Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40657

* * * * * 1973, as amended. Identification of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Dated: May 17, 2002. candidate species can assist and Plants during the period October Craig Manson, environmental planning efforts by 30, 2001 to May 30, 2002. providing advance notice of potential Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and DATES: listings, allowing resource managers to We will accept comments on the Parks. alleviate threats and thereby possibly candidate notice of review at any time. [FR Doc. 02–14683 Filed 6–12–02; 8:45 am] remove the need to list species as ADDRESSES: Submit your comments BILLING CODE 4310–55–P endangered or threatened. Even if we regarding a particular species to the subsequently list a candidate species, Regional Director of the Region the early notice provided here could DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR identified in SUPPLEMENTARY result in fewer restrictions on activities INFORMATION as having the lead Fish and Wildlife Service by prompting candidate conservation responsibility for that species. You may measures to alleviate threats to the submit comments of a more general 50 CFR Part 17 species. nature to the Chief, Division of We request additional status Conservation and Classification, U.S. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information that may be available for Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. and Plants; Review of Species That the identified candidate species and Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing information on species that we should 22203 (703/358–2171). Written as Endangered or Threatened; Annual include as candidates in future updates comments and materials received in of this list. We will consider this Notice of Findings on Recycled response to this notice will be available information in preparing listing Petitions; Annual Description of for public inspection by appointment at documents and future revisions to the Progress on Listing Actions the Division of Conservation and notice of review. This information will Classification (for comments of a general AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, help us in monitoring changes in the nature only) or at the appropriate Interior. status of candidate species and in Regional Office listed in SUPPLEMENTARY ACTION: Notice of review. conserving candidate species. We announce the availability of INFORMATION. SUMMARY: In this candidate notice of Candidate and Listing Priority Information regarding the range, review (CNOR), we, the U.S. Fish and Assignment Forms (candidate forms) for status, and habitat needs of and listing Wildlife Service (Service), present an each candidate species. These priority assignment for a particular updated list of plant and animal species documents describe the status and species is available for review at the native to the United States that we threats that we evaluated in order to appropriate Regional Office listed below regard as candidates or have proposed assign a listing priority number to each in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, at the for addition to the Lists of Endangered species. We also announce our findings Division of Conservation and and Threatened Wildlife and Plants on recycled petitions and describe our Classification, Arlington, Virginia (see under the Endangered Species Act of progress in revising the Lists of address above), or on our internet

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 EP13JN02.005 40658 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules

website (http:// Review that we now no longer consider comprehensive animal notices on www.endangered.fws.gov). candidates. This includes six species we November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The listed as threatened or endangered since November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982), and, Endangered Species Coordinator(s) in October 30, 2001, and two species we as part of combined animal and plant the appropriate Regional Office(s) or removed as candidates through this notices, on February 28, 1996 (61 FR Chris Nolin, Chief, Division of notice. The Regional Offices identified 7596), September 19, 1997 (62 FR Conservation and Classification (703/ as having lead responsibility for the 49398), October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57534), 358–2171). particular species will continually and October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808). On revise and update the information on January 8, 2001 (66 FR 1295), we SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: candidate species. We intend to publish published our recycled petition findings Candidate Notice of Review an updated combined notice of review for 25 animal species that had for animals and plants, including our outstanding warranted but precluded Background findings on recycled petitions and a findings as well as notice of 1 candidate The Endangered Species Act of 1973, description of our progress on listing removal. This revised notice supersedes as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) actions, annually in the Federal all previous animal, plant, and (Act), requires that we identify species Register. combined notices of review. of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened, based on the Previous Notices of Review Current Notice of Review best available scientific and commercial The Act directed the Secretary of the We gather data on plants and animals information. Through the Federal Smithsonian Institution to prepare a native to the United States that appear rulemaking process, we add these report on endangered and threatened to merit consideration for addition to species to the List of Endangered and plant species, which was published as the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or House Document No. 94–51. We Wildlife and Plants. This notice the List of Endangered and Threatened published a notice in the Federal identifies those species that we Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this Register on July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823), currently regard as candidates for program, we maintain a list of species in which we announced that we would addition to the Lists. These species that we regard as candidates for listing. review more than 3,000 native plant include, by definition, biological A candidate is one for which we have species named in the Smithsonian’s species; subspecies of fish, wildlife, or on file sufficient information on report and other species added by the plants; and distinct population biological vulnerability and threats to 1975 notice for possible addition to the segments (DPSs) of vertebrate animals. support a proposal to list as endangered List of Endangered and Threatened In issuing this compilation, we rely on or threatened but for which preparation Plants. A new comprehensive notice of information from status surveys and publication of a proposal is review for native plants, which took conducted for candidate assessment and precluded by higher-priority listing into account the earlier Smithsonian on information from State Natural actions. We maintain this list for a report and other accumulated Heritage Programs, other State and variety of reasons, including: to notify information, superseded the 1975 notice Federal agencies (such as the Forest the public that these species are facing on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82479). Service and the Bureau of Land threat to their survival; to provide On November 28, 1983 (48 FR 53640), Management), knowledgeable scientists, advance knowledge of potential listings a supplemental plant notice of review public and private natural resource that could affect decisions of noted changes in the status of various interests, and comments received in environmental planners and developers; species. We published complete updates response to previous notices of review. to solicit input from interested parties to of the plant notice on September 27, Tables 1 and 2 are arranged identify those candidate species that 1985 (50 FR 39526), February 21, 1990 alphabetically by common names under may not require protection under the (55 FR 6184), September 30, 1993 (58 the major group headings for animals Act or additional species that may FR 51144), and, as part of combined first, then alphabetically by names of require the Act’s protections; and to animal and plant notices, on February genera, species, and relevant subspecies solicit information needed to prioritize 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), September 19, and varieties for plants. Animals are the order in which we will propose 1997 (62 FR 49398), October 25, 1999 grouped by class or order. Plants are species for listing. (64 FR 57534), and October 30, 2001 (66 subdivided into three groups: flowering Table 1 of this notice includes 260 FR 54808). On January 8, 2001 (66 FR plants, conifers and cycads, and ferns species that we regard as candidates for 1295), we published our recycled and their allies. Useful synonyms and addition to the Lists of Endangered and petition finding for one plant species subgeneric scientific names appear in Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists), that had an outstanding warranted but parentheses with the synonyms as well as 39 species for which we have precluded finding. preceded by an equals sign. Several published proposed rules to list as Previous animal notices of review species that have not yet been formally threatened or endangered species, most included a number of the animal species described in the scientific literature are of which we identified as candidates in in the accompanying Table 1. We included; such species are identified by the October 30, 2001, Candidate Notice published earlier comprehensive a generic or specific name (in italics) of Review (66 FR 54808). We encourage reviews for vertebrate animals in the followed by ‘‘sp.’’ or ‘‘ssp.’’ We consideration of these species in Federal Register on December 30, 1982 incorporate standardized common environmental planning, such as in (47 FR 58454), and on September 18, names in these notices as they become environmental impact analysis under 1985 (50 FR 37958). We published an available. We sorted plants by scientific the National Environmental Policy Act initial comprehensive review for name due to the inconsistencies in of 1969 (implemented at 40 CFR parts invertebrate animals on May 22, 1984 common names, the inclusion of 1500–1508) and in local and statewide (49 FR 21664). We published a vernacular and composite subspecific land use planning. Table 2 of this notice combined animal notice of review on names, and the fact that many plants contains eight species we identified as January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), and with still lack a standardized common name. candidates or as proposed species in the minor corrections on August 10, 1989 Table 1 lists all species that we regard October 30, 2001, Candidate Notice of (54 FR 32833). We again published as candidates for listing and all species

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40659

proposed for listing under the Act. We each candidate species mentioned in the M—Species we mistakenly included as emphasize that we are not proposing comment. We will likewise consider all candidates or proposed species in the these candidate species for listing by information provided in response to this last notice of review. this notice, but we anticipate notice of review in deciding whether to N—Species that are not listable entities developing and publishing proposed propose species for listing and when to based on the Act’s definition of listing rules for these species in the undertake necessary listing actions. ‘‘species’’ and current taxonomic future. We encourage State agencies, Comments received will become part of understanding. other Federal agencies, and other parties the administrative record for the X—Species we believe to be extinct. to give consideration to these species in species, which is maintained at the The columns describing lead region, environmental planning. appropriate Regional Office. scientific name, family, common name, Species in Table 1 of this notice are Following the scientific name (fourth and historic range include information assigned to several status categories, column) and the family designation as previously described for Table 1. noted in the ‘‘Category’’ column at the (fifth column) is the common name Summary left side of the table. We explain the (sixth column). The seventh column codes for the category status column of provides the known historical range for Since publication of the 2001 notice species in Table 1 below: the species or vertebrate population (for of review, we reviewed the available PE—Species proposed for listing as vertebrate populations, this is the information on candidate species to ensure that a proposed listing is endangered. Proposed species are historical range for the entire species or justified for each species and to those species for which we have subspecies and not just the historical reevaluate the relative listing priority published a proposed rule to list as range for the distinct population assignment of each species. We also endangered or threatened in the segment), indicated by postal code evaluated whether we should Federal Register (exclusive of species abbreviations for States and U.S. emergency list any of these species, for which we have withdrawn or territories. Many species no longer particularly species with high priorities finalized the proposed rule). occur in all of the areas listed. (i.e., species with LPNs of 1, 2, or 3). We PT—Species proposed for listing as Species in Table 2 of this notice are undertook this effort to ensure we focus threatened. species we included either as proposed C—Candidates: Species for which we species or as candidates in the 2001 conservation efforts on those species at have on file sufficient information on notice of review. Since the 2001 CNOR, greatest risk. As of May 30, 2002, 7 biological vulnerability and threats to we added six of these species to the plants and 27 animals are proposed for support proposals to list them as Lists of Endangered and Threatened endangered status; 5 animals are endangered or threatened. Issuance of Wildlife and Plants. We removed the proposed for threatened status (one is proposed rules for these species is other two species from candidate status proposed due to similarity in precluded at present by other higher for the reasons as indicated by the appearance); and 141 plant and 119 priority listing actions. This category codes. The first column indicates the animal candidates are awaiting includes species for which we made present status of the species, using the preparation of proposed rules (see Table a ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ 12- following codes: 1). Table 2 includes 8 species that we previously classified as either proposed month finding on a petition to list. We E—Species we listed as endangered. made new findings on all petitions for for listing or candidates that we no T—Species we listed as threatened. longer classify in those categories. which we previously made Rc—Species we removed from the ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ findings. candidate list because currently Summary of New Candidates We identify the species for which we available information does not Below we present brief summaries of made a continued ‘‘warranted but support a proposed listing. new candidates. Complete information, precluded’’ finding on a recycled Rp—Species we removed from the including references, can be found in petition by the code ‘‘C*’’ in the the candidate forms. You may obtain a category column (see Findings on candidate list because we have withdrawn the proposed listing. copy of these forms from the Regional Recycled Petitions section for office that has the lead for the species additional information). The second column indicates why we or from our internet website (http:// The column labeled ‘‘Priority’’ no longer regard the species as a endangered.fws.gov). indicates the listing priority number candidate or proposed species using the (LPN) for each candidate species that we following codes: Amphibians use to determine the most appropriate A—Species that are more abundant or Relict leopard frog (Rana onca)—The use of our available resources, with low widespread than previously believed relict leopard frog is a medium-sized numbers having the highest priority. We and species that are not subject to the brownish grey frog in the family assign this number based on the degree of threats sufficient to warrant Ranidae. Considered extinct since the immediacy and magnitude of threats as continuing candidate status, or 1950s, the species was rediscovered in well as on taxonomic status. We issuing a proposed or final listing. 1991. Its current distribution is limited published a complete description of our The reduction in threats could be due, to 5 sites within 2 general areas in listing priority system in the Federal in part, or entirely, to actions taken Nevada, although historical records Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR under a conservation agreement. exist at more than 12 sites along the 43098). F—Species whose range no longer Virgin and Colorado Rivers in Utah, The third column identifies the includes a U.S. territory. Nevada, and Arizona. Since its Regional Office to which you should I—Species for which we have rediscovery, 2 of the 5 sites have been direct comments or questions (see insufficient information on biological extirpated. Primary threats include addresses at the end of the vulnerability and threats to support decreased water availability due to dam SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section). issuance of a proposed rule to list. construction for power management, We provided the comments received in L—Species we added to the Lists of conversion of wetland habitat to response to the 1999 notice of review to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife agriculture and urbanization, the Region having lead responsibility for and Plants. introduction of predatory game fishes,

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 40660 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules

and habitat degradation through Sonoma County California tiger the species. Currently no State or recreational use. Currently, State and salamander from pools that otherwise Federal regulation provides protection local regulations have been insufficient would be valuable breeding grounds. for this salamander. Due to imminent to protect the relict leopard frog and its Domestic dogs and cats from urbanized threats of a high magnitude, we assigned habitat. We have determined that, areas may harm migrating Sonoma a listing priority number of 2 to this although the threats are of high County California tiger salamanders. species. magnitude, they are nonimminent; Several other factors may have an Fish therefore, we assigned a listing priority adverse impact on the Sonoma County number of 5 to this species. California tiger salamanders including Chucky madtom (Noturus sp.cf. Austin blind salamander (Eurycea increased traffic. Increased vehicular Noturus elegans)—The chucky madtom waterlooensis)—The Austin blind traffic results in direct mortality, as well is currently restricted to two sites in salamander is a small aquatic as indirect mortality by pollution Little Chucky Creek in Greene County, salamander approximately 6.4 through car emissions which reduces Tennessee. Preliminary genetic analyses centimeters (cm) (2.5 inches (in)) in the number of invertebrates found in have indicated that the chucky madtom length. The species lacks external eyes, pools, a food source for California tiger is a unique species; scientists are has permanent external gills, a narrow salamanders. Other contaminants, currently completing a formal head, and an extended snout. The rodent control, and use of water from description that will result in the taxon Austin blind salamander is known from breeding ponds for irrigation and flood becoming a distinct species. three spring outlets in Travis County, control may also adversely affect Historically, this species was previously Texas. The species is believed to spend Sonoma County California tiger collected from Dunn Creek, a stream most of its life cycle underground, salamanders. Existing regulations are that is in a different watershed and living in the Edwards Aquifer. Primary inadequate to protect the Sonoma physiographic province than Little threats include degradation of water County California tiger salamander. For Chucky Creek, so it is likely that the quality and quantity due to example, protection offered by the Clean historic range of the chucky madtom urbanization. Water quality data reflect Water Act extends only to the pool itself encompassed a wider area in the Ridge a long-term trend of water quality with a small upland buffer. This is and Valley and Blue Ridge degradation within Austin blind insufficient to protect most adult physiographic provinces in Tennessee salamander habitat over the past 25 California tiger salamanders, which than is demonstrated by its current distribution. Since this species is only years. Currently no State or Federal spend the majority of their life cycle in known to occur in one stream, it is regulations provide protection for this upland habitats that extend well beyond vulnerable to random catastrophic salamander. Due to imminent threats of the upland boundary. Since Sonoma events that may extirpate it. The chucky a high magnitude, we assigned a listing County California tiger salamanders madtom is a bottom-dwelling species priority number of 2 to this species. spend up to 80 percent of their life in California tiger salamander, Sonoma and is susceptible to sedimentation and small mammal burrows in upland County DPS (Ambystoma other pollutants that degrade or habitats surrounding breeding pools, the californiense)—The California tiger eliminate habitat and food sources. The protection of the pool itself, with salamander is a large, stocky, terrestrial majority of the Little Chucky Creek concurrent loss of uplands surrounding salamander with a broad, rounded snout watershed is privately owned and the pool, would still result in the loss and is restricted to grasslands and lower managed for beef cattle production, of local Sonoma County California tiger foothill regions of California. The tobacco cultivation, and row crops, salamanders. The Sonoma County Sonoma County population of the especially corn and soybeans. Therefore, California tiger salamander is a species California tiger salamander is presumed nonpoint source sediment and to have historically occurred in suitable of special concern under the California agrochemical inputs into Little Chucky habitat throughout the Santa Rosa Plain Endangered Species Act (CEQA), which Creek from local agricultural and other in Sonoma County in the North Bay requires a full disclosure of the potential sources can adversely affect the chucky Area. The Sonoma County population of environmental impacts of proposed madtom by altering the physical the California tiger salamander has been projects. However, protection of listed characteristics of its habitat. Such extirpated from much of its historic species through CEQA is dependent alterations would impede its ability to range and is limited in its remaining upon the discretion of the agency feed, seek shelter from predators, and habitat. All breeding sites, including involved in the project, and projects successfully reproduce. The Dunn Creek those located in preserves, are currently may be approved that cause significant watershed shares some of these same affected by urban impacts (mostly environmental damage, such as agricultural pressures, and these will housing developments) within 1 destruction of listed endangered species continue to threaten the species if it still kilometer of the breeding pool location. and/or their habitat. Based on imminent occurs there. Additional threats within One breeding site is affected by threats of a high magnitude, we assigned the Dunn Creek watershed also include agricultural impacts such as discing, a listing priority number of 3 to this residential development and associated orchards, and vineyard conversion. DPS. new infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, Vandalism, collecting, harassment, and Salado salamander (Eurycea etc.) that contribute sediment and other killing are serious threats to the species, chisholmensis)—The Salado salamander pollutants to the stream or alter riparian given the fact that virtually every is a small aquatic salamander areas. Overall, we believe that the remaining population is surrounded by approximately 5 cm (2 in) in length. The potential demographic effects of or adjacent to residential development. species is known from two spring sites inbreeding, limited species distribution, Predation is a significant problem for fed by the Edwards Aquifer near Salado and low number of individuals pose the the Sonoma County California tiger in Bell County, Texas. Primary threats most significant threats to the chucky salamander population. Introduced include degradation of water quality madtom. Although the chucky madtom bullfrogs and fish, such as mosquito and quantity due to urbanization. was listed as endangered by the State of fish, that feed on the eggs and larvae Several spills of gasoline and petroleum Tennessee, this listing only requires inhabit many pools that hold water all in the local area have likely resulted in collectors of this species to have a State year. This effectively eliminates the groundwater contamination that affects collection permit and does not provide

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40661

adequate protection to this species. a listing priority number of 5 to this of competitive species or prolonged Because the threats to the chucky species. drought. State law does not provide madtom are of a high magnitude and Sharpnose shiner (Notropis protection for the smalleye shiner. imminent, we assigned this species a oxyrhynchus)—The sharpnose shiner is Because these threats are high but listing priority number of 2. a small, slender minnow, endemic to nonimminent, we assigned a listing Grotto sculpin (Cottus sp., sp. nov.)— the Brazos River Basin in Texas. priority number of 5 to this species. The Grotto sculpin is a small fish within Historically, the sharpnose shiner the banded sculpin taxonomic complex existed throughout the Brazos River and Clams that exhibits cave-adapted features, several of its major tributaries within Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio including nearly nonfunctional eyes, the watershed. Current information spinosa)—The Altamaha spinymussel is reduced skin pigmentation, and smaller indicates that the population within the a freshwater mussel endemic to the optic nerves. The species inhabits pools Upper Brazos River drainage (upstream Altamaha River drainage of southeastern and riffles within cave systems in two of Possum Kingdom Reservoir) is Georgia. Individuals are medium to karst (cave) areas in Perry County, apparently stable, while the population large in size, greenish-yellow to deep Missouri. Only a few thousand within the Middle and Lower Brazos brown in color, and have one to five individuals are thought to exist. The River Basins may only exist in remnant prominent spines on the shells. species is threatened by water quality areas of suitable habitat, or may be Historically known from four rivers, the contamination as a result of point and completely extirpated, representing a Altamaha spinymussel appears to nonpoint pollution sources. A large die- reduction of approximately 64 percent remain in two of these in greatly off of all Grotto sculpins in one of the of its historical range. The most reduced numbers. The species is five known occupied cave systems significant threat to the existence of the threatened throughout its range by known to have the species was likely a sharpnose shiner is the present and sedimentation and contamination of result of pollution. The species is also continued modification of its habitat by waterways. One population is threatened by predatory fish that likely reservoir construction, irrigation and additionally threatened by the proposed prey upon Grotto sculpin, which are water diversion, sedimentation, expansion of a nuclear power plant, known from all locations occupied by industrial and municipal discharges, which may result in habitat alteration the species. Currently no State or and agricultural activities. The current from changes in stream channel Federal regulations provide protection limited distribution of the sharpnose morphology, and in heat stress to for the Grotto sculpin. Due to imminent shiner within the Upper Brazos River individuals and populations, algal threats of a high magnitude, we assigned Basin makes it vulnerable to blooms, and oxygen depletion as a a listing priority number of 2 to this catastrophic events such as the result of thermal discharges during low species. introduction of competitive species or water conditions. We have determined Rush darter (Etheostoma prolonged drought. Other possible that, although the threats are of high phytophilum)—The rush darter, a threats include toxins released by magnitude, they are nonimminent; medium-sized darter (40 millimeters blooms of golden algae, and sand and therefore, we assigned a listing priority (mm) (2 in)), is currently known to have gravel operations in the Lower Brazos number of 5 to this species. one of the most restricted distributions River. The effects of these last two Snails of any vertebrate in Alabama. possible threats may be insignificant, Historically, rush darters have been but further information is necessary. Elongate mud meadows pyrg found in three distinct watersheds, but State law does not provide protection (Pyrgulopsis notidicola)—The elongate currently there are only two known for the sharpnose shiner. Because these mud meadows pyrg is a small populations. One population is located threats are nonimminent but of a high freshwater springsnail found only in a in Wildcat Branch and Mill Creek in the magnitude, we assigned a listing 300 meter (984 foot) stretch of a single Clear Creek drainage in Winston priority number of 5 to this species. thermal spring and associated outflow County, and the second is located in an Smalleye shiner (Notropis buccula)— in Humboldt County, Nevada. The unnamed spring run to Beaver Creek The smalleye shiner is a small, pallid primary threat to the species is and in Penny Springs in the Turkey minnow endemic to the Brazos River alteration and degradation of its habitat Creek drainage in Jefferson County. The Basin in Texas. The population of by recreational users that come to the rush darter is vulnerable to nonpoint smalleye shiners within the Upper spring to bathe. Visitor use of this area source pollution, urbanization, and Brazos River drainage (upstream of has increased substantially over the past changes in stream geomorphology due Possum Kingdom Reservoir) is decade due to increased awareness of to its localized distribution in parts of apparently stable. However, the shiner the site and the recent designation of it two unconnected stream drainages and has not been collected since 1976 as a national conservation area. its apparent low population sizes. The downstream from the reservoir, and in Although the land is owned and rush darter’s range is close to all likelihood the species is completely managed by the Bureau of Land metropolitan Birmingham, Alabama, an extirpated from this area representing a Management, the remote nature of the area in which all of the activities listed reduction of approximately 64 percent site has made it difficult to manage above are occurring, so impacts from of its historical range. The most visitor use, implement conservation these activities on the rush darter and significant threat to the existence of the actions, and enforce regulations. Due to its habitat have occurred and are very smalleye shiner is the present and imminent threats of a high magnitude, likely to continue to occur. The disjunct continued modification of its habitat by we assigned a listing priority number of distribution of the rush darter makes reservoir construction, irrigation and 2 to this species. their populations vulnerable to water diversion, sedimentation, extirpation from catastrophic events, industrial and municipal discharges, Insects such as toxic spills or changes in flow and agricultural activities. The current Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae)— regimes. Currently no State or Federal limited distribution of the smalleye The Dakota skipper is a small-to mid- regulations provide protection for the shiner within the Upper Brazos River sized butterfly that inhabits high-quality rush darter. Based on nonimminent Basin makes it vulnerable to tallgrass and mixed grass prairie in threats of a high magnitude, we assigned catastrophic events such as introduction Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota,

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 40662 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules

and the provinces of Manitoba and two disjunct ridge tops in the Klamath- activities including fuels reduction and Saskatchewan in Canada. The species Siskiyou Range, on the California- prescribed fires, and displacement by appears to have been extirpated from Oregon border. In California, this noxious weeds. Evidence of impacts Iowa and Illinois, as well as many sites species is currently found at nine from these types of uses has been within States with extant locations. The separate sites on approximately 10 documented at the majority of I. webberi species is threatened by the large-scale hectares (ha) (24.7 acres (ac)) of Klamath populations. The Bureau of Land conversion of native prairie to National Forest and privately owned Management classifies I. webberi as a agricultural purposes, as well as fire lands that stretch for 6 kilometers (km) sensitive species; however, no specific management, grazing, plant invasion, (3.7 miles (mi)) along the Gunsight- management guidelines to ensure the and fragmentation of habitat leading to Humbug Ridge. The Oregon population conservation of this species are local extirpations. Although the species was described in 1998 as five plants in currently being implemented. Ivesia is listed as threatened by the State of an area of a few square feet, but no webberi is designated as threatened by Minnesota, this designation lacks the plants have been seen at this site for the the Nevada Native Plant Society, and habitat protections needed for long-term past 2 years. Major threats include fire participants of the 2000 Nevada Rare conservation. The species is listed as suppression resulting in shading; Plant Workshop recommended that the endangered by the province of competition by native and nonnative State of Nevada consider the species for Manitoba. However, the protections in species; increased fuel loading; listing as critically endangered under Manitoba are not sufficient to remove fragmentation by roads, fire breaks, tree Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 527.270 the threats to the species. Due to efforts plantations, and radio-tower facilities; et seq. If the species were to be listed that have been made to preserve habitat maintenance and construction around under the NRS, permits for the through conservation easements at some radio towers and telephone relay disturbance of habitat or taking of of the known locations, the threats to stations located on Gunsight Peak and individuals would have to be obtained the species are low to moderate and Mahogany Point; and soil disturbance from the Nevada Division of Forestry. nonimminent. Therefore, we assigned a and exotic weed and grass species The adequacy of this law depends listing priority number of 11 to the introduction as a result of heavy greatly on informed and cooperative species. recreational use. Isatis tinctoria (dyer’s landowners and land managers or some Stephan’s riffle beetle (Heterelmis woad), a plant thought to prevent C. form of deterrent enforcement, which stephani)—Stephan’s riffle beetle is persistens seedling establishment, is the current NRS do not articulate. This found only in limited spring now found throughout the California plant is on the California Native Plant environments within the Santa Rita population, affecting 90 percent of the Society’s (CNPS) 1B list (plants Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. known lily habitat. Forest Service staff considered rare, threatened, or Based on relatively intensive surveys of and the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands endangered in California and the surrounding area, the entire range of Center cite competition with dyer’s elsewhere), which meets the definitions this species is believed to be confined woad as a significant and chronic threat under the Native Plant Protection Act to Madera Canyon where it lives in to the survival of C. persistens. and the California Endangered Species shallow streams, rapids, or other Unpublished data show that there has Act and is eligible for State listing. comparable water situations. The been no successful reproduction of C. Plants on the CNPS 1B list must be fully springs where Stephan’s riffle beetle is persistens in the last 5 years. The considered during the environmental known to occur no longer exist in their combination of restricted range, documentation process under the natural condition; all have been boxed, apparent loss of one of two disjunct California Environmental Quality Act capped, or channeled into pipes. The populations, poor competitive ability, (CEQA). However, CEQA only requires loss of habitat at the type locality short seed dispersal distance, slow disclosure of a project’s impacts on the (location where the species was first growth rates, extremely low or absent species; it does not provide protective described) has eliminated what was seed production, and competition from management for I. webberi. Because likely a significant population of this exotic plants threaten the continued these threats are high in magnitude but species. In the absence of public existence of this species. Due to nonimminent, we assigned a listing education, recreationists that use the imminent threats of a high magnitude, priority number of 5 to this species. springs may unwittingly degrade habitat we assigned a listing priority number of by introducing chemicals or allowing Potentilla basaltica (Soldier Meadows pets into the springs. Additionally, 2 to this species. cinquefoil or basalt cinquefoil)— endemic spring-dependent organisms Ivesia webberi (Webber ivesia)—Ivesia Potentilla basaltica is a low-growing, whose populations exhibit a high degree webberi is a low, spreading, perennial herbaceous perennial known only from of geographic isolation, like Stephan’s herb that occurs very infrequently in Soldier Meadow in Humboldt County, riffle beetle, are extremely susceptible to Lassen, Plumas, and Sierra Counties in Nevada, and Ash Valley in Lassen random extinction resulting from California, and in Douglas and Washoe County, California. It is restricted to catastrophic natural disasters such as Counties, Nevada. The 15 currently moist meadows and seeps and their fires, floods, or changes in spring water known occurrences are clustered in margins in alkaline, sandy soils between chemistry. Currently, no State or local seven general locations covering about 1,320 and 1,555 meters (m) (4,330 and government programs exist that address 75 hectares (ha) (185 acres (ac)). The 5,100 feet (ft)) elevation. In general, the conservation of rare and imperiled species occurs in immediate proximity populations of P. basaltica are distant insects such as this beetle. Based on to rapidly growing urban areas in the from urban centers; however, these nonimminent threats of a high foothills of the Sierra Nevada and in the areas are popular for recreation and are magnitude, we assigned a listing western Great Basin near Reno, Nevada. often affected by livestock grazing. priority number of 5 to this species. Threats to I. webberi generally include While all of the occurrences of P. urban development, authorized and basaltica are currently presumed extant, Flowering Plants unauthorized roads, off-road vehicle all are being severely affected by land Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou activities and other dispersed uses within and around Ash Valley in mariposa lily)—Calochortus persistens recreation, livestock grazing and California and the Black Rock region in is a narrow endemic that is restricted to trampling, fire and fire suppression Nevada. Various direct impacts to P.

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40663

basaltica populations and habitat have acreage) is the primary threat impacting Candidate Removals occurred in past years and continue to the northern subpopulation. We have Insects affect the species, including concluded that threats related to channelizing spring outflow for military training are not imminent, Fabulous green sphinx moth livestock and recreational uses; based on the implementation of the (Tinostoma smargditis)—Only 17 trampling by livestock; degradation or Army’s conservation measures, and specimens of this moth have ever been elimination of habitat for agriculture, considerably lower levels of actual found since it was first discovered in livestock grazing, and recreational uses; training (from planned activities) 1895, through 1998, the last survey development of hot springs and occurring in Yakima and Kittitas effort we funded. During the 1998 camping areas; roads and off-highway Counties. We have likewise concluded survey, we hoped to learn the host plant vehicle activity; geothermal exploration; that the threat to the northern for the moth. However, the completed and introduction of invasive, nonnative population from habitat conversion is survey did not provide any additional species. The Bureau of Land also not imminent, because much of the information on the host plant. Because Management classifies P. basaltica as a of this, we have insufficient information CRP acreage that could have expired sensitive species; however, no specific on the specific threats to this species. was re-signed and increased in 1998 in management guidelines to ensure the Thus we are removing this species as a conservation of this species are Douglas County. Thus, threats candidate, due to the lack of key currently being implemented. This plant previously classified as imminent are specific information for this species. is on the CNPS 1B list (plants actually non-imminent in nature. Flowering Plants considered rare, threatened, or Fish endangered in California and Pleomele fernaldii (Hala pepe)— elsewhere), which indicates the plant Arkansas darter (Etheostoma Pleomele fernaldii is being removed meets the definitions under the Native cragini)—We changed the listing since it was mistakenly included as a Plant Protection Act and the California priority number from a 5 to an 11 candidate in the previous candidate Endangered Species Act and is eligible because the species appears to be stable notice of review. for State listing. Plants on the CNPS 1B throughout much of its range, and the Petition for a Candidate Species list must be fully considered during the threats to the species from water environmental documentation process depletion no longer appear to be of high The Act provides two mechanisms for under CEQA. However, CEQA only magnitude. considering species for listing. First, the requires disclosure of a project’s Act requires us to identify and propose impacts on the species; it does not Snails for listing those species that require provide protective management for P. listing under the standards of section Chupadera springsnail (Pyrgulopsis basaltica. Potentilla basaltica is not 4(a)(1). We implement this through the chupaderae)—We changed the listing currently listed by the State of Nevada candidate program, discussed above. but is considered threatened by the priority number from an 8 to a 2 because Second, the Act provides a mechanism Nevada Native Plant Society. Because the threats are now high for the species for the public to petition us to add a the threats to this species are high in due to intentional burning in January species to the Lists. Under section magnitude but nonimminent, we 2002 of the wetland vegetation at the 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive such a assigned it a listing priority number of only known location of the species. petition, we must determine within 90 5. Therefore, we are classifying the days, to the maximum extent immediacy of the threats as imminent. Summary of Listing Priority Changes in practicable, whether the petition Candidates Flowering Plants presents substantial information that listing is warranted (a ‘‘90-day Birds Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea finding’’). If we make a positive 90-day Western Sage Grouse, Columbia Basin (Opuntia) corallicola)—We changed the finding, under section 4(b)(3)(B) we Distinct Population Segment listing priority number from a 5 to a 2 must make one of three possible (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios)— because the threats to the species are findings within 12 months of the receipt We changed the listing priority number more imminent than previously known. of the petition (a ‘‘12-month finding’’). from a 9 to a 6 because the threats are The species is known from only two The first possible 12-month finding is now of a high magnitude for the species sites, one of which was recently that listing is not warranted, in which based on the small and fragmented discovered. The original population was case we need take no further action on nature of the population and by a 30 determined to only contain males, the petition. Second, we may find that percent decline in abundance of this which eliminates the possibility of listing is warranted, in which case we DPS between 2000 and 2001. While this sexual reproduction at the site and must promptly publish a proposed rule species exhibits natural fluctuations in reduces the genetic viability. In to list the species. Once we publish a population size, the overall population addition, the new population is proposed rule for a species, section estimate of approximately 700 threatened by an introduced moth that 4(b)(5) and (6) govern further individuals is the lowest ever recorded. has decimated populations of other procedures, regardless of whether or not However, there is no apparent direct we issued the proposal in response to a cactus species within the same genus. cause-and-effect between the identified petition. Third, we may find that listing threats and the recent decline. We also Umtanum desert buckwheat is ‘‘warranted but precluded.’’ Such a have determined that the threats (Eriogonum codium)—We changed the finding means that immediate previously considered imminent are no listing priority number from a 5 to a 2 publication of a proposed rule to list the longer imminent. Military training because we discovered new information species is precluded by higher priority constitutes the primary threat to the about the lack of reproduction in the listing proposals, and that we are southern population, while habitat species, which increases the imminence making expeditious progress to add and conversion (primarily loss of of threat of decimation through wildfire remove species from the Lists, as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and human disturbance. appropriate.

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 40664 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules

The standard for making a 12-month Act’s requirements for positive 90-day pool species (4 fairy shrimp and 11 warranted but precluded finding on a petition findings. plants), 103 Oahu plants, Rio Grande petition to list a species is identical to Although we do not agree with the silvery minnow, gulf sturgeon; proposed our standard for making a species a conclusions of the Ninth Circuit, we listings for pygmy rabbit, Carson’s candidate for listing. Therefore, we add have drafted subsequent CNORs wandering skipper, Island fox, 4 all petitioned species subject to such a (including this one) to address the southwestern invertebrates (proposed finding to the candidate list. Similarly, Court’s concerns. We have included listing with critical habitat), and we can treat all candidates as having below a description of why the listing Tumbling Creek cavesnail; final listing been subject to both a positive 90-day of every petitioned candidate species is determinations for Buena Vista Lake finding and a warranted but precluded both warranted and precluded at this shrew, showy stickseed, scaleshell 12-month finding. This notice time. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(ii), mussel, Vermilion darter, Mississippi constitutes publication of such findings any party with standing may challenge gopher frog, golden sedge, and desert pursuant to section 4(b)(3) for each the merits of one of our petition findings yellowhead; emergency listings for candidate species listed in Table 1 that incorporated in this CNOR. The analysis pygmy rabbit, Carson’s wandering is the subject of a subsequent petition to included herein, together with the skipper, and Tumbling Creek cavesnail; list as threatened or endangered. Under administrative record for the decision at 90-day petition finding for Miami blue our Petition Management Guidance, issue, will provide an adequate basis for butterfly; and 12-month petition finding made available on July 9, 1996 (61 FR a court to review the petition finding. for Big Cypress fox squirrel and Cape 36075), we consider a petition to list a Finally, nothing in this document or any Sable seaside sparrow (for critical species already on the candidate list to of our policies should be construed as habitat). be a second petition and, therefore, in any way modifying the Act’s In addition to identifying petitioned redundant. We do not interpret the requirement that we make a new 12- candidate species in Table 1, we also petition provisions of the Act to require month petition finding for each present brief summaries of why these us to make a duplicative finding. petitioned candidate within 1 year of candidates warrant listing. More Therefore, we are not making additional the date of publication of this CNOR. If complete information, including 90-day findings or initial 12-month we fail to make any such finding on a references, are found in the candidate findings on petitions to list species that timely basis, whether through forms. You may obtain a copy of these are already candidates. publication of a new CNOR or some forms from the Regional office that has Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the other form of notice, we may be subject the lead for the species or from the Fish Act, when, in response to a petition, we to a deadline lawsuit pursuant to and Wildlife Service’s internet website: find that listing a species is warranted section 11(g)(1)(C), as we would be with http://endangered.fws.gov/. but precluded, we must make a new 12- respect to any other failure to comply We find that the immediate issuance month finding each year until we with a section 4 deadline. of a proposed rule and timely publish a proposed rule or make a We reviewed the current status of and promulgation of a final rule for each of determination that listing is not threats to the 35 species for which we these actions has, for the preceding 7 warranted. These subsequent 12-month have found the petitioned action to be months been, and will over the next findings are referred to as recycled warranted but precluded and have year, be precluded by higher priority petition findings. As discussed below, incorporated any new information we listing actions. During the past 7 we will make recycled petition findings have gathered since the previous months, almost all of our listing budget for petitions on such species via our finding. As a result of this review, we has been needed to take various listing Candidate Notices of Review such as made continued warranted but actions to comply with court orders and this one. precluded findings on the petitions for court-approved settlement agreements. On June 20, 2001, the United States all 35 species. For the 30 of these For a list of the listing actions taken Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit species that are candidates, we maintain over the 7 months, see the discussion of held that the 1999 CNOR (64 FR 57534 them as candidates and identify them by ‘‘Progress on Revising the Lists,’’ below. (Oct. 25, 1999)) did not constitute valid the code ‘‘C*’’ in the category column For the next year, the majority of our warranted but precluded 12-month on the left side of Table 1. As discussed remaining listing budget for FY 2002, petition findings for the Gila chub and above, this finding means that the and our anticipated listing budget for Chiracahua leopard frog. Center for immediate publication of proposed FY 2003 based on the President’s Biological Diversity v. Norton, 254 F.3d rules to list these species was precluded requested budget, will be needed to take 833 (9th Cir. 2001). In particular, the by our work on the following higher listing actions to comply with court Court found that inclusion of these priority listing actions during the period orders and court-approved settlement species as one line each on the table of from November 1, 2001, through May agreements. Currently, we will address candidates in the 1999 CNOR, with no 30, 2002: Court orders or settlement or complete the following actions: further explanation, did not satisfy the agreements to propose critical habitat Proposed critical habitat designations section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii)’s requirement that and/or complete critical habitat for 6 Guam species, Keck’s the Service publish ‘‘a description and determinations for 3 southern California checkermallow, yellow and Baker’s evaluation of reasons and data on which plants, Kneeland Prairie pennycress, larkspur, bull trout (Columbia and the finding was based’’ in the Federal purple amole, Santa Cruz tarplant, Oahu Klamath populations), Ventura marsh Register. The Court found that this one- elepaio, Newcomb’s snail, 76 Kauai and milkvetch, 9 Texas (Bexar County) line statement of candidate status also Nihau plants (reproposal), 5 California invertebrates, southwestern willow precluded meaningful judicial review. carbonate plants, Blackburn’s sphinx flycatcher, cactus ferruginous pygmy Moreover, the Court found that moth, 32 Lanai plants (reproposal), 2 owl, Topeka shiner, and Preble’s candidate status did not guarantee that Hawaiian invertebrates, 8 northwest meadow jumping mouse; final critical annual reviews of warranted but Hawaiian Islands plants, 61 Maui and habitat designations for 81 Kauai and precluded petitioned species would take Kahoolawe plants (reproposal), quino Nihau plants, 2 Hawaiian invertebrates, place pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i). checkerspot butterfly, 46 Molokai plants Blackburn’s sphinx moth, Newcomb’s Finally, the Court suggested, but did not (reproposal), San Bernardino kangaroo snail, 15 vernal pool species (4 fairy decide, that the 1999 CNOR met the rat, 56 Hawaiian Island plants, 15 vernal shrimp and 11 plants), 55 Maui and

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40665

Kahoolawe plants, Rio Grande silvery to issue proposed rules for higher summary is based on information minnow, 9 Texas (Bexar County) priority species, particularly those contained in our files and the petition invertebrates, Appalachian elktoe, gulf facing high-magnitude, imminent received on October 26, 2000. The sturgeon, and Great Plains breeding threats (i.e., listing priority numbers of worldwide population of sea otters in population of piping plover; 12-month 1, 2, or 3). Table 1 shows the listing the early 1700s has been estimated at petition findings for Yosemite toad, priority number for each candidate 150,000 to 300,000. Extensive mountain yellow-legged frog (entire species. commercial hunting of sea otters in population), and California spotted owl; Mammals Alaska began following the arrival of proposed listing rules for slickspot Russian explorers in 1741 and peppergrass, and Gila chub (with Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys continued during the 18th and 19th critical habitat); final listing ludovicianus)—As described in our centuries. By the time sea otters were determinations for San Diego ambrosia, February 4, 2000, 12-month finding (65 afforded protection from commercial mountain yellow-legged frog (southern FR 5476), black-tailed prairie dog harvests by international treaty in 1911, California population), coastal cutthroat populations have been significantly the species was nearly extinct trout, large-flowered meadow foam and reduced and are subject to several throughout its range, and may have persistent threats. We believe that Cook’s lomatium, and Chiricahua numbered only 1,000 to 2,000 various threats (especially plague) leopard frog. individuals. Today three subspecies of continue to cause local extirpations that Issuance of proposed listing rules for sea otter have been identified. The could lead to the species becoming most of the candidates even with the northern sea otter contains two vulnerable in a significant portion of its highest listing priority numbers (i.e., 1, subspecies: Enhydra lutris kenyoni, 2, or 3) will continue to be precluded range. Additionally, the species may which occurs from the Aleutian Islands next year due to completing actions have difficulty coping with challenges to Oregon, and Enhydra lutris lutris, required by court orders and court- without the advantage of its historic which occurs in the Kuril Islands, approved settlement agreements, as well abundance and wide distribution. Kamchatka Peninsula, and Commander as the need to comply (or end Accordingly, the vulnerability of the Islands in Russia. The third subspecies, noncompliance) with the unqualified species to population reductions may be Enhydra lutris nereis, occurs in statutory deadlines for making 12- related less to its absolute numbers than California and is known as the southern month petition findings and final listing to the number of colonies in which it sea otter. Until recently, southwest determinations on proposed rules. In exists, their size, their geospatial addition to those final determinations relationship, existing barriers to Alaska had been considered a required by court orders and settlement immigration and emigration, and the stronghold for sea otters. In the mid- agreements, during the next year we number and nature of the direct threats 1980s, biologists believed that 80 will work on final determinations for to the species. The apparent magnitude percent of the world population of sea the following species: Carson’s of the disease threat may be mitigated to otters occurred in southwest Alaska. wandering skipper, pygmy rabbit, Scotts some degree by new information that Recent aerial surveys document drastic Valley polygonum, four southwestern indicates that limited immune response population declines (up to 90%) have invertebrates, Tumbling Creek is possible in some individuals and by occurred throughout this area during the cavesnail, and mountain plover. In new information that a population past 10–15 years. Today as few as 9,000 addition to proposed rules required by dynamic may have developed in low- sea otters may remain in the Aleutian court orders and settlement agreements, density, isolated populations that may Islands. Since April 2000, we have we must work in the next year on contribute to the persistence of conducted additional aerial surveys proposed rules for at least 2 high- depressed populations. Nevertheless, along the Alaska Peninsula and the priority species, the Salt Creek tiger we conclude that the magnitude of this Kodiak Archipelago. Results of these beetle and the southwestern Alaska threat to the black-tailed prairie dog surveys indicate that sea otter population of the northern sea otter. remains moderate due to other populations have declined substantially Moreover, given the recent decision in influences. Additionally, the threat of in these areas as well. The current Center for Biological Diversity v. disease remains imminent. We have population estimate for the Kodiak Badgeley, 284 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2002), reviewed the 12-month finding that archipelago is roughly 4,000 less than in which held that the Act require that 90- projected likely future black-tailed 1994; a decline of almost 40 percent in day petition findings be made no later prairie dog population trends. We only 7 years. In the 2001 CNOR, we than 12 months after receipt of the conclude that this projection remains designated the northern sea otter in the petition, regardless of whether it is generally appropriate despite new Aleutian Islands as a candidate. We are practicable to do so, we may need to information from which we infer that revising the candidate form to reflect the make 90-day findings on most or all of the magnitude of the disease threat to most current scientific information the outstanding petitions prior to the species may be somewhat less than regarding population boundaries and issuing proposed rules for the 35 species previously determined. While positive status. The geographic extent of the subject to warranted but precluded steps to conserve and manage black- candidate designation now includes the findings. If over the next year we can tailed prairie dogs have been made by Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula devote any resources to issuing some States and Tribes, more coast, and Kodiak Archipelago. proposed rules for the highest priority conservation work will be needed by all Potential threats include both natural candidates without jeopardizing our States, Tribes, and Federal agencies to fluctuations and human activities, ability to comply with court orders, sufficiently reduce threats to the which may have caused changes in the court-approved settlement agreements, species. The overall magnitude and Bering Sea ecosystem. Subsistence or unqualified statutory deadlines, we immediacy of threats to this species hunting occurs at very low levels and will do so. remain unchanged since the 12-month does not appear to be a factor in the Finally, work on proposed rules for finding was published with a listing decline. While disease, starvation, and candidates with lower priority (i.e., priority number of 8. contaminants have not been implicated those that have listing priority numbers Sea otter, southwest Alaska DPS at this time, additional evaluation of of 4–12) is also precluded by the need (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)—The following these factors is warranted. The

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 40666 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules

hypothesis that predation by killer squirrel populations, and then to make reproduce in 2001, likely as a result of whales is causing the sea otter decline a population estimate for the species. starvation. Individuals that lacked should also be further studied. Due to The survey resulted in an estimate of sufficient body weight are not likely to the precipitous and rapid nature of the 2,177 to 4,354 southern Idaho ground survive the 7- to 8-month hibernation ongoing population decline, we have squirrels. Scientists attribute the decline period this species experiences. All of assigned the southwest Alaska DPS of to invasive nonnative plants associated these threats have been observed in the Enhydra lutris kenyoni a listing priority with a change in fire frequency, and past 2 years, are likely to continue, and number of 3. Additionally, we have no lack of reclamation or restoration of appreciably reduce the likelihood of indication that the decline has reached habitat by various land management survival of many Washington ground an endpoint, and therefore immediate agencies and private landowners. There squirrel colonies across the range of the action is needed. is also an increase in the risk of species. Based on our current evaluation Sheath-tailed bat, American Samoa extinction due to a reduced distribution. of threats, we assigned a listing priority and Aguijan DPS (Emballonura Based on our evaluation that these number of 2 to this species. semicaudata)—The following summary threats pose an imminent risk of a high Birds is based on information contained in magnitude, this subspecies warrants a our files, and the petition received on listing priority number of 3. Band-rumped storm-petrel, Hawaii DPS (Oceanodroma castro)—The March 3, 1986. Historically the sheath- Washington ground squirrel tailed bat was known from the southern following summary is based on (Spermophilus washingtoni)—The information contained in our files and Mariana Islands, Palau, and Western following summary is based on and American Samoa. Populations on the petition received on May 8, 1989. information contained in our files and the Mariana Islands of Guam and Rota Breeding season surveys on Hawaii, the petition received on March 2, 2000. have been extirpated and the Mariana Maui, and Kauai, as well as reports of Since the designation of the species as population on Aguijan has been reduced fledglings picked up on Hawaii and a candidate on October 25, 1999, more to approximately 10 individuals. A Kauai, confirm that small populations information has become available similar drastic decline has occurred in still exist on these Hawaiian islands. regarding the types of soils used by American Samoa where populations of Estimates of the total State-wide Washington ground squirrels, the effects this bat were estimated at over 10,000 in population could exceed 100 pairs if of agriculture on Washington ground 1976. In 1993, only four bats were viable breeding populations exist on squirrel colonies, the status of the recorded. This species resides in caves Maui and Hawaii. Although small and is very susceptible to disturbance. species throughout its range, and the populations do occur on Maui and The populations in American Samoa significance of the Oregon population to Hawaii, we have been unable to and the Mariana Islands are at the the species as a whole. The soil types determine if they are viable; certainly extreme limits of the species’ range. used by the squirrels are distributed they are not large and they represent a Roost sites have been rendered sporadically within the species’ range, fraction of prehistoric distribution. unsuitable for bats by human intrusion and have been seriously fragmented by Predation by introduced species is into caves and the use of some caves as human development in the Columbia believed to have played a significant garbage dumps. Typhoons have also Basin, particularly conversion to role in reducing storm-petrel numbers damaged some caves by blocking agricultural use. Where agriculture and in exterminating colonies in the entrances or by flooding coastal caves. occurs, little evidence of ground squirrel Pacific and other locations worldwide. The loss of roost sites has severely use has been documented, and reports Additionally, artificial lights have had a restricted population size, especially in indicate that ongoing agricultural significant negative effect on fledgling American Samoa, where few caves exist. conversion permanently eliminates young and, to a lesser degree, adults. In addition, small populations and Washington ground squirrel habitat. The Artificial lighting of roadways, resorts, limited numbers of populations place most contiguous, least-disturbed ballparks, residences, and other this distinct population segment at great expanse of suitable Washington ground development in lower elevation areas risk of extinction from inbreeding, squirrel habitat, and likely the densest attracts and confuses night-flying, random events, and storms. Based on distribution of colonies within the range storm-petrel fledglings, resulting in immediate threats of a high magnitude, of the species, occurs on the Boeing site ‘‘fall-out’’ and collisions with buildings we assigned the American Samoa and and Boardman Bombing Range in and other objects. Currently, the species Aguijan DPS of the sheath-tailed bat a Oregon. Substantial threats to the is not known to be taken or used for listing priority number of 3. species occur throughout its range, commercial, recreational, scientific, or Southern Idaho ground squirrel including the remaining populations in educational purposes. During 1992 (Spermophilus brunneus endemicus)— Oregon. Even on State-owned lands in surveys on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, several The following summary is based on Oregon, the loss of known sites is likely. caches of Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel information contained in our files and The loss of significant numbers of carcasses associated with feral cat the petition received on January 29, colonies in Oregon would be predation were recorded in areas where 2001. During the past 30 years, a detrimental to the continued existence band-rumped storm-petrel vocalizations dramatic population decline of the of the Washington ground squirrel. In were recorded. Based on imminent southern Idaho ground squirrel has Washington, recent declines have been threats of a high magnitude, we assigned occurred. We now believe that the precipitous and for unknown reasons. In this Hawaii DPS of the band-rumped southern Idaho ground squirrel occupies 2001, entire colonies of ground squirrels storm-petrel a listing priority number of approximately 44 percent of its have been lost on the Columbia National 3. historical range. Surveys indicate a Wildlife Refuge and Seeps Lake Gunnison sage grouse (Centrocercus precipitous decline in the squirrel Management Area near Othello, minimus)—The following summary is population since the mid-1980s. In the Washington, despite the protected status based on information contained in our spring of 2001, scientists conducted of the species in the area. Biologists files and the petition received on surveys to understand on a qualitative observed significant declines in body January 25, 2000. The range of the level the pattern of spatial distribution mass, and many adult squirrels Gunnison sage grouse has been reduced and density of southern Idaho ground experienced a complete failure to to less than 25 percent of its historic

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40667

range. Size of the range and quality of expands. Inadequacy of existing often come years after certain habitat its habitat have been reduced by direct regulatory mechanisms to protect lesser improvements occur. Barring additional habitat loss, fragmentation, and prairie-chicken habitat was cited as a unforeseen threats such as prolonged degradation from building development, potential threat to the species in the drought or development, the species’ road and utility corridors, fences, energy Service’s 12-month finding. Most status is expected to improve in future development, conversion of native occupied lesser prairie-chicken habitat years. Therefore, we select not to elevate habitat to hay or other crop fields, occurs on private land where States the listing priority of the lesser prairie- alteration or destruction of wetland and have little authority to protect the chicken based on magnitude of threats riparian areas, inappropriate livestock species or its habitat, with the exception at this time. However, the Service is management, competition for winter of setting harvest regulations. While concerned that remaining populations range by big game, and creation of large some Federal lands within occupied may become increasingly fragmented, reservoirs. Other factors affecting the range have voluntarily accommodated and therefore vulnerable to local Gunnison sage grouse include fire certain needs of the lesser prairie- extinctions. This is particularly true for suppression, overgrazing by elk (Cervus chicken, the species cannot be isolated populations of lesser prairie- elaphus) and deer (Odocoileus sufficiently conserved only on Federal chickens in the Permian Basin/western hemionus), drought, disturbance or lands to prevent extinction. Although panhandle of Texas and areas south of death by off-highway vehicles, Federal lands comprise only five highway 380 in southeastern New harassment from people and pets, noise percent of currently occupied habitat, Mexico. The impending loss of these that impairs acoustical quality of leks these tracts are located in areas essential populations is of major concern to us, (courtship areas), genetic depression, to population recovery and dispersal. As and efforts to address this possible loss pesticides, pollution, and competition a result, the Service views habitat are ongoing. However, the Service for habitat from other species. For management considerations on Federal believes that, given all currently greater detail as to why listing is lands within current and historic range available information, the net benefits of warranted, see 65 FR 82310, December with even greater importance. Concern ongoing conservation activities by the 28, 2000. We consider all of these exists that recreational hunting and States, Federal agencies, and private groups, combined with the recent threats to be of high magnitude but harassment are potential threats to the increase in both range and numbers in nonimminent; therefore, we assigned species. While the Service does not Kansas, exceed the latest negative trends the Gunnison sage grouse a listing believe that overutilization through of local populations in the southern priority of 5. recreational hunting is a primary cause periphery of occupied range. Should the Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus of lesser prairie-chicken decline, we are current conservation momentum fail to pallidicinctus)—The following concerned that small and isolated stabilize and increase existing summary is based on information populations may be vulnerable to local populations throughout significant contained in our files, including extirpations caused by repeated harvest portions of the remaining range, we information from the petition received pressure, especially near fall leks. must pursue elevating the listing on October 5, 1995. Biologists estimate Similarly, the effects of repeated priority of the species. that the occupied range has declined at recreational viewing at leks is unknown. Yellow-billed cuckoo, western least 78 percent since 1963 and 92 The Service solicits input from all continental U.S. DPS (Coccyzus percent since the 1800s. The most parties who may be knowledgeable americanus)—The following summary is serious threats to the lesser prairie- about these factors, as well as two based on information contained in our chicken are loss of habitat from potential threats not cited in the 12- files and the petition received on conversion of native rangelands to month finding; organophosphorus February 9, 1998. Also see our 12-month introduced forages and cultivation, and insecticide poisoning and degree of petition finding (66 FR 38611) cumulative habitat degradation caused impacts from hybridization with greater published on July 25, 2001. While the by severe grazing, fire suppression, prairie-chickens in northern portions of cuckoo is still relatively common east of herbicides, and structural occupied range. Based on all currently the crest of the Rocky Mountains, developments. Many of these threats available information, we find that biologists estimate that more than 90 may exacerbate the normal effects of ongoing threats to the lesser prairie- percent of the bird’s riparian periodic drought on lesser prairie- chicken, as outlined in the 12-month (streamside) habitat in the West has chicken populations. In many cases, the finding, remain unchanged, and lesser been lost or degraded. These remaining suitable habitat has become prairie-chickens continue to warrant modifications, and the resulting decline fragmented by the spatial arrangement Federal listing as threatened. We have in the distribution and abundance of of properties affected by these determined that the overall magnitude yellow-billed cuckoos throughout the individual threats. We view current and of threats to the lesser prairie-chicken western States, is believed to be due to continued habitat fragmentation to be a throughout its range is moderate, and conversion to agriculture; grazing; serious ongoing threat that facilitates the that the threats are ongoing, thus they habitat degradation by competition from extinction process through several are considered imminent. Consequently, nonnative plants, such as tamarisk; river mechanisms: remaining habitat patches a listing priority of 8 remains management, including altered flow and may become smaller than necessary to appropriate for the species. The sediment regime; and flood control meet the yearlong requirements of magnitude of threats to lesser prairie- practices, such as channelization and individuals and populations; necessary chickens rests primarily on the quality bank protection. Based on nonimminent habitat heterogeneity may be lost to of existing habitat. At present, all States threats of a high magnitude, we assigned large areas of monoculture vegetation within occupied range of the lesser a listing priority number of 6 to this DPS and/or homogenous habitat structure; prairie-chicken are committing of yellow-billed cuckoo. areas between habitat patches may significant resources via personnel, harbor high levels of predators or brood outreach, and habitat improvement Reptiles parasites; and the probability of incentives to landowners to recover the Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis recolonization decreases as the distance species. The Service recognizes that ruthveni)—The following summary is between suitable habitat patches measurable increases in populations based on information contained in our

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 40668 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules

files and the petition received on July and declines in the reproduction of this species have declined significantly 19, 2000. The Louisiana pine snake those individuals. Since 1996, extensive because of urban and agricultural historically occurred in portions of surveys throughout southern Idaho and development, and other human-caused west-central Louisiana and extreme eastern Oregon have led to increases in factors affecting breeding and upland east-central Texas. Louisiana pine the number of known Columbia spotted habitat used for estivation and snakes have not been documented in frog sites. However, most of these sites migration. Existing regulatory over a decade in some of the best support only small numbers of frogs. mechanisms are inadequate to protect remaining habitat within their historical Extensive monitoring at 10 of the 46 California tiger salamander habitat. range. Surveys and results of Louisiana occupied sites since 1997 indicates a Based on nonimminent threats of a high pine snake trapping and radio-telemetry decline in the number of adult magnitude, we assigned this species a suggest that extensive population Columbia spotted frogs encountered. All listing priority number of 5. declines and local extirpations have known populations in southern Idaho California tiger salamander, Sonoma occurred during the last 50 to 80 years. and in eastern Oregon appear to be County DPS (Ambystoma The quality of remaining Louisiana pine functionally isolated. Columbia spotted californiense)—See above summary of snake habitat has been degraded due to frog habitat degradation and new candidate species for discussion on logging, fire suppression, short-rotation fragmentation is probably a combined why this population warrants listing. silviculture, and conversion of habitat to result of past and current influences of The above summary is based on other uses such as grazing. Other factors heavy livestock grazing, spring information contained in our files and affecting Louisiana pine snakes include alterations, agricultural development, the petition received on June 13, 2001. low fecundity (reproductive output), urbanization, and mining activities. Boreal toad, Southern Rocky which magnifies other threats and Based on imminent threats of high Mountains DPS (Bufo boreas boreas)— increases the likelihood of local magnitude, we assigned a listing The following summary is based on extinctions, and vehicular mortality, priority number of 3 to this DPS of the information contained in our files and which may cause significant impacts to Columbia spotted frog. the petition received on September 30, the Louisiana pine snake’s population Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa)— 1993. Boreal toads of the Southern numbers and community structure. Due The following summary is based on Rocky Mountain DPS were once to nonimminent threats of a high information contained in our files and common throughout much of the high magnitude, we assigned a listing the petition received on May 4, 1989. elevations in Colorado, in the Snowy priority number of 5 to this species. Based on surveys of historic sites, the and Sierra Madre Ranges of southeast Cagle’s map turtle (Graptemys Oregon spotted frog is now absent from Wyoming, and at three breeding caglei)—The following summary is at least 76 percent of its former range. localities at the southern periphery of based on information contained in our The species may be absent from as their range in the San Juan Mountains files and the petition received on April much as 90 percent of its former range of New Mexico. In the late 1980s boreal 26, 1991. Cagle’s map turtle occurs in because the collections of historic toads were found to be absent from 83 scattered sites in seven counties in specimens did not adequately reflect its percent of breeding localities in Texas on the Guadalupe, San Marcos, actual geographic and elevational range. Colorado and 94 percent of breeding and Blanco Rivers. Loss and degradation Threats to the species’ habitat include localities in Wyoming previously of riverine habitat from large and/or development, livestock grazing, known to contain toads. In 1999, the small impoundments (dams or introduction of nonnative plant species, number of known breeding localities reservoirs) is the primary threat to changes in hydrology due to increased from 33 to 50, with 1 in Cagle’s map turtle. One detrimental construction of dams and alterations to Wyoming, none in New Mexico, and the effect of impoundment is the loss of seasonal flooding, poor water quality, remaining sites in Colorado. This riffle and riffle/pool transition areas and water contamination. Additional increase in known breeding localities, used by males for foraging. Depending threats to the species are predation by however, was likely due to survey on its size, a dam itself may be a partial nonnative fish and introduced bullfrogs. efforts rather than expansion of the or complete barrier to Cagle’s map turtle Based on these threats, we assigned the population. Land use in boreal toad movements and could fragment a Oregon spotted frog a listing priority habitat includes recreation, timber population. Construction of smaller number of 2. Note, the October 30, 2001, harvesting, livestock grazing, and impoundments and human activities on Candidate Notice of Review was watershed alteration activities. Though the river has likely eliminated or incorrect in listing this species as a declines in toad numbers have not been reduced foraging and basking habitats. distinct population segment with a directly linked to habitat alteration, Cagle’s map turtle is also vulnerable to listing priority number of 3. The Oregon activities that destroy, modify, or curtail over collecting and target shooting, and spotted frog is a full species, with no habitat likely contribute to the current regulations are inadequate to DPS designation, and, therefore, has a continued decline in toad numbers. The protect this species. Due to listing priority number of 2. current and future use of water rights in nonimminent threats of a high California tiger salamander (entire the Southern Rocky Mountains may magnitude, we assigned a listing population except Sonoma County and impact boreal toads. Increased demands priority number of 5 to this species. where listed) (Ambystoma on limited water resources can result in californiense)—The following summary water level drops in reservoirs that Amphibians is based on information contained in toads are using. Transferring rights from Columbia spotted frog, Great Basin our files and the petition received on one user group to another (e.g., DPS (Rana luteiventris)—The following February 26, 1992. The California tiger agricultural to municipal) also could summary is based on information salamander has been eliminated from 54 reduce toad habitat, particularly if contained in our files and the petition percent of its historic breeding sites and dewatering of reservoir sites resulted received on May 1, 1989. Recent work has lost an estimated 65 percent of its from these transfers. Additional threats by researchers in Idaho and Nevada has habitat. The distribution of the species to the boreal toad include a chytrid documented the loss of historically is now discontinuous and fragmented fungus, which likely caused the boreal known sites, reduced numbers of throughout its range. All of the toad to decline in the 1970s and individuals within local populations, estimated seven genetic populations of continues to cause declines. Based on

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40669

these threats, we assigned this DPS of nonnative trout are thought to be factors as overgrazing and inappropriate boreal toad a listing priority number of limiting grayling populations. Due to silviculture, represent the primary 3. imminent threats of a low to moderate threats to the Gila springsnail. Fire magnitude, we assigned this DPS of suppression and retardant chemicals Fishes Arctic grayling a listing priority number have potentially deleterious effects on Gila chub (Gila intermedia)—The of 9. this species. Existing regulatory following summary is based on mechanisms are not sufficient to protect Snails information contained in our files and the Gila springsnail. New Mexico State the petition received on June 10, 1998. Chupadera springsnail (Pyrgulopsis law provides limited protection to the The Gila chub has been extirpated or chupaderae)—The following summary Gila springsnail, but this law does not reduced in numbers and distribution in is based on information contained in provide for habitat protection. Based on the majority of its historical range. Over our files and the petition received on these nonimminent threats of a low 70 percent of the Gila chub’s habitat has November 20, 1985. This aquatic magnitude, we assigned a listing been degraded or destroyed, and much species is endemic to Willow Spring on priority number of 11 to this species. of it is unrecoverable. Of the 15 the Willow Spring Ranch (formerly New Mexico springsnail (Pyrgulopsis remaining populations, most are small, Cienega Ranch) at the south end of the thermalis)—The following summary is isolated, and threatened, and only one Chupadera Mountains in Socorro based on information contained in our population is considered secure. County, New Mexico. The Chupadera files and the petition received on Wetland habitat degradation and loss is springsnail has been documented from November 20, 1985. The New Mexico a major threat to the Gila chub. Human two hillside groundwater discharges springsnail is an aquatic species known activities such as groundwater pumping, that flow through grazed areas among from only two separate populations surface water diversions, rhyolitic gravels containing sand, mud, associated with a series of spring-brook impoundments, channelization, and hydrophytic plants. Regional and systems along the Gila River in the Gila improper livestock grazing, vegetation local groundwater depletion, springrun National Forest in Grant County, New manipulation, agriculture, mining, road dewatering, and riparian habitat Mexico. The long-term persistence of building, nonnative species degradation represent the principal the New Mexico springsnail is introductions, urbanization, and threats. The survival and recovery of the contingent upon protection of the recreation all contribute to riparian loss Chupadera springsnail is contingent riparian corridor immediately adjacent and degradation in southern Arizona, upon protection of the riparian corridor to springhead and springrun habitats, thereby threatening this species. Based immediately adjacent to Willow Spring, thereby ensuring the maintenance of on imminent threats of a high and the availability of perennial, perennial, oxygenated flowing water magnitude, we assigned this species a oxygenated flowing water within the within the species’ required thermal listing priority number of 2. Although species’ thermal range. Existing range. While the New Mexico work on court-ordered section 4 actions regulatory mechanisms are not springsnail populations may be stable, have precluded us from issuing a sufficient to protect this species. New the sites inhabited by the species are proposed rule to date, despite the fact Mexico State law provides limited subject to uncontrolled recreational use that this species has a listing priority protection to the Chupadera springsnail, and livestock grazing. Wetland habitat number of 2, we recently entered into a but this law does not provide for habitat degradation via recreational use and settlement agreement on October 2, protection. Because these threats are overgrazing in or near the thermal 2001 (Center for Biological Diversity, et imminent and of a high magnitude, we springs and/or poor watershed al. v. Norton, Civ. No. 01–2063 (JR) assigned this species a listing priority management practices represent the (D.D.C.)) that will require us to deliver number of 2. See above Summary of primary threats to the New Mexico by July 31, 2002, a proposed listing rule Listing Priority Changes in Candidates springsnail. Natural events such as with critical habitat to the Federal for an explanation on why we are drought, forest fire, sedimentation, and Register for publication. changing the priority of this candidate. flooding may further imperil Arctic grayling, upper Missouri River Gila springsnail (Pyrgulopsis gilae)— populations. Additionally, fire DPS (Thymallus arcticus)—The The following summary is based on suppression and retardant chemicals following summary is based on information contained in our files and have potentially deleterious effects on information contained in our files and the petition received on November 20, this species. Existing regulatory the petition received on October 2, 1985. The Gila springsnail is an aquatic mechanisms are also not sufficient to 1992. Currently, the only self-sustaining species known from 13 populations in protect the New Mexico springsnail. remnant of the indigenous fluvial Arctic New Mexico. The long-term persistence New Mexico State law provides limited grayling population exists in the Big of the Gila springsnail is contingent protection to the New Mexico Hole River, estimated to represent 5 upon protection of the riparian corridor springsnail, but this law does not percent or less of the historic range for immediately adjacent to springhead and provide for habitat protection. Based on this species in Montana and Wyoming. springrun habitats, thereby ensuring the these nonimminent threats of a low Reestablishment efforts are under way maintenance of perennial, oxygenated magnitude, we assigned this species a in four streams within the historic flowing water within the species’ listing priority number of 11. range. The Arctic grayling faces threats required thermal range. Sites on both Page springsnail (Pyrgulopsis primarily from a decrease in available private and Federal lands are subject to morrisoni)—The following summary is habitat as a result of dewatering of uncontrolled recreational use and based on information contained in our streams for irrigation and stock water, livestock grazing, thus rendering the files and the petition received on April ongoing drought conditions, and habitat long-term survival of the Gila 12, 2002. The Page springsnail is a local degradation from dams and reservoirs. springsnail questionable. Natural events endemic, and all extant populations are Landowners and other interests are such as drought, forest fire, known to exist only within a complex implementing actions to ensure sedimentation, and flooding; wetland of springs located within an adequate water conditions in the Big habitat degradation by recreational approximately 1.5 kilometer (.93 miles) Hole River. Additionally, predation on bathing in thermal springs; and poor area along the west side of Oak Creek or competition with Arctic grayling by watershed management practices such around the community of Page Springs,

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 40670 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules

Yavapai County, Arizona. Many of the quantification of this threat is difficult of this plant from the greater Los springs where the Page springsnail without continuous monitoring of the Angeles metropolitan area were made occurs have been subjected to some species population. The State of Utah from areas where urban, agricultural, level of modification to meet domestic, and the Bureau of Land Management and industrial development have agricultural, ranching, fish hatchery, have designated most of the species replaced native habitats. During the last and recreational needs. Pumping of the habitat as a conservation area, where few decades, numerous field botanists regional aquifer in excess of natural they have placed significant restrictions have been unable to locate the species, recharge could result in elimination of on ORV use. Their actions have lowered even where historically recorded, habitat occupied by the Page the magnitude of threat to this largely due to the alteration and loss of springsnail. Potential habitat subspecies. Based on imminent threats suitable habitat. San Fernando Valley degradation is likely from trespass cattle of a low to moderate magnitude, we spineflower is also threatened by and the possible modification of spring assigned this subspecies a listing invasive nonnative plants, including heads to meet the needs of a commercial priority number of 9. grasses, that potentially fragment water bottling company. Other factors Flowering Plants suitable habitat; displace it from that have contributed to the decline of Christ’s paintbrush (Castilleja available habitat; compete for light, Page springsnail populations include water, and nutrients; and reduce the use of toxic substances, water christii)—The following summary is survival and establishment. This plant quality degradation, and introduction of based on information contained in our is particularly vulnerable to extinction nonnative molluscs, such as Corbicula files and the petition received on due to its two isolated populations. spp. Arizona Game and Fish January 2, 2001. Castilleja christii is Department (AGFD) management plans endemic to subalpine meadow and Species with few populations and for the Bubbling Ponds and Page sagebrush habitats in the upper disjunct distributions are vulnerable to Springs fish hatcheries included elevations of the Albion Mountains, naturally occurring, random events. commitments to replace lost habitat and Cassia County, Idaho. The single Because of imminent threats of a high to monitor remaining populations of population of this species, which covers magnitude, we assigned a listing invertebrates such as the Page only 81 ha (200 ac), is restricted to the priority number of 3 to this plant. springsnail. However, habitat summit of Mount Harrison. The Slick spot peppergrass (Lepidium restoration has been largely population appears to be stable, papilliferum)—The following summary unsuccessful and monitoring has not although the species is threatened by a is based on information contained in been implemented. Because these variety of activities including our files and the petition received on threats are imminent and of a high unauthorized ORV use that results in April 9, 2001. Lepidium papilliferum is magnitude, we assigned a listing erosion of the plant’s habitat and an annual or biennial that occurs in priority number of 2 to this species. mortality of individual plants. Livestock sagebrush-steppe habitats at grazing can adversely affect C. christii Insects approximately 670 meters (m) (2,200 by trampling and/or consuming plants, feet (ft)) to 1,615 m (5,300 ft) elevation Coral Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle which results in reduced reproductive in southwestern Idaho. The total (Cicindela limbata albissima)—The success; grazing occurred in the area amount of currently occupied L. following summary is based on where C. christii exists during 1999, but papilliferum habitat is less than 31.8 ha information contained in our files, not in 2000. In addition, road (78.4 ac), and the amount of high- including information from the petition maintenance activities and trampling by quality occupied habitat for this species received on April 21, 1994. The Coral hikers potentially affect this species. is less than 1.3 ha (3.3 ac). The Pink Sand Dunes tiger beetle is known Because the threats are of a low to documented extirpation rate for this to occur only at Coral Pink Sand Dunes, moderate magnitude and nonimminent, taxon is the highest known of any Idaho about 7 miles west of Kanab, Kane we assigned this species a listing County, in south-central Utah. It is priority number of 11. rare plant species. This species is restricted mostly to a small part of the San Fernando Valley spineflower threatened by a variety of activities approximately 13-kilometer (8-mile) (Chorizanthe parryi fernandina)—The including urbanization, gravel mining, long dune field, situated at an elevation following summary is based on irrigated agriculture, habitat degradation of about 1,820 m (6,000 ft). The information contained in our files and due to cattle and sheep grazing, fire and subspecies’ habitat is being adversely the petition received on December 14, fire rehabilitation activities, and impacted by ongoing recreational off- 1999. Chorizanthe parryi var. continued invasion of habitat by road vehicle (ORV) use. The ORV fernandina was thought to be extinct, nonnative plant species. Because the activity is destroying and degrading the but its rediscovery was disclosed in the majority of populations are extremely species’ habitat, especially the late spring of 1999. The plant currently small and existing habitat is fragmented interdunal swales used by the larval is known from two disjunct localities. by agricultural conversion, fire, grazing, population. Having the greatest The first locality is in the southeastern roads, and urbanization, local abundance of suitable prey species, the portion of Ventura County, on a site extirpation is a threat to this species. interdunal swales are the most approved for development, where it was Based on immediate threats of a high biologically productive areas in this found and identified by consultants magnitude, we assigned this species a ecosystem. The continued survival of employed by the developer. The second listing priority number of 2. Although the species depends on the preservation is located in southwestern Los Angeles work on court-ordered section 4 actions of the species and its habitat at its only County on a site with approved have precluded us from issuing a breeding reproductive site and the development plans. As currently proposed rule to date, despite the fact probable need to establish or reestablish planned, it is likely that construction of that this species has a listing priority additional reproductive subpopulations proposed development will extirpate number of 2, we recently entered into a in other suitable habitat sites. The the first population in Ventura County. settlement agreement on March 29, 2002 species population is also vulnerable to It is unclear how the development in (Committee for Idaho’s High Desert. v. overcollecting by professional and Los Angeles will affect that population. Badgley, Civ. No. 01–1641–AS (D.Or.)) hobby tiger beetle collectors, although The majority of the historical collections that will require us to deliver by July 15,

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40671

2002, a proposed listing rule to the Ferns and Allies affected plants may be compromised. Federal Register for publication. Botrychium lineare (slender Botrychium lineare is considered a White River beardtongue (Penstemon moonwort)—The following summary is sensitive species in Regions 2, 5, and 6 scariosus albifluvis)—The following based on information contained in our of the Forest Service, which include summary is based on information files and the petition received on July extant and historical B. lineare sites contained in our files and the petition 28, 1999. Also see our 12-month found in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, received on October 27, 1983. The petition finding (66 FR 30368) and California. Because this species is listed under these regional sensitive White River beardtongue is restricted to published on June 6, 2001. Botrychium species lists, the Forest Service has calcareous soils derived from oil shale lineare is a small perennial fern that is regulations that address the need to barrens of the Green River Formation in currently known from a total of nine protect this species. Forest Service the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah populations in Colorado, Oregon, Regions 1, 4, and 5, which include and adjacent Colorado. Most of the Montana, and Washington. In addition to these currently known populations, extant and historical sites found in occupied habitat of the White River Montana and Idaho, do not have B. beardtongue is within developed and historic populations were previously known from Idaho (Boundary County), lineare on their regional sensitive expanding oil and gas fields. Several species lists and it is, therefore, not wells and access roads are within the Montana (Lake County), California (Fresno County), Colorado (Boulder given any special consideration. species’ occupied habitat. The location Although Botrychium lineare is of the species’ habitat exposes it to County), and Canada (Quebec and New Brunswick). However, they have not considered to be rare and imperiled by destruction from ORV use, and road, the State natural heritage programs in pipeline, and well-site construction in been seen for at least 20 years and may be extirpated (Wagner and Wagner Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and connection with oil and gas Washington, the State heritage program development. With such a small 1994). Since the 12-month petition finding was published we received rankings are not legal designations and population and limited occupied do not confer State regulatory protection habitat, any destruction, modification, some additional information regarding the status and distribution of B. lineare. to this species. Because we concluded or curtailment of the habitat would have that the overall magnitude of threats to Two new population sites of B. lineare a highly negative impact on the species. B. lineare throughout its range is were tentatively identified in 2001, one Additionally, the species is heavily moderate and the overall immediacy of site each in Idaho and Nevada, with an grazed by wildlife and livestock and is these threats is nonimminent, we additional historic site discovered from vulnerable to livestock trampling. assigned this species a listing priority a herbarium specimen collected in Utah Currently, no Federal or State laws number of 11. Although we are not in 1905. One researcher is intending to specifically protect the White River proposing a listing priority change or obtain fresh specimens from the Idaho beardtongue. Based on nonimminent removal of candidate status at this time, and Nevada sites during 2002 for threats of a high magnitude, we assigned any new information we receive on the electrophoretic confirmation, in this subspecies a listing priority number distribution and threat/conservation addition to visiting an historic B. lineare of 6. actions of B. lineare may have a bearing site in California. The species seems to on whether listing under the Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa be a habitat generalist and is often found subumbellata)—The following summary Endangered Species Act is still in disturbed habitats along roadsides. warranted. is based on information contained in Therefore, conclusions regarding B. our files and the petition received on lineare’s overall distribution and Petitions To Reclassify Species Already December 27, 2000. Tahoe yellow cress specific habitat requirements, along Listed is a small, perennial herb known only with identifying possible conservation We have also previously made from the shores of Lake Tahoe in needs, are problematic at this time. A warranted but precluded findings on California and Nevada. Based on specific habitat description for the five petitions that sought to reclassify presence/absence information, it has species is problematic because of its threatened species to endangered status. been determined that the Tahoe yellow current and historically disjunct Because these species are already listed, cress has been extirpated from 10 of 52 distribution ranging from sea level in they are not technically candidates for historic locations. Tahoe yellow cress Quebec to nearly 3,000 meters (9,840 ft) listing and are not included in Table 1. occurs in a dynamic environment in Boulder County, Colorado. Some However, this notice also constitutes the affected by both natural processes and botanists consider B. lineare to be a recycled petition findings for these human activities. Under natural habitat generalist and believe that it is species. We find that reclassification to conditions, Tahoe yellow cress is a rare plant that is difficult to survey for endangered status is currently apparently tolerant of the dynamic and observe in the wild and is often warranted but precluded by work nature of its habitat and is adapted for found along roadsides in disturbed identified above (see Petition of a survival in a disturbance regime. habitats. Identifiable threats to various Candidate Species) for the: However, due to the combination of populations of this species include road (1) North Cascades ecosystem grizzly unnatural lake level fluctuation due to maintenance and herbicide spraying bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) DPS dam operations and other human (e.g., in Glacier National Park and on the (Region 6) (see 63 FR 30453, June 4, activities, habitat conditions are no Blackfeet Indian Reservation), 1998, and the candidate form for a longer considered natural. Heavy recreation, timber harvest, trampling, discussion on why reclassification is recreational use of the beaches may and development. Botrychium lineare warranted); result in the direct loss of individual may also be affected by grazing from (2) Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear DPS plants as well as the degradation of livestock or wildlife, but specific effects (Region 6) (see 64 FR 26725, May 17, habitat through compaction and mixing of grazing on the species are unknown. 1999, and the candidate form for a of sandy substrates. Based on imminent However, if grazing by livestock or discussion on why reclassification is threats of a high magnitude, we assigned wildlife species occurs prior to the warranted); this species a listing priority number of maturation and release of spores, the (3) Selkirk grizzly bear DPS (Region 6) 2. capacity for sexual reproduction of (see 64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999, for a

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 40672 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules

discussion on why reclassification is critical habitat would not be prudent for Maryland, Massachusetts, New warranted); a species; Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, (4) Spikedace (Meda fulgida) (Region (4) Documenting threats to any of the Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 2) (see 59 FR 35303 and the candidate included species; Vermont, Virginia, and West form for a discussion on why (5) Describing the immediacy or Virginia. reclassification is warranted); and magnitude of threats facing candidate Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and (5) Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) species; Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate (Region 2) (see 59 FR 35303 and the (6) Pointing out taxonomic or Center Drive, Hadley, candidate form for a discussion on why nomenclature changes for any of the Massachusetts 01035–9589 (413/ reclassification is warranted). species; 253–8615). (7) Suggesting appropriate common Progress in Revising the Lists Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, names; or Nebraska, North Dakota, South As described in section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) (8) Noting any mistakes, such as Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. of the Act, in order for us to make a errors in the indicated historical ranges. warranted but precluded finding on a Submit your comments regarding a Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and petitioned action, we must be making particular species to the Regional Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, expeditious progress to add qualified Director of the Region identified as Denver Federal Center, Denver, species to the Lists and to remove from having the lead responsibility for that Colorado 80225–0486 (303/236– the Lists species for which the species. The regional addresses follow: 7400). protections of the Act are no longer Region 1. California, Hawaii, Idaho, Region 7. Alaska. necessary. This notice describes our Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and progress in revising the lists since our American Samoa, Guam, and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor October 30, 2001, publication of the last Commonwealth of the Northern Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503– CNOR. We intend to publish these 6199 (907/786–3505). descriptions annually. Mariana Islands. Our progress in listing and delisting Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Our practice is to make comments, qualified species since October 30, Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal including names and home addresses of 2001, is represented by the publication Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, respondents, available for public in the Federal Register of final listing Portland, Oregon 97232–4181 (503/ inspection. Individual respondents may actions for 6 species, emergency listing 231–6158). request that we withhold their home actions for 3 species, proposed listing Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico, address from the public record, which actions for 10 species, and proposed Oklahoma, and Texas. we will honor to the extent allowable by delisting actions for 3 species. In Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and law. In some circumstances, we can also addition, we proposed critical habitat Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue withhold from the public record a for 184 listed species, reproposed SW., Room 4012, Albuquerque, respondent’s identity, as allowable by critical habitat for 215 species, and New Mexico 87102 (505/248–6920). law. If you wish for us to withhold your finalized critical habitat for 3 listed Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, name and/or address, you must state species. Given our limited budget for Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, this request prominently at the implementing section 4 of the Act, these Ohio, and Wisconsin. beginning of your comments. However, achievements constitute expeditious Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and we will not consider anonymous progress. Wildlife Service, Bishop Henry comments. We will make all Whipple Federal Building, One submissions from organizations or Request for Information Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, businesses, and from individuals We request you submit any further Minnesota 55111–4056 (612/713– identifying themselves as information on the species named in 5334). representatives or officials of this notice as soon as possible or Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, organizations or businesses, available whenever it becomes available. We are Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, for public inspection in their entirety. particularly interested in any Mississippi, North Carolina, South information: Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, Authority and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (1) Indicating that we should add a This notice is published under the Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and species to the list of candidate species; authority of the Endangered Species Act Wildlife Service, 1875 Century (2) Indicating that we should remove (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). a species from candidate status; Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, (3) Recommending areas that we Georgia 30345 (404/679–4156). Dated: June 3, 2002. should designate as critical habitat for a Region 5. Connecticut, Delaware, Steve Williams, species, or indicating that designation of District of Columbia, Maine, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. TABLE 1.—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Category Priority region

Mammals

PT ...... 3 R1 Pteropus mariannus Pteropodidae ...... Bat, Mariana fruit Western Pacific Ocean, U.S.A. (GU, mariannus. (=Mariana flying fox). MP). C* ...... 3 R1 Emballonura semicaudata Emballonuridae ...... Bat, sheath-tailed (Amer- U.S.A. (AS, GU, MP), Caroline Is- ican Samoa, Aguijan lands. DPS). PE ...... 3 R1 Urocyon littoralis littoralis Canidae ...... Fox, San Miguel Island ... U.S.A. (CA).

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40673

TABLE 1.—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Category Priority region

PE ...... 3 R1 Urocyon littoralis Canidae ...... Fox, Santa Catalina Is- U.S.A. (CA). catalinae. land. PE ...... 3 R1 Urocyon littoralis Canidae ...... Fox, Santa Cruz Island ... U.S.A. (CA). santacruzae. PE ...... 3 R1 Urocyon littoralis Canidae ...... Fox, Santa Rosa Island .. U.S.A. (CA). santarosae. C* ...... 3 R7 Enhydra lutris kenyoni .... Mustelidae ...... Otter, Northern Sea U.S.A. (AK). (southwest Alaska DPS). C ...... 6 R1 Thomomys mazama (all Geomyidae ...... Pocket gopher, Mazama U.S.A. (WA). ssp.). C* ...... 8 R6 Cynomys ludovicianus .... Sciuridae ...... Prairie dog, black-tailed .. U.S.A. (AZ, CO, KS, MT, NE, NM, ND, OK, SD, TX, WY), Canada, Mexico. PE ...... N/A R1 Brachylagus idahoensis .. Leporidae ...... Rabbit, pygmy (Columbia U.S.A. (CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, Basin DPS). WY). C ...... 6 R1 Spermophilus Sciuridae ...... Squirrel, Coachella Valley U.S.A. (CA). tereticaudus chlorus. round-tailed ground. C* ...... 3 R1 Spermophilus brunneus Sciuridae ...... Squirrel, Southern Idaho U.S.A. (ID). endemicus. ground. C* ...... 2 R1 Spermophilus Sciuridae ...... Squirrel, Washington U.S.A. (WA, OR). washingtoni. ground.

Birds

C ...... 6 R1 Porzana tabuensis ...... Rallidae ...... Crake, spotless (Amer- U.S.A. (AS), Fiji, Marquesas, Poly- ican Samoa DPS). nesia, Philippines, Australia, Society Islands, Tonga, Western Samoa. C ...... 5 R1 Oreomystis bairdi ...... Fringillidae ...... Creeper, Kauai ...... U.S.A. (HI). C* ...... 6 R1 Coccyzus americanus Cuculidae ...... Cuckoo, western yellow- U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, occidentalis. billed (Western U.S. OR, TX, UT, WA, WY), Canada, DPS). Mexico, Central & South America. C ...... 6 R1 Gallicolumba stairi ...... Columbidae ...... Dove, friendly ground U.S.A. (AS), Fiji, Tonga, Western (American Samoa Samoa. DPS). C ...... 6 R1 Ptilinopus perousii Columbidae ...... Dove, many-colored fruit U.S.A. (AS). perousii. C* ...... 5 R6 Centrocercus minimus .... Phasianidae ...... Grouse, Gunnison sage .. U.S.A. (AZ, CO, KS, OK, NM, UT). C* ...... 6 R1 Centrocercus Phasianidae ...... Grouse, western (Colum- U.S.A. (OR, WA), Canada (BC). urophasianus phaios. bia basin DPS). C ...... 6 R1 Eremophila alpestris Alaudidae ...... Horned lark, streaked ..... U.S.A. (OR, WA), Canada (BC). strigata. PT ...... 2 R6 Charadrius montanus ...... Charadriidae ...... Plover, mountain ...... U.S.A. (western), Canada, Mexico. C* ...... 8 R2 Tympanuchus Phasianidae ...... Prairie-chicken, lesser ..... U.S.A. (CO, KA, NM, OK, TX). pallidicinctus. C* ...... 3 R1 Oceanodroma castro ...... Hyrobatidae ...... Storm-petrel, band- U.S.A. (HI). rumped (Hawaii DPS). C ...... 5 R4 Dendroica angelae ...... Emberizidae ...... Warbler, elfin woods ...... U.S.A. (PR). PE ...... 2 R1 Zosterops rotensis ...... Zosteropidae ...... White-eye, Rota bridled .. U.S.A. (MP).

Reptiles

C ...... 2 R2 Sceloporus arenicolus ..... Iguanidae ...... Lizard, sand dune ...... U.S.A. (TX, NM). C ...... 9 R3 Sistrurus catenatus Viperidae ...... Massasauga U.S.A. (IA, IL, IN, MI, MO, MN, NY, catenatus. (=rattlesnake), eastern. OH, PA, WI), Canada. C ...... 6 R4 Pituophis melanoleucus Colubridae ...... Snake, black pine ...... U.S.A. (AL, LA, MS). lodingi. C* ...... 5 R4 Pituophis ruthveni ...... Colubridae ...... Snake, Louisiana pine .... U.S.A. (LA, TX). C* ...... 5 R2 Graptemys caglei ...... Emydidae ...... Turtle, Cagle’s map ...... U.S.A. (TX). C ...... 3 R2 Kinosternon sonoriense Kinosternidae ...... Turtle, Sonoyta mud ...... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. longifemorale.

Amphibians

PT ...... 2 R2 Rana chiricahuensis ...... Ranidae ...... Frog, Chiricahua leopard U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Mexico. C* ...... 3 R1 Rana luteiventris ...... Ranidae ...... Frog, Columbia spotted U.S.A. (ID, NV, OR). (Great Basin DPS). PE ...... (1) R1 Rana muscosa ...... Ranidae ...... Frog, mountain yellow- U.S.A. (CA, NV) including San Diego, legged (southern Cali- Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, fornia DPS). and Los Angeles Counties. C* ...... 2 R1 Rana pretiosa ...... Ranidae ...... Frog, Oregon spotted ...... U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA), Canada (BC). C ...... 5 R1 Rana onca ...... Ranidae ...... Frog, relict leopard ...... U.S.A. (AZ, NV, UT). C ...... 6 R4 Cryptobranchus Crytobranchidae ...... Hellbender, Ozark ...... U.S.A. (AR, MO). alleganiensis bishopi. C ...... 2 R2 Eurycea waterlooensis .... Plethodontidae ...... Salamander, Austin blind U.S.A. (TX). C* ...... 5 R1 Ambystoma californiense Ambystomatidae ...... Salamander, California U.S.A. (CA). tiger (Entire, except Sonoma County and where listed as endan- gered).

VerDate May<23>2002 19:42 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm12 PsN: 13JNP1 40674 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Category Priority region

C* ...... 3 R1 Ambystoma californiense Ambystomatidae ...... Salamander, California U.S.A. (CA). tiger (U.S.A. CA— Sonoma County DPS). C ...... 2 R2 Eurycea naufragia ...... Plethodontidae ...... Salamander, Georgetown U.S.A. (TX). C ...... 2 R2 Eurycea chisholmensis ... Plethodontidae ...... Salamander, Salado ...... U.S.A. (TX). C* ...... 3 R6 Bufo boreas boreas ...... Bufonidae ...... Toad, boreal (Southern U.S.A. (CO, NM, WY). Rocky Mountains DPS). C ...... 5 R4 Necturus alabamensis .... Proteidae ...... Waterdog, black warrior .. U.S.A. (AL).

Fishes

PE ...... 3 R1 Gila bicolor vaccaceps .... Cyprinidae ...... Chub, Cowhead Lake tui U.S.A. (CA). C* ...... 2 R2 Gila intermedia ...... Cyprinidae ...... Chub, Gila ...... U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Mexico. C ...... 11 R6 Etheostoma cragini ...... Percidae ...... Darter, Arkansas ...... U.S.A. (AR, CO, KS, MO, OK). C ...... 6 R4 Etheostoma nigrum Percidae ...... Darter, Cumberland john- U.S.A. (KY, TN). susanae. ny. C ...... 5 R4 Percina aurora ...... Percidae ...... Darter, Pearl ...... U.S.A. (LA, MS). C ...... 5 R4 Etheostoma phytophilum Percidae ...... Darter, rush ...... U.S.A. (AL). C ...... 2 R4 Etheostoma moorei ...... Percidae ...... Darter, yellowcheek ...... U.S.A. (AR). C* ...... 9 R6 Thymallus arcticus ...... Salmonidae ...... Grayling, Arctic (upper U.S.A. (MT, WY). Missouri River DPS). C ...... 2 R4 Noturus sp...... Ictaluridae ...... Madtom, chucky ...... U.S.A. (TN). C ...... 2 R3 Cottus sp...... Cottidae ...... Sculpin, grotto ...... U.S.A. (MO). C ...... 5 R2 Notropis oxyrhynchus ..... Cyprinidae ...... Shiner, sharpnose ...... U.S.A. (TX). C ...... 5 R2 Notropis buccula ...... Cyprinidae ...... Shiner, smalleye ...... U.S.A. (TX). C ...... 3 R2 Catostomus discobolus Catostomidae ...... Sucker, Zuni bluehead .... U.S.A. (AZ, NM). yarrowi. PT ...... 6 R1 Oncorhynchus clarki Salmonidae ...... Trout, coastal cutthroat U.S.A. (AK, CA, OR, WA), Canada clarki. (Southwestern WA/Co- (BC). lumbia River DPS). PSAT ...... N/A R1 Salvelinus malma ...... Salmonidae ...... Trout, Dolly Varden ...... U.S.A. (AK, OR, WA), Canada, East Asia.

Clams

C ...... 5 R4 Pleurobema Unionidae ...... Clubshell, Alabama ...... U.S.A. (AL, GA, TN). troschelianum. C ...... 5 R4 Pleurobema Unionidae ...... Clubshell, painted ...... U.S.A. (AL, GA, TN). chattanoogaense. C ...... 2 R2 Popenaias popei ...... Unionidae ...... Hornshell, Texas ...... U.S.A. (NM, TX), Mexico C ...... 5 R4 Ptychobranchus Unionidae ...... Kidneyshell, fluted ...... U.S.A. (AL, KY, TN, VA). subtentum. C ...... 5 R4 Lampsilis rafinesqueana Unionidae ...... Mucket, Neosho ...... U.S.A. (AR, KS, MO, OK). C ...... 2 R4 Margaritifera marrianae ... Margaritiferidae ...... Pearlshell, Alabama ...... U.S.A. (AL). C ...... 5 R4 Lexingtonia dolabelloides Unionidae ...... Pearlymussel, slabside ... U.S.A. (AL, KY, TN, VA). C ...... 5 R4 Pleurobema hanleyanum Unionidae ...... Pigtoe, Georgia ...... U.S.A. (AL, GA, TN). C ...... 5 R4 Elliptio spinosa ...... Unionidae ...... Spinymussel, Altamaha .. U.S.A. (GA).

Snails

PE ...... 1 R3 Antrobia culveri ...... Hydrobiidae ...... Cavesnail, Tumbling U.S.A. (MO). Creek. C ...... 9 R6 Oreohelix peripherica Oreohelicidae ...... Mountainsnail, Ogden U.S.A. (UT). wasatchensis. Deseret. C ...... 2 R6 Stagnicola bonnevilensis Lymnaeidae ...... Pondsnail, Bonneville ...... U.S.A. (UT). C ...... 2 R1 Pyrgulopsis notidicola ..... Hydrobiidae ...... Pyrg, elongate mud U.S.A. (NV). meadows. C ...... 5 R4 Leptoxis downei ...... Pleuroceridae ...... Rocksnail, Georgia ...... U.S.A. (GA, AL). C ...... 2 R1 Ostodes strigatus ...... Potaridae ...... Sisi ...... U.S.A. (AS). C ...... 2 R2 Tryonia adamantina ...... Hydrobiidae ...... Snail, Diamond Y Spring U.S.A. (TX). C ...... 2 R1 Samoana fragilis ...... Partulidae ...... Snail, fragile tree ...... U.S.A. (GU, MP). C ...... 2 R1 Partula radiolata ...... Partulidae ...... Snail, Guam tree ...... U.S.A. (GU). C ...... 2 R1 Partula gibba ...... Partulidae ...... Snail, Humped tree ...... U.S.A. (GU, MP). PE ...... 2 R2 Tryonia kosteri ...... Hydrobiidae ...... Snail, Koster’s tryonia ..... U.S.A. (NM). C ...... 2 R1 Partulina semicarinata .... Achatinellidae ...... Snail, Lanai tree ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Partulina variabilis ...... Achatinellidae ...... Snail, Lanai tree ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Partula langfordi ...... Partulidae ...... Snail, Langford’s tree ...... U.S.A. (MP). PE ...... 2 R2 Assiminea pecos ...... Assimineidae ...... Snail, Pecos assiminea ... U.S.A. (NM, TX), Mexico. C ...... 2 R2 Cochliopa texana ...... Hydrobiidae ...... Snail, Phantom Lake U.S.A. (TX). cave. C ...... 2 R1 Eua zebrina ...... Partulidae ...... Snail, Tutuila tree ...... U.S.A. (AS). C ...... 2 R2 Tryonia cheatumi ...... Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail (=Tryonia), U.S.A. (TX). Phantom. C* ...... 2 R2 Pyrgulopsis chupaderae Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail, Chupadera .. U.S.A. (NM). C* ...... 11 R2 Pyrgulopsis gilae ...... Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail, Gila ...... U.S.A. (NM). C ...... 2 R2 Tryonia circumstriata Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail, Gonzales ..... U.S.A. (TX) (=stocktonensis). C ...... 5 R2 Pyrgulopsis thompsoni .... Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail, Huachuca .... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. C* ...... 11 R2 Pyrgulopsis thermalis ...... Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail, New Mexico New U.S.A. (NM). C* ...... 2 R2 Pyrgulopsis morrisoni ...... Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail, Page ...... U.S.A. (AZ).

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40675

TABLE 1.—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Category Priority region

PE ...... 2 R2 Pyrgulopsis roswellensis Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail, Roswell ...... U.S.A. (NM). C ...... 2 R2 Pyrgulopsis trivialis ...... Hydrobiidae ...... Springsnail, Three Forks U.S.A. (AZ). C ...... 5 R1 Newcombia cumingi ...... Achatinellidae ...... Tree snail, Newcomb’s ... U.S.A. (HI)

Insects

C ...... 11 R6 Zaitzevia thermae ...... Elmidae ...... Beetle, Warm Springs U.S.A. (MT). Zaitzevian riffle. C ...... 2 R1 Nysius wekiuicola ...... Lygaeidae ...... Bug, Wekiu ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 3 R1 Hypolimnas octucula Nymphalidae ...... Butterfly, Mariana eight- U.S.A. (GU, MP). mariannensis. spot. C ...... 2 R1 Vagrans egestina ...... Nymphalidae ...... Butterfly, Mariana wan- U.S.A. (GU, MP). dering. PE ...... N/A R2 Euphydryas anicia Nymphalidae ...... Butterfly, Sacramento U.S.A. (NM). cloudcrofti. Mountains checkerspot. C ...... 6 R1 Euphydryas editha taylori Nymphalidae ...... Butterfly, whulge U.S.A. (OR, WA), Canada (BC). checkerspot (=Taylor’s). C ...... 5 R4 Glyphopsyche sequatchie Limnephilidae ...... Caddisfly, Sequatchie ..... U.S.A. (TN). C ...... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, beaver ...... U.S.A. (KY). major. C ...... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Clifton ...... U.S.A. (KY). caecus. C ...... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, greater U.S.A. (KY). pholeter. Adams. C ...... 5 R5 Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave Beetle, Holsinger’s U.S.A. (VA). holsingeri. C ...... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, icebox ...... U.S.A. (KY). frigidus. C ...... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus in- Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, inquirer ...... U.S.A. (TN). quisitor. C ...... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, lesser U.S.A. (KY). cataryctos. Adams. C ...... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus trog- Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Louisville .... U.S.A. (KY). lodytes. C ...... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, surprising ... U.S.A. (KY). inexpectatus. C ...... 5 R4 Pseudanophthalmus Carabidae ...... Cave beetle, Tatum ...... U.S.A. (KY). parvus. C ...... 9 R1 Megalagrion Coenagrionidae ...... Damselfly, blackline Ha- U.S.A. (HI). nigrohamatum waiian. nigrolineatum. C ...... 2 R1 Megalagrion leptodemus Coenagrionidae ...... Damselfly, crimson Ha- U.S.A. (HI). waiian. C ...... 2 R1 Megalagrion nesiotes ...... Coenagrionidae ...... Damselfly, flying earwig U.S.A. (HI). Hawaiian. C ...... 2 R1 Megalagrion oceanicum .. Coenagrionidae ...... Damselfly, oceanic Ha- U.S.A. (HI). waiian. C ...... 8 R1 Megalagrion xanthomelas Coenagrionidae ...... Damselfly, orangeblack U.S.A. (HI). Hawaiian. C ...... 2 R1 Megalagrion pacificum .... Coenagrionidae ...... Damselfly, Pacific Hawai- U.S.A. (HI). ian. C ...... 5 R1 Phaeogramma sp ...... Tephritidae ...... Gall fly, Po’olanui ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila aglaia ...... Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Drosophila attigua ...... Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Drosophila digressa ...... Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila heteroneura .. Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila montgomeryi Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila mulli ...... Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila musaphila ..... Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila neoclavisetae Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila obatai ...... Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila substenoptera Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila tarphytrichia .. Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila hemipeza ...... Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila ochrobasis .... Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Drosophila differens ...... Drosophilidae ...... Pomace fly, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R2 Heterelmis stephani ...... Elmidae ...... Riffle beetle, Stephan’s ... U.S.A. (AZ). PE ...... 3 R1 Pseudocopaeodes eunus Hesperiidae ...... Skipper, Carson wan- U.S.A. (CA, NV). obscurus. dering. C ...... 11 R3 Hesperia dacotae ...... Hesperiidae ...... Skipper, Dakota ...... U.S.A. (MN, IA, SD, ND, IL), Canada. C ...... 5 R1 Polites mardon ...... Hesperiidae ...... Skipper, Mardon ...... U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA). C* ...... 9 R6 Cicindela limbata Cicindelidae ...... Tiger beetle, Coral Pink U.S.A. (UT). albissima. Sand Dunes. C ...... 5 R4 Cicindela highlandensis .. Cicindelidae ...... Tiger beetle, highlands ... U.S.A. (FL). C ...... 3 R6 Cicindela nevadica Cicindelidae ...... Tiger beetle, Salt Creek .. U.S.A. (NE). lincolniana.

VerDate May<23>2002 12:07 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 13JNP1 40676 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Category Priority region

Arachnids

C ...... 2 R2 Cicurina wartoni ...... Dictynidae ...... Meshweaver, Warton’s U.S.A. (TX). cave.

Crustaceans

PE ...... N/A R2 Gammarus desperatus ... Gammaridae ...... Amphipod, Noel’s ...... U.S.A. (NM). C ...... 11 R4 Fallicambarus gordoni ..... Cambaridae ...... Crayfish, Camp Shelby U.S.A. (MS). burrowing. C ...... 2 R1 Metabetaeus lohena ...... Alpheidae ...... Shrimp, anchialine pool .. U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Antecaridina lauensis ...... Atyidae ...... Shrimp, anchialine pool .. U.S.A. (HI), Mozambique, Saudi Ara- bia, Japan. C ...... 2 R1 Calliasmata pholidota ...... Alpheidae ...... Shrimp, anchialine pool .. U.S.A. (HI), Funafuti Atoll, Saudi Ara- bia, Sinai Peninsula, Tuvalu. C ...... 2 R1 Palaemonella burnsi ...... Palaemonidae ...... Shrimp, anchialine pool .. U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Procaris hawaiana ...... Procarididae ...... Shrimp, anchialine pool .. U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Vetericaris chaceorum .... Procaridae ...... Shrimp, anchialine pool .. U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R4 Typhlatya monae ...... Atyidae ...... Shrimp, troglobitic U.S.A. (PR), Barbuda, Dominican Re- groundwater. public.

Flowering Plants

C ...... 11 R1 Abronia alpina ...... Nyctaginaceae ...... Sand-verbena, Ramshaw U.S.A. (CA). Meadows. C ...... 11 R6 Alicelia caespitosa ...... Polemoniaceae ...... Alice-flower, wonderland U.S.A. (UT). PE ...... N/A R1 Ambrosia pumila ...... Asteraceae ...... Ambrosia, San Diego ...... U.S.A. (CA), Mexico. C ...... 11 R4 Arabis georgiana ...... Brassicaceae ...... Rockcress, Georgia ...... U.S.A. (AL, GA). C ...... 11 R4 Argythamnia blodgettii .... Euphorbiaceae ...... Silverbrush, Blodgett’s .... U.S.A. (FL). C ...... 3 R1 Artemisia campestris var. Asteraceae ...... Wormwood, northern ...... U.S.A. (OR, WA). wormskioldii. C ...... 2 R1 Astelia waialealae ...... Liliaceae ...... Pa‘iniu ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R4 Aster georgianus ...... Asteraceae ...... Aster, Georgia ...... U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, NC, SC). C ...... 8 R6 Astragalus equisolensis .. Fabaceae ...... Milk-vetch, horseshoe ..... U.S.A. (UT). C ...... 8 R6 Astragalus tortipes ...... Fabaceae ...... Milk-vetch, Sleeping Ute U.S.A. (CO). C ...... 5 R1 Bidens amplectens ...... Asteraceae ...... Ko‘oko‘olau ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 6 R1 Bidens campylotheca Asteraceae ...... Ko‘oko‘olau ...... U.S.A. (HI). pentamera. C ...... 3 R1 Bidens campylotheca Asteraceae ...... Ko‘oko‘olau ...... U.S.A. (HI). waihoiensis. C ...... 8 R1 Bidens conjuncta ...... Asteraceae ...... Ko‘oko‘olau ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 6 R1 Bidens micrantha Asteraceae ...... Ko‘oko‘olau ...... U.S.A. (HI). ctenophylla. C ...... 5 R4 Brickellia mosieri ...... Asteraceae ...... Brickell-bush, Florida ...... U.S.A. (FL). C ...... 5 R1 Calamagrostis expansa .. Poaceae ...... Reedgrass, [unnamed] .... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Calamagrostis hillebrandii Poaceae ...... Reedgrass, [unnamed] .... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R4 Calliandra locoensis ...... Mimosaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (PR). C ...... 2 R1 Calochortus persistens ... Liliaceae ...... Mariposa lily, Siskiyou .... U.S.A. (CA). C ...... 5 R4 Calyptranthes estremerae Myrtaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (PR). C ...... 5 R1 Canavalia napaliensis ..... Fabaceae ...... ‘Awikiwiki ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Canavalia pubescens ...... Fabaceae ...... ‘Awikiwiki ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 8 R6 Castilleja aquariensis ...... Scrophulariaceae ...... Paintbrush, Aquarius ...... U.S.A. (UT). C* ...... 11 R1 Castilleja christii ...... Scrophulariaceae ...... Paintbrush, Christ’s ...... U.S.A. (ID). C ...... 6 R4 Chamaecrista lineata Fabaceae ...... Pea, Big Pine partridge ... U.S.A. (FL). keyensis. C ...... 6 R4 Chamaesyce deltoidea Euphorbiaceae ...... Sandmat, pineland ...... U.S.A. (FL). pinetorum. C ...... 6 R4 Chamaesyce deltoidea Euphorbiaceae ...... Spurge, wedge ...... U.S.A. (FL). serpyllum. C ...... 5 R1 Chamaesyce eleanoriae Euphorbiaceae ...... ‘Akoko ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 6 R1 Chamaesyce remyi var. Euphorbiaceae ...... ‘Akoko ...... U.S.A. (HI). remyi. C ...... 6 R1 Chamaesyce remyi var. Euphorbiaceae ...... ‘Akoko ...... U.S.A. (HI). kauaiensis. C ...... 5 R1 Charpentiera densiflora ... Amaranthaceae ...... Papala ...... U.S.A. (HI). C* ...... 3 R1 Chorizanthe parryi var. Polygonaceae ...... Spineflower, San Fer- U.S.A. (CA). fernandina. nando Valley. C ...... 5 R4 Chromolaena frustrata .... Asteraceae ...... Thoroughwort, Cape U.S.A. (FL). Sable. C ...... 2 R4 Consolea corallicola ...... Cactaceae ...... Cactus, Florida sema- U.S.A. (FL). phore. C ...... 2 R4 Cordia rupicola ...... Boraginaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (PR), Anegada C ...... 2 R1 Cyanea asplenifolia ...... Campanulaceae ...... Haha ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Cyanea calycina ...... Campanulaceae ...... Haha ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Cyanea eleeleensis ...... Campanulaceae ...... Haha ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Cyanea kuhihewa ...... Campanulaceae ...... Haha ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Cyanea kunthiana ...... Campanulaceae ...... Haha ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Cyanea lanceolata ...... Campanulaceae ...... Haha ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Cyanea obtusa ...... Campanulaceae ...... Haha ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Cyanea tritomantha ...... Campanulaceae ...... Haha ...... U.S.A. (HI).

VerDate May<23>2002 20:56 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm12 PsN: 13JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40677

TABLE 1.—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Category Priority region

C ...... 2 R1 Cyrtandra filipes ...... Gesneriaceae ...... Ha‘iwale ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Cyrtandra kaulantha ...... Gesneriaceae ...... Ha‘iwale ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Cyrtandra oenobarba ...... Gesneriaceae ...... Ha‘iwale ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Cyrtandra oxybapha ...... Gesneriaceae ...... Ha‘iwale ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Cyrtandra sessilis ...... Gesneriaceae ...... Ha‘iwale ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 6 R4 Dalea carthagenensis Fabaceae ...... Prairie-clover, Florida ...... U.S.A. (FL). floridana. C ...... 5 R4 Digitaria pauciflora ...... Poaceae ...... Crabgrass, Florida pine- U.S.A. (FL). land. C ...... 6 R1 Dubautia imbricata Asteraceae ...... Na‘ena‘e ...... U.S.A. (HI). imbricata. C ...... 3 R1 Dubautia plantaginea Asteraceae ...... Na‘ena‘e ...... U.S.A. (HI). magnifolia. C ...... 5 R1 Dubautia waialealae ...... Asteraceae ...... Na‘ena‘e ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 6 R2 Echinomastus Cactaceae ...... Cactus, Acuna ...... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. erectocentrus var. acunensis. C ...... 11 R1 Erigeron basalticus ...... Asteraceae ...... Daisy, basalt ...... U.S.A. (WA). C ...... 5 R2 Erigeron lemmonii ...... Asteraceae ...... Fleabane, Lemmon ...... U.S.A. (AZ). C ...... 2 R1 Eriogonum codium ...... Polygonaceae ...... Buckwheat, Umtanum U.S.A. (WA). Desert. C ...... 5 R1 Eriogonum kelloggii ...... Polygonaceae ...... Buckwheat, Red Moun- U.S.A. (CA). tain. C ...... 5 R1 Festuca hawaiiensis ...... Poaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 11 R2 Festuca ligulata ...... Poaceae ...... Fescue, Guadalupe ...... U.S.A. (TX), Mexico. C ...... 5 R1 Gardenia remyi ...... Rubiaceae ...... Nanu ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Geranium hanaense ...... Geraniaceae ...... Nohoanu ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 8 R1 Geranium hillebrandii ...... Geraniaceae ...... Nohoanu ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Geranium kauaiense ...... Geraniaceae ...... Nohoanu ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R4 Gonocalyx concolor ...... Ericaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (PR). C ...... 5 R1 Hedyotis fluviatilis ...... Rubiaceae ...... Kampu‘a ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R4 Helianthus verticillatus .... Asteraceae ...... Sunflower, whorled ...... U.S.A. (AL, GA, TN). C ...... 5 R2 Hibiscus dasycalyx ...... Malvaceae ...... Rose-mallow, Neches U.S.A. (TX). River. C ...... 6 R4 Indigofera mucronata Fabaceae ...... Indigo, Florida ...... U.S.A. (FL). keyensis. C ...... 5 R1 Ivesia webberi ...... Rosaceae ...... Ivesia, Webber ...... U.S.A. (CA, NV). C ...... 3 R1 Joinvillea ascendens Joinvilleaceae ...... Ohe ...... U.S.A. (HI). ascendens. C ...... 5 R1 Korthalsella degeneri ...... Viscaceae ...... Hulumoa ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Labordia helleri ...... Loganiaceae ...... Kamakahala ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Labordia pumila ...... Loganiaceae ...... Kamakahala ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Lagenifera erici ...... Asteraceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Lagenifera helenae ...... Asteraceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R4 Leavenworthia crassa ..... Brassicaceae ...... Gladecress, [unnamed] ... U.S.A. (AL). C ...... 2 R2 Leavenworthia texana ..... Brassicaceae ...... Gladecress, Texas gold- U.S.A. (TX). en. C* ...... 2 R1 Lepidium papilliferum ...... Brassicaceae ...... Peppergrass, Slick spot .. U.S.A. (ID). C ...... 5 R4 Lesquerella globosa ...... Brassicaceae ...... Bladderpod, Short’s ...... U.S.A. (IN, KY, TN). C ...... 5 R1 Lesquerella tuplashensis Brassicaceae ...... Bladderpod, White Bluffs U.S.A. (WA). PE ...... 3 R1 Limnanthes floccosa Limnanthaceae ...... Meadowfoam, large-flow- U.S.A. (OR). grandiflora. ered wooly. C ...... 2 R4 Linum arenicola ...... Linaceae ...... Flax, sand ...... U.S.A. (FL). C ...... 3 R4 Linum carteri carteri ...... Linaceae ...... Flax, Carter’s small-flow- U.S.A. (FL). ered. PE ...... 2 R1 Lomatium cookii ...... Apiaceae ...... Lomatium, Cook’s ...... U.S.A. (OR). C ...... 5 R1 Lysimachia daphnoides .. Primulaceae ...... Makanoe lehua ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Melicope christophersenii Rutaceae ...... Alani ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Melicope degeneri ...... Rutaceae ...... Alani ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Melicope hiiakae ...... Rutaceae ...... Alani ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Melicope makahae ...... Rutaceae ...... Alani ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Melicope paniculata ...... Rutaceae ...... Alani ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Melicope puberula ...... Rutaceae ...... Alani ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Myrsine fosbergii ...... Myrsinaceae ...... Kolea ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Myrsine mezii ...... Myrsinaceae ...... Kolea ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Myrsine vaccinioides ...... Myrsinaceae ...... Kolea ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 8 R5 Narthecium americanum Liliaceae ...... Asphodel, bog ...... U.S.A. (DE, NC, NJ, NY, SC). PE ...... 1 R1 Nesogenes rotensis ...... Verbenaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (MP). C ...... 5 R1 Nothocestrum latifolium .. Solanaceae ...... ‘Aiea ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Ochrosia haleakalae ...... Apocynaceae ...... Holei ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Osmoxylon mariannense Araliaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (MP). C ...... 5 R5 Panicum hirstii ...... Poaceae ...... Panic grass, Hirst ...... U.S.A. (DE, GA, NC, NJ). C ...... 11 R2 Paronychia congesta ...... Caryophyllaceae ...... Whitlow-wort, bushy ...... U.S.A. (TX). C ...... 6 R2 Pediocactus Cactaceae ...... Cactus, Fickeisen plains U.S.A. (AZ). peeblesianus fickeiseniae. C ...... 5 R6 Penstemon debilis ...... Scrophulariaceae ...... Beardtongue, Parachute U.S.A. (CO). C ...... 5 R6 Penstemon grahamii ...... Scrophulariaceae ...... Beardtongue, Graham .... U.S.A. (CO, UT). C* ...... 6 R6 Penstemon scariosus Scrophulariaceae ...... Beardtongue, White River U.S.A. (CO, UT). albifluvis.

VerDate May<23>2002 20:56 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm12 PsN: 13JNP1 40678 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—CANDIDATE NOTICE OF REVIEW (ANIMALS AND PLANTS)—Continued

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Category Priority region

C ...... 2 R1 Peperomia subpetiolata .. Piperaceae ...... ‘Ala ‘ala wai nui ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 11 R6 Phacelia submutica ...... Hydrophyllaceae ...... Phacelia, DeBeque ...... U.S.A. (CO). C ...... 2 R1 Phyllostegia bracteata ..... Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Phyllostegia floribunda .... Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Phyllostegia hispida ...... Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Pittosporum napaliense .. Pittosporaceae ...... Hoo‘awa ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R4 Platanthera integrilabia ... Orchidaceae ...... Orchid, white fringeless .. U.S.A. (AL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA). C ...... 6 R1 Platydesma cornuta Rutaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). cornuta. C ...... 6 R1 Platydesma cornuta Rutaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). decurrens. C ...... 2 R1 Platydesma remyi ...... Rutaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Platydesma rostrata ...... Rutaceae ...... Pilo kea lau li‘i ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Pleomele forbesii ...... Agavaceae ...... Hala pepe ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Polygonum hickmanii ...... Polygonaceae ...... Polygonum, Scotts Valley U.S.A. (CA). C ...... 5 R1 Potentilla basaltica ...... Rosaceae ...... Cinquefoil, Soldier Mead- U.S.A. (NV). ows. C ...... 5 R1 Pritchardia hardyi ...... Asteraceae ...... Lo‘ulu, (=Na‘ena‘e)...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 6 R1 Pseudognaphalium Asteraceae ...... ‘Ena‘ena ...... U.S.A. (HI). (=Gnaphalium) sandwicensium var molokaiense. C ...... 2 R1 Psychotria grandiflora ..... Rubiaceae ...... Kopiko ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 3 R1 Psychotria hexandra Rubiaceae ...... Kopiko ...... U.S.A. (HI). oahuensis. C ...... 2 R1 Psychotria hobdyi ...... Rubiaceae ...... Kopiko ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Pteralyxia macrocarpa .... Apocynaceae ...... Kaulu ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Ranunculus hawaiensis .. Ranunculaceae ...... Makou ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Ranunculus mauiensis .... Ranunculaceae ...... Makou ...... U.S.A. (HI). C * ...... 2 R1 Rorippa subumbellata ..... Brassicaceae ...... Cress, Tahoe yellow ...... U.S.A. (CA, NV). C ...... 2 R1 Schiedea attenuata ...... Caryophyllaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Schiedea pubescens ...... Caryophyllaceae ...... Ma‘oli‘oli ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Schiedea salicaria ...... Caryophyllaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 5 R1 Sedum eastwoodiae ...... Crassulaceae ...... Stonecrop, Red Mountain U.S.A. (CA). C ...... 5 R1 Sicyos macrophyllus ...... Cucurbitaceae ...... ‘Anunu ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 9 R1 Sidalcea hickmanii Malvaceae ...... Checkerbloom, Parish’s .. U.S.A. (CA). parishii. C ...... 5 R1 Solanum nelsonii ...... Solanaceae ...... Popolo ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Stenogyne cranwelliae .... Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Stenogyne kealiae ...... Lamiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). PE ...... 2 R1 Tabernaemontana Apocynaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (GU, MP). rotensis. C ...... 2 R1 Zanthoxylum oahuense ... Rutaceae ...... A‘e ...... U.S.A. (HI).

Ferns and Allies

C* ...... 11 R1 Botrychium lineare ...... Ophioglossaceae ...... Moonwort, slender ...... U.S.A. (CA, CO, ID, MT, OR, WA), Canada (BC, NB, QC). C ...... 6 R1 Cyclosorus boydiae Thelypteridaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). boydiae. C ...... 6 R1 Cyclosorus boydiae Thelypteridaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). kipahuluensis. C ...... 2 R1 Doryopteris takeuchii ...... Dryopteridaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Dryopteris tenebrosa ...... Dryopteridaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Microlepia mauiensis ...... Dennstaedtiaceae ...... No common name ...... U.S.A. (HI). C ...... 2 R1 Phlegmariurus Lycopodiaceae ...... Wawae‘iole ...... U.S.A. (HI). stemmermanniae. 1 No data.

TABLE 2.—FORMER CANDIDATE AND FORMER PROPOSED ANIMALS AND PLANTS

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Code Expl region

Mammals

E ...... L R1 Sorex ornatus relictus Soricidae ...... Shrew, Buena Vista Lake ornate U.S.A. (CA).

Amphibians

E ...... L R4 Rana capito sevosa .. Ranidae ...... Frog, Mississippi gopher (Wher- U.S.A. (AL, FL, LA, ever found west of Mobile and MS). Tombigbee Rivers in AL, MS, and LA).

VerDate May<23>2002 20:56 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm12 PsN: 13JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Proposed Rules 40679

TABLE 2.—FORMER CANDIDATE AND FORMER PROPOSED ANIMALS AND PLANTS—Continued

Status Lead Scientific name Family Common name Historic range Code Expl region

Fishes

E ...... L R4 Etheostoma Percidae ...... Darter, vermilion ...... U.S.A. (AL). chermocki.

Insects

Rc ...... I R1 Tinostoma Sphingidae ...... Moth, fabulous green sphinx ...... U.S.A. (HI). smaragditis.

Flowering Plants

E ...... L R4 Carex lutea ...... Cyperaceae ...... Sedge, golden ...... U.S.A. (NC). E ...... L R1 Hackelia venusta ...... Boraginaceae ...... Stickseed, showy ...... U.S.A. (WA). Rc ...... M R1 Pleomele fernaldii ...... Agavaceae ...... Hala pepe ...... U.S.A. (HI). T ...... L R6 Yermo Asteraceae ...... Yellowhead, desert ...... U.S.A. (WY). xanthocephalus.

[FR Doc. 02–14963 Filed 6–12–02; 8:45 am] SONCC coho salmon ESU. Based on may be warranted. The ESA BILLING CODE 4310–55–P input received thus far, NMFS is implementing regulations for the reopening the comment period and National Marine Fisheries Service seeking additional information on the (NMFS) define ‘‘substantial DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE status of the 25 ESUs under review. information’’ as the amount of DATES: Written comments on the information that would lead a National Oceanic and Atmospheric previous February 11, 2002, findings on Administration reasonable person to believe that the 6 delisting petitions and on the status measure proposed in the petition may review updates for 25 ESUs of Pacific 50 CFR. Parts 223, and 226 be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In salmon and steelhead (67 FR 6215), evaluating a petitioned action, the [Docket no. 020603139–2139–01 I.D. must be received by August 12, 2002. Secretary must consider whether such a 052302A] ADDRESSES: Information or comments petition (1) clearly indicates the on this action should be submitted to recommended administrative measure Listing Endangered and Threatened the Assistant Regional Administrator, Species: Finding on Petition to Delist and the species involved, (2) contains a Protected Resources Division, NMFS, detailed narrative justification for the Coho Salmon in the Klamath River 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, recommended measure, describing past Basin; Reopening of Public Comment Portland, OR, 97232–2737. Comments and present numbers and distribution of Period will not be accepted if submitted via e- mail or the Internet. However, the species involved and any threats AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries faced by the species, (3) provides Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and comments may be sent via facsimile to (503) 230–5435. information regarding the status of the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), species over all or a significant portion Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region, of its range, and (4) is accompanied by ACTION: Notice of finding; re-opening of (503) 231–2005; Craig Wingert, NMFS, appropriate supporting documentation public comment period. Southwest Region, (562) 980–4021; or (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)). SUMMARY: The National Marine Chris Mobley, NMFS, Office of Section 424.11(d) contains provisions Fisheries Service (NMFS) has received a Protected Resources, (301) 713–1401. concerning petitions from interested petition to delist coho salmon Additional information, including the persons requesting the Secretary to (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Klamath references used and the petitions delist or reclassify a species listed under River Basin (California and Oregon). addressed in this notice, is available on the ESA. A species may be delisted for Coho populations in the Klamath River the Internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov. one or more of the following reasons: Basin are part of the Southern Oregon/ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the species is extinct or has been Northern California Coasts (SONCC) Background extirpated from its previous range; the Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), species has recovered and is no longer which is listed as a threatened species Delisting Factors and Basis for endangered or threatened; or Determination under the Endangered Species Act of investigations show that the best 1973, as amended (ESA). The petition Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered scientific or commercial data available fails to present substantial scientific or Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 when the species was listed or that the commercial information to suggest that U.S.C. 1531 et seq. (ESA) requires that, interpretation of such data were in error. delisting may be warranted. On to the maximum extent practicable, February 11, 2002, NMFS published a within 90 days after receiving a petition Salmonid Evolutionarily Significant notice in the Federal Register on the for delisting species, the Secretary make Units findings on 6 delisting petitions and a finding whether the petition presents status reviews of 25 ESUs of Pacific substantial scientific information NMFS is responsible for determining salmon and steelhead, including the indicating that the petitioned action whether a species, subspecies, or

VerDate May<23>2002 19:42 Jun 12, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM pfrm12 PsN: 13JNP1