Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 116 / Friday, June 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 31663 solely on a determination of whether the Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations 43 CFR Part 3100 50 CFR Part 17 and whether the other requirements of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have [WO±610±4110±02 1A] been met. and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List the Swift Fox as RIN 1004±AC26 Endangered National Environmental Policy Act Promotion of Development, Reduction AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, No environmental impact statement is of Royalty on Heavy Oil Interior. required for this rule since section ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, finding. 702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)] Interior. provides that agency decisions on SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed State regulatory program ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of reopening of comment period. (Service) announces a 12-month finding provisions do not constitute major for a petition to list the swift for (Vulpes Federal actions within the meaning of SUMMARY: On April 10, 1995, the Bureau velox) under the Endangered Species section 102(2)(C) of the National of Land Management (BLM) published Act of 1973, as amended. After review Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. in the Federal Register (60 FR 18081) a of all available scientific and 4332(2)(C)). notice of proposed rulemaking to amend commercial information, the Service the regulations related to the waiver, finds that listing this species is Paperwork Reduction Act suspension, or reduction of rental, warranted but precluded by other higher royalty, or minimum royalty on ‘‘heavy priority actions to amend the List of This rule does not contain oil’’ (crude oil with a gravity of less than Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information collection requirements that 20 degrees). The notice allowed a and Plants. require approval by OMB under the comment period of 60 days, closing on DATES: The finding announced in this Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. June 9, 1995. document was made on June 12, 1995. 3507 et seq.). The Department of Energy (DOE) is ADDRESSES: Information, comments, or currently developing new information questions concerning this petition Regulatory Flexibility Act on the potential impacts of the proposed should be submitted to the Field rule. DOE is focusing particularly on the Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 420 South Garfield The Department of the Interior has effects of raising the qualifying crude oil Avenue, Suite 400, Pierre, South Dakota determined that this rule will not have gravity to more than 20 degrees. In order 57501–5408. The petition finding, a significant economic impact on a to allow all interested parties sufficient supporting data, and comments are substantial number of small entities time to review the new DOE available for public inspection, by under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 information, BLM is reopening the appointment, during normal business U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal comment period for an additional 30 hours at the above address. which is the subject of this rule is based days. Information on the DOE findings upon corresponding Federal regulations is available from Dr. John Bebout, at the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for which an economic analysis was address shown below under FOR Donald R. (Pete) Gober, Field FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. prepared and certification made that Supervisor, at the above address, such regulations would not have a DATES: Comments should be submitted telephone (605) 224–8693. significant economic effect upon a by July 17, 1995. Comments received or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: postmarked after the above date may not substantial number of small entities. Background Accordingly, this rule will ensure that be considered in the decisionmaking existing requirements previously process on the final rule. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended promulgated by OSM will be ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to implemented by the State. In making the Director (140), Bureau of Land (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, determination as to whether this rule Management, Room 5555, 1849 C Street, for any petition to revise the List of would have a significant economic NW., Washington, DC 20240. Comments Endangered and Threatened Wildlife impact, the Department relied upon the can also be sent to and Plants that contains substantial data and assumptions for the [email protected]. Please scientific and commercial information, corresponding Federal regulations. include ‘‘attn: AC26’’ and your name the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and return address in your internet make a finding within 12 months of the List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 935 message. Comments will be available for date of the receipt of the petition on public review at the above address whether the petitioned action is (a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) Intergovernmental relations, Surface during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday. warranted but precluded from mining, Underground mining. immediate proposal by other pending FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. proposals of higher priority. Notice of Dated: June 8, 1995. John W. Bebout, Bureau of Land the finding is to be published promptly Management (310), 1849 C Street, NW., in the Federal Register. This notice Allen D. Klein, Washington, DC 20240. (202) 452–0340. meets that requirement for a 12-month Micheal A. Ferguson, Regional Director, Appalachian Regional finding made earlier for the petition Coordinating Center. Acting Assistant Director, Resource Use and discussed below. Information contained Protection. in this notice is a summary of the [FR Doc. 95–14764 Filed 6–15–95; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 95–14785 Filed 6–15–95; 8:45 am] information in the 12-month finding, BILLING CODE 4310±05±M BILLING CODE 4130±84±P which is the Service’s decision 31664 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 116 / Friday, June 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules document. Section 4(b)(3)(C) requires to controversy over its taxonomy; Texas. There is limited but encouraging that petitions for which the requested however, the designation as endangered evidence that some reoccupation of its action is found to be warranted but in Canada remains (45 FR 49844; July former range may be occurring in precluded should be treated as through 25, 1980). Montana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, resubmitted on the date of such finding, In 1970, the Service listed the and Wyoming. New Mexico also i.e., requiring a subsequent finding to be northern swift fox as endangered (35 FR appears to contain localized populations made within 12 months. 8485; June 2, 1970). This designation distributed throughout reduced portions A petition dated February 22, 1992, was removed in the United States due of the State’s historical range. However, from Mr. Jon C. Sharps was received by to controversy over its taxonomy; there has been no biological or scientific the Service on March 3, 1992. The however, the designation as endangered evidence presented to the Service petition requested the Service to list the in Canada remains (45 FR 49844; July during the extended status review swift fox (Vulpes velox) as an 25, 1980). period to confirm the viability or endangered species in the northern The Service reviewed information stability of any of these populations. portion of its range, if not the entire regarding the status of the swift fox Seventy to 75 percent of remaining swift range. A 90-day finding was made by throughout its range. Historically, the fox populations are believed to reside the Service that the petition presented swift fox was considered abundant on private lands, with the remaining substantial information indicating that throughout the Great Plains and the populations on Federal lands belonging the requested action may be warranted. Prairie Provinces of Canada (Hall and to the U.S. forest Service, the National The 90-day finding was announced in Kelson 1959; Egoscue 1979; Zumbaugh Park Service, the Bureau of Land the Federal Register on June 1, 1994 (59 and Choates 1985; U.S. Fish and Management, and the Department of the FR 28328). Wildlife Service 1990; FaunaWest Army. The Service has reviewed the petition, 1991). Beginning in the late 1800’s to the literature cited in the petition, other early 1900’s, the swift fox declined in Summary of Factors Affecting the available literature and information, and numbers, and the northern population Species has consulted with biologists and disappeared with the southern The following information is a researchers familiar with the swift fox. population decreasing in numbers (Cary summary and discussion of the five On the basis of the best scientific and 1911; Warren 1942; Egoscue 1979; Bee factors or listing criteria as set forth in commercial information available, the et al. 1981; FaunaWest 1991). section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations Service finds the petition presented In the mid-1950’s, the swift fox staged (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to information indicating that the listing a limited comeback in portions of its implement the listing provisions of the may be warranted but the immediate historical range (Long 1965; Kilgore Act and their applicability to the current listing of the species is precluded by 1969; McDaniel 1976; Sharps 1977; status of the swift fox. work on other species having higher Hines 1980; FaunaWest 1991). However, A. The Present or threatened priority for listing. this reappearance was limited in nature destruction, modification, or The petition and its referenced and, in recent years, many of these curtailment of the species’ habitat or documentation states that the swift fox populations have again declined. range. The swift fox is a prairie- once occurred in abundant numbers Several factors are provided as reasons dwelling species that generally requires throughout the species’ historical range. for the decline of the species throughout 518 ha to 1,296 ha (1,280 to 2,300 acres) The species was known from the much of its historical range. These of short to midgrass prairie habitat with Canadian Prairie Provinces south factors include (1) loss of nature prairie abundant prey to support a pair through Montana, eastern Wyoming, habitat through conversion for (Cameron 1984; Jones et al. 1987; and North and south Dakota to the agricultural production and mineral Rongstad et al. 1989; Jon Sharps, Texas Panhandle. The petitioner asserts extraction, (2) fragmentation of the Wildlife Systems, pers. comm. 1993). that the swift fox has declined and is remaining habitat, creating a less Swift fox habitat is comprised of level considered rare in the northern portion suitable cropland-grassland habitat to gently sloping topography containing of its range. The petitioner indicates that mosaic, (3) degradation of habitat due to an open view of the surrounding the swift fox is extremely vulnerable to prairie-dog control activities, (4) landscape (<15 percent slope), abundant human activities such as trapping, predation and interspecific competition, prey, and lack of predators and hunting, automobiles, agricultural and (5) the species’ vulnerability to competitors (Cutter 1958a; Hillman and conversion of habitat, and prey human activities such as predator Sharps 1978; Hines 1980; Fitzgerald et reduction from rodent control programs. control, trapping, shooting, and al. 1983; Lindberg 1986; U.S. Fish and The petitioner requests that, at a collisions with automobiles (Hillman Wildlife Service 1990; FaunaWest 1991; minimum, the swift fox be listed as an and Sharps 1978; Hines 1980; Carbyn et al. 1992). endangered species in Montana, North Armbruster 1983; Uresk and Sharps Historically, the species was Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. 1986; Jones et al. 1987; Sharps 1989; distributed throughout the contiguous Justification for such action as cited by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990; short to midgrass prairie habitat from the petitioner includes the present FaunaWest 1991; Carbyn et al. 1992). the south-central Prairie Provinces in status of the species and its habitat in Currently, swift fox exist in highly Canada to the southern portions of the the petitioned area, the strong link to disjunct populations in a greatly western Great Plains. In recent times, the prairie dog ecosystem, the large reduced portion of the species’ the swift fox has experienced a distance from the kit (Vulpes macrotis)- historical range (Hines 1980; Jones et al. significant reduction in its historic swift fox zone of intergradation, and the 1987; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service range due to a combination of human potential for these populations to 1990; FunaWest 1991). Swift fox are activities. Based on current range-wide contain the northern subspecies (Vulpes believed to be extirpated in North swift fox distribution information, the velox hebes). Dakota. Remnant populations remain in Service estimates that the swift fox is In 1970, the Service listed the Montana and Oklahoma. Small, disjunct extirpated from 80 percent of its northern swift fox as endangered (35 FR populations of unknown status remain historical range. Within the remaining 8485; June 2, 1970). This designation in South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, 20 percent of its historical range, swift was removed in the United States due Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico and fox populations exist in scattered, Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 116 / Friday, June 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 31665 isolated pockets of remnant short to counties located in the western-most Department, pers. comm. 1993). The midgrass prairie habitat. The Service one-fourth of the State. Jones (1987) swift fox is listed as a furbearer in seven estimates that swift fox may actually reports that available harvest data from States (Colorado, Montana, Kansas, occupy only half of the remaining 20 Texas is limited, but it shows an annual Oklahoma, New Mexico, North Dakota, percent of its historical range. harvest of between 300 and 500 animals. and Texas) and it is legally harvested in Habitat loss and fragmentation has C. Disease and predation. The effects Colorado, Kansas, Texas, and New occurred due to a variety of human of infectious diseases in swift fox are Mexico). In Montana, Oklahoma, and activities such a agricultural conversion relatively unknown. However, they are North Dakota, no legal harvest of swift of the prairie and mineral extraction. susceptible to most diseases that plague foxes is allowed because of the species’ Beyond direct agricultural conversion, canids (FaunaWest 1991). Studies rarity (Arnold Dood, Montana the remaining short to midgrass prairie conducted in California on the kit fox Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, ecosystem has been significantly altered noted canine parvovirus as a major pers. comm. 1993; Sonja Jahrsdoerfer, due to creation of a grassland-cropland disease (FaunaWest 1991). Since U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. mosaic, with continued reduction of the parvovirus is found throughout the U.S. comm. 1993; Randy Kreil, North Dakota prairies rodent prey base and and is fatal to domestic dogs, it is Game and Fish Department, pers. modification of the native predator probably also fatal to swift foxes. Other comm. 1993). community. Roadways also alter the diseases documented in kit foxes availability and suitability of habitat, include canine hepatitis, tularemia, Since the swift fox is not federally thus fragmenting swift fox habitat and brucellosis, toxoplasmosis, and protected and its pelts are of little exposing them to traffic, trapping, coccidiomycosis (FaunaWest 1991). economic value, there is little effort by shooting, predator control, and rodent Many of these diseases are known to be the States to determine the status of the control. widespread and their presence in swift swift fox in their jurisdiction, even B. Overutilization from commercial, fox populations is highly probable. though it is harvested legally or recreational, scientific, or educational Because of major changes to the incidentally taken. Other than State purposes. Commercial trapping for other faunal community of the western Great trapping regulations, there is little furbearers occurs throughout the range Plains ecosystem, the swift fox has regulatory protection afforded the swift of the swift fox. Often swift fox are become extremely vulnerable to fox or its habitat. Efforts by the States to harvested incidental to commercial predation from coyotes. Historically, the modify techniques to avoid the trapping for other furbearers such as gray wolf (Canis lupus) was the unintentional trapping of swift fox are coyotes (McDaniel 1976; Sharps 1984; dominant canid in the Great Plains minimal. Jones et al. 1987; U.S. fish and wildlife hierarchy. The gray wolf was not E. Other man-made or natural factors Service 1990). Unlike other furbearers, considered a significant predator on affecting the species’ continued swift fox pelts are not particularly swift fox and, because it targeted large existence. The swift fox is inquisitive in valuable (Arnold 1925; Jones et al. 1987; ungulates, it probably provided swift nature, thus making it extremely FaunaWest 1991). This lack of value and fox with a source of carrion (Moravek vulnerable to human activities. Swift pelt quality has not completely stopped 1990; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fox are easily trapped, shot, captured by trade in swift fox pelts. Protection is 1990; FaunaWest 1991). The coyote and dogs, or killed along country roadsides minimal because the swift fox is unwary red fox, while widely distributed in (Kilgore 1969; Hillman and Sharps and naive, making it susceptible to specific habitats, were not generally 1978; Hines 1980; Sharps and Whitcher trapping, ragardless of whether it is the considered abundant because of the 1983; Uresk and Sharps 1986; U.S. Fish targeted species. Legal and/or incidental wolf’s dominant canid role in the and Wildlife Service 1990; Dr. Clyde take of the species is expected to western Great Plains ecosystem Jones, Texas Technology University, continue. (Johnson and Sargeant 1977). Coyotes pers. comm. 1993). Additionally, swift The swift fox is legally harvested in are now the most abundant and widely fox are mistakenly taken for coyotes or four States (Colorado, New Mexico, distributed canid on the Great Plains by people wishing to remove all canids Kansas, and Texas). In Wyoming, it is a (Alan Sargeant, U.S. Fish and Wildlife for fear of livestock predation (Zegers protected species by virtue of its Service, pers. comm. 1992). Studies 1976). nongame status, but it is still legal to have shown that predation by coyotes buy and sell swift fox pelts. In addition, has a severe impact on the survival of Habitat loss and modification, rodent Wyoming has supplied 25 to 30 swift swift fox (Robinson 1961; Reynolds control programs, and other human fox per year to Canada for their recovery 1986; Rongstad et al. 1989; Sharps 1989; activities often reduce the prey base, program. Harvest data received from the Moravek 1990; U.S. Fish and Wildlife impacting the species’ ability to find above States is insufficient to assist the Service 1990; Carbyn et al. 1992). prey. Historically, the range of the swift Service in the determination of Furthermore, the red fox, which fox and prairie dog overlapped population trends or to determine the historically existed in isolated pockets extensively (Hall and Kelson 1959; actual numbers being legally harvested on the Great Plains, expanded its Sharps 1993). Swift fox are extremely on an annual basis. The New Mexico distribution westward because of vulnerable to prey reduction caused by data shows a significant (95 percent) agriculture development (Moravek 1990; habitat modification and prairie dog decrease in the kit-swift fox harvest in A. Sargeant, pers. comm. 1992). Also control programs (Hines 1980; Egoscue recent years, but its significance relative red foxes undoubtedly compete with 1979; Sharps 1984; Sharps 1989; Uresk to swift fox status cannot be determined. swift fox. and Sharps 1986; Moravek 1990). Where The Colorado data shows that harvest of D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory the prey base has been reduced, swift kit/swift fox has decreased from a high mechanisms. The swift fox is listed as fox often seek out carrion along of 3,322 animals during the 1981–1982 endangered in Nebraska, threatened in roadsides (Hines 1980). Additionally, season to 161 animals (fox) in 1990 and South Dakota, and is protected by predator control in the area is 373 animals in 1991, respectively. regulation in Wyoming. Despite having conducted by private individuals who Harvest data from Kansas indicates that this protective status, it is still legal to use leg hold traps, snares, and shoot between 1982 and 1994, 1,220 swift fox buy and sell swift fox pelts in Wyoming animals (U.S. Fish Wildlife Service were harvested from approximately 23 (Bob Oakleaf, Wyoming Game and Fish 1990; Sharps 1993; FaunaWest 1991). 31666 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 116 / Friday, June 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Finding precluded finding elevates the swift require commercial fishers to report to Section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act states fox’s candidate species status from NMFS the incidental mortality and that the Service may make warranted category 2 to category 1. injury of marine mammals in the course but precluded findings if it can The Service’s 12-month finding of commercial fishing and comply with demonstrate that an immediate contains more detailed information certain other requirements. The proposed rule is precluded by other regarding the above decisions. A copy intended effect of this rule is to provide pending proposals and that expeditious may be obtained from the South Dakota for a limited exemption of commercial progress is being made on other listing Field office (see ADDRESSES section). fisheries from the MMPA’s moratorium on the taking of marine mammals actions. Since September 30, 1993, the References Cited Service has proposed the listing of 118 incidental to commercial fishing species and has finalized the listing for A complete list of references cited in activities. NMFS issues a proposed list 182 species. The Service believes this the rule is available upon request from of fisheries (LOF), categorized according demonstrates expeditious progress. the South Dakota Field office (see to frequency of incidental serious injury Furthermore, on September 21, 1983 (48 ADDRESSES section). and mortality of marine mammals. Comments are invited on the proposed FR 43098), the Service published a Author system for prioritizing species for rule and the proposed LOF. The primary author of this document listing. This system considers 3 factors DATES: Comments on this proposed rule is David A. Allardyce (see ADDRESSES in assigning species’ numerical listing must be received by July 31, 1995. section). priorities on a scale of 1 to 12. The three Comments on the proposed LOF must factors magnitude of threat, immediacy Authority be received by September 14, 1995. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Chief, of threat, and taxonomic distinctiveness. The authority for this action is the After reviewing and considering the Marine Mammal Division, Office of Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 scientific merits and significance of all Protected Resources, National Marine et seq.) comments, recommendations, and study Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West proposals received from State and Dated: June 12, 1995. Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. A Federal agencies and from private Mollie H. Beattie, copy of the Environmental Assessment individuals relative to the Service’s 90- Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. (EA) may be obtained by writing to this day Administrative Finding, the Service [FR Doc. 95–14730 Filed 6–15–95; 8:45 am] address, by telephoning one of the contacts listed below, or by accessing has concluded that the magnitude of the BILLING CODE 4310±55±M threat to the swift fox is moderate the NMFS ‘‘Home Page’’ on the World throughout its present range. The States Wide Web at http:// kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov:80/home- of Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming have DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE presented evidence that swift foxes have page.html which will be available by reoccupied former prairie habitats and National Oceanic and Atmospheric June 19, 1995. Comments regarding the have also moved into agricultural lands. Administration burden-hour estimate or any other However, scientific evidence also aspects of the collection of information indicates that identifiable threats to the 50 CFR Parts 216 and 229 requirements contained in this rule swift fox exist over the entire 10-State should be sent to the above individual [Docket No. 950605147±5147±01; I.D. and to the Office of Information and range, and the Service has concluded 052395C] that the immediacy of these threats is Regulatory Affairs, Office of ‘‘imminent.’’ The Service, in its RIN 0648±AH33 Management and Budget (OMB); determination of the current degree of Attention: NOAA Desk Officer, Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental Washington, D.C. 20503. threat to the species, also considered a to Commercial Fishing Operations; long-range conservation strategy FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Authorization for Commercial Thomas Eagle or Robyn Angliss, Office document drafted by an interagency Fisheries; Proposed List of Fisheries State team which provides a framework of Protected Resources, 301–713–2322; of goals, objectives, and strategies. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Douglas Beach, Northeast Region, 508– Implementation of this plan, including Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 281–9254; Charles Oravetz, Southeast the formation of a swift fox working Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Region, 813–570–5301; James Lecky, team should help reduce some of these Commerce. Southwest Region, 310–980–4015; Brent Norberg, Northwest Region, 206–526– threats to its survival. Having ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 6140; Dr. Steve Zimmerman, Alaska considered this draft conservation comments. strategy document and the significance Region, 907–586–7235. of the evidence provided by the SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: aforementioned States, the Service rule to implement the new management believes that the magnitude of threats is regime for the taking of marine Legislative and Regulatory History ‘‘moderate’’ but the immediacy of these mammals incidental to commercial Prior to passage of the 1988 threats remains ‘‘imminent.’’ Therefore, fishing operations established by certain amendments to the MMPA (Public Law a listing priority of 8 is assigned for the provisions of the Marine Mammal 92–522), commercial fishers could species. The Service will reevaluate this Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) as receive an exemption from the MMPA’s warranted but precluded finding 1 year added to that Act by certain general moratorium on the taking of from the date of the finding. If sufficient amendments in 1994. The regulations marine mammals by applying for a new data or information becomes would implement requirements to general permit and certificates of available in the future regarding the authorize vessels engaged in inclusion. The 1988 amendments to the magnitude of threats, abundance, and commercial fishing to incidentally, but MMPA (Public Law 100–711), added a health of these swift fox populations, not intentionally, take species and section 114 to the MMPA that exempts, the Service will reassess the status of stocks of marine mammals upon the on an interim basis, commercial fishers the species. The warranted but receipt of specified information and that who comply with certain registration