[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31663-31666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14730]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for a Petition To List the Swift Fox as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 12-month
finding for a petition to list the swift for (Vulpes velox) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. After review of all
available scientific and commercial information, the Service finds that
listing this species is warranted but precluded by other higher
priority actions to amend the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on June 12,
1995.
ADDRESSES: Information, comments, or questions concerning this petition
should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ecological Services, 420 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 400, Pierre,
South Dakota 57501-5408. The petition finding, supporting data, and
comments are available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald R. (Pete) Gober, Field Supervisor, at the above address,
telephone (605) 224-8693.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition to
revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that
contains substantial scientific and commercial information, the Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) make a finding within 12 months of the
date of the receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned action is
(a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded from
immediate proposal by other pending proposals of higher priority.
Notice of the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal
Register. This notice meets that requirement for a 12-month finding
made earlier for the petition discussed below. Information contained in
this notice is a summary of the information in the 12-month finding,
which is the Service's decision
[[Page 31664]]
document. Section 4(b)(3)(C) requires that petitions for which the
requested action is found to be warranted but precluded should be
treated as through resubmitted on the date of such finding, i.e.,
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months.
A petition dated February 22, 1992, from Mr. Jon C. Sharps was
received by the Service on March 3, 1992. The petition requested the
Service to list the swift fox (Vulpes velox) as an endangered species
in the northern portion of its range, if not the entire range. A 90-day
finding was made by the Service that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. The
90-day finding was announced in the Federal Register on June 1, 1994
(59 FR 28328).
The Service has reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the
petition, other available literature and information, and has consulted
with biologists and researchers familiar with the swift fox. On the
basis of the best scientific and commercial information available, the
Service finds the petition presented information indicating that the
listing may be warranted but the immediate listing of the species is
precluded by work on other species having higher priority for listing.
The petition and its referenced documentation states that the swift
fox once occurred in abundant numbers throughout the species'
historical range. The species was known from the Canadian Prairie
Provinces south through Montana, eastern Wyoming, and North and south
Dakota to the Texas Panhandle. The petitioner asserts that the swift
fox has declined and is considered rare in the northern portion of its
range. The petitioner indicates that the swift fox is extremely
vulnerable to human activities such as trapping, hunting, automobiles,
agricultural conversion of habitat, and prey reduction from rodent
control programs. The petitioner requests that, at a minimum, the swift
fox be listed as an endangered species in Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Nebraska. Justification for such action as cited by the
petitioner includes the present status of the species and its habitat
in the petitioned area, the strong link to the prairie dog ecosystem,
the large distance from the kit (Vulpes macrotis)-swift fox zone of
intergradation, and the potential for these populations to contain the
northern subspecies (Vulpes velox hebes).
In 1970, the Service listed the northern swift fox as endangered
(35 FR 8485; June 2, 1970). This designation was removed in the United
States due to controversy over its taxonomy; however, the designation
as endangered in Canada remains (45 FR 49844; July 25, 1980).
In 1970, the Service listed the northern swift fox as endangered
(35 FR 8485; June 2, 1970). This designation was removed in the United
States due to controversy over its taxonomy; however, the designation
as endangered in Canada remains (45 FR 49844; July 25, 1980).
The Service reviewed information regarding the status of the swift
fox throughout its range. Historically, the swift fox was considered
abundant throughout the Great Plains and the Prairie Provinces of
Canada (Hall and Kelson 1959; Egoscue 1979; Zumbaugh and Choates 1985;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990; FaunaWest 1991). Beginning in the
late 1800's to early 1900's, the swift fox declined in numbers, and the
northern population disappeared with the southern population decreasing
in numbers (Cary 1911; Warren 1942; Egoscue 1979; Bee et al. 1981;
FaunaWest 1991).
In the mid-1950's, the swift fox staged a limited comeback in
portions of its historical range (Long 1965; Kilgore 1969; McDaniel
1976; Sharps 1977; Hines 1980; FaunaWest 1991). However, this
reappearance was limited in nature and, in recent years, many of these
populations have again declined. Several factors are provided as
reasons for the decline of the species throughout much of its
historical range. These factors include (1) loss of nature prairie
habitat through conversion for agricultural production and mineral
extraction, (2) fragmentation of the remaining habitat, creating a less
suitable cropland-grassland habitat mosaic, (3) degradation of habitat
due to prairie-dog control activities, (4) predation and interspecific
competition, and (5) the species' vulnerability to human activities
such as predator control, trapping, shooting, and collisions with
automobiles (Hillman and Sharps 1978; Hines 1980; Armbruster 1983;
Uresk and Sharps 1986; Jones et al. 1987; Sharps 1989; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1990; FaunaWest 1991; Carbyn et al. 1992).
Currently, swift fox exist in highly disjunct populations in a
greatly reduced portion of the species' historical range (Hines 1980;
Jones et al. 1987; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990; FunaWest 1991).
Swift fox are believed to be extirpated in North Dakota. Remnant
populations remain in Montana and Oklahoma. Small, disjunct populations
of unknown status remain in South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas,
Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. There is limited but encouraging
evidence that some reoccupation of its former range may be occurring in
Montana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. New Mexico also
appears to contain localized populations distributed throughout reduced
portions of the State's historical range. However, there has been no
biological or scientific evidence presented to the Service during the
extended status review period to confirm the viability or stability of
any of these populations. Seventy to 75 percent of remaining swift fox
populations are believed to reside on private lands, with the remaining
populations on Federal lands belonging to the U.S. forest Service, the
National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Department of the Army.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
The following information is a summary and discussion of the five
factors or listing criteria as set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act
and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing
provisions of the Act and their applicability to the current status of
the swift fox.
A. The Present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' habitat or range. The swift fox is a
prairie-dwelling species that generally requires 518 ha to 1,296 ha
(1,280 to 2,300 acres) of short to midgrass prairie habitat with
abundant prey to support a pair (Cameron 1984; Jones et al. 1987;
Rongstad et al. 1989; Jon Sharps, Wildlife Systems, pers. comm. 1993).
Swift fox habitat is comprised of level to gently sloping topography
containing an open view of the surrounding landscape (<15 percent="" slope),="" abundant="" prey,="" and="" lack="" of="" predators="" and="" competitors="" (cutter="" 1958a;="" hillman="" and="" sharps="" 1978;="" hines="" 1980;="" fitzgerald="" et="" al.="" 1983;="" lindberg="" 1986;="" u.s.="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" service="" 1990;="" faunawest="" 1991;="" carbyn="" et="" al.="" 1992).="" historically,="" the="" species="" was="" distributed="" throughout="" the="" contiguous="" short="" to="" midgrass="" prairie="" habitat="" from="" the="" south-central="" prairie="" provinces="" in="" canada="" to="" the="" southern="" portions="" of="" the="" western="" great="" plains.="" in="" recent="" times,="" the="" swift="" fox="" has="" experienced="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" its="" historic="" range="" due="" to="" a="" combination="" of="" human="" activities.="" based="" on="" current="" range-wide="" swift="" fox="" distribution="" information,="" the="" service="" estimates="" that="" the="" swift="" fox="" is="" extirpated="" from="" 80="" percent="" of="" its="" historical="" range.="" within="" the="" remaining="" 20="" percent="" of="" its="" historical="" range,="" swift="" fox="" populations="" exist="" in="" scattered,="" [[page="" 31665]]="" isolated="" pockets="" of="" remnant="" short="" to="" midgrass="" prairie="" habitat.="" the="" service="" estimates="" that="" swift="" fox="" may="" actually="" occupy="" only="" half="" of="" the="" remaining="" 20="" percent="" of="" its="" historical="" range.="" habitat="" loss="" and="" fragmentation="" has="" occurred="" due="" to="" a="" variety="" of="" human="" activities="" such="" a="" agricultural="" conversion="" of="" the="" prairie="" and="" mineral="" extraction.="" beyond="" direct="" agricultural="" conversion,="" the="" remaining="" short="" to="" midgrass="" prairie="" ecosystem="" has="" been="" significantly="" altered="" due="" to="" creation="" of="" a="" grassland-cropland="" mosaic,="" with="" continued="" reduction="" of="" the="" prairies="" rodent="" prey="" base="" and="" modification="" of="" the="" native="" predator="" community.="" roadways="" also="" alter="" the="" availability="" and="" suitability="" of="" habitat,="" thus="" fragmenting="" swift="" fox="" habitat="" and="" exposing="" them="" to="" traffic,="" trapping,="" shooting,="" predator="" control,="" and="" rodent="" control.="" b.="" overutilization="" from="" commercial,="" recreational,="" scientific,="" or="" educational="" purposes.="" commercial="" trapping="" for="" other="" furbearers="" occurs="" throughout="" the="" range="" of="" the="" swift="" fox.="" often="" swift="" fox="" are="" harvested="" incidental="" to="" commercial="" trapping="" for="" other="" furbearers="" such="" as="" coyotes="" (mcdaniel="" 1976;="" sharps="" 1984;="" jones="" et="" al.="" 1987;="" u.s.="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" service="" 1990).="" unlike="" other="" furbearers,="" swift="" fox="" pelts="" are="" not="" particularly="" valuable="" (arnold="" 1925;="" jones="" et="" al.="" 1987;="" faunawest="" 1991).="" this="" lack="" of="" value="" and="" pelt="" quality="" has="" not="" completely="" stopped="" trade="" in="" swift="" fox="" pelts.="" protection="" is="" minimal="" because="" the="" swift="" fox="" is="" unwary="" and="" naive,="" making="" it="" susceptible="" to="" trapping,="" ragardless="" of="" whether="" it="" is="" the="" targeted="" species.="" legal="" and/or="" incidental="" take="" of="" the="" species="" is="" expected="" to="" continue.="" the="" swift="" fox="" is="" legally="" harvested="" in="" four="" states="" (colorado,="" new="" mexico,="" kansas,="" and="" texas).="" in="" wyoming,="" it="" is="" a="" protected="" species="" by="" virtue="" of="" its="" nongame="" status,="" but="" it="" is="" still="" legal="" to="" buy="" and="" sell="" swift="" fox="" pelts.="" in="" addition,="" wyoming="" has="" supplied="" 25="" to="" 30="" swift="" fox="" per="" year="" to="" canada="" for="" their="" recovery="" program.="" harvest="" data="" received="" from="" the="" above="" states="" is="" insufficient="" to="" assist="" the="" service="" in="" the="" determination="" of="" population="" trends="" or="" to="" determine="" the="" actual="" numbers="" being="" legally="" harvested="" on="" an="" annual="" basis.="" the="" new="" mexico="" data="" shows="" a="" significant="" (95="" percent)="" decrease="" in="" the="" kit-swift="" fox="" harvest="" in="" recent="" years,="" but="" its="" significance="" relative="" to="" swift="" fox="" status="" cannot="" be="" determined.="" the="" colorado="" data="" shows="" that="" harvest="" of="" kit/swift="" fox="" has="" decreased="" from="" a="" high="" of="" 3,322="" animals="" during="" the="" 1981-1982="" season="" to="" 161="" animals="" (fox)="" in="" 1990="" and="" 373="" animals="" in="" 1991,="" respectively.="" harvest="" data="" from="" kansas="" indicates="" that="" between="" 1982="" and="" 1994,="" 1,220="" swift="" fox="" were="" harvested="" from="" approximately="" 23="" counties="" located="" in="" the="" western-most="" one-fourth="" of="" the="" state.="" jones="" (1987)="" reports="" that="" available="" harvest="" data="" from="" texas="" is="" limited,="" but="" it="" shows="" an="" annual="" harvest="" of="" between="" 300="" and="" 500="" animals.="" c.="" disease="" and="" predation.="" the="" effects="" of="" infectious="" diseases="" in="" swift="" fox="" are="" relatively="" unknown.="" however,="" they="" are="" susceptible="" to="" most="" diseases="" that="" plague="" canids="" (faunawest="" 1991).="" studies="" conducted="" in="" california="" on="" the="" kit="" fox="" noted="" canine="" parvovirus="" as="" a="" major="" disease="" (faunawest="" 1991).="" since="" parvovirus="" is="" found="" throughout="" the="" u.s.="" and="" is="" fatal="" to="" domestic="" dogs,="" it="" is="" probably="" also="" fatal="" to="" swift="" foxes.="" other="" diseases="" documented="" in="" kit="" foxes="" include="" canine="" hepatitis,="" tularemia,="" brucellosis,="" toxoplasmosis,="" and="" coccidiomycosis="" (faunawest="" 1991).="" many="" of="" these="" diseases="" are="" known="" to="" be="" widespread="" and="" their="" presence="" in="" swift="" fox="" populations="" is="" highly="" probable.="" because="" of="" major="" changes="" to="" the="" faunal="" community="" of="" the="" western="" great="" plains="" ecosystem,="" the="" swift="" fox="" has="" become="" extremely="" vulnerable="" to="" predation="" from="" coyotes.="" historically,="" the="" gray="" wolf="" (canis="" lupus)="" was="" the="" dominant="" canid="" in="" the="" great="" plains="" hierarchy.="" the="" gray="" wolf="" was="" not="" considered="" a="" significant="" predator="" on="" swift="" fox="" and,="" because="" it="" targeted="" large="" ungulates,="" it="" probably="" provided="" swift="" fox="" with="" a="" source="" of="" carrion="" (moravek="" 1990;="" u.s.="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" service="" 1990;="" faunawest="" 1991).="" the="" coyote="" and="" red="" fox,="" while="" widely="" distributed="" in="" specific="" habitats,="" were="" not="" generally="" considered="" abundant="" because="" of="" the="" wolf's="" dominant="" canid="" role="" in="" the="" western="" great="" plains="" ecosystem="" (johnson="" and="" sargeant="" 1977).="" coyotes="" are="" now="" the="" most="" abundant="" and="" widely="" distributed="" canid="" on="" the="" great="" plains="" (alan="" sargeant,="" u.s.="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" service,="" pers.="" comm.="" 1992).="" studies="" have="" shown="" that="" predation="" by="" coyotes="" has="" a="" severe="" impact="" on="" the="" survival="" of="" swift="" fox="" (robinson="" 1961;="" reynolds="" 1986;="" rongstad="" et="" al.="" 1989;="" sharps="" 1989;="" moravek="" 1990;="" u.s.="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" service="" 1990;="" carbyn="" et="" al.="" 1992).="" furthermore,="" the="" red="" fox,="" which="" historically="" existed="" in="" isolated="" pockets="" on="" the="" great="" plains,="" expanded="" its="" distribution="" westward="" because="" of="" agriculture="" development="" (moravek="" 1990;="" a.="" sargeant,="" pers.="" comm.="" 1992).="" also="" red="" foxes="" undoubtedly="" compete="" with="" swift="" fox.="" d.="" inadequacy="" of="" existing="" regulatory="" mechanisms.="" the="" swift="" fox="" is="" listed="" as="" endangered="" in="" nebraska,="" threatened="" in="" south="" dakota,="" and="" is="" protected="" by="" regulation="" in="" wyoming.="" despite="" having="" this="" protective="" status,="" it="" is="" still="" legal="" to="" buy="" and="" sell="" swift="" fox="" pelts="" in="" wyoming="" (bob="" oakleaf,="" wyoming="" game="" and="" fish="" department,="" pers.="" comm.="" 1993).="" the="" swift="" fox="" is="" listed="" as="" a="" furbearer="" in="" seven="" states="" (colorado,="" montana,="" kansas,="" oklahoma,="" new="" mexico,="" north="" dakota,="" and="" texas)="" and="" it="" is="" legally="" harvested="" in="" colorado,="" kansas,="" texas,="" and="" new="" mexico).="" in="" montana,="" oklahoma,="" and="" north="" dakota,="" no="" legal="" harvest="" of="" swift="" foxes="" is="" allowed="" because="" of="" the="" species'="" rarity="" (arnold="" dood,="" montana="" department="" of="" fish,="" wildlife="" and="" parks,="" pers.="" comm.="" 1993;="" sonja="" jahrsdoerfer,="" u.s.="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" service,="" pers.="" comm.="" 1993;="" randy="" kreil,="" north="" dakota="" game="" and="" fish="" department,="" pers.="" comm.="" 1993).="" since="" the="" swift="" fox="" is="" not="" federally="" protected="" and="" its="" pelts="" are="" of="" little="" economic="" value,="" there="" is="" little="" effort="" by="" the="" states="" to="" determine="" the="" status="" of="" the="" swift="" fox="" in="" their="" jurisdiction,="" even="" though="" it="" is="" harvested="" legally="" or="" incidentally="" taken.="" other="" than="" state="" trapping="" regulations,="" there="" is="" little="" regulatory="" protection="" afforded="" the="" swift="" fox="" or="" its="" habitat.="" efforts="" by="" the="" states="" to="" modify="" techniques="" to="" avoid="" the="" unintentional="" trapping="" of="" swift="" fox="" are="" minimal.="" e.="" other="" man-made="" or="" natural="" factors="" affecting="" the="" species'="" continued="" existence.="" the="" swift="" fox="" is="" inquisitive="" in="" nature,="" thus="" making="" it="" extremely="" vulnerable="" to="" human="" activities.="" swift="" fox="" are="" easily="" trapped,="" shot,="" captured="" by="" dogs,="" or="" killed="" along="" country="" roadsides="" (kilgore="" 1969;="" hillman="" and="" sharps="" 1978;="" hines="" 1980;="" sharps="" and="" whitcher="" 1983;="" uresk="" and="" sharps="" 1986;="" u.s.="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" service="" 1990;="" dr.="" clyde="" jones,="" texas="" technology="" university,="" pers.="" comm.="" 1993).="" additionally,="" swift="" fox="" are="" mistakenly="" taken="" for="" coyotes="" or="" by="" people="" wishing="" to="" remove="" all="" canids="" for="" fear="" of="" livestock="" predation="" (zegers="" 1976).="" habitat="" loss="" and="" modification,="" rodent="" control="" programs,="" and="" other="" human="" activities="" often="" reduce="" the="" prey="" base,="" impacting="" the="" species'="" ability="" to="" find="" prey.="" historically,="" the="" range="" of="" the="" swift="" fox="" and="" prairie="" dog="" overlapped="" extensively="" (hall="" and="" kelson="" 1959;="" sharps="" 1993).="" swift="" fox="" are="" extremely="" vulnerable="" to="" prey="" reduction="" caused="" by="" habitat="" modification="" and="" prairie="" dog="" control="" programs="" (hines="" 1980;="" egoscue="" 1979;="" sharps="" 1984;="" sharps="" 1989;="" uresk="" and="" sharps="" 1986;="" moravek="" 1990).="" where="" the="" prey="" base="" has="" been="" reduced,="" swift="" fox="" often="" seek="" out="" carrion="" along="" roadsides="" (hines="" 1980).="" additionally,="" predator="" control="" in="" the="" area="" is="" conducted="" by="" private="" individuals="" who="" use="" leg="" hold="" traps,="" snares,="" and="" shoot="" animals="" (u.s.="" fish="" wildlife="" service="" 1990;="" sharps="" 1993;="" faunawest="" 1991).="" [[page="" 31666]]="" finding="" section="" 4(b)(3)(b)(iii)="" of="" the="" act="" states="" that="" the="" service="" may="" make="" warranted="" but="" precluded="" findings="" if="" it="" can="" demonstrate="" that="" an="" immediate="" proposed="" rule="" is="" precluded="" by="" other="" pending="" proposals="" and="" that="" expeditious="" progress="" is="" being="" made="" on="" other="" listing="" actions.="" since="" september="" 30,="" 1993,="" the="" service="" has="" proposed="" the="" listing="" of="" 118="" species="" and="" has="" finalized="" the="" listing="" for="" 182="" species.="" the="" service="" believes="" this="" demonstrates="" expeditious="" progress.="" furthermore,="" on="" september="" 21,="" 1983="" (48="" fr="" 43098),="" the="" service="" published="" a="" system="" for="" prioritizing="" species="" for="" listing.="" this="" system="" considers="" 3="" factors="" in="" assigning="" species'="" numerical="" listing="" priorities="" on="" a="" scale="" of="" 1="" to="" 12.="" the="" three="" factors="" magnitude="" of="" threat,="" immediacy="" of="" threat,="" and="" taxonomic="" distinctiveness.="" after="" reviewing="" and="" considering="" the="" scientific="" merits="" and="" significance="" of="" all="" comments,="" recommendations,="" and="" study="" proposals="" received="" from="" state="" and="" federal="" agencies="" and="" from="" private="" individuals="" relative="" to="" the="" service's="" 90-day="" administrative="" finding,="" the="" service="" has="" concluded="" that="" the="" magnitude="" of="" the="" threat="" to="" the="" swift="" fox="" is="" moderate="" throughout="" its="" present="" range.="" the="" states="" of="" kansas,="" colorado,="" and="" wyoming="" have="" presented="" evidence="" that="" swift="" foxes="" have="" reoccupied="" former="" prairie="" habitats="" and="" have="" also="" moved="" into="" agricultural="" lands.="" however,="" scientific="" evidence="" also="" indicates="" that="" identifiable="" threats="" to="" the="" swift="" fox="" exist="" over="" the="" entire="" 10-state="" range,="" and="" the="" service="" has="" concluded="" that="" the="" immediacy="" of="" these="" threats="" is="" ``imminent.''="" the="" service,="" in="" its="" determination="" of="" the="" current="" degree="" of="" threat="" to="" the="" species,="" also="" considered="" a="" long-range="" conservation="" strategy="" document="" drafted="" by="" an="" interagency="" state="" team="" which="" provides="" a="" framework="" of="" goals,="" objectives,="" and="" strategies.="" implementation="" of="" this="" plan,="" including="" the="" formation="" of="" a="" swift="" fox="" working="" team="" should="" help="" reduce="" some="" of="" these="" threats="" to="" its="" survival.="" having="" considered="" this="" draft="" conservation="" strategy="" document="" and="" the="" significance="" of="" the="" evidence="" provided="" by="" the="" aforementioned="" states,="" the="" service="" believes="" that="" the="" magnitude="" of="" threats="" is="" ``moderate''="" but="" the="" immediacy="" of="" these="" threats="" remains="" ``imminent.''="" therefore,="" a="" listing="" priority="" of="" 8="" is="" assigned="" for="" the="" species.="" the="" service="" will="" reevaluate="" this="" warranted="" but="" precluded="" finding="" 1="" year="" from="" the="" date="" of="" the="" finding.="" if="" sufficient="" new="" data="" or="" information="" becomes="" available="" in="" the="" future="" regarding="" the="" magnitude="" of="" threats,="" abundance,="" and="" health="" of="" these="" swift="" fox="" populations,="" the="" service="" will="" reassess="" the="" status="" of="" the="" species.="" the="" warranted="" but="" precluded="" finding="" elevates="" the="" swift="" fox's="" candidate="" species="" status="" from="" category="" 2="" to="" category="" 1.="" the="" service's="" 12-month="" finding="" contains="" more="" detailed="" information="" regarding="" the="" above="" decisions.="" a="" copy="" may="" be="" obtained="" from="" the="" south="" dakota="" field="" office="" (see="" addresses="" section).="" references="" cited="" a="" complete="" list="" of="" references="" cited="" in="" the="" rule="" is="" available="" upon="" request="" from="" the="" south="" dakota="" field="" office="" (see="" addresses="" section).="" author="" the="" primary="" author="" of="" this="" document="" is="" david="" a.="" allardyce="" (see="" addresses="" section).="" authority="" the="" authority="" for="" this="" action="" is="" the="" endangered="" species="" act="" (16="" u.s.c.="" 1531="" et="" seq.)="" dated:="" june="" 12,="" 1995.="" mollie="" h.="" beattie,="" director,="" fish="" and="" wildlife="" service.="" [fr="" doc.="" 95-14730="" filed="" 6-15-95;="" 8:45="" am]="" billing="" code="" 4310-55-m="">