to associated factors and all-terrain vehicle tracks, are sought after when it is more widely that may affect plant succession, recorded only at 4 of 39 sites; however, known. However, no documentation of wildlife use, time and length of plant these sites are still occupied by A. A. tenuis collection is provided, nor do flowering (and its effects on pollinators), tenuis (Lenhart and Clark 2005). we or the Interagency Botanist (D. Clark, native plant species presence, and the Furthermore, only six of the known sites pers. comm. 2005) know of any presence of invasive exotic plant species are in areas accessible by the general evidence of such collection. (especially annual weeds and grasses). public, due to terrain (Lenhart and Clark Furthermore, the majority of sites are in Trampling of plants and soil may cause 2005). In light of the information above, remote, difficult to access locations, damage to soil crusts, reduce we conclude that the petition does not with only 6 of 39 known sites mycorrhizal fungi, increase erosion, and provide substantial information to considered readily accessible by the contribute to nonnative plant indicate that recreational activities general public (Lenhart and Clark 2005). introductions. In addition, the petition threaten the continued existence of A. The petition provides only speculative claims that grazing management is of tenuis. information regarding threats presented concern due to overgrazing or untimely by collection. Therefore, we cannot Invasive Plants grazing. conclude that there is substantial The petition maintains that the spread information that this practice threatens Evaluation of Information in the of weeds by several factors (grazing, the continued existence of A. tenuis. Petition ORV use, and mining/drilling The petition describes various operations) across the arid West will C. Disease or Predation impacts associated with livestock and result in the degradation of Aliciella The petition does not identify disease grazing management that could affect tenuis habitat, thereby increasing or predation as threats to Aliciella

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:54 Jan 25, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM 26JAP1 erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS 4340 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules

tenuis. Additionally, the information in BLM Manual 6840 provides policy Utah Navajo Sandstone Endemics our files provides no instances where direction that BLM sensitive plant Conservation Strategy and Agreement disease or predation has been species are to be managed as if they (CAS), a multi-year joint project by documented to occur to A. tenuis plants were candidate species for Federal BLM, NPS, U.S. Forest Service, and the (Porter and Heil 1994; Clark 2000; Clark listing so that they do not become listed, Service (Clark, pers. comm. 2005). 2001; Clark 2002; Grobner et al 2004; while also fulfilling other Federal law Thus, we conclude that the petition Clark 2004; Clark 2005; Lenhart and mandates. The BLM has a policy of does not present substantial information Clark 2005). entering into conservation agreements to indicate that Aliciella tenuis may be and other conservation measures to threatened by the inadequacy of existing D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory protect both State- and BLM-listed Federal regulatory mechanisms across Mechanisms species. Capitol Reef National Park (NP) all or a significant portion of its range. The petition contends that existing similarly lists A. tenuis as a sensitive Interagency cooperation for this species land use designations and regulatory species. is high and all Federal agencies across mechanisms are insufficient to protect Sensitive species designation by both the species’ range will be signatory populations of Aliciella tenuis, and also BLM and Capitol Reef NP is important parties to the CAS. alleges that State and Federal agencies because the majority of the Aliciella have failed to conduct monitoring for tenuis population occurs on agency- State Agencies the species in most of its range and to managed lands. Seven Aliciella tenuis The petition claims that lack of State protect it from impacts associated with populations (39 sites) are known (Clark policies leaves the species inadequately energy exploration and development, 2005). One population (7 sites) occurs in protected. livestock grazing, recreation, and exotic Capitol Reef National Park and is fully Evaluation of Information in the weeds (see Factor A). protected by applicable National Park Petition Federal Agencies System laws and regulations (Clark 2005). Twenty-six of 32 sites in the The petition states that 3 of 17 The petitioners claim that nearly all other 6 populations are on BLM- populations are on State lands, and known populations of Aliciella tenuis managed lands. Of the remaining 6 sites, acknowledges that 2 of these overlap occur on BLM lands. They acknowledge 1 is on State lands, while ownership of populations on BLM lands. The petition that BLM has designated A. tenuis as a the other 5 is documented as shared also acknowledges that the species is special status species and that 9 of 17 between BLM and the State of Utah currently monitored by the Utah Natural populations of the species occur within (Clark 2005). Concerning the 3 Heritage Program. The information in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern populations that the petitioners claim our files indicates that there are 7 (ACEC) and within BLM Wilderness are not covered by an RMP, only a very populations with 39 sites; 1 site is on Study Areas (WSA). The petition also small number of A. tenuis sites are State lands, while 5 sites are acknowledges the existence of certain potentially affected by this, and the documented as shared between BLM in-place management restrictions which mere absence of explicit coverage under and the State of Utah (Clark 2005). No serve to protect A. tenuis sites. an RMP does not leave the populations documentation indicates that habitat However, the petition questions wholly unprotected. reduction is occurring on State or whether these designations and other Despite the fact that few if any threats private lands. There is no evidence that mechanisms to regulate and control to the species are documented, both the existing regulatory mechanisms are various activities, such as grazing and BLM and NPS have continued to inadequate to prevent harm to Aliciella mining (see factor A), are sufficient to develop and implement conservation tenuis populations on State lands. prevent harm to the A. tenuis in a efforts for the species to ensure Therefore, the information presented in significant portion of its range. They continued long-term protection and the petition regarding threats to A. claim that 3 populations are not covered population monitoring. The Interagency tenuis populations on State lands is by a BLM RMP. Additionally, they Rare Plant Team was established in speculative and does not present claim that Federal agencies have failed 1999 to direct conservation measures for substantial information to indicate that to conduct comprehensive monitoring listed and sensitive plant species listing these populations may be of the species. endemic to central Utah sandstone warranted due to inadequate State habitats, including Aliciella tenuis. The Evaluation of Information in the regulatory mechanisms. team has conducted surveys for listed Petition and sensitive plants on lands managed E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors The primary concern expressed by the by Richfield and Price Field Offices of Affecting the Species’ Continued petitioners is that the existing BLM the BLM, Capitol Reef National Park, Existence special status designation and Fishlake National Forest, and the The petition contends that several occurrence within BLM WSAs and Teasdale District of Dixie National other factors negatively impact Aliciella ACECs is insufficient to provide Forest. From 2000 to 2005, tenuis populations. They state that the adequate conservation for Aliciella approximately 10,500 ac (4,249 ha) have small size of A. tenuis populations tenuis. However, BLM special status been surveyed for A. tenuis on Capitol (many populations with fewer than 25 designation does include BLM policy Reef National Park, BLM, and State individuals) makes them vulnerable to direction. The BLM ‘‘special status lands (Lenhart and Clark 2005). During extirpation because of a variety of plants’’ include all of the following: (1) this period, approximately 2,650 environmental factors, such as Federally-listed and proposed species; person-hours were allocated by the stochastic events, drought, climate (2) Federal candidate species; (3) State- Interagency Rare Plant Team for A. change, and potential disruption of listed species; and (4) BLM sensitive tenuis surveys (Lenhart and Clark 2005). plant-pollinator interactions. species. BLM sensitive plants are those In addition, the species is included in species that do not occur on Federal or conservation planning documents such Evaluation of Information in the State lists, but which are designated by as the 1996 Gilia caespitosa [A. tenuis] Petition the BLM State Director for special Conservation Agreement and Strategy While the petition provides management consideration. and the soon to be completed Central information on the effects of these

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:54 Jan 25, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM 26JAP1 erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4341

environmental factors on plant species Authority petition, supporting data, and comments in general, no substantial scientific or The authority for this action is section will be available for public inspection, commercial information regarding 4 of the Endangered Species Act of by appointment, during normal business Aliciella tenuis was provided. Drought, 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et hours, at the above address. flood, climate change, and plant- seq.). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete pollinator interactions may have the Gober, Field Supervisor, South Dakota Dated: January 19, 2006. potential to affect small populations. Ecological Services Office at the above However, we find no indication of long- Thomas O. Melius, address (telephone 605–224–8693; term species decline for A. tenuis due to Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. facsimile 605–224–9974). [FR Doc. E6–947 Filed 1–25–06; 8:45 am] these or any other factors. Most A. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: tenuis sites have greater than 100 BILLING CODE 4310–55–P individuals and, as more recent studies Background indicate, most populations have several Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 hundred to several thousand DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we documented individuals (Clark 2005). Fish and Wildlife Service make a finding on whether a petition to Such populations possess greater list, delist, or reclassify a species resiliency to the threats identified in the 50 CFR Part 17 presents substantial scientific or petition. commercial information indicating that A few sites are in active floodplains Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the petitioned action may be warranted. where plants are periodically washed and Plants; 90-day Finding on a We are to base this finding on away (Clark 2005); however, seed source Petition To List the American Dipper in information provided in the petition for recolonization of these sites is the Black Hills of South Dakota as and other information that is readily provided by larger sites found at higher Threatened or Endangered available to us (e.g., in our files). To the elevations in the landscape (D. Clark, maximum extent practicable, we are to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2005). make this finding within 90 days of our Interior. receipt of the petition, and publish our The information presented in the ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition notice of this finding promptly in the petition regarding climate change and finding. Federal Register. its potential impact on Aliciella tenuis Our standard for substantial scientific SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and is speculative. information within the Code of Federal Wildlife Service (Service), announce a Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90- Finding 90-day finding on a petition to list the day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of distinct vertebrate population segment We have reviewed the information as information that would lead a (DPS) of American dipper (Cinclus it is cited in the petition, along with reasonable person to believe that the mexicanus unicolor) in the Black Hills other pertinent literature and measure proposed in the petition may of South Dakota as threatened or information readily available in our be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we endangered under the Endangered files. After this review and evaluation, find that substantial scientific Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). we find the petition does not present information was presented, we are We find that the petition and other substantial scientific information to required to commence a review of the readily available information do not indicate that listing Aliciella tenuis may status of the species. provide substantial scientific or be warranted at this time. Most of the In making this finding, we relied on commercial information indicating that threats described in the petition are information provided by the petitioners listing the American Dipper in the Black speculative in nature, and petitioners and information in our files, and Hills of South Dakota may be warranted. admit that only a few populations are evaluated that information in This finding is based on our susceptible to the threats raised. accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our determination that the American Dipper process of coming to a 90-day finding We will not be commencing a status in the Black Hills of South Dakota does under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and review in response to this petition. We not constitute a valid DPS and, § 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited encourage interested parties to continue therefore, cannot be considered a to a determination of whether the to gather data that will assist with the listable entity pursuant to section 3(15) information in the petition meets the conservation of the species. If you wish of the Act. Therefore, we will not ‘‘substantial scientific information’’ to provide information regarding initiate a status review to determine if threshold. Aliciella tenuis, you may submit your listing this species is warranted in We do not conduct additional information or materials to the Field response to this petition. However, the research to make a 90-day finding, nor Supervisor, Utah Fish and Wildlife public may submit to us new do we subject the petition to rigorous Office (see ADDRESSES). information concerning the species, its critical review. Rather, as the Act and status or threats to it at any time. References Cited regulations contemplate, in coming to a DATES: The finding announced in this 90-day finding, we acknowledge the A complete list of all references cited document was made on January 19, petitioner’s sources and herein is available, upon request, from 2006. characterizations of the information the Utah Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES: Information, data, unless we have specific information to ADDRESSES). comments, or questions concerning this the contrary. Author petition and our finding should be Our 90-day findings consider whether submitted to the Field Supervisor, the petition states a reasonable case for The primary author of this notice is South Dakota Ecological Services Office, listing on its face. Thus, our finding Heather Barnes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 420 expresses no view as to the ultimate Service, Utah Fish and Wildlife Office South Garfield Avenue, Suite 400, issue of whether the species should be (see ADDRESSES). Pierre, South Dakota 57501. The listed. We reach a conclusion on that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:54 Jan 25, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JAP1.SGM 26JAP1 erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS