[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15919-15932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6347]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0011; MO 92210-0-0008]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List the Berry Cave Salamander as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the Berry Cave salamander 
(Gyrinophilus gulolineatus) as endangered under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of all available scientific 
and commercial information, we find that listing the Berry Cave 
salamander is warranted. Currently, however, listing is precluded by 
higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition 
finding, we will add the Berry Cave salamander to our candidate species 
list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the Berry Cave salamander 
as our priorities allow. We will make any determination on critical 
habitat during development of the proposed listing rule. During any 
interim period, we will address the status of the candidate taxon 
through our annual Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR).

[[Page 15920]]


DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on March 22, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2010-0011. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, 
446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501. Please submit any new 
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding 
to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary E. Jennings, Field Supervisor, 
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, 446 Neal Street, 
Cookeville, TN 38501; by telephone 931-528-6481; or by facsimile at 
931-528-7075. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Threatened and 
Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing a species may be warranted, we make 
a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In 
this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not 
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a 
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other 
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or 
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove 
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.

Previous Federal Actions

    On January 22, 2003, we received a petition dated January 15, 2003, 
from Dr. John Nolt, University of Tennessee--Knoxville, requesting that 
we list the Berry Cave salamander as endangered under the Act. The 
petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite 
identification information for the petitioner, as required in 50 CFR 
424.14(a). In a February 24, 2003, letter to the petitioner, we 
responded that we had received the petition but that, due to court 
orders and settlement agreements for other listing and critical habitat 
actions that required nearly all of our listing and critical habitat 
funding, we would not be able to further address the petition at that 
time.
    The 90-day petition finding was published in the Federal Register 
on March 18, 2010 (75 FR 13068). The Service found that the information 
provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the 
petition, and information otherwise available in our files did provide 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing the Berry Cave salamander may be warranted. In the finding, we 
stated that we were initiating a status review to determine whether 
listing the species was warranted, and would issue a 12-month finding 
accordingly. This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the 
January 15, 2003, petition to list the Berry Cave salamander.

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description
    Three taxonomic entities have been formally described within the 
Tennessee cave salamander species complex. The pale salamander 
(Gyrinophilus palleucus palleucus) is the most widely distributed 
member of the group and is found in middle Tennessee, northern Alabama, 
and northwestern Georgia. The Big Mouth Cave salamander (G. p. 
necturoides) is restricted to one cave in middle Tennessee, and the 
Berry Cave salamander (G. gulolineatus) (formerly recognized as the 
subspecies G. p. gulolineatus) has been recorded from nine locations in 
eastern Tennessee.
    Members of the Tennessee cave salamander complex are related to the 
spring salamander (G. porphyriticus); however, unlike the spring 
salamander, they usually are found in caves and are neotenic, meaning 
that they normally retain larval characteristics as adults. Individuals 
occasionally metamorphose and lose their larval characters (Simmons 
1976, p. 256; Yeatman and Miller 1985, pp. 305-306), and metamorphosis 
can be induced by subjecting them to hormones (Dent and Kirby-Smith 
1963, p. 123).
    The Berry Cave salamander is differentiated from other members of 
the group by a distinctive dark stripe on the upper portion of the 
throat, a wider head, a flatter snout, and possibly a larger size 
(Brandon 1965, p. 347). Despite these differences, the taxonomic status 
of the Berry Cave salamander has been debated for some time. The Berry 
Cave salamander was recognized as a distinct aquatic, cave-dependant 
taxon of the Tennessee cave salamander complex by Brandon (1965, pp. 
346-352), who described it as a subspecies (G. p. gulolineatus). The 
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) (2005, p. 50) still uses 
this subspecific designation. Brandon et al. (1986, pp. 1-2) suggested 
the Berry Cave salamander be considered separate from the Tennessee 
cave salamander based on nonadjacent ranges (it is geographically 
isolated from other members of the complex), dissimilarity in bone 
structures of transformed adults, and morphology of neotenic adults. 
Furthermore, Niemiller et al. (2010b, p. 5) found that Berry Cave 
salamander populations they sampled have three unique alleles when 
compared to the Tennessee cave salamander. According to Niemiller et 
al. (2008, p. 2), current taxonomy recognizes the Tennessee cave 
salamander (G. palleucus) and the Berry Cave salamander (G. 
gulolineatus) as two independent species. Because most authorities now 
assign the Berry Cave salamander species-level status (Brandon 1965, p. 
347; Brandon 1986, pp. 1-2; Collins 1991, p. 43; Simmons 1976, p. 276; 
IUCN 2010; ITIS 2010), we consider the Berry Cave salamander to be a 
distinct species, G. gulolineatus, for the purposes of this finding.
Distribution
    Until recently, only eight populations of the Berry Cave salamander 
were documented: Seven from caves and one from a roadside ditch in 
McMinn County, Tennessee, where three individuals were collected 
(presumably washed into the ditch from a cave). Salamanders in Cruze 
Cave, formerly considered to be Berry Cave salamanders, are now thought 
to be spring salamanders (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 14). A closer 
analysis of Cruze Cave animals revealed the presence of an iris (absent 
in the Berry Cave salamander), a high propensity to metamorphose (23 
percent of individuals collected), and relatively large eye size when 
compared to Berry Cave salamanders (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 14). 
Furthermore, genetics indicated that Cruze Cave individuals shared the 
spring salamander's haplotype (closely linked genetic markers present 
on a single chromosome) and group (having a common ancestor) (Niemiller 
2006, p. 41). Therefore Cruze Cave is no longer

[[Page 15921]]

thought to contain a population of Berry Cave salamanders.
    However, recent population surveys (April 2004 through June 2007) 
resulted in the discovery of Berry Cave salamanders in two new Knox 
County caves (Aycock Spring and Christian caves). According to Miller 
and Niemiller (2008, p. 10), the Berry Cave salamander is recorded from 
nine localities within the Appalachian Valley and Ridge Province in 
East Tennessee. These include eight caves within the Upper Tennessee 
River and Clinch River drainages (Niemiller et al. 2009, p. 243) and 
one unknown cave in McMinn County, Tennessee (Brandon 1965, p. 348). 
The Berry Cave salamander is currently known from Berry Cave, which is 
located south of Knoxville, Tennessee (in Roane County) (Niemiller 
2006, p. 96); from Mud Flats, Aycock Spring, Christian, Meades Quarry, 
Meades River, and Fifth caves in Knox County (Niemiller and Miller 
2010, p. 2), the latter three being part of the larger Meades Quarry 
Cave System (Brian Miller, Middle Tennessee State University, pers. 
comm., 2010); from Blythe Ferry Cave (in Meigs County) (Niemiller and 
Miller 2010, p. 2); and from an unknown cave in Athens, McMinn County, 
Tennessee. The Athens record is based solely on the three specimens 
collected in a roadside ditch during a flooding of Oostanaula 
(Eastanollee) Creek (Brandon 1965, pp. 348-349). The species has not 
been observed in the Athens area since 1953.
    Miller and Niemiller (2008, p. 11) suggested that populations of 
the Berry Cave salamander could occur throughout the Valley and Ridge 
Province in interconnected subterranean waters associated with the 
Tennessee River. Distribution studies are limited due to 
inaccessibility of smaller cave systems, but Miller and Niemiller 
(2006, p. 15) suggest that cave salamander populations are likely 
small. Western dispersal appears to be prohibited by a fault zone 
located west of the East Tennessee Aquifer System (Miller and Niemiller 
2008, p. 10).
    Historical estimates of Berry Cave salamander densities and 
population trends are lacking. Miller and Niemiller (2006, p. 44) 
provided numbers of Berry Cave salamanders observed in Berry and 
Mudflats caves by decade, but the information has gaps and is 
insufficient for analysis. Miller and Niemiller (2005, p. 93) planned 
to implant salamanders with tags for population estimates on return 
cave visits, comparing marked to unmarked individuals captured. 
However, in an unpublished report to TWRA (Miller and Niemiller 2006, 
p. 15), the authors state that time constraints did not allow for mark-
recapture studies to be performed in each cave and that population 
estimates were based on the number of salamanders found during the 
surveys. These surveys concluded that Berry Cave salamander populations 
are robust at Berry and Mudflats caves where population declines had 
been previously reported (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 1; Miller and 
Niemiller 2006, p. 44). According to Miller and Niemiller (2008, pp. 1, 
17-20), a total of 113 caves in Middle and East Tennessee were surveyed 
from the time period of April 2004 through June 2007, resulting in 
observations of 63 Berry Cave salamanders.
Habitat
    Limited information is available concerning the habitat 
requirements of the Berry Cave salamander. According to Miller and 
Niemiller (2008, pp. 10-11), the Berry Cave salamander is associated 
with subterranean waters within the Appalachian Valley and Ridge 
Province in East Tennessee. In general, cave-obligate salamanders 
require an inflow of organic detritus, aquatic organisms on which to 
feed, and sufficient cover in the form of rocks and ledges. Studies 
indicate that the tendency to utilize cover varies between caves, but 
the Berry Cave salamander often seeks refuge in crevices, cover areas, 
and overhanging ledges when disturbed (Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 10; 
Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. 11).
Biology
    Life requirements of the Tennessee cave salamander complex are 
poorly documented due to their reclusive nature and the obscurity of 
subterranean environments (Niemiller 2006, p. 9). Animals found in the 
same location during mark-recapture studies indicate that Berry Cave 
salamander territories are diminutive (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 
11).
    Little is known in general about breeding habits, life spans, or 
numbers comprising individual populations within the Tennessee cave 
salamander complex (Miller and Niemiller 2005, p. 92). Transition time 
from larval stage to reproductive adult is currently undocumented. 
Members of the Tennessee cave salamander complex are paedomorphic 
(retain juvenile characteristics as an adult) and become sexually 
mature without metamorphosing into an adult form (Brandon 1966, in 
Niemiller et al. 2008, p. 2). Female salamanders in the Tennessee cave 
salamander complex are believed to be gravid from late autumn to early 
winter (Niemiller et al. 2010a, p. 39). Gyrinophilus species are 
generalist feeders and cannibalization of other conspecifics (belonging 
to the same species) may cause females of some species to seek 
isolation from main cave streams for oviposition (laying eggs) 
(Niemiller et al. 2010a, pp. 38-39). To date, neither eggs nor embryos 
have been described (Niemiller and Miller 2010, p. 1).

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR 424), set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or 
threatened based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, 
we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to 
evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that 
causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor 
and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we 
attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is 
significant if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of 
the species such that the species warrants listing as endangered or 
threatened as those terms are defined in the Act.
    In making this finding, information pertaining to the Berry Cave 
salamander in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) 
of the Act is discussed below.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    According to Caldwell and Copeland (1992, pp. 3-4), the greatest 
threats to the Tennessee cave salamander complex are derived from 
agricultural runoff, pesticide use in residential and agricultural 
settings, over-collection, increased water flow into and through cave 
systems following timber operations, and siltation caused by the 
removal of trees from riparian zones. Although standard best management

[[Page 15922]]

practices (BMPs) for timber harvesting require intact riparian buffers 
and prohibit instream operation of heavy equipment, these BMPs are not 
always followed and may not fully prevent sediment from entering 
streams. Siltation may adversely affect reproduction by filling 
crevices used for egg deposition or covering the eggs themselves 
(Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. 22). Niemiller and Miller (2006, p. 10) 
believe that Berry Cave salamander populations, specifically, are most 
vulnerable to habitat degradation associated with urbanization, over-
collecting, and poor silvicultural and agricultural practices.
    Boone and Bridges (2003) (in Miller and Niemiller (2006, p. 22)) 
found that water contamination caused by pesticide and roadway runoff 
poses a considerable threat to cave systems. Hayes et al. (2006, p. 40) 
suggest that amphibians are particularly vulnerable to pesticides due 
to their highly permeable skin combined with the fact that their 
critical reproductive and developmental stages occur while they are in 
aquatic environments. Some persistent pesticides are active at low 
environmental concentrations and act as endocrine disrupters in 
amphibians, causing delayed metamorphosis, developmental retardation, 
and stunted larval growth (Hayes et al. 2006, p. 40).
    According to Miller and Niemiller (2008, p. 13), there are few 
water quality data available for caves where the Berry Cave salamander 
is documented, and the source of the streams is not well understood. 
Niemiller (2006, p. 96) observed three individuals in Meades Quarry 
Cave and three in Mudflats Cave, caves that are heavily silted and 
prone to flooding (Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. 22). The Mudflats Cave 
system is thought to be affected by residential pollution (e.g., 
herbicides, pesticides, exhaust runoff, and silt load) from a nearby 
housing development (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 13), although no 
studies have been done to substantiate this (Miller, pers. comm., 
2005). Caldwell and Copeland (1992, p. 3) suggest that increased 
``through flow'' (water passing through the cave) can flush salamanders 
and their aquatic invertebrate food base from caves as well as 
introduce contaminants into them at a quicker rate. Miller and 
Niemiller (2006, pp. 22-23) cite Boone and Bridges (2003) as evidence 
of adverse effects to amphibian species from pesticide contamination, 
but note that regular flooding of caves appears to wash silt from the 
systems and that data on the long-term effects to the species from 
``through flow'' fluctuations are lacking.
    Meades Quarry Cave continues to be greatly impacted by past 
quarrying activities. Niemiller et al. (2010b, p. 11) indicate that 
cave passages were destroyed by quarrying and that lye leaching 
continues to alkalize the system near the main entrance to the cave. 
Water pH tests reveal fluctuations in pH levels from 8.4 to 12.7 
downstream of the cave entrance, and Berry Cave salamanders have been 
observed with chemical burns (Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 11). Matthew 
Niemiller (University of Tennessee, pers. comm., 2010) suggested that 
removal of larger lye deposits would reduce alkalinity input if the 
main point source could be located.
    There are substantial concerns for the six documented Knox County 
caves where Berry Cave salamanders are known to occur (Mud Flats, 
Aycock Spring, Christian, Meades Quarry, Meades River, and Fifth caves) 
due to growth of metropolitan Knoxville (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 
1). Construction activities, such as residential and business 
developments, land clearing, and highway projects, frequently result in 
stream siltation, toxic runoff (e.g., solvents, chemical spills, road 
salt oil and grease), and urban pollution. Stream temperatures are 
elevated by removal of trees from riparian zones (forested land along 
streams and rivers), and hydrologic fluctuations result from increased 
silt load; elevated stream temperatures and hydrologic fluctuations 
both potentially affect the quantity and quality of organic matter 
available to cave systems. Data are currently lacking on long-term 
effects of hydrologic fluctuations on salamander population size, but 
it is thought that an increase in siltation affects reproduction 
(Miller and Niemiller 2006, pp. 22-23). While Berry Cave salamander 
populations have persisted, development is known to be occurring and 
affecting the salamander in all six Knox County caves. Heavy siltation 
is present in Mudflats Cave, believed to be associated with the 
Gettysvue housing development (Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 11). Miller 
and Niemiller (2008, p. 13) indicate that residential housing 
developments and roads are being constructed near Aycock Spring and 
Christian caves. Development of a major roadway known as the James 
White Parkway (South Knoxville Boulevard) has potential to impact Berry 
Cave salamander populations in the Meades Quarry Cave system (Meades 
Quarry, Meades River, and Fifth caves) by increased siltation from 
construction, the creation or closures of cave openings by blasting and 
excavating activities which could affect organic input into the system, 
and an increase in impervious surface runoff that may contain various 
environmental contaminants (e.g., oil, herbicides, salt). Meades Quarry 
Cave contains the largest population of Berry Cave salamanders 
documented and is currently impacted by hybridization with the spring 
salamander and lye leaching associated with past quarrying activities 
(Niemiller and Miller 2010, p. 3; M. Niemiller, pers. comm., July 
2010).
    Due to the proximity of the Meades Quarry Cave system to the 
proposed James White Parkway, the Service requested, during a March 4, 
2003, meeting with the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), 
that a study be prepared to determine whether the potential alignments 
would impact the surface area that recharges the Meades Quarry Cave 
system. As a result, TDOT contracted ARCADIS to perform a dye trace 
study of the affected watershed. ARCADIS (2009, p. 1-2) conducted a 
hydrogeologic dye trace study from April through June 2009 to determine 
which karst features within the Toll Subwatershed (i.e., a surface 
watershed overlying Meades Quarry and Cruze caves) are connected to the 
Meades Quarry Cave system. A positive trace from a large sinkhole, just 
north of Sevierville Pike, indicates that it directly recharges the 
Meades Quarry Cave system, and it is likely that four smaller 
sinkholes, in proximity to this one, also drain into the Meades Quarry 
Cave (ARCADIS 2009, pp. 5-1, 5-2). Dye trace results demonstrated a 
general southwest to northeast orientation of groundwater flow (ARCADIS 
2009, p. 5-1) and appeared to substantiate the hypothesis (based on 
surface flow) that Cruze Cave and Meades Quarry Cave systems were not 
hydrologically connected.
    TDOT, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, is 
preparing an EIS for the James White Parkway project (John Hunter, TDOT 
Project Manager, pers. comm., June 2009; Luke Eggering, Parsons 
Consulting, pers. comm. October 2010). The concerns for potential 
impacts to the Meades Quarry Cave system and the Berry Cave salamander 
are being addressed by substantial changes in project design. In an 
effort to satisfy the purpose and need of the project while minimizing 
environmental impacts, TDOT is now proposing to construct a fully 
access-controlled facility (South Knoxville Boulevard EIS 2010, p. 10). 
Furthermore, the alignments under consideration have been purposefully 
designed to avoid or minimize impacts to the recharge area for the 
Meades

[[Page 15923]]

Quarry Cave system (South Knoxville Boulevard EIS 2010, p. 43). If 
direct impacts are unavoidable, TDOT is proposing to install filtration 
systems at sinkholes that recharge the Meades Quarry Cave system and to 
suggest that local planners control growth by implementing development 
buffers around environmentally sensitive areas (South Knoxville 
Boulevard EIS 2010, pp. 43-44).
    Ogden (2005) conducted a dye trace study on the watershed 
contributing groundwater to the Berry Cave system in Roane County, 
Tennessee. As determined by Ogden (2005, p. 4), five first-order 
streams contribute to surface recharge of the Berry Cave system. The 
recharge area was delineated following two dye traces and is comprised 
of first-order streams that join the main sinking stream at the cave 
entrance (Ogden 2005, p. 19). The cave stream is believed to receive 
year-round input from Lawhon and Schommen springs and empties into a 
spring on the bank of the Watts Bar Lake (Ogden 2005, p. 4). Water 
quality results indicated normal conductivity levels and low nitrate 
levels despite extensive cattle grazing within the recharge area. 
Sulfate, iron, and phosphate levels were also determined to be low, and 
pH measured at approximately 7.0 at the time of sampling (Ogden 2005, 
p. 14). According to The Nature Conservancy (2006, Table 2), current 
threats to Berry Cave include bacteriological loading in the form of 
fecal coliform from agricultural runoff, disruption of organic flow due 
to a lack of cattle exclusion, and erosion/sedimentation caused by 
cattle access to streams that feed into Berry Cave. However, water 
quality tests conducted in conjunction with the dye trace study 
indicate that the system is uncontaminated (Ogden 2005, p. 14), and we 
have no evidence to suggest that any of these impacts are occurring.
    The Federal Government's Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 
1251 et seq.) sets standards for releasing pollutants into waters of 
the United States and regulates water quality standards for surface 
water. Projects that could impact waters having a ``significant nexus'' 
to ``navigable waters'' are required under this law to apply for a 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to 
construction. The Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation's Division of Water Pollution Control under the Tennessee 
Water Quality Control Act requires that the applicant perform 
compensatory mitigation for loss of linear feet of stream or pay into 
the Tennessee Stream Mitigation Program. While these laws are designed 
to protect water quality, impacts from projects are seldom viewed 
cumulatively, and compensatory mitigation might not involve reparation 
activities within the affected watershed. Therefore, degradation of 
habitat for this species is ongoing, and these laws have not been 
adequate to fully protect this species from water quality impacts 
associated with increasing development and urbanization.
    In summary, Knox County populations are believed to be highly 
susceptible to habitat degradation from surrounding development (Miller 
and Niemiller 2008, p. 13). Residential pollutants, increased silt load 
from construction activities, and runoff of impervious surfaces 
associated with urban development are ongoing threats to Berry Cave 
salamander populations in six caves within metropolitan Knoxville. 
Three of these populations (Meades Quarry, Meades River, and Fifth 
caves) are part of the larger Meades Quarry Cave system (Miller, pers. 
comm., 2010) and could be impacted by development of the proposed James 
White Parkway Project. Past quarrying activities have resulted in high 
water pH levels within the Meades Quarry Cave and observations of Berry 
Cave salamanders with chemical burns. Residential housing developments 
and road construction are occurring in proximity to Aycock Spring and 
Christian caves (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 13). The Mudflats Cave 
population is believed to be impacted by a nearby housing development 
and associated water quality impacts (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 
13). Water samples indicate that Berry Cave is uncontaminated, and 
cattle access to streams that recharge the system is evidently not 
impacting the cave system at this time. However, because of the overall 
vulnerability of the Berry Cave salamander to impacts associated with 
urbanization and the extent of overlap between current and projected 
urbanization and Berry Cave salamander populations, we find the present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat 
or range to be a significant threat of moderate magnitude. Further, the 
information available to us at this time does not indicate that the 
magnitude or imminence of this threat is likely to be appreciably 
reduced in the foreseeable future.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Most caves containing Berry Cave salamander populations are 
privately owned, and visits to some of these caves are unsupervised 
(Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. 24; Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 12), 
making the Berry Cave salamander vulnerable to recreational harvest. 
The most robust Berry Cave salamander populations occur in caves that 
are either gated or owned by conscientious landowners who monitor 
access, but the threat of harvesting individuals for the pet trade 
exists in unmonitored caves (M. Niemiller, pers. comm., 2010). Because 
populations are considered to be small (Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. 
15) and reproductive rates are low, unregulated take of individuals 
could severely deplete breeding populations of Berry Cave salamanders 
(Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 12). However, we currently have no evidence 
to suggest that recreational harvesting of Berry Cave salamander 
populations is occurring.
    The Tennessee Cave salamander is listed as Threatened by the State 
of Tennessee. This listing provides protection for the Berry Cave 
salamander as a State-classified subspecies of the Tennessee cave 
salamander under the Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or Threatened 
Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee Code Annotated 
sections 70-8-101-112). Take of a listed species, as defined by this 
State legislation, is unlawful, and potential collectors are required 
to possess a State permit. However, many cave visitors and recreational 
cavers are likely unaware of the protected status of the Berry Cave 
salamander. Moreover, Miller and Niemiller (2005, p. 93) find that most 
recreational cavers are unable to properly identify salamander species, 
and even biologists misidentify larval spring salamanders as Tennessee 
cave salamanders. Thus, the State listing of the Berry Cave salamander 
as a subspecies of the Threatened Tennessee cave salamander may not 
alone provide adequate protection for this species.
    In summary, although the potential for harvesting of individuals 
exists in unmonitored caves, we have no information to indicate that 
collection for the pet trade or other purposes is occurring. 
Furthermore, the Tennessee State law discussed above is designed to 
provide State protection to the Berry Cave salamander as a classified 
subspecies of the Tennessee cave salamander, although a general lack of 
public knowledge with regard to State wildlife laws and common species 
misidentification may limit the State law's protectiveness. Because we 
have no evidence to believe otherwise, we find that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a low 
and nonimminent threat.

[[Page 15924]]

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    In a June 20, 2005, e-mail to the Service, Dr. Brian Miller of 
Middle Tennessee State University communicated concerns for parasitic 
infections in Gyrinophilus species in two caves. Miller and Niemiller 
(2006, p. 24) observed pervasive, raised nodules on the skin of all 
Berry Cave salamanders collected within the Berry Cave system. The 
population appeared otherwise healthy, and no individuals were taken 
for analysis (Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. 15). Crayfish are believed 
to be predators of the Tennessee cave salamander complex and were 
numerous in caves where injured individuals were found, but Miller and 
Niemiller (2006, p. 23) did not consider crayfish predation to be a 
serious threat to cave salamanders.
    In summary, we are uncertain as to whether disease or predation 
constitutes a demonstrable threat to Berry Cave salamander populations 
at this time. Because of the otherwise healthy appearance of 
individuals, we find disease or predation to be a minimal threat of low 
magnitude.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Berry Cave salamander and its habitats are afforded some 
protection from water quality and habitat degradation under the Federal 
Clean Water Act and the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation's Division of Water Pollution Control under the Tennessee 
Water Quality Control Act. However, as demonstrated under Factor A, 
degradation of habitat for this species is ongoing despite the 
protection afforded by these laws. These laws alone have not been 
adequate to fully protect this species from water quality impacts 
associated with increasing development and urbanization.
    The Tennessee Cave salamander was listed as Threatened by the State 
of Tennessee in 1994. This listing provided protection for the Berry 
Cave salamander as a classified subspecies of the Tennessee cave 
salamander. Under the Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or Threatened 
Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee Code Annotated 
sections 70-8-101-112), ``[I]t is unlawful for any person to take, 
attempt to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for 
sale or ship nongame wildlife, or for any common or contract carrier 
knowingly to transport or receive for shipment nongame wildlife.'' 
Further, regulations included in the Tennessee Wildlife Resources 
Commission Proclamation 00-15 Endangered or Threatened Species state 
the following: ``Except as provided for in Tennessee Code Annotated, 
Section 70-8-106(d) and (e), it shall be unlawful for any person to 
take, harass, or destroy wildlife listed as threatened or endangered or 
otherwise to violate terms of Section 70-8-105(c) or to destroy 
knowingly the habitat of such species without due consideration of 
alternatives for the welfare of the species listed in (1) of this 
proclamation, or (2) the United States list of Endangered fauna.'' 
Under these regulations, potential collectors of this species are 
required to have a State collection permit, although the effectiveness 
of this permit is uncertain (see Factor B analysis above).
    In summary, degradation of Berry Cave salamander habitat is ongoing 
despite the protection afforded by State and Federal laws and 
corresponding regulations. Despite these laws, development and 
associated pollution continue to adversely affect the species. Because 
of the vulnerability of Knox County populations of the Berry Cave 
salamander and the imminence of these threats, we find the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms to be a significant threat of high 
magnitude. Further, the information available to us at this time does 
not indicate that the magnitude or imminence of this threat is likely 
to be appreciably reduced in the foreseeable future.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' 
Continued Existence

    According to M. Niemiller (pers. comm., July 2010), molecular and 
morphological evidence exists of hybridization between the Berry Cave 
salamander and the spring salamander in Meades Quarry Cave. 
Hybridization between the two species may be a natural threat to pure 
Berry Cave salamander populations as it affects the genetic integrity 
of the species. Studies are underway by Ben Fitzpatrick (Assistant 
Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University 
of Tennessee) and Niemiller to determine the extent of hybridization 
that is occurring between taxa in this system. It is debatable as to 
whether this phenomenon is anthropogenically induced or a natural 
process (M. Niemiller, pers. comm., July 2010). Currently, the Berry 
Cave salamander maintains its species distinctiveness in spite of 
ongoing interbreeding and range overlap with spring salamanders 
(Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 5), and hybridization is only known to be 
occurring in Meades Quarry Cave (M. Niemiller, pers. comm., July 2010). 
Research indicates that there is low gene flow between the two species 
(Niemiller et al. 2008, p. 2), and Berry Cave salamanders and spring 
salamanders are infrequently observed in the same cave systems 
(Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 13).
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 
evidence of warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, 
p. 30). Numerous long-term climate changes have been observed, 
including changes in arctic temperatures and ice, and widespread 
changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, and 
aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, 
heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2007b, p. 7). 
While continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate of change is 
unknown in many cases. Species that are dependent on specialized 
habitat types, that are limited in distribution, or that have become 
restricted to the extreme periphery of their range will be most 
susceptible to the impacts of climate change. As previously mentioned, 
the Berry Cave salamander is known only from the Appalachian Valley and 
Ridge Province in East Tennessee within the Upper Tennessee River and 
Clinch River drainages in Knox, Roane, Meigs, and McMinn Counties, 
Tennessee. The species is believed to be confined to subterranean 
aquatic environments (Niemiller et al. 2010, p. 5), and has been 
documented in only eight caves and a roadside observation where 
individuals were presumably washed from a cave. Western dispersal is 
prohibited by a fault that occurs along the west of the East Tennessee 
Aquifer System (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 10). Data on recent 
trends and predicted changes for the Southeast United States (Karl et 
al. 2009, pp. 111-116) provide some insight for evaluating the threat 
of climate change to the species. Since 1970, the average annual 
temperature of the region has increased by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F) (1.1[deg] Celsius ([deg]C)), with the greatest increases 
occurring during winter months. The geographic extent of areas in the 
Southeast region affected by moderate to severe drought has increased 
by 12 percent in the spring and 14 percent in the summer over the past 
three decades (Karl et al. 2009, p. 111). These trends are expected to 
increase.
    Rates of warming are predicted to more than double in comparison to 
what the Southeast has experienced since 1975, with the greatest 
increases projected for summer months. Depending on the emissions 
scenario

[[Page 15925]]

used for modeling change, average temperatures are expected to increase 
by 4.5 [deg]F to 9 [deg]F (2.5 [deg]C to 5 [deg]C) by the 2080s (Karl 
et al. 2009, p. 111). While there is considerable variability in 
rainfall predictions throughout the region, increases in evaporation of 
moisture from soils and loss of water by plants in response to warmer 
temperatures are expected to contribute to increased frequency, 
duration, and intensity of droughts (Karl et al. 2009, p. 112). If 
these rainfall predictions are accurate, streams that feed karst 
systems could experience significant decreases in flow volumes, lower 
dissolved oxygen content, and warmer temperatures. These variables 
could influence the amount and quality of organic input to cave systems 
essential in sustaining healthy prey populations for the Berry Cave 
salamander.
    Application of continental-scale climate change models to regional 
landscapes and even more local or ``step-down'' models projecting 
habitat potential based on climatic factors, is informative but 
contains a high level of uncertainty when predicting future effects to 
individual species and their habitats. This is due to a variety of 
factors including regional weather patterns, local physiographic 
conditions, life stages of individual species, generation time of 
species, and species' reactions to changing carbon dioxide levels. 
Therefore, the usefulness of models in assessing the threat of climate 
change on the Berry Cave salamander within its range is also limited. 
Due to a variety of factors, e.g., variability surrounding regional 
rainfall predictions and how these precipitation events would affect 
the species, uncertainty remains regarding whether cave systems would 
maintain current ambient temperatures and how climate changes might 
affect inflow of organic detritus and availability of invertebrate food 
sources; we are therefore unable to confidently identify climate change 
threats (or their magnitude) to the Berry Cave salamander. We have no 
evidence that climatic changes observed to date have had any adverse 
impact on the species or its habitat.
    In summary, hybridization is occurring between the Berry Cave 
salamander and the spring salamander in Meades Quarry Cave (Niemiller 
et al. 2010b, p. 5), although there appears to be low gene flow between 
the two species (Niemiller et al. 2008, p. 2). Because Meades Quarry 
Cave is still believed to house the healthiest population (Niemiller 
and Miller 2010, p. 3) and hybridization is not known to be impacting 
Berry Cave salamander populations in other caves, we find this natural 
or manmade factor affecting the species' continued existence to be a 
threat of low magnitude. Although climate change may affect the species 
in the future, we lack adequate information to make reasonable 
predictions regarding the extent of the impact at this time. The 
available information does not indicate that climate change is a 
significant threat to the Berry Cave salamander, or that it is likely 
to become a significant threat in the foreseeable future.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the 
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the Berry 
Cave salamander is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
faced by the Berry Cave salamander. We reviewed the petition, 
information available in our files, and other available published and 
unpublished information, and we consulted with species and habitat 
experts and other Federal and State agencies.
    This status review identified threats to the Berry Cave salamander 
attributable to Factors A, B, C, D, and E (see Table 1 below). However, 
ongoing threats are from habitat modification, inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, and other natural and manmade factors (Factors 
A, D, and E). These are in the form of lye leaching in the Meades 
Quarry Cave as a result of past quarrying activities, a proposed 
roadway with potential to impact the recharge area for the Meades 
Quarry Cave system, urban development in Knox County, water quality 
impacts despite existing State and Federal laws, and hybridization 
between spring salamanders and Berry Cave salamanders in Meades Quarry 
Cave. Because the available evidence would suggest that the Berry Cave 
salamander exists in relatively low population densities (Miller and 
Niemiller 2006, p. 15) and distribution is confined to subterranean 
waters within the Tennessee River and Clinch River watersheds (Miller 
and Niemiller 2008, p. 10), the species cannot readily tolerate losses 
of populations or even many individuals.

              Table 1--Summary of Berry Cave Salamander Status and Threats by Documented Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Population locality                        Current status                 Regional/local threats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aycock Spring Cave (Knox County, TN).....  Extant.............................  Factors A, B, and D: Urban
                                                                                 development, potential for
                                                                                 unregulated take, and
                                                                                 inadequacy of existing
                                                                                 regulatory mechanisms (ongoing
                                                                                 threat).
Berry Cave (Roane County, TN)............  Extant.............................  Factor C: Parasites (perceived
                                                                                 threat).
Blythe Ferry Cave (Meigs County, TN).....  Unknown (last obs. 1975)...........  Unknown.
Christian Cave (Knox County, TN).........  Extant.............................  Factors A, B, and D: Urban
                                                                                 development, potential for
                                                                                 unregulated take, and
                                                                                 inadequacy of existing
                                                                                 regulatory mechanisms (ongoing
                                                                                 threat).
Fifth Cave (Knox County, TN).............  Extant.............................  Factors A and D: Proposed
                                                                                 roadway, urban development, and
                                                                                 inadequacy of existing
                                                                                 regulatory mechanisms (ongoing
                                                                                 threat).
Meades River Cave (Knox County, TN)......  Extant.............................  Factors A and D: Proposed
                                                                                 roadway, urban development, and
                                                                                 inadequacy of existing
                                                                                 regulatory mechanisms (ongoing
                                                                                 threat).
Meades Quarry Cave (Knox County, TN).....  Extant.............................  Factors A, D, and E: Proposed
                                                                                 roadway, urban development,
                                                                                 inadequacy of existing
                                                                                 regulatory mechanisms, lye
                                                                                 leaching, and other natural and
                                                                                 manmade factors (ongoing
                                                                                 threat).
Mudflats Cave (Knox County, TN)..........  Extant.............................  Factors A, B, and D: Urban
                                                                                 development, potential for
                                                                                 unregulated take, and
                                                                                 inadequacy of existing
                                                                                 regulatory mechanisms (ongoing
                                                                                 threat).

[[Page 15926]]

 
Roadside ditch (McMinn County, TN).......  Unknown (last obs. 1953)...........  Factors A and D: Urban
                                                                                 development and inadequacy of
                                                                                 existing regulatory mechanisms
                                                                                 (ongoing threat if the
                                                                                 population exists).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Development is largely responsible for pollution entering cave 
systems where Berry Cave salamanders occur and could additionally cause 
fluctuations in organic matter input and hydrologic levels as a result 
of sediment deposition, higher temperatures in streams that recharge 
systems when trees are removed from riparian zones (forested land along 
streams and rivers), and an increase in toxic runoff. The proposed 
James White Parkway project has the potential to directly impact Berry 
Cave salamander populations within the Meades Quarry Cave system 
(Meades Quarry, Meades River, and Fifth caves) by increased siltation 
from construction, creation or closures of cave openings by blasting 
activities that would affect organic input into the system, and toxic 
roadway runoff into sinkholes that recharge the Meades Quarry Cave 
system. We have determined that these factors could lead to a decline 
in Berry Cave salamander abundance because the majority of documented 
populations are located within the urban growth boundary of 
metropolitan Knoxville, and Meades Quarry Cave houses the largest 
population known.
    On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we find that the petitioned action, to list the Berry Cave 
salamander under the Act is warranted. We will make a determination on 
the status of the species as endangered or threatened when we prepare a 
proposed listing determination. However, as explained in more detail 
below, an immediate proposal of a regulation implementing this action 
is precluded by higher priority listing actions, and progress is being 
made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

Emergency Listing

    We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing 
and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of extinction now 
such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the 
species in accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. We 
determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the 
species is not warranted at this time because recent studies have 
documented two new populations of Berry Cave salamanders (Aycock Spring 
and Christian caves) and have resulted in observations of robust 
populations at historical sites previously reported to be in decline 
(Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 1). Furthermore, the threat to Berry 
Cave salamander populations from construction of the James White 
Parkway is being partially addressed by TDOT's proposal for a fully 
access-controlled facility and the design of alignment alternatives to 
purposefully avoid or minimize impacts to sinkholes that recharge the 
Meades Quarry Cave system (South Knoxville Boulevard EIS 2010, pp. 10, 
43). However, if at any time we determine that issuing an emergency 
regulation temporarily listing the Berry Cave salamander is warranted, 
we will initiate the action at that time.

Listing Priority Number

    The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098) 
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for 
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of 
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or eclassifying species 
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled 
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority 
Guidelines,'' address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, and the 
level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending 
order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and 
subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments of 
vertebrates). Using these guidelines, we assign each candidate a 
listing priority number (LPN) of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of 
the threats (high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent 
or nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species. The lower the 
LPN, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 
1 would have the highest listing priority). We assigned the Berry Cave 
salamander an LPN of 8 based on our finding that the species faces 
threats that are of moderate magnitude and are imminent. These threats 
include the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range, and the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms. Our rationale for assigning the Berry Cave 
salamander a LPN of 8 is outlined below.
    Under the Service's LPN guidelines, the magnitude of threat is the 
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The 
guidelines indicate that species with the highest magnitude of threat 
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. We 
consider the threats facing the Berry Cave salamander to be moderate in 
magnitude. Several of the threats to the species (roadway construction, 
development in proximity to populations, and impacts to water quality) 
occur across the majority of the species' range. Due to its limited 
geographic range within subterranean waters of the Tennessee and Clinch 
River systems, impacts to these systems could have a detrimental effect 
on Berry Cave salamander populations. Habitat degradation associated 
with residential, business, and commercial development has high 
potential to adversely affect Berry Cave salamander populations by 
impacting water quality. While water quality regulations such as the 
Clean Water Act and the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act are 
designed to protect aquatic systems, stream mitigation practices only 
provide for loss of linear feet of stream and do not consider water 
quality concerns or impacts to affected species. Six of the eight caves 
where the species has been documented are within Knoxville's urban 
boundary (Niemiller and Miller 2010, p. 2) and are highly susceptible 
to future development activities. While the threats facing the species 
are numerous and in some cases widespread, we decided they were of 
moderate, rather than high, magnitude because the salamander still 
occurs in several different cave systems, and existing populations 
appear stable. Nonetheless, intensification of these threats could 
threaten the long-term viability of the species.
    Under our LPN guidelines, the second criterion we consider in 
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This 
criterion is intended to ensure that the species that face actual, 
identifiable threats are given priority

[[Page 15927]]

over those for which threats are only potential or for those that are 
intrinsically vulnerable but are not known to be presently facing such 
threats. The threats are imminent because we have factual information 
that the threats are identifiable and on-going, and that they often 
overlap or occur throughout most of the species' range. These actual, 
identifiable threats are covered in detail under the discussion of 
Factors A and D of this finding and currently include chronic lye 
leaching in the Meades Quarry Cave due to past quarrying activities, 
highway development and urban growth in Knox County, and water quality 
impacts despite existing State and Federal laws.
    The third criterion in our LPN guidelines is intended to devote 
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated 
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. The Berry Cave salamander is a 
valid taxon at the species level, and therefore receives a higher 
priority than subspecies, but a lower priority than species in a 
monotypic genus.
    In summary, the Berry Cave salamander faces imminent threats of 
moderate magnitude, and is a valid taxon at the species level. Thus, in 
accordance with our LPN guidelines, we have assigned the Berry Cave 
salamander an LPN of 8.
    We will continue to monitor the threats to, and status of, the 
Berry Cave salamander on an annual basis, and should the magnitude or 
the imminence of the threats change, we will revisit our assessment of 
the LPN.
    Work on a proposed listing determination for the Berry Cave 
salamander is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with 
absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and on 
final listing determinations for those species that were proposed for 
listing with funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work includes all the 
actions listed in the tables below under expeditious progress.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in 
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative 
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given 
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible 
to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether 
promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing 
actions.
    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for 
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the 
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the 
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual 
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded 
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; 
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules 
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, 
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating 
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and 
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The 
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive 
and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the 
best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses 
used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents; 
and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer 
review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant 
information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can 
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those 
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more 
costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding 
is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with 
critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical 
habitat, $305,000.
    We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program 
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since 
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended 
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for 
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent 
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example, 
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other 
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see 
House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
    Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat 
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the 
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure 
that some funding is available to address other listing activities'' 
(House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to 
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the 
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing 
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of 
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing 
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while 
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund 
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so 
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat 
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more 
efficient in our work. At this time, for FY 2011, we do not know if we 
will be able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 
proposed listing determinations.
    We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to 
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first 
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. 
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of 
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations, 
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money 
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds 
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated 
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our 
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
    Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis 
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The 
Conference Report accompanying Pub. L. 97-304 (Endangered Species Act 
Amendments of 1982), which established the current statutory deadlines 
and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the amendments 
were ``not intended to allow the Secretary to delay commencing the 
rulemaking process for any reason other than that the existence of 
pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a greater 
degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a petition 
[that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.''

[[Page 15928]]

Although that statement appeared to refer specifically to the ``to the 
maximum extent practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline for 
making a ``substantial information'' finding, that finding is made at 
the point when the Service is deciding whether or not to commence a 
status review that will determine the degree of threats facing the 
species, and therefore the analysis underlying the statement is more 
relevant to the use of the warranted-but-precluded finding, which is 
made when the Service has already determined the degree of threats 
facing the species and is deciding whether or not to commence a 
rulemaking.
    In FY 2011, on March 2, 2011, Congress passed a continuing 
resolution which provides funding at the FY 2010 enacted level through 
March 18, 2011. Until Congress appropriates funds for FY 2011 at a 
different level, we will fund listing work based on the FY 2010 amount. 
Thus, at this time in FY 2011, the Service anticipates an appropriation 
of $22,103,000 for the listing program based on FY 2010 appropriations. 
Of that, the Service anticipates needing to dedicate $11,632,000 for 
determinations of critical habitat for already listed species. Also 
$500,000 is appropriated for foreign species listings under the Act. 
The Service thus has $9,971,000 available to fund work in the following 
categories: compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement 
agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations 
be completed by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions 
with absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related, 
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In FY 2010, 
the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list 
404 species. The receipt of petitions for a large number of species is 
consuming the Service's listing funding that is not dedicated to 
meeting court-ordered commitments. Absent some ability to balance 
effort among listing duties under existing funding levels, it is 
unlikely that the Service will be able to initiate any new listing 
determination for candidate species in FY 2011.
    In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the 
Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority, 
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program. 
Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we used a portion of our funding to 
work on the actions described above for listing actions related to 
foreign species. In FY 2011, we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work on 
listing actions for foreign species which reduces funding available for 
domestic listing actions; however, currently only $500,000 has been 
allocated for this function. Although there are no foreign species 
issues included in our high-priority listing actions at this time, many 
actions have statutory or court-approved settlement deadlines, thus 
increasing their priority. The budget allocations for each specific 
listing action are identified in the Service's FY 2011 Allocation Table 
(part of our record).
    For the above reasons, funding a proposed listing determination for 
the Berry Cave Salamander, which has an LPN of 8, is precluded by 
court-ordered and court-approved settlement agreements, listing actions 
with absolute statutory deadlines, and work on proposed listing 
determinations for those candidate species with a higher listing 
priority (i.e., candidate species with LPNs of 1 to 7).
    Based on our September 21, 1983, guidelines for assigning an LPN 
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number 
of species with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines, we assign each 
candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats 
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or 
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of 
priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a 
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, distinct population 
segment, or significant portion of the range)). The lower the listing 
priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species 
with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority).
    Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have 
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the 
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 
(provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50 
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest 
IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the 
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and 
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, 
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species 
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority 
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we 
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we 
apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN 
of 2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate 
species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened 
species to endangered are lower priority, because as listed species, 
they are already afforded the protection of the Act and implementing 
regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on 
a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine 
this with work that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
    With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have 
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible 
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the 
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing 
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species 
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same 
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into 
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine 
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount 
of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but 
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding, 
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the 
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for 
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not 
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in 
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of 
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate 
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. So far 
during FY 2011, we have completed one delisting rule.) Given the 
limited resources available for listing, we find that we are making 
expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the Listing Program. This progress 
included preparing and publishing the following determinations:

[[Page 15929]]



                                        FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Publication  date                    Title                      Actions                   FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/6/2010.................  Endangered Status for the         Proposed Listing,      75 FR 61664-61690
                             Altamaha Spinymussel and          Endangered.
                             Designation of Critical Habitat.
10/7/2010.................  12-month Finding on a Petition    Notice of 12-month     75 FR 62070-62095
                             to list the Sacramento            petition finding,
                             Splittail as Endangered or        Not warranted.
                             Threatened.
10/28/2010................  Endangered Status and             Proposed Listing,      75 FR 66481-66552
                             Designation of Critical Habitat   Endangered
                             for Spikedace and Loach Minnow.   (uplisting).
11/2/2010.................  90-Day Finding on a Petition to   Notice of 90-day       75 FR 67341-67343
                             List the Bay Springs Salamander   Petition Finding,
                             as Endangered.                    Not substantial.
11/2/2010.................  Determination of Endangered       Final Listing,         75 FR 67511-67550
                             Status for the Georgia Pigtoe     Endangered.
                             Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail,
                             and Rough Hornsnail and
                             Designation of Critical Habitat.
11/2/2010.................  Listing the Rayed Bean and        Proposed Listing,      75 FR 67551-67583
                             Snuffbox as Endangered.           Endangered.
11/4/2010.................  12-Month Finding on a Petition    Notice of 12-month     75 FR 67925-67944
                             to List Cirsium wrightii          petition finding,
                             (Wright's Marsh Thistle) as       Warranted but
                             Endangered or Threatened.         precluded.
12/14/2010................  Endangered Status for Dunes       Proposed Listing,      75 FR77801-77817
                             Sagebrush Lizard.                 Endangered.
12/14/2010................  12-month Finding on a Petition    Notice of 12-month     75 FR 78029-78061
                             to List the North American        petition finding,
                             Wolverine as Endangered or        Warranted but
                             Threatened.                       precluded.
12/14/2010................  12-Month Finding on a Petition    Notice of 12-month     75 FR 78093-78146
                             to List the Sonoran Population    petition finding,
                             of the Desert Tortoise as         Warranted but
                             Endangered or Threatened.         precluded.
12/15/2010................  12-Month Finding on a Petition    Notice of 12-month     75 FR 78513-78556
                             to List Astragalus microcymbus    petition finding,
                             and Astragalus schmolliae as      Warranted but
                             Endangered or Threatened.         precluded.
12/28/2010................  Listing Seven Brazilian Bird      Final Listing,         75 FR 81793-81815
                             Species as Endangered             Endangered.
                             Throughout Their Range.
1/4/2011..................  90-Day Finding on a Petition to   Notice of 90-day       76 FR 304-311
                             List the Red Knot subspecies      Petition Finding,
                             Calidris canutus roselaari as     Not substantial.
                             Endangered.
1/19/2011.................  Endangered Status for the         Proposed Listing,      76 FR 3392-3420
                             Sheepnose and Spectaclecase       Endangered.
                             Mussels.
2/10/2011.................  12-Month Finding on a Petition    Notice of 12-month     76 FR 7634-7679
                             to List the Pacific Walrus as     petition finding,
                             Endangered or Threatened.         Warranted but
                                                               precluded.
2/17/2011.................  90-Day Finding on a Petition To   Notice of 90-day       76 FR 9309-9318
                             List the Sand Verbena Moth as     Petition Finding,
                             Endangered or Threatened.         Substantial.
2/22/2011.................  Determination of Threatened       Final Listing,         76 FR 9681-9692
                             Status for the New Zealand-       Threatened.
                             Australia Distinct Population
                             Segment of the Southern
                             Rockhopper Penguin.
2/22/2011.................  12-Month Finding on a Petition    Notice of 12-month     76 FR 9722-9733
                             to List Solanum conocarpum        petition finding,
                             (marron bacora) as Endangered.    Warranted but
                                                               precluded.
2/23/2011.................  12-Month Finding on a Petition    Notice of 12-month     76 FR 991-10003
                             to List Thorne's Hairstreak       petition finding,
                             Butterfly as Endangered.          Not warranted.
2/23/2011.................  12-Month Finding on a Petition    Notice of 12-month     76 FR 10166-10203
                             to List Astragalus hamiltonii,    petition finding,
                             Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum    Warranted but
                             soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and   precluded & Not
                             Trifolium friscanum as            Warranted.
                             Endangered or Threatened.
2/24/2011.................  90-Day Finding on a Petition to   Notice of 90-day       76 FR 10299-10310
                             List the Wild Plains Bison or     Petition Finding,
                             Each of Four Distinct             Not substantial.
                             Population Segments as
                             Threatened.
2/24/2011.................  90-Day Finding on a Petition to   Notice of 90-day       76 FR 10310-10319
                             List the Unsilvered Fritillary    Petition Finding,
                             Butterfly as Threatened or        Not substantial.
                             Endangered.
3/8/2011..................  12-Month Finding on a Petition    Notice of 12-month     76 FR 12667-12683
                             to List the Mt. Charleston Blue   petition finding,
                             Butterfly as Endangered or        Warranted but
                             Threatened.                       precluded.
3/8/2011..................  90-Day Finding on a Petition to   Notice of 90-day       76 FR 12683-12690
                             List the Texas Kangaroo Rat as    Petition Finding,
                             Endangered or Threatened.         Substantial.
3/10/2011.................  Initiation of Status Review for   Notice of Status       76 FR 13121-31322
                             Longfin Smelt.                    Review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that 
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to 
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the 
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in 
the middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory 
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the 
bottom section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These 
actions include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and, as 
discussed above, selection of these species is partially based on 
available staff resources, and when appropriate, include species with a 
lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats 
as the species with the high priority. Including these species together 
in the same proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and 
funding, when compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of 
them in the future.

[[Page 15930]]



       Actions Funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Species                              Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain plover \4\...........  Final listing determination.
Hermes copper butterfly \3\...  12-month petition finding.
4 parrot species (military      12-month petition finding.
 macaw, yellow-billed parrot,
 red-crowned parrot, scarlet
 macaw) \5\.
4 parrot species (blue-headed   12-month petition finding.
 macaw, great green macaw,
 grey-cheeked parakeet,
 hyacinth macaw) \5\.
4 parrot species (crimson       12-month petition finding.
 shining parrot, white
 cockatoo, Philippine
 cockatoo, yellow-crested
 cockatoo) \5\.
Utah prairie dog (uplisting)..  90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's june beetle...........  Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Eurasia..........  Final listing determination.
5 Bird species from Colombia    Final listing determination.
 and Ecuador.
Queen Charlotte goshawk.......  Final listing determination.
5 species southeast fish        Final listing determination.
 (Cumberland darter, rush
 darter, yellowcheek darter,
 chucky madtom, and laurel
 dace) \4\.
Ozark hellbender \4\..........  Final listing determination.
Altamaha spinymussel \3\......  Final listing determination.
3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis    Final listing determination.
 polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket),
 Penstemon debilis (Parachute
 Beardtongue), and Phacelia
 submutica (DeBeque Phacelia))
 \4\.
Salmon crested cockatoo.......  Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia...  Final listing determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist   Final listing determination.
 National Marine Fisheries
 Service) \5\.
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN =    Final listing determination.
 2), snuffbox No LPN) \5\.
CA golden trout \4\...........  12-month petition finding.
Black-footed albatross........  12-month petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard \1\.  12-month petition finding.
Kokanee--Lake Sammamish         12-month petition finding.
 population \1\.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl    12-month petition finding.
 \1\.
Northern leopard frog.........  12-month petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander..  12-month petition finding.
Coqui Llanero.................  12-month petition finding./
                                Proposed listing.
Dusky tree vole...............  12-month petition finding.
3 MT invertebrates (meltwater   12-month petition finding.
 lednian stonefly (Lednia
 tumana), Oreohelix sp. 3,
 Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206
 species petition.
5 WY plants (Abronia            12-month petition finding.
 ammophila, Agrostis rossiae,
 Astragalus proimanthus,
 Boechere (Arabis) pusilla,
 Penstemon gibbensii) from 206
 species petition.
Leatherside chub (from 206      12-month petition finding.
 species petition).
Frigid ambersnail (from 206     12-month petition finding.
 species petition) \3\.
Platte River caddisfly (from    12-month petition finding.
 206 species petition) \5\.
Gopher tortoise--eastern        12-month petition finding.
 population.
Grand Canyon scorpion (from     12-month petition finding.
 475 species petition).
Anacroneuria wipukupa (a        12-month petition finding.
 stonefly from 475 species
 petition) \4\.
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva,   12-month petition finding.
 Sphingicampa blanchardi,
 Agapema galbina) (from 475
 species petition).
2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella     12-month petition finding.
 sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from
 475 species petition).
3 South Arizona plants          12-month petition finding.
 (Erigeron piscaticus,
 Astragalus hypoxylus,
 Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from
 475 species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species  12-month petition finding.
 (3 from 475 species petition).
14 parrots (foreign species)..  12-month petition finding.
Berry Cave salamander \1\.....  12-month petition finding.
Striped Newt \1\..............  12-month petition finding.
Fisher--Northern Rocky          12-month petition finding.
 Mountain Range \1\.
Mohave Ground Squirrel \1\....  12-month petition finding.
Puerto Rico Harlequin           12-month petition finding.
 Butterfly \3\.
Western gull-billed tern......  12-month petition finding.
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea      12-month petition finding.
 pumila var. ozarkensis) \4\.
HI yellow-faced bees..........  12-month petition finding.
Giant Palouse earthworm.......  12-month petition finding.
Whitebark pine................  12-month petition finding.
OK grass pink (Calopogon        12-month petition finding.
 oklahomensis) \1\.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\.........  12-month petition finding.
Honduran emerald..............  12-month petition finding.
Southeastern pop snowy plover   90-day petition finding.
 & wintering pop. of piping
 plover \1\.
Eagle Lake trout \1\..........  90-day petition finding.
Smooth-billed ani \1\.........  90-day petition finding.
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks   90-day petition finding.
 species (snails and slugs)
 \1\.
42 snail species (Nevada &      90-day petition finding.
 Utah).
Peary caribou.................  90-day petition finding.
Spring Mountains checkerspot    90-day petition finding.
 butterfly.
Spring pygmy sunfish..........  90-day petition finding.

[[Page 15931]]

 
Bay skipper...................  90-day petition finding.
Spot-tailed earless lizard....  90-day petition finding.
Eastern small-footed bat......  90-day petition finding.
Northern long-eared bat.......  90-day petition finding.
Prairie chub..................  90-day petition finding.
10 species of Great Basin       90-day petition finding.
 butterfly.
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles..  90-day petition finding.
Golden-winged warbler \4\.....  90-day petition finding.
404 Southeast species.........  90-day petition finding.
Franklin's bumble bee \4\.....  90-day petition finding.
2 Idaho snowflies (straight     90-day petition finding.
 snowfly & Idaho snowfly) \4\.
American eel \4\..............  90-day petition finding.
Gila monster (Utah population)  90-day petition finding.
 \4\.
Arapahoe snowfly \4\..........  90-day petition finding.
Leona's little blue \4\.......  90-day petition finding.
Aztec gilia \5\...............  90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\....  90-day petition finding.
San Bernardino flying squirrel  90-day petition finding.
 \5\.
Bicknell's thrush \5\.........  90-day petition finding.
Chimpanzee....................  90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\........  90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants          90-day petition finding.
 (Graptopetalum bartrami &
 Pectis imberbis) \5\.
I'iwi \5\.....................  90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      High-Priority Listing Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Oahu candidate species \2\   Proposed listing.
 (16 plants, 3 damselflies)
 (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN
 = 3, 1 with LPN =9).
19 Maui-Nui candidate species   Proposed listing.
 \2\ (16 plants, 3 tree
 snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2
 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8).
2 Arizona springsnails \2\      Proposed listing.
 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN =
 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis
 (LPN = 2)).
Chupadera springsnail \2\       Proposed listing.
 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN
 = 2)).
8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern  Proposed listing.
 kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round
 ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama
 pearlshell (LPN = 2),
 southern sandshell (LPN = 5),
 fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5),
 Choctaw bean (LPN = 5),
 narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and
 tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11))
 \4\.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2)     Proposed listing.
 and white bluffs bladderpod
 (LPN = 9) \4\.
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\..  Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho      Proposed listing.
 mucket (LPN = 2) &
 Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) \4\.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\..  Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2)  Proposed listing.
 \4\.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger     Proposed listing.
 Beetle (LPN = 2) \5\.
Miami blue (LPN = 3) \3\......  Proposed listing.
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN =   Proposed listing.
 2).
4 Texas salamanders (Austin     Proposed listing.
 blind salamander (LPN = 2),
 Salado salamander (LPN = 2),
 Georgetown salamander (LPN =
 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN =
 8)) \3\.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring  Proposed listing.
 Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y
 springsnail (LPN = 2),
 Phantom springsnail (LPN =
 2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN =
 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN
 = 2)) \3\.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden    Proposed listing.
 gladecress (Leavenworthia
 texana) (LPN = 2), Neches
 River rose-mallow (Hibiscus
 dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) \3\.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus       Proposed listing.
 (Echinomastus erectocentrus
 var. acunensis) (LPN = 3),
 Fickeisen plains cactus
 (Pediocactus peeblesianus
 fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3),
 Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron
 lemmonii) (LPN = 8), Gierisch
 mallow (Sphaeralcea
 gierischii) (LPN = 2)) \5\.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) \3\.  Proposed listing.
3 Southern FL plants (Florida   Proposed listing.
 semaphore cactus (Consolea
 corallicola) (LPN = 2),
 shellmound applecactus
 (Harrisia (=Cereus)
 aboriginum (=gracilis)) (LPN
 = 2), Cape Sable thoroughwort
 (Chromolaena frustrata) (LPN
 = 2)) \5\.
21 Big Island (HI) species \5\  Proposed listing.
 (includes 8 candidate
 species--5 plants & 3
 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 1
 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN = 4,
 2 with LPN = 8).
12 Puget Sound prairie species  Proposed listing.
 (9 subspecies of pocket
 gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.)
 (LPN = 3), streaked horned
 lark (LPN = 3), Taylor's
 checkerspot (LPN = 3), Mardon
 skipper (LPN = 8)) \3\.
2 TN River mussels (fluted      Proposed listing.
 kidneyshell (LPN = 2),
 slabside pearlymussel (LPN =
 2) \5\.
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN  Proposed listing.
 = 2) \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
  previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
  in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
  competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.

    We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and 
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and 
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are 
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve 
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions

[[Page 15932]]

together. Given our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the 
Act, these actions described above collectively constitute expeditious 
progress.
    The Berry Cave salamander will be added to the list of candidate 
species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will continue to 
monitor the status of this species as new information becomes 
available. This review will determine if a change in status is 
warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing 
procedures.
    We intend that any proposed listing action for the Berry Cave 
salamander will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue 
to accept additional information and comments from all concerned 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested party concerning this finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Tennessee 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office.

Authority

    The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: March 8, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-6347 Filed 3-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P