[Federal Register: January 8, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 5)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 1295-1300]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of 
Findings on Recycled Petitions

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review.


SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we announce our recycled petition 
findings, as required in section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1972, as amended. When, in response to a petition, we 
complete a 12-month finding that listing a species is warranted but 
precluded, we must make a new 12-month finding each year until we 
publish a proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not 
warranted. These subsequent 12-month findings are referred to as 
recycled petition findings.
    Information contained in this notice of review is based on our 
review of the current status and threats to taxa that were the subjects 
of 27 outstanding warranted but precluded findings. Based on our 
review, we find that 26 species continue to warrant listing or changes 
in classification, but these activities are precluded by listing 
activities of higher priority as determined by our listing priority 
guidance. One species no longer warrants listing under the Endangered 
Species Act and, therefore, has been removed from the candidate list.
    We announce the availability of listing priority assignment forms 
for candidate taxa and listing priority determinations for proposed 
taxa. These documents describe the status and threats that we evaluated 
in order to assign a listing priority number to each taxon.
    We request additional status information that may be available for 
these candidates as well as information on taxa that we should include 
as candidates in future updates of this list. We will consider this 
information in preparing listing documents and future recycled petition 
findings. This information will help us in monitoring changes in the 
status of candidate taxa and in conserving these taxa.

DATES: We will accept comments on these recycled petition findings at 
any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments regarding a particular taxon to the 
Regional Director of the Region identified as having the lead 
responsibility for that taxon. You may submit comments of a more 
general nature to the Chief, Office of Conservation and Classification, 
Division of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. 
Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, Virginia 22203 (703/358-2171). 
Written comments and materials received in response to this notice will 
be available for public inspection by appointment at the appropriate 
Regional Office listed below.
    Information regarding the range, status, and habitat needs of and 
listing priority assignment for a particular taxon is available for 
review at the appropriate Regional Office listed below or at the 
Division of Endangered Species, address listed above.

Region 1. California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, 
American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside 
Federal Complex, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 
Region 2. Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue 
S.W., Room 4012, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 (505/248-
Region 6. Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, 
Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 (303/236-7400).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Endangered Species Coordinator(s) 
in the appropriate Regional Office(s) or Nancy Gloman, Chief, Office of 
Conservation and Classification (703/358-2171).


Recycled Petition Findings


    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), provides two mechanisms for considering species for 
listing. First, the Act places on the Service the duty to identify and 
propose for listing those species which the Service finds require 
listing under the standards of section 4(a)(1). We implement this duty 
through the candidate assessment program. Candidate taxa are those taxa 
for which we have on file sufficient information on biological 
vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a proposed rule to 
list, but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded by other higher 
priority listing actions. Second, the Act allows the public to petition 
us to add a species to the Threatened and Endangered Species List. 
Under section 4(b)(3)(A), when we receive such a petition, we must 
determine within 90 days, to the maximum extent practicable, whether 
the petition presents substantial information that listing is warranted 
(a ``90-day finding''). If we make a positive 90-day finding, under 
section 4(b)(3)(B) we must make one of three possible findings within 
12 months of the receipt of the petition (a ``12-month finding'').
    The first possible 12-month finding is that listing is not 
warranted, in which case we need take no further action on the 
petition. Second, we may find that listing is warranted, in which case 
we must promptly publish a proposed rule to list the species. Once we 
publish a proposed rule for a species, section 4(b)(5) and (6) govern 
further procedures, regardless of whether or not we issued the proposal 
in response to a petition. Third, we may find that listing is 
``warranted but precluded.'' Such a finding means that immediate 
publication of a proposed rule to list the species is precluded by 
higher priority listing proposals, and that we are making expeditious 
progress to add and remove species from the Lists, as appropriate.
    The standard for making a 12-month warranted but precluded finding 
on a petition to list a species is identical to our standard for making 
a species a candidate for listing. Therefore, we add all petitioned 
species subject to such a finding to the candidate list. Pursuant to 
our Petition Management Guidance, made available on July 9, 1996 (61 FR 
36075), we consider a petition to list a

[[Page 1296]]

species already on the candidate list to be a second petition and, 
therefore, redundant. We do not interpret the petition provisions of 
the Act to require us to make a duplicative finding; therefore, we will 
not make additional 90-day findings or initial 12-month findings on 
petitions to list candidate species. Any petition regarding which we 
have made a warranted but precluded finding is subject to section 
4(b)(3)(C)(i), which requires us to make a new 12-month finding on the 
petition within 12-months of our determination that the petition action 
was warranted but precluded. These required annual findings on 
warranted but precluded listing actions are referred to as recycled 
petition findings. This notice constitutes publication of our recycled 
petition findings for all species on the candidate list that are 
currently the subject of an outstanding petition. This notice also 
constitutes publication of recycled petition findings for species 
subject to a petition to reclassify an already-listed species from 
threatened or endangered.

Previous Notices of Review

    The Act directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to 
prepare a report on endangered and threatened plant taxa, which was 
published as House Document No. 94-51. We published a notice in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27823), in which we announced 
that we would review more than 3,000 native plant taxa named in the 
Smithsonian's report and other taxa added by the 1975 notice for 
possible addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. A 
new comprehensive notice of review for native plants, that took into 
account the earlier Smithsonian report and other accumulated 
information, superseded the 1975 notice on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 
82479). On November 28, 1983 (48 FR 53640), a supplemental plant notice 
of review noted changes in the status of various taxa. We published 
complete updates of the plant notice on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 
39526), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), September 30, 1993 (58 FR 
51144), and, as part of combined animal and plant notices, on February 
28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398), and October 
25, 1999 (64 FR 57534).
    We published earlier comprehensive reviews for vertebrate animals 
in the Federal Register on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454), and on 
September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958). We published an initial comprehensive 
review for invertebrate animals on May 22, 1984 (49 FR 21664). We 
published a combined animal notice of review on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 
554), and with minor corrections on August 10, 1989 (54 FR 32833). We 
again published comprehensive animal notices on November 21, 1991 (56 
FR 58804), November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982), and, as part of combined 
animal and plant notices, on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), and 
September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398). On October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57534), we 
published our most recent combined candidate notice of review.
    This notice is our recycled finding for the taxa that were the 
subjects of 27 outstanding warranted but precluded findings (21 
findings for listing, 1 for withdrawal, and 5 species for 
reclassification). We also provide notice of revised listing priority 
numbers and of removal of one species from candidate status. We 
emphasize that we are not proposing these candidates for listing by 
this notice, but we anticipate developing and publishing proposed 
listing rules for these taxa in the future. We encourage State 
agencies, other Federal agencies, and other parties to give 
consideration to these taxa in environmental planning. We intend to 
publish a new combined candidate notice of review that contains all 
candidate species in March 2001.
Findings on Recycled Petitions
    Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), when, in response to a petition, 
we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded, we must make 
a new 12-month finding each year until we publish a proposed rule or 
make a determination that listing is not warranted. These subsequent 
12-month findings are referred to as recycled petition findings.
    We reviewed the current status and threats to the taxa that were 
the subjects of the 27 outstanding warranted but precluded findings (22 
finding for listing and 5 species for reclassification). As a result of 
this review, we have made continued warranted but precluded findings 
for 26 species (21 petitioned for listing and 5 for reclassification) 
and a not warranted finding for 1 candidate. Below we provide 
additional information on status changes we have made as a result of 
our review conducted from October 25, 1999, to date. See Table 1 for a 
summary of the candidate information. Listing priority assignment form 
and listing priority determinations for proposed taxon are available by 
request (see Addresses). These documents describe the status and 
threats that we evaluated in order to assign priority number to each 
    Taxa in Table 1 of this notice are assigned to two status 
categories, noted in the ``Category'' column at the left side of the 
table. We identify the taxa for which we have made a continued 
``warranted but precluded'' finding on a recycled petition by the code 
``C'' in the category column. The ``C'' in this column indicates taxa 
that are candidates for listing. We identify the one species removed 
from candidate status with the word ``removed'' in the category column. 
Candidates are taxa for which we have on file sufficient information on 
biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them 
as endangered or threatened. Issuance of proposed rules for these taxa 
is precluded at present by other higher priority listing actions. We 
anticipate developing and publishing proposed rules for candidate taxa 
in the future.
    The column labeled ``Priority'' indicates the listing priority 
number for candidate taxa. We assign this number based on the immediacy 
and magnitude of threats as well as on taxonomic status. We published a 
complete description of our listing priority system in a September 21, 
1983, Federal Register notice (48 FR 43098). We have revised the 
listing priority numbers for three species, identified by asterisks in 
this column, as discussed below.
    The third column identifies the Regional Office to which you should 
direct comments or questions (see ADDRESSES section). We will consider 
all information provided in response to this notice of review in 
deciding whether to propose taxa for listing and when to undertake 
necessary listing actions. Comments received will become part of the 
administrative record for the taxa.
    Following the scientific name of each taxon (fourth column) is the 
family designation (fifth column) and the common name, if one exists 
(sixth column). The seventh column provides the known historical range 
for the taxon, indicated by postal code abbreviations for States and 
U.S. territories (many taxa no longer occur in all of the areas 
Changes in Listing Priority
    Washington ground squirrel (Spermophilus washingtoni)
    Since the October 25, 1999, publication of the Candidate Notice of 
Review we have received additional information on the overall decline 
of the Washington ground squirrel throughout its range and the 
increased magnitude and permanence of threat that agricultural 
conversion poses to its continued existence. Based on this information 
we have changed the listing priority number from 5 (a species with high 
magnitude, non-imminent threats)

[[Page 1297]]

to 2 (a species with high magnitude, imminent threats).
    Betts (1990, 1999) documented the curtailment in the range of the 
Washington ground squirrel to three disjunct areas. His surveys on 
historic and documented occurrences focused on the perimeters of the 
range with the intent of evaluating reductions in numbers of colonies 
and the size of the current range. Although Betts' surveys do not 
provide an exhaustive survey of all potential squirrel locations or 
numbers of individuals, they do provide a good estimate of the 
distribution and decline of Washington ground squirrels in Oregon and 
Washington. Betts found that the species had disappeared from 73.8 
percent of the sites in Washington and 76.9 percent of the sites in 
Oregon. In addition, Betts (1990) subjectively evaluated the 
vulnerability to extinction of each of the remaining known colonies 
based on colony size, isolation, land ownership, and threat from human 
    In 1990, Betts predicted that approximately 29 percent of all 
colonies were highly vulnerable to extinction (19 percent in Oregon, 35 
percent in Washington); 31 percent were moderately vulnerable (39 
percent in Oregon, 25 percent in Washington); and 40 percent had low 
vulnerability (42 percent in Oregon, 39 percent in Washington). Since 
this prediction follow up monitoring has shown that Betts' predictions 
proved correct, and many colonies classified as highly vulnerable were 
no longer present by 1999 (Betts 1999).
    In addition to new information regarding population declines, 
recent reports indicate that agricultural conversion permanently 
eliminates Washington ground squirrel habitat and use. Prior to this 
new information it was thought that areas could again be recolonized. 
However, because the squirrel is so closely tied to deep, silty soils, 
specifically Warden soils on the Boeing Tract (Greene 1999), the 
tilling and other mechanisms involved in conversion of shrub-steppe 
habitats to agricultural crop production not only destroys the species' 
food source, but it also renders the soils necessary for burrowing 
unuseable and irretrievably modified. Washington ground squirrels are 
not found in tilled croplands (Carlson et al. 1980; Betts 1990, 1999; 
Quade 1994), nor have they been located in undeveloped areas between 
irrigated crops (CH2M Hill 2000). As a result of these studies it is 
clear that once areas have been modified they are no longer able to 
support Washington ground squirrels not only in the present but in the 
future as well, thus increasing the magnitude of these threats. In 
additional there is currently proposed development for areas which 
currently support the highest known concentration of Washington ground 
squirrels (Greene 1999), this proposed development increases the 
immediacy of the threats. Great Basin population of the Columbia 
spotted frog (Rana luteiventris),
    We have changed the listing priority number from 9 (a population 
with moderate magnitude, imminent threats) to 3 (a population with high 
magnitude, imminent, threats). This is based on a decrease in survival 
of newly hatched and adult frogs and an increase in the magnitude of 
the threats to the Great Basin population of the Columbia spotted frogs 
from introduction of non-native fishes, grazing, and lack of regulatory 
    Columbia spotted frogs in Idaho have shown significant declines in 
the last years through reductions in both newly hatched and adult 
survival. At the largest known site in Idaho, frog numbers have shown a 
significant decline, although eggs masses were identified there was 
little or no survival of these eggs to tadpoles or adult. One other 
known population appears to be extirpated due to the loss of beaver 
activity, with only one male frog observed in 1999. Monitoring at 
another site that has been protected from grazing (although the spring 
and source of water has been developed for off-site water access by 
livestock), has had no documented recruitment in the last three years 
(all frogs have been pit-tagged at this site) and may disappear as the 
existing breeding females age.
    The introduction of non-native salmonid and bass species for 
recreational fishing may have negatively affected frog species 
throughout the United States. The negative effects of predation of this 
kind are difficult to document, particularly in open stream systems. 
However, significant negative effects of predation on frog populations 
in lake systems have been documented through research (Hayes and 
Jennings 1986, Pilliod et al. 1996). The stocking of non-native fishes 
is common throughout the waters of the Great Basin. Given the recent 
declines of frog populations and continued stocking of non-native 
fishes, we believe the magnitude of this threat has increased.
    Grazing has also been identified as a threat because it removes 
vegetative cover and shrubs eliminating shelter necessary for frogs to 
avoid predators and UV-B radiation; in addition, cattle tramping on the 
banks and within the water can cause changes in water temperature and 
water chemistry, causing a reduction in prey availability. Development 
of springs to provide water for grazing has resulted in loss of surface 
water, reduced areas occupied during the winter by dormant spotted 
frogs, and result in loss of continuous surface flows between foraging 
and wintering sites.
    There are large areas in the northeastern part of Nevada and 
southeastern Oregon where there has been little to no monitoring or 
surveying of occupied sites, and no actions have been taken yet to 
protect populations or restore habitats in that region. Even in Idaho, 
where the status of populations are better known, neither the Bureau of 
Land Management, on which some of the known populations are found, nor 
the State of Idaho have implemented conservation measures to control 
grazing within wetlands/riparian habitats, stocking of non-native fish, 
or the development of springs in a manner consistent with Columbia 
spotted frog conservation. The lack of effective conservation actions, 
coupled with the recent declines, has resulted in an increase in the 
magnitude and immediacy of the threat since our last evaluation.
    We also are correcting the historical range for the Great basin 
population of the Columbia spotted frog. In the October 25, 1999, 
Federal Register it was erroneously published as U.S.A. (AK, CA, ID, 
MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY), Canada. The correct historical range should 
read U.S.A. (NV, ID, OR); this has been changed in Table 1 of this 
Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa)
    The listing priority number was erroneously published as 6 in the 
1999 CNOR. The listing priority number was changed from 6 (a subspecies 
with moderate magnitude, imminent threats) to 2 (a full species, with 
high magnitude, imminent threats) in the 1997 CNOR when the Oregon 
spotted frog received full species recognition, and should have been 
continued as 2 in the 1999 CNOR.
    Threats are considered imminent because the remaining populations 
have experienced high mortality rates in recent years and the remaining 
populations are isolated from each other and face multiple threats. It 
has unique egg-laying habits that make egg masses susceptible to 
freezing and drought; two to three years of drought could eliminate a 
population. Communal egg laying at traditional sites makes the Oregon 
spotted frog especially vulnerable to habitat loss. The best documented 
population, at Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge, experienced a

[[Page 1298]]

22.6 percent decline in egg mass counts from 1998 to 1999.
    At the time of the original petition in 1989 to list the spotted 
frog we used Thompson's (1913) description of two subspecies, Rana 
pretiosa pretiosa and Rana pretiosa luteiventris, as our 
classification. However, this subspecific classification was no longer 
recognized at the time of the initial warranted but precluded 12-month 
finding in 1993, when we identified 5 distinct vertebrate populations 
of the spotted frog. This differentiation was based on geographic and 
climatic separation, and supported by genetic information. The 
confusing taxonomy resulting from reliance on morphological differences 
is being clarified using recently developed biochemical techniques for 
genetic analyses. Green (1986) used an analysis of proteins to 
determine that Rana pretiosa was a complex of at least 2 species (Green 
1986, Green et al. 1996). Further protein and statistical analyses of 
20 morphological measurements provided additional information to help 
define the ranges of these 2 species (Green et al. 1997), now known as 
the Oregon spotted frog and the Columbia spotted frog.
Finding on Candidate Removals
Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)
    In 1994, the Swift Fox Conservation Team (SFCT) was formed by the 
10 States within the historic range of the swift fox, Canada, and 
several Federal agencies, including the Service. This team has drafted 
the Swift Fox Conservation Assessment and Conservation Strategy 
(CACS)(Kahn et al. 1997), and produced five annual reports (Allen et 
al. 1995, Giddings 1997, Luce and Lindzey 1996, Roy 1998, Schmitt 2000) 
which have provided additional information regarding the distribution 
and abundance of the species. Swift fox distribution is more widespread 
than we originally concluded in our initial warranted but precluded 12-
month finding in 1995. The species occurs in 9 of the 10 States within 
the historic range, and in approximately 40 percent of its historic 
range. Evaluations conducted by the SFCT have demonstrated nearly 
continuous distribution of swift fox populations from Wyoming south 
throughout eastern Colorado, western Kansas, the Oklahoma Panhandle, 
eastern New Mexico, and in two or three counties in the extreme 
northern panhandle of Texas. Scattered populations can also be found in 
Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska.
    The swift fox also appears to be more general in its habitat 
requirements than we concluded in the initial 12-month finding 
published June 16, 1995 (60 FR 31663). Information gathered by the SFCT 
in Kansas and Colorado demonstrates that the swift fox has been able to 
adapt to a mixed prairie-agricultural landscape.
    Adaptability to various habitat types was further demonstrated in 
Wyoming where the swift fox was found to occupy sagebrush-grassland and 
sagebrush-greasewood habitat types with topography ranging from flat to 
badland-like terrain. Other habitat types used by swift fox included 
the sandhills of Nebraska and pinon-juniper habitat in Colorado and 
Oklahoma (Hoagland, Swift Fox Conservation Team Chair, in litt. 2000). 
Historic and recent data indicate that the swift fox can be regionally 
adaptable in its food preferences and is not dependent upon prairie dog 
communities to provide forage across most of its current range (Allen 
et al. 1995, Giddings 1997, Luce and Lindzey 1996, Roy 1998, Schmitt 
    As a result of new information, originally identified threats are 
no longer applicable for the following reasons: (1) The swift fox is 
more abundant and widely distributed than previously thought, and (2) 
the species is more flexible in its habitat requirements than 
originally believed.
    The Service's 1995 12-month Finding concluded that most remaining 
swift fox populations occurred in marginally viable populations in 
scattered, isolated pockets of remnant short and mid-grass prairie 
habitat. Moreover, we concluded that most remaining grassland in the 
western Great Plains consisted of a mixed cropland/grassland mosaic 
which did not favor swift fox use. However, extensive rangelands still 
exist as predominately grassland environments in the swift fox's 
historic range and although some conversion to agriculture use is still 
occurring, it is at a much lower rate than in previous years. 
Additionally, recent studies indicate that the swift fox is more 
flexible than we previously determined in its habitat requirements and 
can utilize areas with mixed land uses (Allen et al. 1995, Giddings 
1997, Luce and Lindzey 1996, Roy 1998, Schmitt 2000).
    In the original finding we believe that commercial trapping of 
furbearers within the range of the swift fox may have been a threat. 
However, available information suggests that this harvest has not 
limited swift fox populations. We have also found no indication that 
parasites or diseases are significant factors in the population 
dynamics of wild foxes. In the 12-month finding, we cited a lack of 
regulatory mechanisms to protect the swift fox. Since then, 10 State 
wildlife agencies within the historic range of the swift fox have 
committed significant resources towards the conservation of the species 
with the development of the CACS (Kahn et al. 1997). The primary 
objectives of the CACS have largely been completed with the 
organization of the SFCT, the acquisition of State and Federal funding, 
the generation of annual reports, and the determination of current 
distribution of the swift fox.
    Based on our reexamination of these threats, and pursuant to our 
analysis of the five factors under section 4(a)(1), we find that the 
swift fox is not likely to become in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, we find that the petitioned action is not warranted and are 
removing the swift fox from the candidate list.
Findings on Reclassification From Threatened to Endangered
    We have also previously made warranted but precluded findings for 
petitions that sought to reclassify species status listed as threatened 
to endangered. Because these species are already listed, they are not 
candidates for listing, and so are not included in Table 1. However, 
this notice also constitutes the recycled petition findings for these 
species. We find that reclassification from threatened to endangered 
status is currently warranted but precluded for:
    (1) North Cascades Ecosystem grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) 
population (Region 6);
    (2) Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear populations (Region 6);
    (3) Selkirk grizzly bear populations (Region 6);
    (4) spikedace (Meda fulgida) (Region 2); and
    (5) loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) (Region 2).
Progress in Revising the Lists
    As described in section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, in order for us 
to make a ``warranted but precluded'' finding on a petitioned action, 
we must be making expeditious progress to add qualified taxa to the 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and to remove 
from the list taxa for which the protections of the Act are no longer 
    We are making expeditions progress in listing and delisting taxa 
during fiscal year 2000 (October 1, 1999, to October 1, 2000) as 
represented by our publication in the Federal Register of emergency 
rules for 1 taxa, final listing

[[Page 1299]]

actions for 38 species, proposed listing actions for 18 species, final 
delisting actions for 1 species, proposed delisting actions for 1 
species, withdrawals of proposed rules for 1 species, final designation 
of critical habitat for 5 species, proposed designation of critical 
habitat for 17 species, 12-month petition finding for 7 species, and 
90-day petition findings for 15 species.
Request for Information
    We request you submit any further information on the taxa named in 
this notice as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. 
Additionally, we invite any further comment or information on any 
candidate taxa mentioned in the October 25, 1999, Candidate Notice or 
Review or found on the Fish and Wildlife Service website. We especially 
seek information:
    (1) indicating that we should remove a taxon from candidate or 
proposed status;
    (2) indicating that we should add a taxon to the list of candidate 
    (3) recommending areas that we should designate as critical habitat 
for a taxon, or indicating that designation of critical habitat would 
not be prudent for a taxon;
    (4) documenting threats to any of the included taxa;
    (5) describing the immediacy or magnitude of threats facing 
candidate taxa;
    (6) pointing out taxonomic or nomenclatural changes for any of the 
    (7) suggesting appropriate common names; or
    (8) noting any mistakes, such as errors in the indicated historical 
References Cited
Allen, S.H., J.W. Hoagland, and E.D. Stukel. 1995. Report of the 
Swift Fox Conservation Team.
Betts, B.J. 1990. Geographic distribution and habitat preferences of 
Washington ground squirrels (Spermophilus washingtoni). Northwestern 
Naturalist 71:27-37.
Betts, B.J. 1999. Current status of Washington ground squirrels in 
Oregon and Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 80:35-38.
Carlson L., G. Geupel, J. Kjelmyr, J. Maciver, M. Morton, and N. 
Shishido. 1980. Geographical range, habitat requirements, and a 
preliminary population study of Spermophilus washingtoni. Final 
Technical Report, National Science Foundation Student-originated 
Studies Program. 24 pp.
CH2M Hill. 2000. Washington ground squirrel survey, April 12 and 13, 
2000: Beef Northwest, Boeing Boardman Tract, Morrow County, Oregon. 
Field Report to Beef Northwest. 8 pp.
Giddings, B. 1997. Swift Fox Conservation Team Annual Report.
Green, D. M. 1986. Systematics and evolution of western North 
American frogs allied to Rana aurora and Rana boylii: 
electrophoretic evidence. Systematic Zoology 35:283-296.
Green, D. M., T.F. Sharbel, J. Kearsley, and H. Kaiser. 1996. 
Postglacial range fluctuation, genetic subdivision, and speciation 
in the western North American spotted frog complex, Rana pretiosa. 
Evolution 50:374-390.
Green, D. M., H. Kaiser, T.F. Sharbel, J. Kearsley, and K.R. 
McAllister. 1997. Cryptic species of spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa 
complex, in western North America. Copeia 1997:1-8.
Greene, E. 1999. Abundance and habitat associations of Washington 
ground squirrels in North-Central Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State 
University, Corvallis, OR. 59 pp.
Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species 
in western North America: are bullfrogs responsible? J. Herpetology 
Kahn, R., L. Fox, P Horner, B. Giddings, and C. Roy. 1997. 
Conservation assessment and conservation strategy for swift fox in 
the United States. 54 pp.
Luce, B., and F. Lindzey. 1996. Annual Report of the Swift Fox 
Conservation Team.
Pilliod, D., C.R, Peterson, P. Ritson. 1996. Impacts of introduced 
fish on spotted frog populations in high mountain lakes of central 
Idaho. A summary of the conference on declining and sensitive 
amphibians in the Rocky Mountains and Pacific Northwest Idaho, 
Herpetological Society and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake 
River Basin Office Report, Boise, Idaho.
Quade, C. 1994. Status of Washington ground squirrels on the 
Boardman Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility: evaluation of 
monitoring methods, distribution, abundance, and seasonal activity 
patterns. Unpublished.
Roy, C. 1998. Swift Fox Conservation Team Annual Report.
Schmitt, G. 2000. Swift Fox Conservation Team Annual Report.
Thompson, H.B. 1913. Description of a new subspecies of Rana 
pretiosa from Nevada. Proceedings of the Biological Society of 
Washington 26:53-56.


    This notice of review is published under the authority of the 
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: December 8, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

                               Table 1.--Petitioned Candidates (Animal and Plant)
                   [*denotes change in Listing Priority Number since October 25, 1999 review]
---------------------------    Lead      Scientific name         Family          Common name     Historic range
   Category      Priority     region
C.............           3           1  Emballonura        Emballonuridae...  Bat, sheath-      U.S.A. (AS, GU,
                                         semicaudata.                          tailed            MP (Aguijan)).
                                                                               American Samoa
C.............          *2           1  Spermophilus       Sciuridae........  Washington        U.S.A. (OR, WA).
                                         washingtoni.                          ground squirrel.
Removed.......         N/A           6  Vulpes velox.....  Canidae..........  Fox, swift (U.S.  U.S.A. (CO, IA,
                                                                               population).      KS, MN, MT, ND,
                                                                                                 NE, NM, OK, SD,
                                                                                                 TX, WY),
C.............           3           1  Oceanodroma        Hydrobatidae.....  Storm-petrel,     U.S.A. (HI).
                                         castro.                               band-rumped
C.............           8           2  Tympanuchus        Phasianidae......  Lesser prairie    U.S.A (CO, KS,
                                         pallidicinctus.                       chicken.          NM, OK, TX).

[[Page 1300]]

C.............           5           2  Graptemys caglei.  Emydidae.........  Turtle, Cagle's   U.S.A. (TX.)
C.............           5           1  Ambystoma          Ambystomatidae...  Salamander,       U.S.A. (CA).
                                         californiense.                        California
C.............          *3           1  Rana luteiventris  Ranidae..........  Columbia spotted  U.S.A. (ID, NV,
                                         (formerly incl.                       frog (Great       OR).
                                         In R. pretiosa).                      Basis
C.............          *2           1  Rana pretoisa....  Ranidae..........  Frog, Oregon      U.S.A. (CA, OR
                                                                               spotted           WA), Canada.
                                                                               spotted frog
                                                                               (W. Coast
C.............           3           6  Bufo boreas        Bufonidae........  Toad, boreal      U.S.A. (CO, MN,
                                         boreas.                               (Southern Rocky   WY).
C.............           9           6  Thymallus          Salmonidae.......  Grayling, Arctic  U.S.A. (MT, WY).
                                         arcticus.                             (Upper Missouri
                                                                               R. fluvial
C.............           2           2  Gila intermedia..  Cyprinidae.......  Chub, Gila......  U.S.A. (AZ, MN),
C.............           2           6  Macryhbopsis       Cyprinidae.......  Chub, sicklefin.  U.S.A. (AR, IA,
                                         meeki.                                                  IL, KS, KY, LA,
                                                                                                 MO, MS, MT, NE,
                                                                                                 ND, SD, TN).
C.............           2           6  Macryhbopsis       Cyrpinidae.......  Chub, sturgeon..  U.S.A. (AR, IA,
                                         gelida.                                                 IL, KS, KY, LA,
                                                                                                 MO, MS, MT, NE,
                                                                                                 ND, SD, TN,
C.............           8           2  Pyrgulopsis        Hydrobiidae......  Springsnail,      U.S.A. (NM).
                                         (=Fontelicella)                       Chupadera.
C.............           8           2  Pyrgulopsis        Hydrobiidae......  Springsnail,      U.S.A. (NM).
                                         (=Fontelicella)                       Gila.
C.............           2           2  Tryonia kosteri..  Hydrobiidae......  Snail, Koster's   U.S.A. (NM).
C.............          11           2  Pyrgulopsis        Hydrobiidae......  Springsnail, New  U.S.A. (NM).
                                         (=Fontelicella)                       Mexico.
C.............           2           2  Assiminea pecos..  Assununeidae.....  Pecos assiminea   U.S.A. (NM, TX,
                                                                               snail.            and Mexico).
C.............           2           2  Pyrgulopsis        Hydrobiidae......  Roswell           U.S.A. (NM).
                                         (=Fontelicella)                       springsnail.
C.............           9           6  Cicindela limbata  Cicindelidae.....  Coral Pink Sand   U.S.A. (UT).
                                         albissima.                            Dunes tiger
C.............           3           1  Chorizanthe        Polygonaceae.....  San Fernando
                                         parryi var.                           Valley
                                         fernandina.                           Spineflower.

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